David’s latest reply on illegal immigration is excellent, and I freely concede his two main points as I understand them. Namely:
1. A narrow segment of illegal workers would lose in the short-run from legalization:
I had in mind a specific group of illegal workers who I think would have
a reasonable probability of losing their jobs if there were amnesty.
If they were just a little below the minimum wage, they could well be in
good shape. But that small group who are well below the minimum wage
could lose their jobs.
2. A narrow segment of employers of illegal workers, though none of the illegal workers themselves, would lose in the long-run from legalization:
Like Bryan, I can’t imagine many people spurning green cards. But because his original claim was about employers,
that’s not the test. The test would be this: “Is it plausible that
employers of illegal workers who are earning well below the minimum wage
would be upset if those same workers got green cards?”
David, do we have a meeting of the minds?
READER COMMENTS
David R. Henderson
Feb 15 2013 at 10:02am
@Bryan,
“David, do we have a meeting of the minds?”
On point #2, completely.
On point #1, almost. If you change your statement, “A narrow segment of illegal workers would lose in the short-run from legalization,” by adding the words “their jobs” after “lose,” then I agree. There is more to life than jobs. I think almost any worker would accept amnesty even if meant he would lose his job in the short run. Overall he would gain.
Ghost of Christmas Past
Feb 15 2013 at 12:55pm
But would a low-wage illegal immigrant accept “guest worker” legalization if it meant he would lose his job but not be eligible for tax-funded subsidies (“social spending,” “unemployment,” “SSI,” etc.)?
Earlier in this exchange between Caplan and Henderson I posted links to sober studies showing that the 1986 amnesty recipients raised their wages on average but reduced their labor force participation, arguably because they became eligible for tax-funded subsidies, and that the subsidies amnesty recipients actually did collect were very costly to other taxpayers because the amnesty recipients collected (and likely continue to collect) more in welfare payments than they paid (and likely continue to pay) in taxes!
There’s more to life than jobs, yes, especially if you anticipate some other source of support.
Eli
Feb 15 2013 at 3:01pm
Presumably that group is currently working off the books, so why wouldn’t that group just continue working off the books for below minimum wage?
David R. Henderson
Feb 15 2013 at 4:28pm
@Eli,
I answered your question.
Comments are closed.