The left professes that they care so much about the poor. But when we look at their enthusiasm for immigration, it tells a different story. Mass immigration of poor people from the third world is not beneficial for poor or working class Americans. Poor immigrants lower salaries and take jobs away from lower income Americans. They also lower the value of non affluent neighborhoods. In sum the poor suffer from immigration by more poor people. If you have ever read John Sinclair´s book “The Jungle” it talks about how mass immigration of poorly Educated Eastern Europeans, who did not speak English, led to horrific exploitation in Chicago 100 years ago in the meat processing business. The whole system was inhuman, but that level of mistreatment by the meat packing companies would not have been possible without attendant mass immigration. The system is really not that much changed today. The owners of capital benefit from cheap exploitable labor, while the immigrants and native poor suffer from an ample supply of labor which drives down pay and working conditions. Plus the rich get the state to pick up the tab for all of the social services that these immigrants need. In addition the affluent get cheap and willing gardeners, maids and nannies. Finally they live in such lilly white exclusive neighborhoods that they need not worry about the darkie immigrants moving into their neighborhood and messing things up. The working class has to worry about that.
With all these advantages it is not wonder that our elites are gung-ho on mass immigration. Here is a section from Numbers USA.
Please leave a comment on “Did Demographics Cause 1970s Stagflation?” by Megan McArdle of Bloomberg View.
McArdle begins by quoting this post from Karl Smith at Forbes in which he writes:Economists are so sensitive to any argument against immigration they seem to forget that any growth model that I am aware of will predict a decline in per capita GDP if the population rises fast enough.
McArdle herself explains how inequality has historically been reduced during periods of tight labor markets be they post-World War II or post-Black Death:
The labor shortage made the common folk much wealthier, but it made people who lived off capital poorer, because relatively scarce labor was now much more valuable than plentiful capital.
McArdle concludes thatwe may be chasing a chimera when we talk of going back to the halcyon days of the 1950s and 1960s. If it was labor scarcity that drove the income compression, well have a hard time replicating those conditions.
But McArdle herself avoids the obvious immigration angle. Immigration is accounting for more than three-quarters of U.S. population growth. The U.S. government has been driving the labor surplus. This is not a natural phenomenon; it is public policy.
The Senate immigration bill would double immigration. Is it any wonder that the money and power behind the “comprehensive immigration movement” comes from corporate owners of capital?