Re: Illegal Immigration: Why the Gov't Looks the Other Way

Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (
Fri, 27 Sep 1996 02:43:47 GMT wrote:

>In article <527fuv$>, wrote:

>a lot of blubbering double-talk.

>The Author responds:

>There is no point in my trying to hack through all of the fodder
>of jwas' last posting.

>But I would like to say this. Let us similarly dismiss all of the
>argumentation of my last posting.

>If U.S. manufacturers offer fifty cents per hour to Mexicans to work
>in factories in Mexico, then there will be plenty of takers who are
>quite satisfied with that offer and who will not be willing to take
>any risks to throw their lives into upheaval to cross the U.S.

>Meanwhile, there will be other, more tenacious Mexicans who will
>jump at the chance to jump the border and work for $9.00 per hour
>as concrete laborers (for example). There will be employers here
>who will be happy to hire illegals at $9.00 per hour because the
>going rate for U.S. residents is $12.00 per hour + benefits or

>There can be ever increasing traffic in both directions FOR THE
>stand jwas' last posting, maybe I trounced his argumentation.

Not really.

His point is that any particular job is on one side of the border, or
the other, but (with trivial exceptions) not both. Any particular
worker is on one side of the border, or the other, but normally not

Thus, while it is definitely possible for jobs (or workers) on both
sides to increase simultaneously, transporting jobs (or workers)
across the border does not, in and of itself, increase the number of
jobs (or workers). All else remaining the same, transporting jobs
creates an increase on one side and a corresponding decrease on the
other side.

(Actually, it would be more precise to refer to the wealth with which
one buys labor, not jobs. At most skill levels, the wealth will buy
more labor in Mexico than in the US.)

Of course, "all else" NEVER remains the same.

A body at rest tends to stay at rest until bedtime.
Then it can't sleep.