Originally posted by telerionLike most elitist braggarts, you pretend that everyone else is extremely ignorant and you are very wise because you somehow managed to gain a 4 year degree. Bully for you.
Actually, 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 ...[text shortened]... . You have yet to support your myriad claims with well-grounded evidence.
However, you have got the process backwards. I know, and you know, that the market structure in the US is imperfectly competitive. But you disingenuously insist that I have to show you some sort of peer reviewed proof of what everybody knows. When I find an article on the net supporting that conclusion, you will bluster that it's only one article out of thousands and every other economist everywhere says the US economy IS competitive.
This is an dishonest game you are playing. Claiming I don't know the limitations of the CPI index is misinformed speculation on your part. It has plenty as I'm sure you learned in one of the courses you got a C- in (see how that works?). However, it is good enough to support the general point I was making; that the US economy is extraordinarily resistance to price deflation. As the 1918-1941 data shows, this wasn't always so. I believe the main reason it isn't so is because of the growth of monopoly power in the economy. As you are perfectly aware, this is a belief shared by many economists, though they might not be the mainstream ones you worship.
I haven't read Borjas' 2003 paper; I did read his statement on his blog where he calculated that native wages are reduced by $350 billion a year because of immigration. This calculation (which is given in full there) was based on a National Academy of Science paper. But you're obviously more qualified than those yahoos. However, even assuming that everything in Cortes' paper is right, her final conclusion is that there is a very small effect on lower prices for most people and a sizable negative effect on unskilled workers income. She claims that, IN AGGREGATE, the first effect slightly outweighs the second one, so that there is a very small overall net gain to the economy. But as I pointed out several pages ago:
cortes: Overall, the results imply that the low-skilled
immigration wave of the 1990s increased the purchasing power of high-skilled natives living
in the 25 largest cities by 0.65 percent but decreased the purchasing power of native high
school dropouts by 2.66 percent.
no1😕o the wealthy and relatively well to do got to pay their gardeners and housekeepers a bit less but native high school dropouts suffered a drop in purchasing power 4 times the benefit of their high skilled brethren. Tell me is it better for society for its well to do to be infinitesimally better off than for its poorest working (well they used to be working) citizens to be substantially worse off (any drop in wages for the members with the least income is potentially catastrophic)?
I guess this point is a little hard for mainstream economist groupies to grasp. Would you care to address that question or would you prefer to use what you conceive to be your valuable time merely blustering about how we should bow to your great knowledge?
No1, you clearly don't remember much about economics. I'm sick of dispelling your ridiculous claims. If anyone is unsure why no1 has been off the mark repeatedly in this thread, please ask for clarification. If no one is interested in more of his BS, then I'll leave it where it stands.
So far he has claimed that immigration will have little to no effect on market prices and do massive damage to native wages. To support this he has claimed (counter to the widespread consensus in the economics profession) that American markets are strongly monopolistic. To support this he has appealed to the CPI via a website called "inflationdata.com," relying solely on their interpretations. When I provided a link to the actual CPI data and showed where the interpretation was flowed, he insulted me and then made a statement about price stagnation that would earn him failing marks in my class or any one elses.
The only evidence he has offered to support his claim that immigration significantly hurts native wages is an appeal to a back of the envelope calculation from an economics blog. He insults economists that assume competitive markets, but obviously he doesn't even read the papers he cites because they too assume competitive markets.
His final gasp at defending his claims about American monopolies is simply to say that I'm ignoring a fact "a belief shared by many economists." I can only wonder what qualifies as "many" in his mind, for in all the time I've spent in economics seminars, economics conventions , as well as in discussion with industrial organization and labor economists in my department I have yet to meet one of these "many" economists. Maybe this is because they are not part of the "mainstream" as no1 himself admits. I guess by many no1 one is referring to a nameless fringe minority. That's not what I would call popular support.
On the otherhand, I have supported my claims with quality research. Other than Borjas paper, which uses a totally different method and data set and ignores the price effect completely, the other main papers in this area agree with Cortes' findings (Cortes research is the most recent and takes into account the findings of Borjas). I have repeatedly had to dispel no1's attempts to twist and manipulate the discussion. As yet, no1 has nothing but a paper he hasn't read, a gross misunderstanding of the CPI and the many factors that affect total average prices in an economy, and a host of insults and bravado. I can tell you that he's full of BS, and if anyone would like me to clarify my points as to why, please just post your question.
Basically, no1 is relying on a modest undergraduate knowledge of economics, a lot of passion, and lawyer theatrics. This is my final response to his antics. I will only entertain questions from other members.
Originally posted by telerionThat hurts soooooooooooooo bad, Mr. Expert.
No1, you clearly don't remember much about economics. I'm sick of dispelling your ridiculous claims. If anyone is unsure why no1 has been off the mark repeatedly in this thread, please ask for clarification. If no one is interested in more of his BS, then I'll leave it where it stands.
So far he has claimed that immigration will have little to no ef ...[text shortened]... esponse to his antics. I will only entertain questions from other members.
BTW, I've already said I was willing to concede, for the sake of argument, that everything Cortes says in her brilliant paper (she should be picking up the Nobel any day now though the paper regarding the competitiveness of the meatpacking sector is sure to be a strong contender, too) is correct. For some reason (I hurt your feelings perhaps?), you still refuse to deal with the question as to whether an infinitesimal gain in purchasing power for the well to do is worth a drop in the incomes of those at the bottom of the wage scale. Perhaps at one of your economic seminars you could ask one of the other participants what Marginal Utility means.
Tootles.
Originally posted by SMSBear716Hope you read the article -- it's really interesting how the flesh merchants, I mean immigration attorneys, are perverting the immigration system and getting rich on the backs of the American people and the destitute illegal aliens.
I'm almost tempted to join into this discussion since illegal immigration is probably one of my favorites and one of the top two problems of the country ...... Illegal immigrants have ZERO rights in this country, I made that plain before or numerous occasions
However, I'm taking a break from the 'fun and games' of the Debate forum .... everyone needs ...[text shortened]... mon sense in a MSNBC/NBC world.
waves my 'right wing' at Telerion How y'all doing...
Originally posted by generalissimoThe article I posted is really more critical of the flesh merchants/immigration attorneys who has perverted our immigration laws and are becoming rich beyond avarice exploiting the taxpayers and destitute illegal aliens.
don't you ever get tired of criticising immigrants, or more precisely, Latinos?
😞
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI will certainly read it although I figure lawyers are lawyers no matter what ... their principle motivation is not seeing fairness in achieved or the rights of their clients are protected .... its how much cash can they get out of it for themselves.
Hope you read the article -- it's really interesting how the flesh merchants, I mean immigration attorneys, are perverting the immigration system and getting rich on the backs of the American people and the destitute illegal aliens.
Originally posted by teleriontelerion: So far I've found some nice papers showing that meat packing (an immigrant rich production) is close to competitive.
Actually, 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 . You have yet to support your myriad claims with well-grounded evidence.
The USDA disagrees; here's what they said in 1996:
For example, the four largest packers accounted for 82
percent of steer and heifer slaughter in 1994, versus only 72 percent in 1990 and 36 percent in 1980. Packers
have also increased their use of vertical integration and coordination arrangements, reducing the role of public
markets where the terms of trade are openly visible to all.
http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/pubs/packers/conc-rpt.pdf
Well, I guess in Ivory Tower Land, four firms controlling 82% of a market is " close to competitive." Any other "immigrant rich production" sectors you'd care to cite?
EDIT: Here's a later USDA article saying the same thing: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/jun2000/ao272i.pdf
It also has the following tidbit: These measures are known as four-firm concentration ratios,
or CR4.
CR4 in steers and heifers is quite high—four firms account for
nearly 80 percent of purchases, in contrast to the average CR4 of
40 percent across all U.S. manufacturing industries.
So the AVERAGE US manufacturing industry has 4 firms controlling 40% of the total market. Now, Mr. Economics Expert, what type of market structure does that look like to you: perfect competition or oligopoly?
Chew that one over with the guys in the department.
For the first time, Human Rights Watch has issued a report that harshly criticizes a single industry in the United States, concluding that the nation's meat packing industry has such bad working conditions that it violates basic human and worker rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/business/25cnd-meat.html?fta=y
This is a predictable result of increased use of illegal immigrants in a domestic industry; their status makes them vulnerable to abuse. "The report asserted that slaughterhouse and packing plants also flouted international rules by taking advantage of workers' immigration status - in some plants two-thirds of the workers are illegal immigrants - to subject them to inferior treatment."
I hate to keep shooting fish in a barrel, but hey, Tel, you mentioned the meat packing industry. Did Cortes take a look at this effect of increased use of illegal immigrants on wage rates?:
Historically wage progress in the meat packing industry has been compared with the average hourly earnings in U.S. manufacturing. Monthly and yearly average hourly earnings are calculated by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Historically, the average hourly earnings in meat packing have exceeded those in U.S. manufacturing sometimes by as much as $1.00 an hour. Throughout the decades of the 1960s and 1970s and into 1983, the average hourly earnings were higher in the meat packing industry than in U.S. manufacturing. Subsequently, the average hourly earnings have plunged behind those paid in U.S. manufacturing especially in the 1990s and continuing through the present.
http://www.reapinc.org/ProfileIntro_Meat.html
Originally posted by SMSBear716You've probably heard the joke about how one lawyer came to town and since he was the only one, he nearly went broke and almost starved to death, so he quickly called up another attorney and told him to get down here quick, and together they both got rich.
I will certainly read it although I figure lawyers are lawyers no matter what ... their principle motivation is not seeing fairness in achieved or the rights of their clients are protected .... its how much cash can they get out of it for themselves.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterwell, but you have to admit that these articles are probably written by right-wingers who dislike mexicans or immigrants in general.
The article I posted is really more critical of the flesh merchants/immigration attorneys who has perverted our immigration laws and are becoming rich beyond avarice exploiting the taxpayers and destitute illegal aliens.
So they write these articles in order to raise tensions between Americans and the so-called ''aliens''.