Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 98 posts

Re: In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

#51

Post by throwanem »

an_cap wrote: post #46

The article quantifies the major cost of increased immigration as "the earnings of [high school dropouts] dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year." It describes the benefits to immigrants as "Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated." To take a specific example, maids in India make about $3 a day. If they had the opportunity to m…

Ten thousand dollars a year would be almost all of what I send home annually to help family members who haven't had my good fortune. For others in my family, a thousand dollars a year would make the difference between being able to get by, if not comfortably, and not being able to get by at all.

I feel that perhaps there is some degree of nuance here you've overlooked.

Re: In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

#52

Post by goodcanadian »

norikki wrote: post #48
goodcanadian wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigration, almost trivially, increases the size of the economy: more mouths to feed, more people to house, more demand for creature comforts. So, immigration increases jobs. Whether it creates more jobs than it consumes is a bit trickier. My money is on, "yes," but I suppose it will always depend on the details. I would also like to see a study; I'm sure someone must have done one.

The question is really: do you care that there is more wealth overall, or do you care that you personally are better off. Most sane people have no urgent desire to start cramming more people into their neighborhoods. What people want are higher standards of living, not the same or worse standards of living split among more people, even if the overall economy is 'bigger'. Many third world population booms are decimati…

Yes, I read the article, and he does seem to imply that is the case with immigrants at the bottom level of skills. However, he also suggests that the total picture is much more complicated . . . it all depends on the details. My money is still on it being a net gain, overall.

Re: In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

#53

Post by nighthawk24 »

amunicio wrote: post #7
jkot wrote: post #6

There is also third side in this story; people who jump through hoops to get legal option to work in US. We had to fill mountains of paper work, spend thousands of dollars, wait for years... But every illegal immigrant seems to have more rights than us.

How does every illegal immigrant have more rights than you? Mind to clarify?

Illegal immigrants do not have to go through the bureaucratic immigration system, spend 1000s of dollars to fly in-out for visa stamping, live in uncertainty of becoming an illegal or be banned to enter the US, illegals can also work multiple jobs in any state, take time off/not pay minimum visa wage or taxes to maintain visa, etc.

Of course they have to live in fear of deportation and have broken families(many legals have this fear too).

Re: In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

#54

Post by mavelikara »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #29
biocomputation wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

H1-B is a socially destructive program that needs to end. Big companies, in tech and otherwise, use it to keep labor costs down and as another negotiating tool. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! It's funny how all these huge companies that have billions in cash, and who don't pay their fair share of taxes, are always crying poor and wanting more subsidies from someone. H1-B is effectively a subsidy provi…

All H1-B needs is for the superstars who come over (since the employer supposedly can't find qualified US candidates) is to make wages corresponding with that status. Make the minimum pay for an H1-B 140% of the local average for a person at that position, and that market will evaporate overnight. As it should.

If you look at the H-1B wages for people employed at AmaGoogFaceSoft, you will notice that this is indeed true - for pretty much any position, the H-1B immigrant makes a premium compared to the median wage for similar position across all employers at that location.

As the prestige of the employer in the market drops, the employee's wages also drops - this happens for both citizens and immigrants alike, but the drop for immigrants maybe be larger.

My point is that these large tech firms hire H-1Bs out of necessity, and not to keep wages down. The less prestigious firms do hire H-1Bs to keep wages down.

Re: In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

#55

Post by h4nkoslo »

It would be more possible to take leftist arguments about the benefits of immigration in good faith if they weren't simultaneously crowing about how ongoing immigration will shift US politics permanently to the left.

Frankly I don't care if immigration is Good For The Economy. It amounts to intentional population replacement, explicitly aimed at permantly changing the makeup, politics, culture, etc of the country. My children will suffer as a result.

Re: In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

#56

Post by [deleted] »

an_cap wrote: post #46

The article quantifies the major cost of increased immigration as "the earnings of [high school dropouts] dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year." It describes the benefits to immigrants as "Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated." To take a specific example, maids in India make about $3 a day. If they had the opportunity to m…

[deleted]

Re: In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

#57

Post by h4nkoslo »

Const-me wrote: post #43

Why is that regulated by federal government at all? Shouldn’t there be different immigration regulations in the Silicon Valley and in e.g. rural Ohio?

That sounds like a great way to ensure that rural Ohioans never have a shot at a job in Silicon Valley.

Re: In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

#58

Post by nighthawk24 »

Const-me wrote: post #43

Why is that regulated by federal government at all? Shouldn’t there be different immigration regulations in the Silicon Valley and in e.g. rural Ohio?

This is actually a great idea which would reduce co.s depending hiring foreign contractors via loopholes, empower local senators/politicians to make decisions to improve state economies, define goals for immigration policies at the federal level and pave the way for fixing legal immigration overall.

Re: In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

#59

Post by schoen »

norikki wrote: post #47
schoen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immigration is a form of population growth, so the question is in part what happens when a population gets larger. The new members of the population are increasing the supply of labor and also increasing the demand for goods and services. Overall, that means more economic activity and more total employment. (As the original article points out, that doesn't necessarily mean more employment of people who were in the po…

I agree, the numbers you picked seem extremely unrealistic. However, the scenario you envision is exactly what the Harvard economist who wrote the article has discovered in the USA by looking at employment statistics. There are plenty of ways corporate executives can spend their labor cost savings that do not produce nearly as much labor demand for Americans as was lost to immigrants. Most notably, they can take thei…

I thought I understood the article author to be saying that employment will typically increase overall as a result of immigration -- but not necessarily total employment among the non-immigrants.

Re: In the current immigration debate, neither side is revealing the whole picture

#60

Post by davidw »

dang wrote: post #2

Here's a rare thing, a submission on a classic flamewar topic that is substantive and at least partly grounded in genuine study. We'll try taking the usual penalty off the thread and see what happens. We've also replaced the title with a more neutral sentence from the article. All: if you comment in this thread, please be civil and substantive and avoid political rants. Let's see if HN can reach a higher level than u…

Borjas is known among economists as one of the few proponents of the theory that immigration does hurt US workers at all. His findings are disputed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Borjas

Post reply on HN