--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But, even with the immigration, the increase in the > labor supply has slowed > down. So, I'd argue that, instead of looking at how > fast the labor supply > has grown since '80, we should ask why the increase > in the demand for > labor has slowed down so much since 1980. > > Dan M.
Yes, the total increase in the labor supply has slowed down. But the _nature of that increase_ has changed. That is, the earlier increase was largely endogenous and thus made up of more-skilled laborers than the current labor pool (as children are generally better educated than their parents in the United States), and most of that which was not was high-skilled immigrants (i.e., my parents). The post-1980 growth was mostly _exogenous_ (a product of immigration) and mostly low-skilled. The composition of the labor pool affects income distribution at least as much as the total _size_ of the labor pool. An immigration policy that was (for example) designed to minimize income inequality would focus on maximizing the number of high-skilled immigrants and minimizing the number of low-skilled immigrants. It is both intuitively logical and supported by empirics (Borjas) that droppin millions (literally) of low-skilled workers into the labor pool would drastically impact people at the bottom of the labor market and (in real terms) _increase_ the income of people at the top of the labor market. Which is, of course, exactly what happened. Furthermore, the large number of illegal immigrants - people willing to work, effectively, for below the minimum wage - creates a further downward pull on low-skilled workers incomes, further exacerbating the income inequality problem. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
