Way too much hedging to be a record, much less setting it straight on anything.
And as of yesterday, the illegals-contribute-to-social-security-but-don't-withdraw-so-they're-a-net-benefit-at-the-federal-level argument no longer holds water (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060518-114132-2456r.htm). And that's without considering the costs to the individuals who've been the victims of identity theft.
I'll stipulate that illegals provide a marginal benefit on labor costs. It's what the economics would predict, and I think that if you could collect the data, that's what it'd show. Cheaper labor is cheaper labor.
But I can't help but remember my time as a grocery bagger. Grocery is a very competitive business with tiny profit margins. Someone walks out with $20 worth of groceries, you have to sell a couple hundred bucks worth of groceries to other people just to get even again. So loss prevention was a major concern. If illegals save us 10 cents per head of lettuce, all it takes is one stolen SUV at a blue book of $25,000 to wipe out the net benefit from 250,000 heads of lettuce, and however many illegals it took to harvest them.
Destruction is so much easier than production that it only takes a tiny minority of destroyers to make life hell for everyone else, and small differences in the size of that tiny minority can have massive economic effects.
And as of yesterday, the illegals-contribute-to-social-security-but-don't-withdraw-so-they're-a-net-benefit-at-the-federal-level argument no longer holds water.
How much do you estimate the net, per-capita, annual cost of illegals to be?
I don't support extending SS to immigrants because a) I oppose SS in principle and b) as you demonstrate, it increases hostility to immigrants. I also don't see the political win for Republicans on the issue -- illegals can't vote, and the majority of the population is opposed to them.
-------
Yes, a small number of people committing crimes can increase costs a lot. Here are several things to consider:
* Without documentation, your job prospects will be limited to employers who look the other way. Therefore, you will be limited mostly to menial, manual jobs. Also, since getting educated won't help you much to get a better job, you have fewer incentives to become educated.
* If you fear that you will be deported, you will tend to avoid those who are not themselves in the illegal community (or closely associated with it). Therefore, the rate at which you learn English and assimilate "American" cultural values will be retarded. This will also tend to limit your job prospects.
* As a result of the first two facts, the returns to criminal behavior will be higher than they would be otherwise. Also, tax revenues will be lower than they would've been otherwise.
* Since border crossings are so costly, you will have an incentive to stay in the U.S. permanently (and bring your family across), rather than work in the U.S., leave your family in Mexico, and travel back and forth. If you dislike the Mexicanization of American culture, this is probably not the result you intended.
* If a Mexican is stuck making $5.00/day in Mexico, who would otherwise be making $5/hour in the U.S., the world is poorer in two ways -- the difference in price between the immigrant's wage and the next best alternative, and the difference between the immigrant's wage in the U.S. vs. the immigrant's wage in Mexico, plus the dead-weight loss of immigration enforcement.
Whatever negative externalities the immigrant would've imposed will be imposed anyway, they will just be imposed in Mexico rather than the U.S. The negative externalities will likely be higher, in fact, since the would-be immigrant will be forced to take a much less productive Mexican job, and will therefore be generating less wealth, and will therefore be poorer than otherwise. Increased poverty means less education, poorer nutrition, increased crime, and lower productivity.
Those increased negative externalities will, in turn, result in higher costs of production for Mexican goods and services.
Given the relatively free trade between the U.S. and Mexico, many of those costs will borne by American consumers in the form of higher prices for Mexican goods and services.
Thus, as with the drug war, I think many of the costs you ascribe to illegals are the result of, or exacerbated by, their illegal status itself, and are not an inherent property of the immigrants themselves.
How much do you estimate the net, per-capita, annual cost of illegals to be?
I don't. Most of the 'cost' is not a matter of dollars and cents, but a matter of quality of life and politics. What's the 'cost' of South Phoenix's murder rate? What's the 'cost' of corruption? It's probably possible to convert that to $, but hell if I know how to do it.
I think we need better quality of life measurements that take into account the cost of bad government, and I've been thinking about how to do that, or what good proxy numbers would be, but I haven't come up with anything solid yet. There are certain things like rates of personal saving, distribution of wealth, and disposable incomes that are close, but not quite there. Maybe some aggregate?
Whatever negative externalities the immigrant would've imposed will be imposed anyway, they will just be imposed in Mexico rather than the U.S.
Good! That's progress. As I said before, I'm a nationalist. There are meaningful differences between nations. The consequences of policies should be felt at home, not safety-valved off to another country. As far as I'm concerned, Canadians should be prevented from coming to the U.S. for medical treatment too.
Given the relatively free trade between the U.S. and Mexico, many of those costs will borne by American consumers in the form of higher prices for Mexican goods and services.
Which might finally get us off our asses and support true political reform in Mexico.
Thus, as with the drug war, I think many of the costs you ascribe to illegals are the result of, or exacerbated by, their illegal status itself, and are not an inherent property of the immigrants themselves.
Undoubtedly. However, unlike the drug war, illegal immigration is a solvable problem, as evidenced by the fact that many countries manage it. Drugs are a many-to-many problem: many potential consumers, many potential providers. Illegal immigration is a few-to-many problem. There are a relatively small number of potential employers for menial laborers, they are already regulated in many ways (eg. Social Security, sales taxes), providing jobs to illegals is not their sole or even primary reason for existing, so they're not going to fight nearly as hard against enforcement. And if you had to bust one out of business entirely, another wouldn't simply arise in its place, since businesses have other overhead.
Combine enforcement at the employment level with border controls, and you could chop it down significantly.
Destruction is so much easier than production that it only takes a tiny minority of destroyers to make life hell for everyone else, and small differences in the size of that tiny minority can have massive economic effects.
* Yes, a small minority can impose costs out of proportion to their numbers. And stores can prevent losses by installing more security cameras, hiring more guards, bag checks, RFID tagging, etc. At a certain point, however, the costs of loss prevention exceed the costs of loss themselves.
Retail stores have a very tight negative feedback loop -- if a loss prevention measure costs more than it benefits, it will be quickly ended (or the store will eventually go out of business).
Governments have a very loose negative feedback loop. In fact, I would argue that they have a positive feedback loop. If a government program fails, they say "We didn't have enough [border guards, prisons, drug dogs, SUVs, etc. Give us more money." Buyers of government services have six choices: 1) pay the taxes 2) decrease their productivity to below taxable levels 3) leave the country 5) die 6) or go to jail. Given those choices, the government has very weak checks on its spending.
Given that immigrants who cross the border gain access to capital estimated by the World Bank to be worth $500 K, it seems likely to me that the Feds would have to institute quite costly measures to significantly curtail immigration. Given the Fed's incentives, as well as the empirical results of past estimates on the cost and effectiveness of their programs, I'm skeptical of claims that illegal immigration can be significantly reduced at a reasonable cost, even if I agreed that it was a worthy goal in the first place.
The measures would involve a wall ($2-8 billion, around the same price as W's new flying office) and employment enforcement. Simply tying the INS and SSA databases together, along with some way to query them. We have a national background check system in place for gun purchases already. I don't necessarily like it, but it works. It's a solved problem, and not particularly expensive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 02:45 pm (UTC)And as of yesterday, the illegals-contribute-to-social-security-but-don't-withdraw-so-they're-a-net-benefit-at-the-federal-level argument no longer holds water (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060518-114132-2456r.htm). And that's without considering the costs to the individuals who've been the victims of identity theft.
I'll stipulate that illegals provide a marginal benefit on labor costs. It's what the economics would predict, and I think that if you could collect the data, that's what it'd show. Cheaper labor is cheaper labor.
But I can't help but remember my time as a grocery bagger. Grocery is a very competitive business with tiny profit margins. Someone walks out with $20 worth of groceries, you have to sell a couple hundred bucks worth of groceries to other people just to get even again. So loss prevention was a major concern. If illegals save us 10 cents per head of lettuce, all it takes is one stolen SUV at a blue book of $25,000 to wipe out the net benefit from 250,000 heads of lettuce, and however many illegals it took to harvest them.
Destruction is so much easier than production that it only takes a tiny minority of destroyers to make life hell for everyone else, and small differences in the size of that tiny minority can have massive economic effects.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 08:36 pm (UTC)How much do you estimate the net, per-capita, annual cost of illegals to be?
I don't support extending SS to immigrants because a) I oppose SS in principle and b) as you demonstrate, it increases hostility to immigrants. I also don't see the political win for Republicans on the issue -- illegals can't vote, and the majority of the population is opposed to them.
-------
Yes, a small number of people committing crimes can increase costs a lot. Here are several things to consider:
* Without documentation, your job prospects will be limited to employers who look the other way. Therefore, you will be limited mostly to menial, manual jobs. Also, since getting educated won't help you much to get a better job, you have fewer incentives to become educated.
* If you fear that you will be deported, you will tend to avoid those who are not themselves in the illegal community (or closely associated with it). Therefore, the rate at which you learn English and assimilate "American" cultural values will be retarded. This will also tend to limit your job prospects.
* As a result of the first two facts, the returns to criminal behavior will be higher than they would be otherwise. Also, tax revenues will be lower than they would've been otherwise.
* Since border crossings are so costly, you will have an incentive to stay in the U.S. permanently (and bring your family across), rather than work in the U.S., leave your family in Mexico, and travel back and forth. If you dislike the Mexicanization of American culture, this is probably not the result you intended.
* If a Mexican is stuck making $5.00/day in Mexico, who would otherwise be making $5/hour in the U.S., the world is poorer in two ways -- the difference in price between the immigrant's wage and the next best alternative, and the difference between the immigrant's wage in the U.S. vs. the immigrant's wage in Mexico, plus the dead-weight loss of immigration enforcement.
Whatever negative externalities the immigrant would've imposed will be imposed anyway, they will just be imposed in Mexico rather than the U.S. The negative externalities will likely be higher, in fact, since the would-be immigrant will be forced to take a much less productive Mexican job, and will therefore be generating less wealth, and will therefore be poorer than otherwise. Increased poverty means less education, poorer nutrition, increased crime, and lower productivity.
Those increased negative externalities will, in turn, result in higher costs of production for Mexican goods and services.
Given the relatively free trade between the U.S. and Mexico, many of those costs will borne by American consumers in the form of higher prices for Mexican goods and services.
Thus, as with the drug war, I think many of the costs you ascribe to illegals are the result of, or exacerbated by, their illegal status itself, and are not an inherent property of the immigrants themselves.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 03:49 am (UTC)I don't. Most of the 'cost' is not a matter of dollars and cents, but a matter of quality of life and politics. What's the 'cost' of South Phoenix's murder rate? What's the 'cost' of corruption? It's probably possible to convert that to $, but hell if I know how to do it.
I think we need better quality of life measurements that take into account the cost of bad government, and I've been thinking about how to do that, or what good proxy numbers would be, but I haven't come up with anything solid yet. There are certain things like rates of personal saving, distribution of wealth, and disposable incomes that are close, but not quite there. Maybe some aggregate?
Good! That's progress. As I said before, I'm a nationalist. There are meaningful differences between nations. The consequences of policies should be felt at home, not safety-valved off to another country. As far as I'm concerned, Canadians should be prevented from coming to the U.S. for medical treatment too. Which might finally get us off our asses and support true political reform in Mexico. Undoubtedly. However, unlike the drug war, illegal immigration is a solvable problem, as evidenced by the fact that many countries manage it. Drugs are a many-to-many problem: many potential consumers, many potential providers. Illegal immigration is a few-to-many problem. There are a relatively small number of potential employers for menial laborers, they are already regulated in many ways (eg. Social Security, sales taxes), providing jobs to illegals is not their sole or even primary reason for existing, so they're not going to fight nearly as hard against enforcement. And if you had to bust one out of business entirely, another wouldn't simply arise in its place, since businesses have other overhead.Combine enforcement at the employment level with border controls, and you could chop it down significantly.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 08:38 pm (UTC)* Yes, a small minority can impose costs out of proportion to their numbers. And stores can prevent losses by installing more security cameras, hiring more guards, bag checks, RFID tagging, etc. At a certain point, however, the costs of loss prevention exceed the costs of loss themselves.
Retail stores have a very tight negative feedback loop -- if a loss prevention measure costs more than it benefits, it will be quickly ended (or the store will eventually go out of business).
Governments have a very loose negative feedback loop. In fact, I would argue that they have a positive feedback loop. If a government program fails, they say "We didn't have enough [border guards, prisons, drug dogs, SUVs, etc. Give us more money." Buyers of government services have six choices: 1) pay the taxes 2) decrease their productivity to below taxable levels 3) leave the country 5) die 6) or go to jail. Given those choices, the government has very weak checks on its spending.
Given that immigrants who cross the border gain access to capital estimated by the World Bank to be worth $500 K, it seems likely to me that the Feds would have to institute quite costly measures to significantly curtail immigration. Given the Fed's incentives, as well as the empirical results of past estimates on the cost and effectiveness of their programs, I'm skeptical of claims that illegal immigration can be significantly reduced at a reasonable cost, even if I agreed that it was a worthy goal in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 04:00 am (UTC)The measures would involve a wall ($2-8 billion, around the same price as W's new flying office) and employment enforcement. Simply tying the INS and SSA databases together, along with some way to query them. We have a national background check system in place for gun purchases already. I don't necessarily like it, but it works. It's a solved problem, and not particularly expensive.
It's just a matter of will.