Paul Krugman wrote yesterday that Donald Trump's decision to kill DACA was a "moral obscenity." But, on simple economic grounds, it's stupid:
First note that whatever you think about the economics of less-educated immigrants — most of the evidence suggests that they don’t depress wages, but that’s another discussion — none of it applies to DREAMers. Their educational and behavioral profile, as Cato notes, doesn’t resemble the average immigrant, let alone the average undocumented immigrant; they look like H-1B visa holders, that is, skilled immigrants we have specifically allowed in because they help the economy.
Beyond that, DREAMers are young — which means that they help the economy in not one but two big ways, because they mitigate the economic problems caused by an aging population.
One of those problems is fiscal: as the population ages, there are fewer working-age members contributing taxes to pay for Social Security and Medicare. A cohort of relatively high-wage, highly motivated people mostly in their 20s, likely to pay lots of taxes for decades, is exactly what the doctor ordered to make that issue less severe.
Beyond that, sending dreamers home will cause "a sharp slowdown in the growth of the working-age population, which
means less incentive to invest in structures, factories, and more. (The
demographic issue is why Japan, with low fertility and great hostility
to immigration, entered a zero-rate regime a decade before the rest of
us.)
Every time Donald Trump opens his mouth, he says something stupid. But his actions prove that this supposedly smart business man is an economic ignoramus.
Image: justplainpolitics.com
14 comments:
Owen, you got it right yesterday with, "He's simply a mean old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn." That should be the end of the story. Unfortunately, this mean old man is President of the United States of America.
A slight side trip here, Owen. When wondering how we got here I can't help thinking that the original Confederate states plus Texas and Arizona are holding the rest of the US to ransom.
Certainly the Republican base is in the South along with Texas and Arizona, Toby. Unfortunately, the Republicans have been able to leverage their influence in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania -- which Trump won by a total of 77,000 votes. Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. But Trump won the election by 77,000 votes.
Moving on this Dreamer class is just another way of hollowing out the American state, weakening the nation at the very moment it badly needs reinforcement. This should make all Canadians, especially those who represent us in Ottawa, very anxious. Should but it won't.
In addition to the Krugman's point, it makes no economic sense to use public money to educate and support 800,000 Dreamers from childhood to adulthood, then deny the American treasury its return on investment by deporting them.
Cap
Absolutely true, Cap. Americans have invested heavily in the dreamers. It makes no sense to throw that investment away. But, then, the president is a serial bankrupt.
During the Vietnam War, we accepted all kinds of American refugees, Mound. Most of them were well educated and became model citizens. The lesson is pretty clear.
The United States of America is over. The agonies and death rattles are yet to come but the country is over.
It certainly appears that the country's best times are behind it, Dana -- which explains Trump's appeal to a mythical Golden Age.
I am with Trump on this one. We can not take in everybody and we have a process. If we do not enforce the que rules its chaos.
These folks have been in the country for 10-20 years, Steve. And they didn't come on their own volition. Should they be punished for what their parents did?
Economic ignoramus' flock together.
And what's this "we" shit?
Is Steve a child? Is that the issue? Or just an ignorant loudmouth?
He really belongs on Breitbart.
Long time people should have a path to citizenship. But there needs to be a law.
How about listening to the Repug politicians who support the measure and their apologists, now spewing the "nation of laws" blather on this one? That's a treat. If it's law enforcement that concerns them, then they should go after the American firms and citizens who over the past several generations have employed (or have assisted in promoting and maintaining the model) all the undocumented migrants in both the informal and not-so-informal economies, including but not limited to those that dragged their children along for the ride. That's just for starters.
Make a few deals with some of the undocumented and get the evidence required to go after the kingpins and peripheral miscreants. The law provides for it. If it's acceptable for all the other crooks, then why not for the good corporations and citizens who made possible and benefitted from this massive human trafficking operation? After all, they didn't have much of a problem keeping most Canadian wetbacks out after Simpson-Mazolli. But then again, the Canadians weren't looking for a shot at killing chickens or eviscerating hogs for the right guys, lining up on street corners for a few informal daily dollars from the local entrepreneurs, or helping other wealth creators bust the unions in the construction trades.
It's always easier to blame the victims - and even easier to trash them. Or their kids. Besides, the exchanges advanced through the interaction of diverse cultures in our workplaces can stimulate valuable economic vibrancy and dynamism.
Thieves, liars and hypocrites.
Your last sentence summarizes your argument, John. And you're right. It's always easier to blame the victims. Those with money get their way.
Post a Comment