LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quotewhoever said immigrants weren't good for the country business etc...?
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
President
Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. It is the Federal Reserve Bank for the twelfth district in the United States, the nation's largest by area and by population, covering 1.3 million square miles (36% of the nation's area) and 60 million people- the entire West coast and nearby states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, plus the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam). It has its own research agency which one can assume is fairly reputable- given chairmans such as Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, I don't think there is any "liberal" bias with the Fed.
The general method of the research:
The article itself, in excerpts:... We take advantage of the fact that the increase in immigrants has been very uneven across states. For example, in California, one worker in three was foreign born in 2008, while in West Virginia the comparable proportion was only one in 100.
... By exploiting variations in the inflows of immigrants across states at 10-year intervals from 1960 to 2000, and annually from 1994 to 2008, we are able to estimate the short-run (one to two years), medium-run (four years), and long-run (seven to ten years) impact of immigrants on output, income, and employment.
To ensure that we are isolating the effects of immigrants rather than effects of other factors, we control for a range of variables that might contribute to differences in economic outcomes. These include sector specialization, research spending, openness to trade, technology adoption, and others. We then compare economic outcomes in states that experienced increases in immigrant inflows with states that did not experience significant increases....
TL;DR version:The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity
... We attempt to quantify the aggregate gains and losses for the U.S. economy from immigration. If the average impact on employment and income per worker is positive, this implies an aggregate “surplus” from immigration. In other words, the total gains accruing to some U.S.-born workers are larger than the total losses suffered by others.
Figures 1 and 2 show the response of key economic variables to an inflow of immigrants equal to 1% of employment. Figure 1 shows the impact on employment of U.S.-born workers and on average income per worker after one, two, four, seven, and ten years. Figure 2 shows the impact on the components of income per worker: physical capital intensity, as measured by capital per unit of output; skill intensity, as measured by human capital per worker; average hours worked; and total factor productivity, measuring productive efficiency and technological level. Some interesting patterns emerge:
First, there is no evidence that immigrants crowd out U.S.-born workers in either the short or long run. Data on U.S.-born worker employment imply small effects, with estimates never statistically different from zero. The impact on hours per worker is similar. We observe insignificant effects in the short run and a small but significant positive effect in the long run. At the same time, immigration reduces somewhat the skill intensity of workers in the short and long run because immigrants have a slightly lower average education level than U.S.-born workers.
Second, the positive long-run effect on income per U.S.-born worker accrues over some time. In the short run, small insignificant effects are observed. Over the long run, however, a net inflow of immigrants equal to 1% of employment increases income per worker by 0.6% to 0.9%. This implies that total immigration to the United States from 1990 to 2007 was associated with a 6.6% to 9.9% increase in real income per worker. That equals an increase of about $5,100 in the yearly income of the average U.S. worker in constant 2005 dollars. Such a gain equals 20% to 25% of the total real increase in average yearly income per worker registered in the United States between 1990 and 2007.
The third result is that the long-run increase in income per worker associated with immigrants is mainly due to increases in the efficiency and productivity of state economies. This effect becomes apparent in the medium to long run. Such a gradual response of productivity is accompanied by a gradual response of capital intensity...
(Some interesting explainations for these patterns are in the articleTo better understand this mechanism, it is useful to consider the following hypothetical illustration. As young immigrants with low schooling levels take manually intensive construction jobs, the construction companies that employ them have opportunities to expand. This increases the demand for construction supervisors, coordinators, designers, and so on. Those are occupations with greater communication intensity and are typically staffed by U.S.-born workers who have moved away from manual construction jobs. This complementary task specialization typically pushes U.S.-born workers toward better-paying jobs, enhances the efficiency of production, and creates jobs. This task specialization, however, may involve adoption of different techniques or managerial procedures and the renovation or replacement of capital equipment. Hence, it takes some years to be fully realized.
This was reported in few media outlets.... Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.
... Consistent with previous research, the analysis finds no significant effect of immigration on net job growth for U.S.-born workers in these time horizons. This suggests that the economy absorbs immigrants by expanding job opportunities rather than by displacing workers born in the United States.
There are no evidence that shows on the state-national scale, that immigrants causes native-born-Americans to lose jobs. Exactly the opposite. Immigrants create jobs for American workers.... A new study suggests a causal link between an influx of foreign workers and economic growth. According to the San Francisco Fed, states with high numbers of recent immigrant workers had higher productivity, more hiring, and better wages than states with few new foreign workers. Every one percent increase in immigration amounted to a 0.5% increase in workers’ income.
Immigration is good for the American workers- more jobs, higher wages- economic growth. This is a proven fact.
Last edited by WFCY; 09-01-2010 at 12:48 PM.
"Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad."
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.
President
whoever said immigrants weren't good for the country business etc...?
Vice President
Don't recall anyone here trying to say otherwise.Originally Posted by WFCY
"The spirit must be the firmer, the heart the bolder,
courage must be the greater as our might fails"
Few people argue against immigration, because most people realize it's a good thing.
However, illegal immigration needs to be stopped...
Town Council Member
funny that americans can't work in mexico ,thereby depriving the mexican people of all the "economic benefits."...
mexicans wrote the book on double standards when it comes to immigration legal or otherwise.
funny you never mention the number of ex-pats living and working in mexico , mejico..
try living there illegally or working ,even better and then open your MOUTH!
Last edited by count markovall; 09-01-2010 at 04:08 PM.
President
Funny how people always think "Mexican" when they see the word immigrant.
There is about 8-10 million American expats working and living overseas (State Department), this is not including the nearly half a million GI's deployed on foreign soil all accross the globe (Heritage Fund/Globalsecurity.org), who are getting their bases subsidized by the locals. Just cause you're ignorant and have double standards against Mexicans does not mean things don't also happen the other way around. It does.
The research clearly uses the term "immigrant" to include both the legal and the illegal.
If an illegal immigrant commits no crime other than entering/staying in the country illegally, then there is very little credence attributed to the economic arguments against them, since no extra money needs be spent on them than any other legals and citizens, and they provide just as much productivity. You are basically against them on the sole grounds that laws were written in ways that excluded their legitimate existence.
Btw, in 2000, incarceration rate for immigrants was just one-fifth the rate for the population as a whole, according to Kristin Butcher and the Washington Post.
Suppose the hero of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, were to have another immigrant amnesty again, then I guess you would be A-Okay with these immigrants all of a sudden?
Maybe you can have a go at the skeptics of your own thread Imp:
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/cult...migration.html
Or if that does not answer your questions, how about this thread, the op, for example:
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/econ...love-tell.html
or ask say, Forplay, amongst others, what he thinks of them in this thread:
Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year
I don't need to go into the media, Lou Dobbs and all that, too easy. This website has enough clowns to help you refresh your memories.
There was a long exchange between Ernie and OSB on this too (u all know how search button works on this site I hope). The conception that immigrants steal jobs is pretty well rooted here, as it is elsewhere. I don't think it's a non-issue like you guys wanted to paint.
Last edited by WFCY; 09-01-2010 at 04:02 PM.
"Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad."
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.
Then it's flawed, and unworthy of consideration...
Why would you think that?Suppose the hero of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, were to have another immigrant amnesty again, then I guess you would be A-Okay with these immigrants all of a sudden?
Unlike non-thinking libs, I'm able to take issue with those I may agree with on other issues. No one, regardless of party, would ever have my support for amnesty...
Last edited by noahath; 09-01-2010 at 09:35 PM. Reason: removal of bait
President
Yes, you are definitely not in the league of non-thinking libs with that very thoughtful insight...
"Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad."
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.
Secretary of Defense
I dont know anyone opposed to immigration, as it is what makes AMERICA great..
Illegal immigration on the hand, does not..
“Are vital U.S. interests more imperiled by what happens in Iraq where were have 50,000 troops, or Afghanistan where we have 100,000, or South Korea where we have 28,000 -- or by what is happening on our border with Mexico?...What does it profit America if we save Anbar and lose Arizona?”
P, Buchanan
http://faceswaps.files.wordpress.com...ke-it-rain.gif
Exactly.
Non-thinking libs swallow that shit up.
Anyone whose IQ exceeds their shoe size, though, would be quick to acknowledge the very definite flaw...
County Executive
Well, I would ask why they wouldn't make that distinction. The opposition is clearly to illegal immigration, not legal immigration. To add legal immigration to the mix is silly.
Seems like voodoo science to me.
President
Can't agree with you more here.
Those shit-swallowing-non-thinking libs
I mean, anyone with an IQ that has a physical size that exceeds their shoe, or their shoes (assuming they are not pirates), would be quick to see how in macro-economics, differences between immigration status makes a world of differences when it comes to calculations of productivity and contribution to the economic pie! It's like how whether a cat has its own litter or shares with other cats, must be taken into account for its overturning impacts, when computing the gravitational forces of the moon Oberon.
"Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad."
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.
Town Council Member
how many ex pats working or living illegally in mexico answer the question! king of the double standard!
President
The difference is an amnesty. I am only speaking of illegals who have committed no crime other than their immigration status- U make the illegals legal, problem solved. They are just immigrants altogether. When you look at the report given this assumption, the result does not change at all.
"Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad."
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.
President
Didn't know there is a King for that as well, we have way too many monarchs on this Hemisphere honestly- does he work in Mexico? Is he American? Or is he more like, someone who asks stupid questions believing them to answer stuff that he could not answer?
"Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad."
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks