Thread: 'Absorbing' immigrants

http://pittsburghlive.com

'Absorbing' immigrants
By Donald J. Boudreaux

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Each morning when I drive my son to school I pass a parking lot filled with Hispanics waiting for job offers. They are day laborers, eager to work. Their increasing presence throughout the United States is causing unease.

This unease has little to do with national security. Few people argue that Mexican immigrants are al-Qaida operatives here to kill us. Rather, the unease is economic -- the same unease that has long driven anti-immigrant sentiment here in America (and in Europe). People worry that immigrants "steal" jobs from Americans, drive down wages, and, generally, impoverish us.

This concern is understandable. After all, in the short run, if the number of people competing to perform a fixed number of jobs increases, wages paid to workers in these jobs will fall. That's a hardship for many workers, although one that's offset somewhat by the resulting lower prices of goods and services.

In the long run, though, the economic benefits of immigration are positive. The reason is that people in a market economy are producers. Human creativity, ingenuity and labor -- as the late Julian Simon brilliantly explained -- are the ultimate resource. As more of this ultimate resource becomes available, we all become wealthier.

This Simon-esque view of the world, of course, isn't the standard one in which people are seen almost exclusively as resource consumers. But think about it for a minute.

Not until after World War I did Uncle Sam impose general restrictions on immigrants. Because Americans' standard of living increased steadily and impressively during the time of open immigration, it is almost surely the case that this immigration contributed importantly to the growth and abundance of the U.S. economy.

So why not return to more open immigration -- say, admitting all immigrants who don't threaten national security or the public health? It worked until the 1920s.

Whenever I propose this policy, I'm told that America has changed. America is less able today than back then to absorb immigrants.

I agree that America has changed. But these changes have made us better able to absorb immigrants.

Consider that in 1915 the typical dwelling in America housed 5.63 people; today it houses fewer than half that number -- 2.37 people. Combined with the fact that today's typical dwelling is about 25 percent larger than it was a century ago, our ability to "absorb" immigrants into residential living spaces is today more than twice what it was a century ago.

As for land, even today only 3 percent of the land area of the lower 48 states is devoted to urban and suburban uses. So we still have 97 percent of this land to provide space for living, working and recreation.

And note: Since 1950, the amount of land devoted to public recreation uses and wildlife refuges has increased faster than has the amount of land devoted to urban and suburban uses. Today, the land area devoted to parks and refuges is more than seven times greater than it was in 1900. America isn't close to being crowded.

Also, we're better able to feed ourselves today, even though the amount of land used for growing crops and pasturing animals is no larger now than in 1900. Higher agricultural productivity enables farmers and ranchers to produce more output on the same amount of land.

What about workers? A measure of ability to absorb workers is capital invested per worker. Today, the amount of capital invested per worker is nine times greater than it was just after World War I. Because a worker's productivity rises when he has more capital to work with and his pay is tied closely to his productivity, workers today produce and earn more than workers during the open-borders era.

Don't lose sight of our labor market's great flexibility. It easily absorbed the 46 million women who entered the work force during the second half of the 20th century.

In many other ways America today can better absorb immigrants. For example, compared to 1920, per person today we:


have 10 times more miles of paved roads

have more than twice as many physicians

have three times as many teachers

have 540 percent more police officers

have twice as many firefighters

produce 2.4 times more oil --as known reserves of oil grow

produce 2.67 times more cubic feet of lumber -- as America's supply of lumber stands grows

have conquered most of the infectious diseases that were major killers in the past.
Fact is, America today is far wealthier, healthier, spacious and resource-rich than it was a century ago. Our ability to "absorb" immigrants is greater than ever.

My God; Absorb, where is toilet paper when you need it?

Will this do?

Consider that in 1915 the typical dwelling in America housed 5.63 people; today it houses fewer than half that number -- 2.37 people. Combined with the fact that today's typical dwelling is about 25 percent larger than it was a century ago, our ability to "absorb" immigrants into residential living spaces is today more than twice what it was a century ago.

I get the impression from the author of the article that he approves of 20 illegals living in a dwelling. It is a good thing that we should all aspire to do instead of only a few people per residence. I have a feeling the author probably lives in a large house in a gated community, and doesn't get out much. Since he has extra room he should invite all the new immigrants to live in his home.

In the long run, though, the economic benefits of immigration are positive. The reason is that people in a market economy are producers. Human creativity, ingenuity and labor -- as the late Julian Simon brilliantly explained -- are the ultimate resource. As more of this ultimate resource becomes available, we all become wealthier.

Just like in Mexico, eh. They already have an abundance of this ultimatel resource. Labor, ingenuity, etc. is only part of any finished product.

Consider that in 1915 the typical dwelling in America housed 5.63 people; today it houses fewer than half that number -- 2.37 people. Combined with the fact that today's typical dwelling is about 25 percent larger than it was a century ago, our ability to "absorb" immigrants into residential living spaces is today more than twice what it was a century ago.

So, we all will be compelled to open our home to at least one immigrant family to use up the excess space.

Not until after World War I did Uncle Sam impose general restrictions on immigrants. Because Americans' standard of living increased steadily and impressively during the time of open immigration, it is almost surely the case that this immigration contributed importantly to the growth and abundance of the U.S. economy.

I don't know for sure, but it is a pretty safe bet that the U.S. standard of living improved more during the 1924 - 1970 period when immigration was low than it did either prior or after that time period.

As for land, even today only 3 percent of the land area of the lower 48 states is devoted to urban and suburban uses. So we still have 97 percent of this land to provide space for living, working and recreation.

Zero percent of the land on the moon is devoted to urban and suburban uses. How big of a population will the moon support? It takes more than so-called "empty space" to support a population. Where does this fool think his food, lumber, and water comes from? A hint, from that 97% that he thinks is unused. I don't even know if his percentages are correct. I do know that if you subtract out deserts, mountain ranges, lakes, etc., the percentage is much less than 97%.

And note: Since 1950, the amount of land devoted to public recreation uses and wildlife refuges has increased faster than has the amount of land devoted to urban and suburban uses. Today, the land area devoted to parks and refuges is more than seven times greater than it was in 1900. America isn't close to being crowded.

The reason those parks and refuges were created was was to protect the land from human population enroachment. We didn't create 7 times the land -- just protected it. Actually there is less land available for wildlife.

Also, we're better able to feed ourselves today, even though the amount of land used for growing crops and pasturing animals is no larger now than in 1900. Higher agricultural productivity enables farmers and ranchers to produce more output on the same amount of land

Also the anhydrous ammonia fertilizer which comes from natural gas is becoming more expensive as natural gas is depleted and water for irrigation is becoming scarce due to farmers selling their water rights to cities in order to support expanding populations and aquifers are running low from excessive irrigation pumping too. Cities were originally built near the prime farm land and as cities expand, the prime farm land is the first to go. The ability to feed ourselves will not continue. Studies suggest that we won't have adequate domestic food production within thirty years and those studies are only based on population growth -- not diminished capacity for food production.

What about workers? A measure of ability to absorb workers is capital invested per worker. Today, the amount of capital invested per worker is nine times greater than it was just after World War I. Because a worker's productivity rises when he has more capital to work with and his pay is tied closely to his productivity, workers today produce and earn more than workers during the open-borders era.

That makes absolutely no sense. Capital is invested in the business, not in the worker (except for education and that is for the benefit of the business). Per worker productivity and output increased because of technology and mechanization and fewer workers were needed. Pay is determined more by supply/demand, union negotiation, and government edict not because the worker operates more capital -- capital is spent to reduce labor costs, not increase it. "workers today produce and earn more than workers during the open-border era" doesn't that state the opposite of what he is trying to argue. Or, is he saying 3 workers should be hired to do the job one can do just to make room for more immigrants.

In many other ways America today can better absorb immigrants. For example, compared to 1920, per person today we:

I don't know if his numbers are correct or not --- I doubt that they are. I do know that we certainly don't have an excess, but rather a shortage of most things he lists. Twenty-thirty years ago I could see a doctor usually the same day as requested, now it usually takes weeks to get an appointment and for a specialist it could be months. Aren't we screaming that classrooms are already overcrowded? There have been no new major discovery of oil reserves anytime recently. The concept of "peak oil" is more plausible than what this guy says and peak oil in the U.S. was around 1970, I believe, and world peak is not far away.

This guy is an idiot open borders ideologue that is twisting and distorting fact to fit his fantasy rather than looking at the facts first in order to determine his position.