The last thing that is needed is for the site to point fingers and call one a racist. Just opposing illegal immigration does not make one a racist in any one. That doesn't mean there aren't racists who oppose such a violation of the law (And that is where the term "illegal" comes from, breaking US border law).

It's easy to tag someone something. We get caught up in the situation. I, for example, oppose the transaction tax, yet I'm told I hate all taxes. That isn't true, and honestly we should be above such things. So Robert is right, let's try and keep things civil.

The money is spend inside the USA. Goods and services and payroll and taxes. Illegals or not, there is always the low end of the labor pool that will need these services.
What's the price of grape jelly? Take out the low end labor and recaculate the price.
That's not what worries me. California's economy falling into the Pacific Ocean does.
If Greece defaults what's our exposure? I don't hear Golum-Sacks screaming for more just in case they didn't have that hedged or counter partied. So, my best guess is pretty low.
If the wonderful left coast hits the skids? Then what? It will make Greece look like a Sunday walk in the park.
I don't think we have enough troops stationed in California to keep the peace when the debit cards for food stamps stop being accecpted. How many cops are going to come to work when they find themselves on a rotating furlough list to stop the looters?
For those worried about racism, start counting gangs in LA. That's what the Arnold sweats about.
That's what worries me.

This is what I want off of this site:

On DK and other sites that's what goes on, i.e. if you are not for "comprehensive immigration reform" as written you are....a racist xenophobe....if one is not for unlimited migration in the U.S., regardless of what else is happening....you are...
a racist xenophobe. It doesn't matter what's going on in U.S. labor markets, any mention on labor econ realities....
you are a racist xenophobe.

This same mind numbing information void mantra is front paged all over the place and you cannot even analyze a bill without attack.

It's a mind numbing mantra that's used to shut down any analysis, discussion or labor econ realities assuredly, on this topic.

Ok, so you weren't going there, good and I apologize.

That's the #1 thing I want to keep off of the site, that name calling and "troll hunting" misinformation campaign filled with fictional stats and well, they are really akin to lobbyists' papers...claims, both sides.

Same as I don't want lobbyists "white sheets" or think tank stooges papers on the site.

Maybe you misunderstand what I'm after, because I am aware this is just an agenda, these groups are inane in their name calling.....it's that tactic specifically.

Happy holidays from the federal government:

This dialogue on ‘name-calling’ dovetails with my dialogue with RO about ‘personalities’ over at “Instapopulist - GDP’s massive downward revision”.

It is interesting because it goes to the heart of the meaning of ‘social’ science. Since the rise of cheap mega computer power that has made enormous amounts of data available instantly and computation and graphics easy, there has been a propensity to make social science into a de facto natural science.

From time to time, as in these two dialogues, the reality that social sconce is not dealing with rocks and other inanimate objects flies into our face. What I and, if I under stand him correctly, midtowng are saying is that you cannot factor out the human factor in economics. If all you do is statistics, then all you will do is describe. So-called inferential statistics is nothing more than predicating future descriptions based on passed descriptions.

Economics is essential a behavior science. Economic statistics describe aggregate human behavior. Accordingly, if one wants to transcend descriptions, both observed and predicted, then one must introduce behavior (psychological) variables. In part this is difficult because of the inherit complexity of human behavior. Also, in part, language used to describe human behavior is equivocal and often laced with pejorative connotations; e.g. ‘illegal aliens.’

I certainly agree with RO's efforts to eliminate what he calls ‘slander’ and ‘racist’ discussion. But, I THINK he may have a tendency to ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’, so to speak. Emphasis on ‘think’! This is a complex problem and commenting in a blog does not lend itself to perfect expression of complex ideas.

Nevertheless, in general, I would say that any blog that’s limited to statistics will make for ‘an interesting read’, as they say in journalism, but will not rise to the scientific level of causality and social change. Any causal hypotheses that lacks behavioral variables is meaningless in social (behavior) science e.g. economics.

Having said that, my compliments and appreciation to Robert Oak: I know of no other place on the net or in print for that matter were this type of epistemological discussion can take place.

Best

I just reread some of your last post and noticed you're talking about your own personal history and some sort of reactionary something to some sort of family background.

So, here's mine. Originally I believed one should have unlimited migration and didn't see the big deal....until two things happened...I was sitting in corporate board meetings with an agenda to labor arbitrage workers and yes, through immigration, as well as outsourcing....as which I point, even then I kind of didn't really clue in...I still didn't really get it and just assumed these would be additional personnel....they didn't seriously intend on firing their over 40 PhDs with those kind of patent portfolios and offshore outsource their research...no way! (oops, wrong!)

Then, in my professional area, this executive agenda started to become a pattern....corporation after corporation I started seeing and hearing this was a plan.... and I kind of said....hmmmmmm.....and started really studying....and then formal study, labor econ study....and realized what a variable labor supply actually is.

which is one of the points of EP, it's not to deny statistical reality because someone wishes it so.

So, the point is to focus in on these economic realities and simply not go by something one's parents did or some predefined belief one has.

So often deep analysis will challenge beliefs, even in scientific beliefs one can be challenged and must keep an open mind.

I simply am saying no, because someone doesn't subscribe, conclude or want or whatever some unlimited migration/immigration policy....one cannot name call them racist xenophobes. That's it and I'm pointing it out because this is a notorious political tool to advance a special interest agenda and on EP we don't do that name calling crap to people additionally or deny economic realities. We're not DK.

Claiming all are racist is not valid, I'm sorry and I personally work in an international community so I know it's just not valid.

So, just because your parents were racists (or determined to be in your mind) does not mean all folk who do not agree with unlimited migration/immigration are therefore racists.

See the logic flaw in that conclusion? I hope so.

Last I checked labor economists or those starting their first course study, didn't suddenly look at a few equations and graphs and somehow a magic spell was cast upon them and they grew white sheets with the eyes cut out and burning white crosses grew out of their asses.

;)

We're not going there on this name calling scream fest. That's your opinion, but I'm sorry, it's not labor econ fact.

First of all, I haven't done any name calling or screaming, nor have I gotten anywhere close to it. So I take offense that you are implying that I am. I've been very measured with my responses. It was you that brought up immigration in this thread, not I.

But the big problem I see here is a more basic one - you are trying to take the politics out of the economics.
I understand that this blog is about economics, but it is also populist.

is a type of political-social thought which juxtaposes "the people" with "the elites"

Immigration is as much a political subject as an economic on. Racism is a political subject. You can't talk about immigration without addressing the subject of racism. At least you can't talk about it honestly.

Today's school of economics has the same problem. Economics today is taught like a math class. The whole idea of identifying and treating the productive part of the economy separate from the non-productive part of the economy is gone. Now all economic activity is treated the same, unlike how classical economics was once taught.
You can't be progressive in a math class. You can be progressive in an economics class, but you have to take politics into account.

I don't write all those labor history essays just because I enjoy history. I write them because there are lessons to be applied today.
The labor movement peaked and went into terminal decline when it decided that there was no room for a political movement.

I'm not interested in writing on a sterile economics blog. I want one with a progressive agenda.

I mean this. Not on EP. We're not going there on this name calling scream fest. That's your opinion, but I'm sorry, it's not labor econ fact.

Back to this idea that somehow anyone who doesn't believe in unlimited global migration is somehow a racist xenophobe (and yes, next comment implying this will be deleted!!)

The reason it won't work is because firstly, corporations control labor markets, secondly the world is a group of nation-states, each with it's own labor markets and laws and various immigration restrictions. 3rdly, each nation-state has a differing PPP. Some nation-states have huge labor forces and not a lot of domestic development. You simply cannot say the United States, with a labor force of about 150 million, should be the jobs market for a labor force of 1.8 billion and most of those are coming from nation-states with very low GDP/PPP.

Just look at the reunification of Germany. E. Germany had a much lower PPP and a much higher unemployment rate. What happened was it caused massive unemployment in both countries, lowered labor securities, reduced labor power, affected Germany's overall PPP/GDP for a good 10 years until better equilibrium could be achieved. They still have problems from this.

Same reason EU took so much time homogenizing their member countries so they would not have a sudden labor market flow....and only then did they liberalize their migration laws...and it's only w/in EU member states again for the reasons above and they all have pretty strong labor laws to begin with, very close GDP/PPP (in comparison to 3rd world).

Also, one can end up with forced migration. Now what economic model is this? Slavery.

We already have corporations routinely, just the other day they are recommending further reduction of labor costs to weather the storm due to slow economic growth. i.e. more layoffs, more job losses.

On the flip side to this, almost every other nation-state on Earth put's it's citizens first for jobs. i.e. an American cannot just walk into India, China, Germany, and esp. Mexico and get a job.

So, you are advocating for a massive supply influx and there is not a reciprocal out flux for Americans to escape the resulting race to the bottom on wages. On top of it, that implies Americans, would be forced to reduce their quality of life, standard of living as it would for most of the high PPP nation-states as this "came into equilibrium" (i.e. cheap labor everywhere)

Labor econ is a legitimate economics topic and it's massive because labor supply has a strong effect on an economy. So does population as well as global population.

These are just economic realities....this isn't some grand conspiracy to hate certain sectors of the global population and that's pretty absurd too, since America and Americans means, black, brown, purple, disabled, women, older, younger, etc. with all sorts of ethic roots.

So, while it seems grand the free movement of people's is precisely why MNCs want it, because they will control it....and some nation-states with labor oversupply want it....because once again, it helps their GDP by transferring entire market sectors as well as remittances.
Mexico is remittances, India is capturing services, China is capturing manufacturing....
They are not advocating that so people can demand more labor rights, higher wages, of course not. They understand they can manipulate labor supply on steroids with such an agenda.

So, if one wants to do such a thing there are a host of infrastructures that would need to happen first, else you will have a labor supply disaster...
i.e. global union with a lot of power, in every single labor market. Every nation, every single one, would have to have equal social safety nets, labor laws, minimum wage requirements to ensure corporations could not play nation-states against each other to find the cheapest exploitable labor. If one wanted to have a "guaranteed jobs" program (an idea running around) one would have to have this implemented globally, every country, else once again, one would create in one nation-state with limited resources, limited # of jobs that economy could support....and have 1.8 billion people demanding those jobs.

It's just like a Tobin tax. It won't work unless it's global....if one nation only does it...well, the flow just goes elsewhere.

It's like a bunch of pipes....you cannot have "spigot off" around the globe and have "spigot on" in just one nation-state and not expect to have very serious consequences.

Then, firstly racism is just not an strictly econ topic, but even more this is rhetoric SCREAMED continually from special interest groups, so labor econ/migration flows/immigration related topics simply cannot be discussed rationally. It also implies that somehow only America can have that sort of characteristic, which currently and historically isn't valid.

But the biggest reason is the use of this to shut down any objective analysis, discussion, based on sound labor econ.

There are plenty of other sites which will scream this from the rooftops and that's yet another reason to not go there. We are an econ 24/7 site, not a screaming rhetoric devoid of objective, well founded analysis, which demands one at least crack a labor econ text.

because the claim they add to the economy is not true. What is true when one floods the labor market you will lower wages for natives. That's been shown over and over and over, including the 1800's or just look at the Germany reunification or China, India or any nation which has a sudden influx.

This is labor econ 101, take any text, from Borjas to Samuelson and you will see that the law of supply and demand, all else static holds and it's held throughout history.

If you look at the Miami study, which is an anomaly, what you find is in certain conditions it will appear that way but it's actually other factors. The real estate boom and job boom in the 1980's, believe this or not, was fueled by drug money.

So, no we're not going there on this site, trying to claim that somehow the law of labor economics is false AND trying to claim any discussion of this is racist to obfuscate labor econ.

You know I am aware of union history but you forget the fact that first they had to be exploited and then it took almost 100 years to get somewhere.....and ignoring the fact that (wrongly obviously by the type of restrictions done of course) but they changed immigration in the 1920's which did limit labor supply.

We have on this site, everything from full bore open borders beliefs to full bore "deport 'em all" beliefs....

so there is no way I want these name calling things on the site. It is real, immigration does indeed affect wage levels, labor markets and even EPI, right at the moment is wrestling with these economic realities. As you know EPI is the think tank for the AFL-CIO.