31 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAn article by Borjas here http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2007/06/no_pain_no_gain.html
Since the study assumes that ALL markets are competitive (p. 12), market power obviously can't be a "dominant factor" in its analysis. A typically unrealistic assumption in a economics paper.
The study also looks only at the prices of non-traded goods and services (p.27) and only those in 25 urban areas. Using a study so limited to ma ...[text shortened]... an earlier study by Borjas looking at the national economy came to far different conclusions.
gives the total economic gain from immigrants to be $30 billion a year or 0.22% of GDP. He calculates the wage loss to native workers as $350 billion a year!
31 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI have never claimed that monetary policy is the only thing affecting overall prices. You are confused. Rather I said that there are many factors that affect the CPI index. I used monetary policy as a prominent example. It's absolutely ridiculous for you to use only CPI to support your claim for widespread extensive monopolistic power in US markets. By your reasoning, positive supply shocks do not affect prices because look the CPI has been going up over time! A reduction in tariffs will not have a negative effect on prices because look the CPI has been going up! Basically, in your world, nothing can have a price reducing quality because the CPI index has been rising for over 50 years.
It's hard to keep up with what your claim is. First, it was that monetary policy was the only thing that affected overall prices; you seem to have wisely retreated from that stance. Related to that was the claim that market structure has no effect on prices; you seem to have fled from that comment too.
The idea that market structure has ...[text shortened]... tforwardly avoided that issue by ridiculously assuming that "all markets are competitive".
It's just silly to make market specific claims and only back them up with a large aggregated price index. The author of the paper I cited however uses the decomposed CPI index from specific regions. This gets us much much closer to the actual price movements in the markets of interest. Honestly, no1 you need to let your CPI index claim go because it is incredibly naive. I know your passionate about the topic, but this is just too much.
I have also never said that market structure has no effect on prices. An honest reader will note that I have said quite the opposite. It seems you are more interested in bickering than in truthful discussion. You are too smart to misread my words so grossly simply by accident. At every opportunity you try to run away from the topic at hand and lead us down rabbit trails of your own construction in some juvenile attempt to score debate points. It's not quite beneath you, but it is beneath me. Either get what I have written correct (at least after it has been repeated to you) or buzz off.
For I think the third time now, my argument in this regard is that monopoly power is not so widespread in most US markets to undo the price reducing effects of lower wages. In other words, prices are lower than they would have otherwise been absent the wage cost decrease. This is really not a difficult concept. Many forces are acting at once. Some push price upward others downward. That the overall net effect is upward does not mean that the downward effects are false.
By the government's figures, prices were stagnant for the period 1918-41
I just gave you govenment figures on prices from 1913 to 2007. Prices were certainly not stagnant through the years 1918-1941. Anyone here can go to BLS link that I provided and see that it is so. Just look at the far right column.
an economy with a high degree of competitiveness in its economy is a lot more likely to see price (esp. downward) flexibility than one dominated by industries which are monopolistic
I was actually the first in this thread to say so. You however seem to thik that monopolies so dominant every US market that labor input effects are nearly zero. Where is your evidence for this claim? Do you have another opinion piece to cite? Or maybe it is time for you to pull out the big guns? Wiki perhaps?
The problem here is that once again you discuss the same way you always do on topics outside your expertise: with piss and bile. Your sources so far have been woefully weak. You've made many unsupported claims. Your response to my research for this thread has simply been insults, inflammatory language, and naive skepticism. I suppose these theatrics serve you well in the courtroom, but in a discussion with data sets, economic theory, and econometric methods, it only highlights the weakness of your case.
31 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by karnachzAd hominems? Where?
I agree with this particular piece of Beck's also, and it's pretty much what I was saying, albeit with a bit more detail added. So why did you fling those ad hominem attacks at my earlier post?
Without illegal immigrants, some employers will indeed go out of business, and the prices for some commodities will increase somewhat. But that's as it should be ir profit margin; their prices are currently regulated mostly by demand rather than supply.)
31 May 08
Originally posted by karnachzI just looked back over the post. You might have found it a bit insulting, though it was very tame really. Certainly there was nothing formally ad hom about it.
Something along the lines of calling me ignorant on economics.
Is it still your view that employers should "simply" pay higher wages. Is that what you believe is the answer to the illegal immigration problem?
31 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionno1: By the government's figures, prices were stagnant for the period 1918-41
I have never claimed that monetary policy is the only thing affecting overall prices. You are confused. Rather I said that there are many factors that affect the CPI index. I used monetary policy as a prominent example. It's absolutely ridiculous for you to use only CPI to support your claim for widespread extensive monopolistic power in US marke ts, economic theory, and econometric methods, it only highlights the weakness of your case.
telerion: I just gave you govenment figures on prices from 1913 to 2007. Prices were certainly not stagnant through the years 1918-1941. Anyone here can go to BLS link that I provided and see that it is so. Just look at the far right column.
OK.
1918: 15.1
1941: 14.7
That's virtually no change over 24 years. I'd call that "stagnant" for the period .
It's hard to take seriously your claims of expertise when you can't even read a simple table and/or are oblivious to the meaning of simple sentences.
31 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderAnytime you want to respond to this "woefully weak source" (a study of his was cited in your linked one), be my guest. Or just continue with your whiny personal attacks and sophistry.
An article by Borjas here http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2007/06/no_pain_no_gain.html
gives the total economic gain from immigrants to be $30 billion a year or 0.22% of GDP. He calculates the wage loss to native workers as $350 billion a year!
31 May 08
4 edits
Originally posted by teleriontelerion: It's absolutely ridiculous for you to use only CPI to support your claim for widespread extensive monopolistic power in US markets.
I have never claimed that monetary policy is the only thing affecting overall prices. You are confused. Rather I said that there are many factors that affect the CPI index. I used monetary policy as a prominent example. It's absolutely ridiculous for you to use only CPI to support your claim for widespread extensive monopolistic power in US marke ts, economic theory, and econometric methods, it only highlights the weakness of your case.
Why? Are you denying that monopolistic power doesn't result in upward price pressure? Your attempts at building a "strawman" are ludicrous; I never claimed that there are no other factors that can effect pricing besides market structure. I did say, as I thought anybody with the smallest amount of knowledge of economics should agree with,
no1: Few markets in the US are truly competitive; most have oligopolist structures and/or tendencies. . . In my view, the market structures in the US coupled with the depressing effect on wages tend to eliminate any economic advantages due to increased labor immigration (illegal or legal).
From this rather unobjectionable statement (at least you haven't given any reason to object to it), you've now reached the point where you are claiming that I've stated that because the CPI has been rising for over 50 years "nothing can have a price reducing quality"! Even someone of your obviously limited ability to understand someone else's arguments should be able to see the silliness of your present position. It should be utterly unremarkable for someone to observe that in the US prices tend to rise despite ANY factors which have a "price reducing quality" and that market structure is a major reason for this. And so this truth should be considered in assessing the overall effectiveness of ANY factor that is claimed to have a "price reducing quality".
The author of the paper you cited specifically assumes that all markets are competitive. Even at that, I haven't even disputed her specific claim as to the effect of immigrants on prices in her study. I've merely said the effect is trivial as does Borjas. Her own figures say so (assuming, for the sake of argument, that a study with the methodological flaws I've pointed out, can lead to valid conclusions); at most she posited a 0.65% gain in incomes for "skilled" workers due to immigration. Borjas, using national figures (the debate is about the effect of illegal immigration on the national economy, not its effect on the market for housekeepers in Phoenix), gives the benefit as roughly 1/3 that and this small economic gain is dwarfed by the negative effect on native wages which he calculates is more than 10 times the positive effect. Borjas' numbers seem to more than amply support my modest claim that "the supposed economic advantage you cite is greatly reduced" (not that the study you cite doesn't also), doesn't it?
31 May 08
Originally posted by telerionThe answers to the illegal immigration problem include, in significant part, penalising employers much harder for employing illegal immigrants.
I just looked back over the post. You might have found it a bit insulting, though it was very tame really. Certainly there was nothing formally ad hom about it.
Is it still your view that employers should "simply" pay higher wages. Is that what you believe is the answer to the illegal immigration problem?
My point isn't so much that employers "should" pay higher wages, so much as that the market will compel them to pay higher wages if they only have access to employees who are legal US workers and not under the degree of duress that illegal immigrants are under. The employers concerned have no-one but themselves to blame for this predicament which they've brought on themselves by illegally hiring slave labour in the first place.
31 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, unlike you I have actually read the paper that he refers to in the blog you cited. You'll be interested I'm sure to know that it also assumes that markets are perfectly competitive. Of course, you'll back of that issue now that you have one paper that (mildly) supports your view. Borjas' paper stands alone out of many that show a large negative effect of the wages of competing natives. Note the word "competing" (the word he actually uses in the paper). Very few native workers actually compete with them. One mistake in Borjas' method which Cortes corrects is to not view immigrant labor with the same degree of education and work experience as perfect substitutes. Cortes permits them to be imperfect substitutes and her very large and detailed data set bears that out. Borjas' paper also does not consider the effects of on real wages through the market price effects (another thing which Cortes corrects).
Anytime you want to respond to this "woefully weak source" (a study of his was cited in your linked one), be my guest. Or just continue with your whiny personal attacks and sophistry.
Now I've given far more attention than you deserve. I've led you to high quality research that answers your demands and demonstrates my points. There are other papers cited in her study that show similar results. You've made an unsupported claim that US markets are primarily monopolistic and so lower wages do not pass through to prices. Where is your support for this? I did a little digging myself. So far I've found some nice papers showing that meat packing (an immigrant rich production) is close to competitive. I'll look for some more.
You've tried to argue that reduced input costs have nearly no effect on prices by citing the CPI index. Essentially you reject Cortes data, which has tens of thousands of highly detailed data points, in favor of about 40 data points on the CPI index which conflates wage effects with every other possible effect (e.g. monetary policy, technological advancement, taxes/tariffs, demand/supply shocks).
Now your tauting a paper from Borjas which you haven't even read based solely on a blog. The problem is that your research method amounts to googling for a moment until you find something you think supports your case. Then you paste it over here and decorate it with all manner of smugness and bravado and hope to intimidate me into concession. Unfortunately for you, you don't know the first thing about the methods used in these papers. You plainly don't even know what a CPI index is or its limitations. Frankly, you're way out of your league. I wouldn't argue civil rights law with you using only Google as a resource, and I certainly wouldn't be so cocky about it.
You show me that you actually know something about Borjas' paper or even which one I'm talking about, and we can get into it more. You have yet to support your myriad claims with well-grounded evidence.
31 May 08
1 edit
Why? Are you denying that monopolistic power doesn't result in upward price pressure? Your attempts at building a "strawman" are ludicrous; I never claimed that there are no other factors that can effect pricing besides market structure. I did say, as I thought anybody with the smallest amount of knowledge of economics should agree with,
I have never denied that monopoly power puts upward pressure on prices. You need to do a lot more work to show that this is the predominant effect behind the rise in the CPI or that a rise in the CPI indicates widespread monopolistic markets. I'm sick of repeating myself, and you plainly won't or can't take the steps necessary to support your point, so I'll leave it at that until you come up with something.
Of course you never openly said that no other can effect pricing. However, you did say that reduced labor costs have nearly no effect on prices because of the CPI. I'm just following your logic, which would say that nothing can have a significant downward effect on prices because the CPI index moves upward. You can't even understand the implications of your own argument. Of course, you don't really care about them. You just love to bicker.
It should be utterly unremarkable for someone to observe that in the US prices tend to rise despite ANY factors which have a "price reducing quality" and that market structure is a major reason for this.
Yes, to the first part. Anyone who actually goes to the data can see the upward movement for themselves. You have no evidence that market structure is the reason for this upward price movement however. You only have conjecture. You act as if it is an obvious conclusion, but I can tell you that within the field of economics this is not a widely held belief. Even your champion Borjas, who is a fine economist by the way, models immigration issues with competitive markets. In most cases, competitive markets are born out by research and so the assumption is generally made when useful. In other cases, monopolistic competition is assumed. This is different from monopoly or oligopoly. It's closer to competitive markets rather than monopoly.
The author of the paper you cited specifically assumes that all markets are competitive. Even at that, I haven't even disputed her specific claim as to the effect of immigrants on prices in her study. I've merely said the effect is trivial as does Borjas. Her own figures say so (assuming, for the sake of argument, that a study with the methodological flaws I've pointed out, can lead to valid conclusions); at most she posited a 0.65% gain in incomes for "skilled" workers due to immigration. Borjas, using national figures (the debate is about the effect of illegal immigration on the national economy, not its effect on the market for housekeepers in Phoenix), gives the benefit as roughly 1/3 that and this small economic gain is dwarfed by the negative effect on native wages which he calculates is more than 10 times the positive effect. Borjas' numbers seem to more than amply support my modest claim that "the supposed economic advantage you cite is greatly reduced" (not that the study you cite doesn't also), doesn't it?
You didn't give any methodological flaws. You gave naive skepticism. Anyone can say, well your data isn't good enough. Actually, her data set is extremely rich and detailed. Even Borjas, again in the paper you haven't read, admits that immigration is highly concentrated in certain metropolitan areas. She uses 25 of the top immigrant-rich cities along with specific data on prices within those areas to estimate her effects. That is far more than Borjas does which is only to assume that immigrants with the same education and the same experience are equivalent inputs. I've already discussed why Cortes' work does a better job than Borjas so I won't waste my time repeating it. I will repeat however that Borjas ALSO ASSUMES COMPETITIVE MARKETS so you might want to quit sabotaging your only source of an argument.
31 May 08
3 edits
Originally posted by karnachzI would only amend your statement to say that "employers would be forced to pay higher wages likely by increasing market prices or else shut down.
The answers to the illegal immigration problem include, in significant part, penalising employers much harder for employing illegal immigrants.
My point isn't so much that employers "should" pay higher wages, so much as that the market will compel them to pay higher wages if they only have access to employees who are legal US workers and not under the d ...[text shortened]... ent which they've brought on themselves by illegally hiring slave labour in the first place.
I guess I just don't like to seem so anti-employer, but you're right. I should have given you more credit to begin with.
31 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are such a laugh, no1. You basically picked two points out of 23, drawn a line between them, and then claimed that all the points between fall on that (nearly flat line). Don't bother to mention that the CPI rises by nearly 33% in the first few years of that time. Then it falls by about 20% before becoming basically flat for about 8 years. Then it fails again by roughly 20% as we get to the Great Depression. Prices were hardly "basically stagnant" over that period.
no1: By the government's figures, prices were stagnant for the period 1918-41
telerion: I just gave you govenment figures on prices from 1913 to 2007. Prices were certainly not stagnant through the years 1918-1941. Anyone here can go to BLS link that I provided and see that it is so. Just look at the far right column.
OK.
19 ...[text shortened]... u can't even read a simple table and/or are oblivious to the meaning of simple sentences.
No1, I couldn't care less whether you "take seriously" my claims of expertise. You have demonstrated so many times in this thread that you are not qualified to make that judgment. As much as you've entertained me with your rabbit trails, google searches, misstatements of my positions, and of course your patented insults, I've grown weary of you. I'd love to continue this discussion any other interested members, but it's become obvious that you have nothing to offer. You will of course continue to rant and spew vitriol, but I hope that we can move past that for the sake of the thread.
01 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionTalk about a laugh. I suppose you are so ignorant of history that you don't understand the significance of the years 1918 and 1941. Would you like a hint? Well, an event happened to the US starting in late 1941 that had an upward effect on price levels. And a prior event ended in 1918 which had an upward effect on price levels.
You are such a laugh, no1. You basically picked two points out of 23, drawn a line between them, and then claimed that all the points between fall on that (nearly flat line). Don't bother to mention that the CPI rises by nearly 33% in the first few years of that time. Then it falls by about 20% before becoming basically flat for about 8 years. Then it f nt and spew vitriol, but I hope that we can move past that for the sake of the thread.
I was responding to your initial, silly claim that since the inception of the Fed there were no deflations at all. This is somehow related to your other claim that the amount of money in the system is the primary determinant of price level (presumably because the Fed floods the economy with money whenever the possibility of price deflation appears). Both are wrong as the evidence between the wars makes rather clear.
For someone trying to claim the high ground, you've consistently and predictably resorted to personal attacks that have no place in the discussion.