----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:52 AM Subject: Re: Race to the Bottom
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If it does, shouldn't it be measurable? For > > example, I'd argue that > > comparing the difference between white non-Hispanic > > and white (including > > Hispanics) rise in median income to the difference > > between the white median > > income and the median income of the top 5% of white > > households could give > > us a handle on how important the increase in > > immigration is. Further, I'd > > argue that the number of poor uneducated, white, > > non-Hispanic immigrants is > > actually lower now than it was in the '50s and '60s. > > > > Is this a reasonable measurement to indicate trends? > > If not, why not? > > > > Dan M. > > First, the impact has been measured - George Borjas's > book _Heaven's Door_ attributed half of the difference > between American and German income inequality to > immigration. Second, I don't understand how your > metric would measure the impact, which comes from two > different factors. The first is the constant influx > of a large pool of largely unskilled labor (of largely > Hispanic ethnicity), which has an impact. But more > than that, the simple presence of these number of > laborers will decrease the price of low-skilled labor > for everyone, white, black, and Hispanic alike. There are several ways to adress this. But, there is also the impact that the influx has on prices. For example, one of the reasons housing is fairly inexpensive in the Houston area is the fact that many/most houses are built using illegal immigrant labor, who cost less per hour than workers at McDonalds. Compare this to areas where houses have been typically built by citizens of the US. Second, I was, mostly, adressing JDG's arguement that the growing income disparity of the last 25 years or so disappears if one only considers the income of native Americans. Third, the growth in the working age population over the last 23 years, as well as the growth of those active in the work force, is significantly smaller than the growth in the previous 23 years (I picked 23 years because I think 1980 is a natural dividing year, but if people suggest other figures, I can give them too.) In the past 23 years the working age population increased 32%, and the workforce increased 37%. In the previous 23 years, the working age population increased 49% and the workforce increased 60%. So, the difference between the decrease in income inequality over the span '57-'80 and the increase in income disparity between '80 and now cannot be attributed to the difference in the expansion of the pool of elegible workers...that difference is significant, but its in the other direction. Now, if we are comparing with Germany, then there is a better basis for this. But, I was not responding to that, instead I was responding to JDG's arguement that the increase in income disparity goes away (or at least mostly goes away) when you look only at native born Americans. So, lets look at that difference. The white median income rose 17.1% between '80 and '01 (the last year in the table). The white non-Hispanic income rose 19.7% during that same time period. There is a difference, so at least some of the disparity is due to immigrants making lower wages. However, the mean income of the top 5% rose 94% during that same time period. So, only a small fraction of the income disparity can be traced to the lower income of lower skilled recent immigrants. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
