Bernie dodges question about effect of immigration on wages

Bernie got a tough question about the link between larger numbers of immigrants and depressed wages. The questioner also wanted to know if the large donors who benefit from lower wages were a reason for his apparent change in his views on immigration. Bernie sidestepped the issues in his answer:

On the other hand, he was clear that increasing the number of numbers of immigrants lowers wages back in 2007 for American workers and benefits the wealthy.

Trump’s policies have resulted in record low unemployment and significant wage growth for blue-collar workers. The logic that adding millions of low-wage workers to the economy would depress wages is basic economics, and it appears that Trump’s policy of reducing illegal immigration is benefiting blue collar workers, while college educated are facing continued pressure on salaries as result of the H1-B visas and similar programs:

Are wealthy donors really driving shift toward open borders from the Democratic Party?

Are Democrats in denial about basic economics?

Why should blue-collar workers support Democrats who favor open borders?

1 Like

Bernie was tap dancing better than Mr Bo Jangles on that question.

His flip flop is obvious. Glad the woman pinned him down.

There are absolutely zero conclusive studies that show that an increase in foreign workers in the US (whether legal or illegal) has any substantial downward effect on wages.

Those studies that purport to show this correlation always have major flaws in their assumptions of perfect substitutability between native and foreign worker.

Logic is beyond certain people grasp. One would have to understand supply and demand to figure it out.

Yes, Bernie was very clear about the relation between immigration and wages in his statements from 2007 so he understands the economics.

I think that Democrats could be in serious trouble if the continue to push the open-borders agenda. The have lost huge numbers of white blue-collar voters in 2016. They may see similar shifts with other groups they have taken for granted:

That’s actually precisely what I said in stating why the studies are flawed.

The supply/demand graph is a lot more complex in reality than the simple graph you learn in an introductory course.

Sure you did Jay.

Read the second paragraph again.

I can give you a quick primer on what perfect substitutability means if you’re having trouble with that term.

The lower skill blue-collar jobs are precisely the kind of work that most people are able to do and the relation between wages and immigration is the clearest. These are also entry level jobs for young people with limited skills.

For example black teen unemployment has dropped to the lowest on record under Trump. That would not have been possible if millions of low-wage immigrants were allowed into the country as many Democrats promote.

CNN touted the “blue wall” of rust-belt states that later crumbled to give Trump the election in 2016. I think other walls may crumble in 2020 based on Trump’s economic policies.

I understand what it means, logic tells you there is direct correlations of available workers to wages, plus demands of services.

If you need anymore understanding on this subject just ask.

You’re not using logic…you’re using what you think is “common sense”.

“Common sense” doesn’t help you solve multivariate equations.

We “get it” Jay. Your intellectual superiority is overwhelming.

Are you denying that people are a commodity? Now we can factor in there are different grades of people but they still a commodity.

I’m sure one with intellectual in depth thinker like yourself can see that.

Show me the scientific studies that show that if there are 10 people ready to do a job for less than me it will have any affect at all on either my chances of getting the job or what I can charge for doing it.

Yes, the low-wage jobs such in restaurants, construction, custodial work, manufacturing, etc. typically can be done by a large fraction of people with little training. That fits into the definition of a commodity.

Vastly increasing supply of low-wage labor equals even lower wages.

Democrats need to explain how open borders will help American workers rather then just billionaire donors and immigrant-rights activists who seem to be driving Democratic politics.

The supply of labor vs. cost of labor equation is a good theoretical notion. (So is the caloric theory of heat.)

But, is there empirical data that supports or refutes that theory?

Bull ■■■■■ Ignoring construction? Agriculture? Unskilled?

It’s not intellectual superiority. It’s simply training and education in the subject that goes beyond introductory economics.

The analyses that showed a strong negative correlation between wages and rate of change of foreign workers available assumed a perfect substitutability between native and foreign workers (i.e. that they were competing for the same jobs) that simply was not borne out by the facts.

Your question about whether “people are a commodity” is irrelevant to this question.

OK Jay

Whatever you say since you’re the highly educated one here.

I bow down to your intellectual superiority.

And the fact that you decided what is relevant is impressive…extremely impressive.

Funny how ones training and education can teach real life living conditions without actually experiencing real life living.

The internet makes em smart. :wink:


Hey @JayJay

What happens when you flood the marker with oil?

It’s economic 101 isn’t it?