Im-Politic: In Case You Doubt Biden’s Immigration Plans Will Hammer U.S. Wages

Tags

Biden, Biden border crisis, Breitbart.com, budget reconciliation, chain migration, Council of Economic Advisers, demand, economics, Im-Politic, Immigration, Jobs, labor market, labor shortage, migrants, Neil Munro, supply, wages, workers

We’ve just gotten a bright, flashing sign that, despite some recent stopgap steps (like this and this) obviously meant to convey the impression that the Biden administration hasn’t completely and dangerously lost control of America’s southern border, the President is just as determined as ever to open the floodgates to seemingly unlimited numbers of foreigners.

Worse, the development I’m writing about also makes clear that the President cares not a whit about the likely economic harm his policies will inflict on workers legally in the country at present – too many of whom haven’t exactly been killing it economically for decades now.

That sign consists of a post on the White House’s website by the Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) and three other government economists touting “The Economic Benefits of Extending Permanent Legal Status to Unauthorized Immigrants.” Just so we’re totally clear on their intent, in plain English, the title would read, “The Economic Benefits of Giving Amnesty to Illegal Aliens.” And the strength of the administration’s Open Borders ambitions is clearest from the utterly threadbare manner in which the authors deal with a central question: whether amnesty would drive down the wages of workers who live in America legally now.

This question of course is especially salient now because, due to the labor market turmoil generated by the CCP Virus pandemic and resulting behavior changes and official responses, U.S. employers are experiencing problems hiring enough workers, and consequently, these workers are enjoying major new leverage in bargaining for higher wages.

As pointed out in the CEA post, “Permanent legal status is likely to increase the effective labor supply of unauthorized immigrants” and that, “Given that providing legal status to unauthorized immigrants would increase their effective labor supply, critics of legalization argue there could be adverse labor market consequences for native and other immigrant workers.”

Here of course is where you’d expect the highly credentialed experts who wrote this post to respond with reams of evidence (or at least citations of scholarly works), decisively proving that, however commonsensical it seems to conclude that increasing the supply of anything (including labor) all else equal will reduce the supply of that thing, it ain’t so in the case of illegal aliens.

But as initially (at least to me) pointed out by Breitbart.com‘s Neil Munro, nothing of the kind happened. Here’s what the CEA said:

“While there is not a large economics literature on the labor market effects of legalization on other workers, in a well-cited National Academies report on the economic and fiscal impact of immigration, a distinguished group of experts concludes that in the longer run, the effect of immigration on wages overall is very small.”

I could write an entire blog post on what’s jaw-droppingly wrong with this sentence’s methodology. Chiefly, it’s not only an appeal to authority – which logically is an implicit confession that the appealers don’t know much themselves about the subject they’re writing about. It’s an appeal to authorities who themselves don’t seem to know much about their subject, or can’t cite any evidence. Therefore they can only offer an evidently unsupported conclusion.

But what’s most important to me about this CEA point is that it never challenges the wages claim made by those “critics of legalization.” All the authors can counter with is a contention that, at some unknown point, the wage depression resulting from amnesty will become “very small.” That’s some comfort to Americans workers today. And for possibly decades.   

Also crucial to point out is how narrow and thus misleading the post’s analytical framework is. It clearly assumes that amnesty won’t stimulate ever greater inflows of foreign laborers who compete against the domestic worker cohort that exists at any given time – which would include the millions of amnestied illegals. Yet everything known about the impact of looser immigration policies – and even official announcements thereof – demonstrates that they exert a powerful magnet effect on other foreigners. Nor do you need to take my word for it. That’s what many migrants themselves have said about the Biden administration’s approach. (See, e.g., here and here.)

The so-called magnet effect of the Biden roll-back of its predecessor’s immigration policies isn’t the only reason to expect the White House’s current approach to supercharge the supply of American workers. To mention just one example, his immigration reform bill and budget reconciliation bill would ease Trump-era limits on “chain migration” – a policy that enables immigrants into the country legally if a spouse, parent, child, or sibling already lives here legally. Further, once these chain migrants arrive, their own relatives receive the same easy entry. And so on. Special bonus: The restrictions on chain migration-related visas granted for employment reasons will be eased even further.

If a better way to keep a huge share of American workers underpaid (especially those in low-wage portions of the economy, which heavily rely on the kinds of low-skill employees who dominate the illegal alien population), let me know. And of course in the cruelest irony of all, as the CEA post shows, among the leading advocates of these wage-hammering measures are the very liberals and progressives that have for decades claimed to be champions of Americans left behind. 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: State of the Union Fakeonomics on Immigration

Tags

demand, economics, free trade agreements, Gillian B. White, Goldman Sachs, illegal immigration, Immigration, Jan Hatzius, Jobs, Obama, offshoring, State of the Union, supply, The Atlantic, TPP, Trade, Trans-Pacific Partnership, wages, workers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The more I go over the economic thinking behind President Obama’s final State of the Union address, and some of the commentary it’s generated, the weirder both get. Here are two especially noteworthy examples, and they both flow from the president’s claim that: “Immigrants aren’t the principal reason wages haven’t gone up; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that all too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns.”

Actually, Mr. Obama’s starting point is a straw man. I don’t know of anyone whose views have attracted significant attention who solely blames immigrants for wage stagnation. I don’t even know anyone who blames illegal immigrants. I do know lots of folks who believe that the levels (too high) and mix (too many uneducated and unskilled) of legal and illegal immigration have contributed meaningfully to this problem. But I guess States of the Union are no place for nuance.

Even stranger about the president’s contention, though, was his defense of mass immigration’s role in the American employment picture was its contrast with his treatment of trade deals like his Trans-Pacific Partnership and their own destructive impact on jobs and pay. This issue went unmentioned.

No one blames these agreements and related policies for the entire wage problem, either. But does the president genuinely suppose that trade deals, and the job and production offshoring to very low-wage countries they’ve encouraged, have been totally unrelated to the pursuit of those “quarterly earnings over long-term returns,” and by extension to wage woes? In fact, can he or anyone else reasonably doubt that these same shortsighted boardroom denizens have lobbied so hard to push these deals through Congress precisely because they help maximize short-term earnings so effectively at American workers’ expense?

Just askin’.

The second example of State of the Union-related economic weirdness comes from an Atlantic post making the case for the president’s views on immigration and wages. It was perfectly conventional – to the point of predictability – for Atlantic staffer Gillian B. White to trot out the usual studies showing that most economists strongly deny any immigration responsibility for U.S. wage stagnation.

What was a lot less conventional was her neglect of the obvious immigration- (and trade-) related implications of this point from another leading economist that she quoted and then paraphrased:

“‘The weakness of wages and the resulting strength of profits are telling signs that the US labor market is still far from full employment’” Jan Hatzius, the chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs wrote in a 2014 research note. That’s because many companies have learned to be leaner, they hire fewer employees, and still benefit from continually growing productivity. And because the country is still not at full employment, they can keep paying workers less. All of this serves to boost the company’s bottom line, while workers are unable to participate in those benefits.”

It’s clear to any thinking person that Corporate America has gotten much leaner (although this greater efficiency isn’t showing up in the productivity data any more). And it should be equally clear, as Hatzius notes, that this development has increased the supply of labor more than the demand for workers (the ultimate reason full employment hasn’t been reached), and therefore reduced the price of labor (as over-supply will do for anything in a reasonably free market, human or otherwise, that’s in surplus).

Hatzius wasn’t quoted on the link between this labor market mismatch and American immigration flows, but White is confident that “Obama is right” (about immigration – not trade, which she also ignores) and that “the level of wage dampening that immigration is actually responsible for in the broader scope of the problem pales in comparison to the wage suppression that has occurred since multi-billion dollar companies decided to prioritize rewarding shareholders first and workers last.”

Indeed, she states, the immigration effects are so slight compared with the supposedly entirely separate corporate governance and strategy changes that discussing the former is “a bit beside the point.”

But by definition, if she’s right, here’s what’s a bit beside the point, too: At a time of subpar employment levels that themselves are undermining workers’ bargaining power, the United States keeps admitting roughly one million legal immigrants each year. Moreover, it has enforced its borders so poorly that the illegal population stands at more than 11 million.

In turn, White’s reasoning implies, significantly reducing either the illegal population, or the legal flow (or both), and accordingly improving the labor supply-demand balance, would leave the bargaining power and wages of current, legal workers virtually the same.

It sounds like White doesn’t really believe that the laws of supply and demand apply to labor markets at all, or at least not to those with significant immigrant participation rates. Same for that majority of economists she cites. Who’s to say “No”? After all, economics isn’t a real science. But if this is the case, couldn’t these analysts declare their heresy openly, or at least tell the rest of us where supply and demand still matters, where it doesn’t, and why? While they’re at it, of course, they could let the rest of us in on what other venerable maxims of economics they’ve now decided we can do without – and when.