Most Economically Literate Movie of the Year

I'm not what anybody would call a movie critic, or even movie buff, but this was actually a very entertaining movie.

If you are from the Southwestern part of the U.S. you may catch yourself nodding in agreement to this flick, acknowledging the real pertinence (and delicious irony) of many of the stereotypes and popular myths used to create the sometimes hilarious situations.

If you have any background in Economics you will easily follow the movie's depiction of the argument briefly laid out here by EconLog.

I think this movie does a nice job of putting to rest some of the popular misconceptions about immigration and immigrants (both illegal and legal) in the Southwestern U.S. But I doubt many folks w/ an anti-immigration bent would ever watch this movie, or one like it.

OTOH perpaps it changed some minds...

...economically efficient policies are unpopular

I suspect much immigration into America is reluctant, and results from spectacularly inefficient policies. I refer, of course, to US trade restrictions and farm subsidies that make it difficult for third world countries to develop and prosper. It is policies like these that encourage so many of the best and brightest citizens of developing countries to abandon their homelands and in many cases their families. Some of them send remittances home, but wouldn't free trade be more efficient ...and more humane?

The comment that it is better for a computer science type to hire a minimum wage type to
take care of the children reflects the low value we give to raising our children in this society.

Is working on the assumption that all the resources we need to allocate to raising childen is a minimum wage employee a really optimal allocation of resources? In our society teachers are really just one step above minimum wage employes. Would we be better off if we allocated more resources to raising our children?

spencer,

Another well used analogy would be the world's greatest lawyer who is also the world's fastest typist. He bills at $500 an hour and can type a very long contract in just one hour. Should he hire a secretary to type the contract even though she will take 4 hours and cost $30 an hour?

Well freeing up 4 hours will allow him to bill $2000. The secretary will cost him only $120. If he types the contract himself he will only have time to bill 3 hours for $1500. Therefore he will be $380 better off hiring the secretary.

A price of something is determined by supply and demand, not its intrinsic worth. Child care is very important but there is a huge supply of people who can do a good job at it. Hence the cost of a good babysitter can be very cheap compared to the cost of a good programmer. (those in the business can correct me if I'm wrong, though, nowadays I thought programmers have taken a rather large cut from the Internet boom days)>..

The reason that there is a big supply of baby sitters at low wages is because we do not make any demands on them to do anything more then babysit.

Cosnequently, every child that spends the bulk of its youth with a minimum wage employee rather than with his more intelligence and skillful mother is paying an indetermine price for the mothers freedom.

As a person not educated in economics, but physics, this is a stupid thought experiment. Why? Because it's unrealistic and far too simplistic for such a complex situation. All the Hispanics will no more instantly disappear than they instantly appeared. Stick to the basics. This is no more than a game of the "What ifs".

Having a near-illiterate foreigner raise my children so I can work is one of the stupidest, most simplistic, ideas ever. This is economics at its worst. If Caplan actually thinks that this is an economic benefit, I'd rather read Marx (at least for the laughs).

While certainly an interesting premise, I don't think A Day Without a Mexican does more than address a straw man. Many simply want the distinction about legal and illegal immigration brought back and current laws enforced. After all, what are the costs of inculcating a disrespect for the law? Others may want to see legal immigration curtailed, but I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone advocating the deportation of all Hispanic immigrants, whether legal or not. Portraying the debate over Hispanic immigration as a simple dichotomy of all or nothing, while entertaining, may not be as useful as you think.

From the WashPost article you refer to:

Donald Huddle, an economist at Rice University, estimated that undocumented immigrants paid $12.6 billion in taxes in 1996. He found, however, that such immigrants used far more in government services, such as education for their children.