Um...

Mickey Kaus demands crow:

Didn't Kevin Drum and other leftish bloggers sneer when I suggested that rising unskilled wages were in the offing? I think they did! ... How much do the people who serve crow make?

The only trouble is that Kaus hasn't provided any evidence of any unusual increase in wages for the unskilled driven by a recent immigration crackdown. The fact that states featuring high levels of job growth are seeing wages go up seems utterly unremarkable. Jared Bernstein's review of the most recent BLS data -- not designed to prove any particular point about immigration -- indicates that nothing in particular is happening: "Hourly wages continue to grow around 4.0% per year—up 3.9% in July compared to last year — and the jobless rate has hovered between 4.4% and 4.6% since last September. Thus, underlying conditions in the job market do not appear to have changed markedly this year."

As of July (i.e., before the recent problems in the world of high finance), in other words, the economy had been growing moderately in 2007 just as it was in 2006, and so wages were growing at a moderate pace.

Comments

Word to the wise: if you never read Kaus, you never have to evaluate the reasonableness of or otherwise respond to his demands. Plus, it puts you in very select company; i.e. everybody else on the planet minus like four people.

Posted by norbizness | August 26, 2007 11:54 PM

What exactly is a "Leftish Blogger" is that like an "Elvish Logger"?

F-you, Kaus. You want to rewrite reality to fit your pre-existing belief in how it should be, that's fine. It makes you another untethered republican drifting in a false fantasy. But don't complan if I mock you for being a fool.

Posted by Jim | August 26, 2007 11:58 PM

Kaus is a closet republican.

But his economic intuition is right. Undocumented aliens compete with native unskilled and manual workers. Just look at the restaurant, construction and landscaping trades among many others. To the extent aliens are forced to leave the country or are unable to work because of more intense enforcement of the immigration laws the supply of unskilled labor is decreased and wages should rise.

Posted by chew2 | August 27, 2007 12:01 AM

"But his economic intuition is right. Undocumented aliens compete with native unskilled and manual workers. Just look at the restaurant, construction and landscaping trades among many others. To the extent aliens are forced to leave the country or are unable to work because of more intense enforcement of the immigration laws the supply of unskilled labor is decreased and wages should rise."

The problem is that this is a rather first best world analysis. There is a lot of noise in the data and feedback effects that make the total effects unclear. Also, it costs money to increase the reach of the state to enforce stricter immigration laws. That money has to come from somewhere.

Posted by Reality Man | August 27, 2007 12:14 AM

It staggers the mind to the believe that the U.S. can absorb huge numbers of incoming new low income workers year after year and somehow this will not cause more competion for low income jobs and drive those wages down, or at least keep them from rising as fast as they otherwise would. Why does Mathew think that Bush and all his rich business friends want plentiful immigration? Does he really think that it is because Bush's circle of friends is filled with compassionate souls filled with empathy for poor Mexicans who want to better their lives? Could it just possibly be because these employers know that plentiful new immigrant labor for them means nice low wages keeping their labor costs down?

I realize that the Democrats and liberals want to be on the side of underdog immigrants coming into America. I also understand they want to be on the side of the underdog low paid American worker. It is unfortunate that in the area of liberal immigration policies what helps one of these groups hurts the other, but that is the way it is. The honest way is to deal with this is recognize that and make your choice, realizing there is a cost either way. The much more convenient way is to pretend that somehow the usual economic rule that more competition to sell a good now in greater supply drives down the price has been magically repealed (though somehow the large employers of these labor suppliers who are fighting for more immigration are too stupid to notice this).

The ability of Democrats in this one area to believe what is politically convenient for them rather than what is, well, obvious, fully matches the ability the Republicans during the time of Bush have shown to do the same on other issues.

Posted by Counterfactual | August 27, 2007 12:37 AM

Mickey's particularly focused on Southern California, where there have been a lot of help wanted signs in shop windows and a lot of offers of high single digit wages for entry level jobs like fast food. One of the things that is happening is that LA has gotten so insanely expensive due to the real estate bubble that a lot of illegal aliens have been leaving for cheaper, less crowded parts of America with better schools.

Nationally, I suspect, however, that the popping of the real estate bubble will have a downward impact on wages as illegal aliens get laid off from the construction jobs that they have taken in such vast numbers in this decade. Whether that will balance the upward effect of better law enforcement (assuming it is better) against illegal immigration remains to be seen.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 27, 2007 12:43 AM

Restricting immigration for the sake of propping up wages is a really crappy attempt at central planning. Protectionism for wages has the same negative effects as protectionism for steel, or corn or cars.

Posted by shecky | August 27, 2007 12:47 AM

I'd strongly agree with Counterfactual's analysis. I think the underlying problem is that it's part of human nature to avoid making "hard choices" or picking between conflicting goals.

And that's pretty much the explanation that Krugman gave a year or two ago about why he'd spent years avoiding the obvious implications of the immigration issue.

Posted by RKU | August 27, 2007 12:59 AM

In the world of online punditry, there are two pure, rock solid morons. Their names are Jeff Goldstein and Mickey Kaus. But as far as I can tell, no one is paying Jeff.

Amazingly, people like Kevin Drum, Yglesias, and even JMM still link to Kaus. Almost as if he ever made a coherent statement or a point worth noting. It's fascinating, really. He's like Tom Friedman on acid.

Posted by HeavyJ | August 27, 2007 1:03 AM

Well, at least it gave Kaus another excuse to use an exclamation point.

Posted by BruceMoomaw | August 27, 2007 1:28 AM

If immigration is sufficiently curtailed then wages for some low-end jobs will go up, while other such jobs will be eliminated. The balance could be anywhere from almost al low-end jobs are eliminated and little to no wage increase occurs, to all low-end jobs are maintained and wages go up significantly. I'm sure that there are many contradictory studies purporting to show the precise effects of different levels of immigration enforcement.

The question here is whether the modest - that is, pathetic - efforts to stem immigration taken to date have had any such wage effects. Kaus says yes; he appears as usual to be wrong.

Posted by Bloix | August 27, 2007 2:32 AM

Really, because in the field I was in until recently, we were paid hourly and didn't see a pay increase for ten years.

Posted by Thomas | August 27, 2007 4:02 AM

so wait... wages are going up? shouldn't this mean there are fewer jobs available?

that's what all the amateur economists tell us will happen, when wages go up - due to an increase in the minimum wage, for example.

Posted by cleek | August 27, 2007 7:00 AM

That you take Kaus seriously says something about you. By all means read his stuff. It's unadulterated junk. Mickey Kaus tries to take the Mickey out of the Left. Ignore the bum. He hasn't used his brains in a while.

Posted by Alan | August 27, 2007 7:55 AM

Counterfactual makes a good argument. But it could be that the choices are not as stark. Supply of labor is one factor but not necessarily the only one.

For example some people claim that immigrant workers tend to work 'harder' and are more dedicated. I know some folks who run small businesses (stores and such) and they prefer to hire immigrants primarily due to their (as they claim) work ethic. I have no way of knowing if they are illegal, but I am guessing at least some are. The owners claim (and I have no way to confirm this either) that they do not underpay their immigrant workers. However they may be saving on employment taxes for illegals so I guess the overall cost is lower.

Focusing too much on supply might be missing the demand side of the equation. It could be that in a tight labor market demand was primarily driving illegal immigration. As someone above suggested, the cooling of the housing market might materially impact demand for such labor.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | August 27, 2007 8:55 AM

I don't get this link between wages and immigration. We saw a HUGE increase in the number of illegal immigrants crossing our border after we passed NAFTA.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm

Yet this boom, which started in 1995, corresponded with the late 90's wage boom. If there's really a significant causal link between the number of illegals in the US and low end wages how do you explain the boom in low end wages during the second Clinton term? It seems to me that to the extent there is any link between immigration and low end wages it's a very small link.

Posted by citizen (world) | August 27, 2007 10:02 AM

But his economic intuition is right. Undocumented aliens compete with native unskilled and manual workers. Just look at the restaurant, construction and landscaping trades among many others. To the extent aliens are forced to leave the country or are unable to work because of more intense enforcement of the immigration laws the supply of unskilled labor is decreased and wages should rise."

Reality Man - The problem is that this is a rather first best world analysis. There is a lot of noise in the data and feedback effects that make the total effects unclear. Also, it costs money to increase the reach of the state to enforce stricter immigration laws. That money has to come from somewhere.

No, it is basic economic theory 101 about the very simplest and easiest to understand resource-supply-demand arguments.

The argument that low wage illegals constribute more than they take from the US economy has been demolished by factoring medical and school costs and a panapoly of other social services already accessed by illegals. Then add in that the profits from illegals suppressing wages tends to go to very rich people who reside outside the communities ravaged by the cost of illegal immigrants, wealthy who do not pay taxes on each dollar they get at the rate of middle class Americans.
That means they escape the costs of their illegal workforces in their swank neighborhoods and foist the tax burden on the communities and "host states" that have to pay for 300 new illegal children showing up at the local school, the 50 illegals a day sucking up Emergency Room and obstetrics resources for free, and the 25-30% additions into the court and policing/prison systems.

The Lefty argument that a 2 billion dollar fence is far too expensive while a 1.2 trillion bill on taxpayers for illegals services is "easily absorbed" and worth it for the diversity and multiculturalism they gift America with is ridiculous. The Lefty Open Borders crowd that talks of the huge price of "enforcing America's immigration laws" not only ignore how cheap it is on the system when parasites and scumbags in the illegal system can just be deported rather than suck up money in the justice system, or the savings if illegals use Mexican schools and hospitals...There is worse.
They ignore the huge societal price the USA will pay if all Americans accept that the rule of law can be broken like employers and illegals do, if there is personal gain or convenience achieved by doing so, and no downside.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 27, 2007 11:48 AM

Here's a very interesting list for everyone to consider:

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/race_industry/laraza_contributors.html

Note that that group had, per the WaPo, "VirtualVetoPower" over provisions in the Bush/Kennedy amnesty.

Similiar interesting links exist between WesternUnion (a company that profits mightily from IllegalImmigration) and those linked to the Dems.

Posted by TLB | August 27, 2007 12:40 PM

Kaus is that guy who writes for that online magazine that self-referentially recycles the CW, right?

Posted by Kimmitt | August 27, 2007 1:47 PM

First you have to prove immigration is down!

Until then, it's just a lot of jibber-jabber.

Posted by American Citizen | August 27, 2007 4:02 PM

citizen (world)- If there's really a significant causal link between the number of illegals in the US and low end wages how do you explain the boom in low end wages during the second Clinton term?

Low end wages rose because there was an economic boom driven by productivity enhancements. That swamped the wage lowering effects of massive unskilled immigration. If that unskilled immigration hadn't happened, wages probably would have risen even higher.

Posted by pjgoober | August 27, 2007 5:06 PM

First you have to prove immigration is down!

I'm glad someone got around to saying this.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | August 28, 2007 12:56 PM