[extralego]

I am confused about something that seems very basic, and hoping somebody can help me out with this.

I have always supported left politics, and I think I understand the basics of supply-and-demand economics. If immigrants come to the US looking for work instead of bringing work, there should be a higher supply of labor, driving the low-end pay-rate down. Given that the low-end rate has gone down significantly throughout the 3 decades that I have been alive, how do we on the left reason that immigration is not a factor? Or is it?

Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies. Am I wrong about that?

My parents voted for Trump, (or we might say they voted against Clinton). They have since decided to support Bernie Sanders next time, but they point to immigration’s effect on the labor supply as the reason to keep the border closed.

I would like to think we can address this with far more dignified solutions than what is being popularly proposed, but first things first; what am I missing?

[qubex]

You’re thinking in what is known as “the big lump of employment” mode: i.e., that there is some fixed demand for total labour in a country and that it will be apportioned out according to the lowest salaries. This is generally countered with the idea that as population rises (including due to immigration) more support jobs are needed – for example, as population rises you need proportionally more healthcare, and those extra health workers will need more consumer goods which means there’ll be more stores to sell stuff to them and more cashiers & cetera.

[dragonwriter]

> Given that the low-end rate has gone down significantly throughout the 3 decades that I have been alive, how do we on the left reason that immigration is not a factor?

Because we can point directly to the tax policy changes that are largely responsible, starting with the Reagan-era tax burden shift on to work.

And because we on the left don't deny that immigration is not a factor, but instead that immigration policy effects whether people who enter do it more to work and export the proceeds or to settle and participate and both sides of the ledger, and that present policy has been harmful in that regard. A particular way tl in which this is true is the production of multi-decade waiting lists for family-based immigration from Mexico, which both reduces attachment of lawful immigrants, drives remittances, and produces illegal immigration directly.

> Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies.

Xenophobia is probably historically the most central reason, but public resources and labor markets are the acceptable modern pretexts. But even when they are the genuine purposes, that doesn't mean policies are actually well adapted to them.

[extralego]

Thanks for this thoughtful response. I definitely feel like you get my struggle.

I do understand the impact of Reagan-era economic policies and don’t accept that America would be capable of thriving despite a lot of immigration.

But, I guess I don’t understand why this convo isn’t articulated. Supply-and-demand of the labor market is super simple and it seems pretty obvious that immigration would end up being a scapegoat. I just realized I don’t have anything to say that because, despite understanding numerous economic causes for the lower wages, I can only reason that immigration adds fuel to the fire.

But for some reason people on the left seem to act like this contention doesn’t exist. They just talk about how terrible the border and ICE is; both of which have been awful for many years. It’s nice that people care all of a sudden but name-calling doesn’t address these rational claims of the opposition. If you’re right and that’s the way it is, I wonder how we can actually solve this.

It sounds like if we can just actually take the economics seriously for once then it would eliminate any decent ground to defend the immigration enforcements. I mean, we have to do it some day. It seems to undermine everything we stand for.

[dragonwriter]

> But, I guess I don’t understand why this convo isn’t articulated.

In part, because the political “dialogue” in this country isn't a dialogue, it's a propaganda battle where on every issue it is a battle to control the framing, largely with the aim of mobilizing each sides base while alienating the other, not coming to some kind of common consensus.

In part, because the left viewpoint on the economics is not the dominant view of either major party; the (still, arguably barely) dominant faction of the Democratic Party is economically center-right.

> But for some reason people on the left seem to act like this contention doesn’t exist. They just talk about how terrible the border and ICE is; both of which have been awful for many years

Even given the preceding, that's not really true: the left (and Democrats more broadly) do offer much more specific policy criticisms than that, and those didn't all originate under this President. (Though under the immediate preceding one, those positions were often shared with the President though not the Congressional majority, see DACA/DREAM Act.) Obviously, they've become more intense and higher priority with a hostile administration engaging in policy more hostile to their desires.

> It’s nice that people care all of a sudden

People on the left don't care “all of a sudden”, though obviously the policy context has changed all of a sudden which has shifted the tone and focus of criticisms.

> but name-calling doesn’t address these rational claims of the opposition.

Electoral politics largely isn't about rational debate, and trying to make it so is often counterproductive, even if you are winning with the people that are listening for rational debate.

> It sounds like if we can just actually take the economics seriously for once then it would eliminate any decent ground to defend the immigration enforcements.

The left isn't against immigration enforcement so much as it is against the particular policies being enforced and the methods of enforcement.

But “decent ground” isn't, even if it should be, often what wins policy debates.

[skybrian]

Immigrants increase both labor supply (by working) and demand (by buying things). People often forget the demand part.

Businesses in an area that was losing population can benefit from immigrants moving in. A shrinking community isn't good for business.

[dssd]

Will you explain why these exact things have only had precisely the opposite effects in practice?

Seems like flawed theory to me.

Considering immigrants (as well as most low-wage Americans) primarily purchase cheap imported goods, the only jobs we appear to be creating by this method are extreme low-wage jobs, just like I said. Any other revenue goes to very wealthy who stash it or invest in capital or property, which makes it harder for most Americans to own a home.

[jarfil]

Increased supply doesn't drive prices down on its own. Prices change as the ratio of supply:demand diverges from 1:1.

Immigrants not only bring in labor supply, but also product demand. So even if they aren't investors looking to hire people, the proper question should be whether they bring in more supply than demand, or whether they don't.

I'd say that immigrants who send money abroad, tip the balance towards higher supply, while those who don't, are actually suply-demand neutral (they spend their money where they earn it). So removing citizenship from those born, raised and consuming, is just bullshit.

As for why low-end rates have gone down... check out income inequality, you might find that the top-end rates have gone up by the same amount. Either that, or the economy is tanking (but it isn't).

[princekolt]

(Disclosure: I'm not a US national, and I don't live in the US)

In my limited personal experience chatting with employees and hiring managers from a couple of big name US tech companies, what I've come to realize is that occasionally they hire talented foreigners simply because they're talented. Of course this doesn't apply to every foreign hire they do, but if they find someone that fits their culture and is above the average by a big margin, they'll be happy to create a job on the spot for that person. So while we try to think of the job market as fixed thing with N available places at any given moment, this certainly doesn't fully apply to creative/innovative workplaces.

[pille]

You pass more effective labor protections, and then stop letting employers get around them just because they hired undocumented workers. You prosecute employers for exploiting a vulnerable labor force, instead of charging the people being exploited.

This seems like the truly left position to me. I heard Clinton mention it once in the 3rd debate, but for some reason people focused on other stuff.

[dssd]

Hopefully she mentions it twice next time. Pretty sure Bernie Sanders mentioned it every single time he opened his mouth.

[michaelscott]

A higher supply of cheaper labour does contribute to the reduced pay but by far the biggest influence is the stagnation of wages over those 3 decades (i.e. it's not that wages have gone down, they just largely haven't gone up).

Average, inflation adjusted wage growth has been projected as low as 0.2% year on year in some cases, and this affects most forms of work not just the low end.

[laughingman2]

With all the productivity gains, if the wage growth has been far less, it's clear who is to take a huge part of the blame, hint hint, big corporations who also evade paying taxes.

Its almost as if they don't want a vibrant middle class to spend, thereby dooming themselves in the long run with stagnation.

[amf12]

> A higher supply of cheaper labour does contribute to the reduced pay but by far the biggest influence is the stagnation of wages over those 3 decades.

This only applies to low skilled, replaceable jobs and certainly not the high skilled ones. Because eventually there is a demand for better employees (which naturally comes with experience and skills) which leads to higher wages and wage growth. Look at what's happening in SV.

[te_chris]

The labour market isn't one market, it's many markets, stratified in all sorts of ways. Hence: bringing in people to do tech jobs (e.g.) for which a local person can't be found will have no effect on working-class wages as, evidently, there's not much competition for that role locally anyway.

[js8]

Also leftist but pro-immigration.. (although not American)

I don't have a complete answer but I would point out that some of these immigrants do bring work, eventually. There is a photograph of Sergey Brinn in the article, Steve Jobs is another example.

Also, economically, I am of the opinion that consumption is what drives the modern economy (for better or worse). The production is then typically figured out from that through capitalism. So the additional consumers in economy (immigrants) also add to demand, which acts against the downward pressure on wages.

[extralego]

Sergeant Brinn went to Stanford. Steve Jobs went to Reed. Can you articulate an even somewhat critical relation between these examples and the minimum wage? I’m just not seeing it, but open if someone can connect the dots.

I was unable to go to college without massive student loans and now I can’t afford to have children despite working obsessive hours.

> I am of the opinion that consumption is what drives the modern economy (for better or worse).

What about having a productive and efficient economy? I was looking at this recently:

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/labor-force-partic...

Our labor force participation rate is drastically lower than Europe’s. Not sure why but I remember a post on HN a few days ago where a homeless American programmer was asking for advice and more people than not recommended that he not take a minimum wage job because it would barely help and take all his time. True he had programming experience but this is a homeless person. If being homeless is not enough to justify a low-end job, it seems like a stretch to think this is an economy that can work. Again, what am a I missing? Are you not worried that you’re wrong? Economics is difficult stuff which is why i am asking.

> The production is then typically figured out from that.

Poor people consumer almost entirely cheap-labor made imports, often made in free-trade manufacturing zones (sweat shops) so this is not computing at all for me.

This is at least not the left I signed up for when I was in high school. We hated sweat shops.

[js8]

What I am saying is that immigrants (or their kids) sometimes become entrepreneurs, that's all.

Regarding student loans, I am sorry to hear that, frankly situation in the U.S. is messed up. I honestly think you should support Bernie Sanders and his ilk if you want to change that.

What I am saying is pretty much standard Keynesian view of the economy: The economy can produce less than it potentially could (and have full employment, although that is tenuous) when there isn't large enough demand, that is consumer buying things and services.

This has not much to do with minimum wages, although in fact, raising minimum wage can most likely help to stimulate demand.

Regarding the cheap-labor made imports, these in fact hurt the foreign economies more than yours (because of the trade deficit, which most likely won't be equalized). The only way to prevent them (to some extent) would be to impose some form of import tariff.

[tormeh]

Low-end wages are affected by automation, globalization and immigration. In that order, I believe. To his credit, Trump is trying to tackle the last two.

If you provide unskilled services (e.g cleaning) then unskilled immigration is very bad for your income. I don't think any reasonable economist would object to that.

The "job pool" does expand over time to match the labor pool, but if immigrants don't have the same skill profile as "the natives", then some of the natives are gonna lose.