I wasn't using the numbers to judge presidents; I was simply explaining my use of the word "persistent."

Ah. I was confused by the way you referred to "the Obama years."

I still can't tell what your core principles are on economic issues. Only a few posts above, you had no problem with low-skilled illegal immigrants heading for the U.S. In an economy that offers fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs that pay a living wage (for a single person, let alone a family), how does it make sense to keep adding more and more low-skilled workers?

If people didn't pay them illegal (below minimum wage) wages, then they would eventually stop coming.

I don't think poor brown people who speak spanish should be punished for trying to feed their families, just because 'mericans happened to be born here here and can't figure out how "make a living wage".

The contradiction is right there in your sentence... if the "US economy offers fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs" ... why do illegal immigrants come here?

The first is that a nation that can't, or doesn't, enforce its borders isn't much of a nation.

The second is that it's repugnant for a nation to import a de facto underclass to perform low-skill jobs at cut-rate wages under almost any circumstance, and it's doubly absurd to do so during periods of persistent high unemployment.

It's not that much of a contradiction. Without a doubt, working for cut-rate wages in the U.S. often yields a better income for low-skilled illegal immigrants than they would make back home, but it doesn't yield anything resembling the lifestyle the average American has come to expect.

What part of "anti-nationalist" don't you understand?

I disagree, Joe; clearly it's better for the illegal aliens, or they wouldn't come here.

I don't see why that matters; if it's better for them, it's better for them.

Sure, but being better for them is, at best, half the equation. What's best for the U.S. also matters.

Regardless, your position is contradictory. You mentioned the lack of enforcement of the minimum wage in #603, but the minimum wage in a world without borders would be far lower than even the most exploited illegal immigrant in the U.S. receives these days.

It's better for the person who takes the job. It's better for the person who offers the job. Those are the two halves of the equation.

I really don't understand these apocalyptic notions (I'm not singling out the post I'm responding to; it's only one example of many by the anti-free-traders.) of what happens in a world of free trade, with everything ending up like a third world country.

How did we ever survive the 19th and early 20th century?

And when you have 10% of the workforce idle it is also suicidal to increase costs.

Why do you think America will be net winners anyway? Like you said we are 310 million people while over half the population of the world was oppressed for either a century or two by the west. What makes you think our way of life is sustainable?

I really don't understand these apocalyptic notions (I'm not singling out the post I'm responding to; it's only one example of many by the anti-free-traders.) of what happens in a world of free trade, with everything ending up like a third world country. ...

"Import" is indeed incorrect usage. It implies no free will of the people coming here.

Yet you keep pitching ideas that will make our way of life less sustainable.

Yet when the economy went down the flow of illegal immigrants dropped drastically.

More than three-quarters of young adults ages 25 to 34 who have moved back home with their families during the Great Recession and the troubled economic years that followed say they're satisfied with their living arrangements and upbeat about their future finances.

Would 50 million be OK? 100 million? Pretending this wouldn't have a substantial effect on the U.S. standard of living is pure fantasy, even if all 100 million were doctors and engineers.

What would it have been without the drop?

Yes, quadruple or more raise on virtually everything is sure to be much more sustainable.

High standards of living depend on relatively high density. In 60 years, factories won't be located in China because of cheap labor--they'll be located there because that's where all the customers are.

For every job that is taken by an immigrant, another is created due to the increased demand immigration supplies.

Of course, there are frictions in the job market, but that's why immigration is managed.

You argued that the economy did not drop the population of illegal immigrants.

It did and it did mightily. Before the economy went south 850,000 people a year were heading north.

It dropped to just 300,000 during the recession and total illegal immigrant population dropped by 900,000 over the two year span. That is a huge reversal of trends that had been going on since the 90's.

Wholly unsupported by facts, especially at the lowest levels of the job market.

“Our results indicate no detrimental effect of immigration. We find no support for the hypothesis that the absence of displacement effects is due to a response of native migration patterns.”

“Despite the popular belief that immigrants have a large adverse impact on the wages and employment opportunities of the native-born population, the literature on this question does not provide much support for this conclusion. Economic theory is equivocal, and empirical estimates in a variety of settings arid using a variety of approaches have shown that the effect of immigration on the labor market outcomes of natives is small. There is no evidence of economically significant reductions in native employment.”

“Using regression analysis, Addison and Worswick found that “there is no evidence that immigration has negatively impacted on the wages of young or low-skilled natives.” Furthermore, Addison’s study found that immigration did not increase unemployment among native workers. Rather, immigration decreased unemployment.

"Arguably the unsung hero of Australia's defence against the downturn has been our magnificent population growth," PKF national chairman of enterprise advisers Chris Allen said.
"People power is part of what is driving us along relative to others. Put simply, more people equal more customers, and therefore more jobs."

I just wanted to jump in as a non-American and say that when I first heard a refence to building a wall across the Mexican border (or whaever,) I assumed it was a joke at the expense of Americans. In fact, I believed this for a very long time. Only recently did I learn that it's not an anti-American joke and that there are actually people in the states who believe in this (and not just random rednecks either, but people running for president!)

I'm using the numbers from the same source you are which is Pew.

Gasp, 100,000 extra people. The horror, the horror.

So, this is really funny. You can offer zero evidence for your claims, but everyone else has the burden of proof?

I mean, here's the evidence.

Tell you what, why don't you just go ahead an email Pew tell them they are wrong then.

Without the downturn the population of illegal immigrants would be much much higher than it is now. Instead of a large yearly increase we saw a large yearly decrease for two years in a row with a third year seeing only an increase of 100,000. If you don't think that is a drastic change in the population of a group, well, oh well.

The unemployed are largely the same people that are always unemployed in America but at larger numbers. Teenagers and kids at college age and coming out of college.

Somehow I just don't see that group fighting overly hard to pick lettuce, landscape, clean toilets, or any of those other low skilled low paying jobs.

You want funny? Funny is claiming studies of immigration in Australia and Israel are somehow dispositive vis-a-vis illegal immigration in the U.S.

If you're so big on evidence, please show us some credible studies that show five or 10 or 15 low-skilled day laborers packing into a two-bedroom home and sending a third or half of their earnings back home to Mexico or El Salvador somehow creates jobs in the U.S. on a 1:1 ratio. I'd love to read some studies that claim that. I could use a good laugh.

Second, according to our calculations, during 1990–2004, immigration induced a 4 percent real wage increase for the average native worker. This effect ranged from near zero (+0.2%) for wages of native high school dropouts and between 3 and 7 percent for native workers with at least a high school diploma.

We compared the 10 states with the lowest average annual unemployment rates in the years 1980-90 with the 10 states with the highest average annual unemployment rates. The median proportion of the population that was foreign-born was 1.56% in the high-unemployment states, compared with 3.84% in the low-unemployment states. More immigrants, lower unemployment.

A person who leaves a new iPad on the seat of an unlocked car is an idiot. A wealthy country that leaves its borders wide open is equally idiotic.

Second, according to our calculations, during 1990–2004, immigration induced a 4 percent real wage increase for the average native worker.

This effect ranged from near zero (+0.2%) for wages of native high school dropouts

Here's a study originally printed in the WSJ:

Here's a good article about what happened in Alabama, which took drastic actions to reduce the population of illegal immigrants. No impact on reduction of unemployment rate.

Bingo! These are the people competing with low-skilled immigrants (legal or illegal). And you believe this proves your point? Amazing.

If you're so big on evidence, please show us some credible studies that show five or 10 or 15 low-skilled day laborers packing into a two-bedroom home and sending a third or half of their earnings back home to Mexico or El Salvador somehow creates jobs in the U.S. on a 1:1 ratio.

LOL. A liberal citing the WSJ. We're truly down the rabbit hole now. The WSJ has been the leading advocate for cheap labor since time immemorial.

Native-born workers haven't taken the ensuing jobs because the welfare state allows them not to. Not working should never, ever be a more attractive option than working, but the welfare state has perverted this concept.

Question is why aren't legal citizens that are unemployed taking these jobs? Especially in California where unemployment is so high.

It's better for the person who takes the job. It's better for the person who offers the job. Those are the two halves of the equation.

Only if you don't believe in the concept of nations and/or don't care about stagnant wages and a declining average standard of living* among low-skilled workers.

I don't deny the benefits of free trade. The problem is that not everyone can be a winner, either individually or nationally.

The U.S. started out at the top of the economic heap when free trade really started to take off a few decades ago. There have been plenty of winners in the U.S., but the winnings have disproportionately been at upper income and skill levels.

With 310 million people in the U.S. and over 7 billion people elsewhere, the majority of whom live on something like $10 per day, it's ludicrous to suggest that American workers will end up net winners if forced to compete on uneven terms with $3/day laborers elsewhere.

(* Yes, I know David objects to the word "import," but it's not an incorrect usage. Aside from the people who migrate illegally, the U.S. has continued to issue millions of work visas despite stagnant job creation.)

Yes, actually it does. [...]

Rhetoric aside, if illegal immigration has no effect to a slight positive growth on the population of HS dropouts,

and a significant positive effect on the wage growth of non-HS dropouts, then they are creating jobs on a grater than 1:1 ratio.

You are completely incoherent. You ask for evidence that immigration creates jobs. I supply it. Your counter-factual that immigration costs jobs has been tested and found false, and you ignore it.

What's more, immigration actually raises wages for non-native workers.

LOL. Your little collection of links didn't prove half of what you seem to believe it did.

If the jobs didn't improve their standard of living, they wouldn't travel thousands of miles, across just to take them.

I don't deny the benefits of free trade. The problem is that not everyone can be a winner, either individually or nationally.

Well, they can, actually.

(1) No, it hasn't. Millions? You have a overinflated idea about the number of visas there are.

(2) We're not importing them, either. I object to the word "import" because it implies that they're being brought here, as opposed to them choosing to come here. Whether they're coming here legally or illegally doesn't change that.

Again, why don't you just go ahead an email them and tell them they are wrong? The 850,000 immigrants a year is from their site.

High-water mark? You love quibbling don't you, and since I had a feeling you loved to quibble I also wrote post 630. Which is getting conveniently ignored so you can hand-wave away the entire issue because the math might be off by a few numbers.

Once again, there's no such thing as a "job Americans won't do." There are only jobs Americans won't do at cut-rate wages.

EDIT: Headed over to BLS and as of February 2012 the unemployment rate of high school dropouts is at 12.9. It has been steadily dropping for months.

While the U.S. job market is showing signs of improvement, one sizable group of workers has been falling further behind: high-school dropouts.

Some 1.8 million more college graduates have found work since January 2010, when the recovery began producing jobs, but about 128,000 high-school dropouts lost work in the same period, according to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Less than 40% of the 25 million Americans over age 25 who lack a high-school diploma are employed. And those who are working don't earn much. High-school dropouts earn about $23,400 on average, ... — WSJ, Feb. 2012

Okay, dude. I give up. Provide competing evidence. If you are unwilling or unable to accept the burden of proof, then you are a troll. I've done my best to educate you, and it's ended exactly as the last time I jumped through your hoops.

Everything in your post 352 that scans like an argument actually has no evidence.

Your implicit claim is that wage growth has no relationship to employment which is just bizarre,

and you're shifting the goalposts from illegal immigration not creating any jobs to illegal immigration not creating jobs for HS dropouts.

You've provided zero evidence for your claims, and you keep on posting annoying #### where you raise further hurdles of evidence for other people. You haven't articulated your argument clearly, and you don't engage with evidence.

By the way the processing fee on this is $380. I have no idea how many requests got denied but you're looking at over 400 million dollars in revenue. Not bad.

Were they burning it? If not then they were spending it in America while employing Americans.

I'm not sure what's odd about it. The U.S. is the wealthiest country on the planet but shares a 2,000-mile border with a Third World economy. Why wouldn't there be a wall, or at least tight border controls?

A person who leaves a new iPad on the seat of an unlocked car is an idiot. A wealthy country that leaves its borders wide open is equally idiotic.

Did the WSJ assume an erroneously high percentage of HS dropouts would want employment relative to historical norms, other educational levels, etc.? There's obviously a big gap between the 15 percent number you cited and the 50-plus percent number in the WSJ, but the gap seems unexplained.

Even more info. Of the 25 million people that haven't finished high school and are over 25 over 11.6 million of them are over the age of 55. Roughly 45% of the total pool of people. 25-34 yr olds account for 19% of the pool and 35 to 54 year olds account for 36% of the pool. Seems like given enough time this is a problem that will solve itself.

I see. Because in one case, someone might steal the iPad, while in the other case, someone might... mow your lawn. The analogy is perfect!

No one bashes the D.R. for enforcing its border with Haiti. It's odd how much acrimony is generated by the U.S. enforcing its borders (or pretending to).

Could you please do the basic math for us since this is actually in dispute.

It's in dispute that eliminating the border between the U.S. and Mexico would result in a lower average standard of living for what used to be the U.S.?

: A wealthy country bordered by a poor country will watch its standard of living decline if it doesn't enforce its borders. It's just common sense (and basic math).

There's simply no way the U.S. could merge with Mexico (pop. 100 million) and end up with the same or better standard of living.

The first statement is substantially in contention, while the second statement had not been made until you made it.

If there is no way then you shouldn't have a problem showing the basic math proves it.

What are you talking about? How are either of those two statements "substantially in contention"? (BTW, McCoy specifically asked about the U.S./Mexico issue in #674.)

if the "US economy offers fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs" ... why do illegal immigrants come here?

What he is talking abou is that nobody here has made the argument that if we didn't police our border that all 100 million Mexicans would move to the US. Thus turning your position into that is absurd.

Feel free to handwave this away.

Joe: in the first instance you were talking about border enforcement. Now you're talking about "merging." Those are different things.

I'd argue that there are jobs that will only be on offer below the minimum wage. And others that are on offer only (or primarily) at wages below what Americans are willing to do the work for.

It's generally not the case that the jobs an illegal will do would be done by a currently unemployed American.

And yet you haven't actually done any basic math or basic economics. You simply said they are and everybody is waiting for you to show us 2+2=4.

Is this another "WSJ" poll that we should ignore because it is the WSJ? But at least you've come down off the ledge and are no longer talking about having 100 million Mexicans come to America.

But you haven't actually shown that Americans would have their GDP per Capita go down. As I showed in the Germany Reunification example West Germans did not see a decline in their per capita because of the merger to a weaker economy and the East Germans saw an increase in their GDP.

Would you happen to have a link to one of them? What I found is that about a third would say they would go to America if they could. But "could" doesn't just mean legal status it means a whole host of things.

It's mathematically self-evident that averaging the two economies would yield a per capita GDP of less than $48,000.

I see. Because in one case, someone might steal the iPad, while in the other case, someone might... mow your lawn. The analogy is perfect!

It wasn't meant to be an exact analogy, but the basic point was valid: A wealthy country bordered by a poor country will watch its standard of living decline if it doesn't enforce its borders. It's just common sense (and basic math).

No one bashes the D.R. for enforcing its border with Haiti.

This whole shtick is quite strange. How much math or economics do you need beyond the population and per capita GDP numbers?

Low-skilled workers add to the U.S.'s total GDP but lower the per capita GDP. It's incredible we're even debating this. A third-grader would laugh at the idea that the "average" of 10 and 5 could somehow be 10 or higher.

This is not true, as was shown in the German example. The increased demand and reduced labor friction has a positive shock to GDP. You can't just average the two and say that's it.

Not only wasn't it an exact analogy, but it wasn't remotely an analogy at all; that' was the actual "basic point." In fact, the two things don't have the slightest thing to do with each other; in one case we're worried about theft and in the other case we're worried [sic] about people providing us with cheap labor.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? Obviously if you add people with lower incomes to the country, then the average income will drop. But who cares? If Americans' income doesn't drop, why would we care if the "average" does?

To put it concretely: if we have 5 people A, B, C, D, E, with incomes of 10,9,8,7,6 (average: 8) and someone from Mexico comes here and earns 2 ...