White House Points to Decades-old Data on Immigration Benefits

[rangerrebew]

- Washington Free Beacon - http://freebeacon.com -



White House Points to Decades-old Data on Immigration Benefits

Posted By Daniel Wiser On November 21, 2014 @ 2:03 pm In Issues | No Comments


The White House on Friday partially relied on data from a contested decades-old study to tout the economic benefits of President Obama’s executive order on immigration.

A press release from the Obama administration argued that the president’s plan—which defers deportation and grants work permits to as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants—will modestly boost total economic output and annual wages for U.S.-born workers by 2024. His actions will also have a negligible effect on the employment rates of native workers, the release said.

Damian Paletta with the Wall Street Journal noted that the White House relied on data from its Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). Numerous studies offer conflicting evidence about the effects of immigration on the wages and employment of U.S.-born workers.


Critics will likely try and poke holes in the CEA’s findings, as it reflects a combination of anecdotal studies stretching back decades and concrete mathematical formulas.

In calculating future GDP changes, the CEA used at least two complex mathematical equations, showing, for example, how the GDP would be affected given a larger labor force as well as working-age population.

But other conclusions were based on past research. For example, its determination that the immigration changes will have “no net effect on the likelihood of employment of native workers in the long run” was based in part on a study of an influx of Cuban immigrants to Miami in 1980.

Some experts have questioned the reliability of the older Miami study. George Borjas, a leading immigration economist at Harvard University, said in a 2013 review of academic research on immigration that “cross-city comparisons do not seem to measure the labor market impact resulting from an immigration-induced supply shift.”

After examining data from 1990 to 2010, Borjas found that immigrants reduced the average annual earnings of American workers by $1,396 in the short term.

When workers are categorized by education level and age, a 10 percent increase in the size of a group (from both legal and illegal immigrants) reduces the wages of all native-born workers by 2.5 percent, according to Borjas.


Article printed from Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com

URL to article: http://freebeacon.com/issues/white-house-points-to-decades-old-data-on-immigration-benefits/

[Luis Gonzalez]

After examining data from 1990 to 2010, Borjas found that immigrants reduced the average annual earnings of American workers by $1,396 in the short term.

When workers are categorized by education level and age, a 10 percent increase in the size of a group (from both legal and illegal immigrants) reduces the wages of all native-born workers by 2.5 percent, according to Borjas.

This is like when Obama talks about reductions in the National Debt and he means that the expected rate of the growth of the debt has somewhat decreased.

Since median wage has steadily increased over the past few decades, that reduction Borjas is talking about must be a decrease in the rate of increase of the wages, not that American workers are earning less today than they did in 1990.

[Bigun]

This is like when Obama talks about reductions in the National Debt and he means that the expected rate of the growth of the debt has somewhat decreased.

Since median wage has steadily increased over the past few decades, that reduction Borjas is talking about must be a decrease in the rate of increase of the wages, not that American workers are earning less today than they did in 1990.

Adjusted for inflation, American workers ARE earning less than they did in 1990 and FAR less than they did in 1980.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.htm

Current data is only available till 2013. In 2013, the relative worth of $10,000.00 from 1990 is:

$17,800.00   using the Consumer Price Index
$16,000.00   using the GDP deflator
$18,000.00   using the unskilled wage
$19,400.00   using the Production Worker Compensation
$22,200.00   using the nominal GDP per capita
$28,000.00   using the relative share of GDP

Current data is only available till 2013. In 2013, the relative worth of $10,000.00 from 1980 is:

$28,300.00   using the Consumer Price Index
$24,100.00   using the GDP deflator
$26,800.00   using the unskilled wage
$30,600.00   using the Production Worker Compensation
$42,200.00   using the nominal GDP per capita
$58,600.00   using the relative share of GDP

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?year_source=1980&amount=10000&year_result=2014

[Luis Gonzalez]

Adjusted for inflation, American workers ARE earning less than they did in 1990 and FAR less than they did in 1980.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.htm

Current data is only available till 2013. In 2013, the relative worth of $10,000.00 from 1980 is:

$28,300.00   using the Consumer Price Index
$24,100.00   using the GDP deflator
$26,800.00   using the unskilled wage
$30,600.00   using the Production Worker Compensation
$42,200.00   using the nominal GDP per capita
$58,600.00   using the relative share of GDP

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?year_source=1980&amount=10000&year_result=2014

Ah... no.

Don't conflate wages with purchasing power.

We're discussing salary.

[Bigun]

Salary alone is a WORTHLESS indicator! It MUST be measured against purchasing power to have ANY meaning at all.!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Salary alone is a WORTHLESS indicator! It MUST be measured against purchasing power to have ANY meaning at all.!

But. This. Article. Is. Talking. About. Salary. Alone.

So go write the article that you want to write, and we can discuss that once you're done.

[Bigun]

But. This. Article. Is. Talking. About. Salary. Alone.

So go write the article that you want to write, and we can discuss that once you're done.

Yes! But I'm not playing the OBAMA administration game!

Pointing out the fact that a discussion of salary alone is worthless is highly relevant to the article posted!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yes! But I'm not playing the OBAMA administration game!

I'm addressing the point made in the article. You disagreed with me but on a point that neither I nor the article addressed.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING BIGUN.

[Bigun]

I'm addressing the point made in the article. You disagreed with me but on a point that neither I nor the article addressed.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING BIGUN.

Did you even look at the data at the FIRST LINK I posted Luis?  It comes from the U.S. Government itself and says that wages have been generally flat for the time period under consideration here!  That fact and the the other data I posted clearly shows the article posted here to be nothing more than yet another propaganda piece!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Did you even look at the data at the FIRST LINK I posted Luis?  It comes from the U.S. Government itself and says that wages have been generally flat for the time period under consideration here! That fact and the the other data I posted clearly shows the article posted here to be nothing more than yet another propaganda piece!

But at the same time you're arguing that wages are considerably lower.

The purchase power of those flat (ergo not FAR less as you claimed) wages is relative to a whole lot of factors OTHER than inflation, INCLUDING the relative decrease cost of goods as a percentage of earnings.

In 1983 the first cellular phone was sold. Price? Four thousand dollars. In 1983 cell phones were purchased only by the wealthy.

Today anyone can buy a disposable cell phone for under $50.

THAT is relative to YOUR point and counters your argument, but not to the article's point which is what I was addressing

[Oceander]

That's all very nice; however, even if this data is rock solid, it still doesn't excuse executive overreach.

[Bigun]

That's all very nice; however, even if this data is rock solid, it still doesn't excuse executive overreach.

Absolutely right!

and the article is, IMHO, anything but rock solid.

[Bigun]

But at the same time you're arguing that wages are considerably lower.

The purchase power of those flat (ergo not FAR less as you claimed) wages is relative to a whole lot of factors OTHER than inflation, INCLUDING the relative decrease cost of goods as a percentage of earnings.

In 1983 the first cellular phone was sold. Price? Four thousand dollars. In 1983 cell phones were purchased only by the wealthy.

Today anyone can buy a disposable cell phone for under $50.

THAT is relative to YOUR point and counters your argument, but not to the article's point which is what I was addressing

Doesn't matter Luis!

Less purchasing power is less purchasing power regardless of what one decides to purchase.

And BTW: If every other facet of the economy were working like consumer electronics the big picture would be VERY different!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Doesn't matter Luis!

Less purchasing power is less purchasing power regardless of what one decides to purchase.

And BTW: If every other facet of the economy were working like consumer electronics the big picture would be VERY different!

BUT THIS GUY WAS TALKING ABOUT WAGES NOT PURCHASING POWER!

[Bigun]

BUT THIS GUY WAS TALKING ABOUT WAGES NOT PURCHASING POWER!

Once again, talking about wages alone without connecting them to the purchasing power of those wages is a FRUITLESS exercise!

[Bigun]

Wages were WAY up under Jimmuh CAAAATA!  Maybe he should make a comeback!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Once again, talking about wages alone without connecting them to the purchasing power of those wages is a FRUITLESS exercise!

Then take that up with the author. Not me.