2006 April 04 Tuesday
Senators Want To Double Immigration

Our masters want to replace us.

Some estimate that bills pending in the Senate could double the nearly 1 million green cards handed out yearly, granting legal permanent residence.

The United States, which already welcomes more legal immigrants than any other country, would see major increases in green cards under both immigration proposals being debated in the Senate. The bills also would add tens of thousands of temporary visas for workers, from the high-tech industry to medically underserved areas.

America isn't on a fast enough road to Third World status. The fools in the US Senate want to accelerate the process.

A new poll by the Pew Hispanic Center finds that most Americans want the illegal aliens shipped home.

Overall, 53% say people who are in the U.S. illegally should be required to go home, while 40% say they should be granted some kind of legal status that allows them to stay here.

Of course our elites have contempt for the wishes of the majority when those wishes conflict with the interests of the elites.

Looking at the full report (PDF format) some interesting facts emerge. The percentage of Americans who agree with "Immigrants today are a burden because they take jobs, housing" has risen from 38% in Sept 2000 to 44% in Dec 2005 to 52% in Mar 2006. So the shift in attitudes on immigration is rapidly heading toward restriction even as most of the US Senate tries to put through a massive amnesty and increase in legal immigration. Also, interestingly, when given a list of choices for how to decrease illegal immigration from Mexico the most popular choice (49%) was for tougher penalties for employers. That would work if done vigorously. But Congress and Bush are opposed to interior enforcement against employers because the employers are opposed and the money of the employers talks more powerfully than the public. While the Senate tries to increase immigration only 17% of the public agrees with them.

The publicís divisions over illegal immigration are mirrored in views of legal immigration; 40% say the current level should be decreased, but almost the same number (37%) believe it should be kept at its present level, while 17% prefer to see it increased.

The more educated and more financially secure are least likely to see immigrants as a threat. To lots of smart people dumb immigrants are not direct competitors in jobs and at the same time are cheap sources of labor for gardening, construction, made service, and nannies. So that result is not too surprising. However, it also represents a short-sightedness that ignores the higher crime, crowding, pollution, white flight from decaying schools, taxes, and other costs.

Only a third of the public see Hispanic immigration as a cause of higher crime. Never mind that they commit crime at a rate a few times higher than whites. The truth is hidden from view. Here we see the effect of the deceitful American media, academia, and government. The FBI refuses to break out Hispanic crime figures and deceptively lumps them in with whites. The vast bulk of the press refuses to acknowledge crime rate differences between races. Our masters are corrupt and deeply dishonest.

There is a limit to how much legal equality one can have in a society where the distance between the haves and have nots keeps getting bigger and bigger. Crush41 points out that states with greater ethnic diversity have greater disparities in wealth.

Diversity brings economic disparity. Economic disparity is not good for democracy. The corollary is that diversity is not good for democracy. The optimal situation is one in which wealth disparities are naturally small without having to resort to robin hood wealth transfers.

Yet economic disparity is absolutely correlated with race. Running a regression and correlation analysis on data from the fifty states plus DC, I looked at each state's population of the four major ethnic/racial groups (non-Hispanic white, black, Hispanic, and Asian) and correlated it with the variable "Median income as a percentage of Mean income" which was computed by dividing each state's median income by its mean income. The larger the difference between the two, the greater the economic disparity in the state (think of how much Bill Gates moves the mean while doing no more for the median than Joe accountant in the state of Washington who makes $60,000 a year).

I found that significance factor was virtually zero for whites, blacks, and Asians (in other words, there is a 99.9999999% chance that the correlation between wealth disparity and race is not random). For Hispanics, the significance factor .067, meaning that there is a 6.7% chance that the relationship was due simply to chance. That is due to the substantial differences in the American Hispanic community (Cuban doctors in Florida vs Amerind fruit pickers in California).

Put ethnic groups with big differences in average IQ into the same area and the result will be widening differences in economic outcomes. This is the future our masters want for us. Why do they want it? Have they deceived themselves that they are so wise they could not possibly create such an outcome or do they do this for short term advantage while ignoring the longer term effects?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 April 04 08:42 PM  Immigration Politics


Comments
Derek Copold said at April 4, 2006 10:03 PM:

It's not just the elites. Arguing with liberals and open-borders "conservatives" on this matter is like trying to carry water with a sieve. No amount of facts, logic or data seem to stick with them. I've never seen anything like it. When you point out the most obvious of things, like quadrupling our labor force will hurt low-skilled workers, they come up with all sorts of crazy schemes about forcing wages up through further legislation and unionizing immigrants. Yes, they're a minority, but they're a particularly noisy and persistent minority, and they do believe what they're saying in good faith. In fact, a faith is what I'd describe it as, since it's not based on any kind of serious evidence and analysis.

Angry Anthony said at April 4, 2006 10:41 PM:

Derek's observations have been mine, too. You can't argue with the open-borders people with facts or logic. It's a set ideology for them, one that supposedly defies the everyday realities and commonsensical facts that are obvious to everyone else.

Any Senators actually thinking about increasing the quotas, are truly idiotic beyond belief. Neighborhoods are falling apart, environments are being strained, schools are being overwhelmed as it is-- and now they want to double the problem? Idiots!

The irony here is, there are so many disaffected Republicans-- and yet, the Democrats will probably screw up and blow this big opportunity yet again. I was talking with my old Republican friends, singles and married couples from several states, and most would be willing to vote for a sensible Democrat like Mark Warner. They'd never vote for a Hillary Clinton or a John Kerry. Yet Hillary or Kerry is most likely to get the Democratic nomination in 2008, and go on to lead the Democrats to one of their worst electoral disasters. They'd also get some traction by themselves opposing the plans of deluded Republicans in the Senate to expand the legal quotas beyond the breaking point, but of course they're mostly too dense to figure that out. This is why, despite my disaffection with the GOP, I just can't become a Democrat-- they're too ineffectual, too pathetic to take advantage even of the most obvious opportunities laid right at their feet.

D Flinchum said at April 4, 2006 11:00 PM:

"they come up with all sorts of crazy schemes about forcing wages up through further legislation and unionizing immigrants"

This is one I've hit on a labor blog. When I point out the law of supply and demand, they counter that hey, we'll just organize these workers and everything is OK. As anybody who has followed organizing drives in the last 20 years or so can tell you, all a business has to do to halt an organizing drive that looks as if it might succeed is to fire a handful of known union supporters. Legal? No, but it takes years for such cases to make their way through the courts and meanwhile the fired workers have to find new jobs and those still working are intimidated. This tactic is even easier to do with low skilled workers who can be easily replaced or whose visa is tied to an employer. The only way they will organize these workers is if the business doesn't care and the only way that the business won't care is if the demands are so low that it doesn't affect the business.

Derek Copold said at April 4, 2006 11:11 PM:

"It's a set ideology for them, one that supposedly defies the everyday realities and commonsensical facts that are obvious to everyone else."

I came across one joker who wanted to open the borders to anyone without a criminal background (as if ICE has no problems doing this NOW). Every time I tried to get a number of how many people he thought this would mean coming here, he refused to answer, saying it didn't matter if we had the right laws. It was like dealing with a character from that Dostoevsky novel who wanted to wipe out 90% of the population to create a perfect society, except this guy wanted to do the reverse. How can you argue with people like this? Sure, this guy was an extreme example, but he shows the basic mindset we're dealing with here.

Jorge D.C. said at April 4, 2006 11:28 PM:

Pundit says:

Of course our elites have contempt for the wishes of the majority when those wishes conflict with the interests of the elites.

I mentioned this Chris Matthews interview on another thread but here Mickey Kaus from Slate has the exact quotes:

Immigration Conventional Wisdom Bullsh*t, Item One:

"You can't build a 2,000 mile wall ... You can't do the full 2,000 mile border. You just can't."--Joe Klein, Chris Matthews Show, 4/1/06

Mickey: Huh? We build 2,000 mile roads. Why can't we build a 2,000 mile wall? Or a fence? It's easier and cheaper to build a wall than a four lane interstate highway! It might be a bad idea. It might have an adverse political or environmental impact. It might be only partly effective. Other methods of reducing immigration might be preferable. But the idea that it "can't" be built is silly. ... P.S.: When did Joe Klein turn into Johnny Apple?

By the way when the lone conservative on the panel asked "Why not?" Joe Klein answered "...because it would cost a trillion dollars..." and then the conservative replied "well, that's about what we've spent in Iraq."

The idea that "a wall can't be built" is a talking point much like "jobs Americans won't do". Notice how no logical argument or supportive facts are provided to buttress the claim that a wall can't be built. If you actually saw Joe Klein on this show you saw a guy scrambling to put out a fire. His side is losing. The echo chamber media is beginning to crumble.

What Joe Klein really means is "a wall can't be built" because that would definitely interfere with The Plan to denationalize the nation.

John S Bolton said at April 4, 2006 11:38 PM:

You have to look at who stands to gain in the long term. It is not the rich, for the most part, who are almost all net taxpayers. If you greatly increase the numbers on net public subsidy, the rich and the businessmen, in proportion as they are net taxpayers, are likely to lose by it. The consistent winner is the power-seeker who needs conflict, to increase his power. The more harmonious a society is, the less chance it has for those, who need to precipitate conflict in order to gain a chance at establishing despotism.
The class war had no chance, the prediction of ecospasm was not going to waft scholars into czardom, the gender conflict has no legs, the generational conflict aged in the bottle; what's left but the racial conflict, enhanced by immigration of quota-eligibles and hostiles?
Certainly very few immigration enthusiasts want these things; but the impetus is from those who know what they're about, not the guy who goes with the flow. Businessmen lie like crazy when the subject is the desirability of disadvantaged minorities. They are subject to lawsuits if they say anything but that such minorities are hardworking wonderful people, whom you can never have too many of. For them it is censorship; they stand to pay a penalty for telling the truth about the unproductive, retarded, uncooperative minorities that the government foists on them.

John S Bolton said at April 5, 2006 12:00 AM:

Of course there are businessmen who have no other way of getting rich but to use exploitable labor, more than others do. But they're the last to want legalization/amnesties. Then there is the psychic benefit to those whose after-tax income may be lower later, but who have more people further below them, and to be then more likely to have servants. That sort of motivation can be more efficiently gratified by taking even a middle-class retirement income to a country with greater income disparity and lower median income. But we don't see very many people doing that. Therefore it is not a significant motivating factor in society.
That is, where significant means people act on such desires in the manner of the above example. The more money someone has, generally the more they care about absolute values than the prestige considerations, of a strictly relative sort.

TangoMan said at April 5, 2006 1:49 AM:

Derek,

No amount of facts, logic or data seem to stick with them. I've never seen anything like it. When you point out the most obvious of things, like quadrupling our labor force will hurt low-skilled workers, they come up with all sorts of crazy schemes about forcing wages up through further legislation and unionizing immigrants.

Check out this comment I made at Washington Monthly about the Drum Major Institute's report that the solution to the problem is simply unionizing every illegal and the problem would be solved.

I've been enjoying your comments at WM (you sure have a lot of patience.) You know, I'm thinking of changing my tactics and going on the anti-racist offense by point blank asking open immigration advocates why they hate Black people - to not let them wiggle out of addressing the consequences of increasing the labor supply and then maybe accusing them of benign racism, in that they're not being directly racist against Blacks, but by favoring the rights of illegals they're indirectly harming the interests of the Black community. What do you think?

Kurt said at April 5, 2006 2:25 AM:

Randall:

The article that you link to concludes with the Senators believing that doubling legal immigration will help the U.S. be "more in touch with 21st Century reality".

Is this for real? Just what "21st Century reality" do they want to put us in touch with?

Do we really want to have 2 million new immigrants arriving in the U.S. each year? Thats a population increase of 20 million every 10 years from immigration alone. Whats the intent of our senators here? To pump up our population to 500 million, 750 million, or a cool billion by 2100? Maybe they want us to have as large of population as China. Then we can play like we live in Tokyo or Shanghai. If I wanted this, I would live in these cities (as I have before). I live in the U.S. because I don't want to live like I am in Tokyo or Shanghai.

Have the senators collectively lost their minds? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Derek:

Arguing with open-borders conservatives and libertarians actually can be fruitful.

I am libertarian, yet I have become very skeptical of open immigration because of arguments put forth by Randall Parker, Steve Sailor, and others. Even though I am libertarian for high-skill, high IQ people like myself and have no problem with lots and lots of Asian immigration, I do believe that we owe it to the people on the lower end of the IQ curve to protect their standard of living from the ravages of unlimited immigration from low-skill, low IQ countries. These people do not have the same economic "survival skills" that people like us have and need some form of protection. Indeed, this is the most cogent moral argument for limiting immigration into the U.S. and is the one that has turned me away from being a proponent of open immigration.

I also agree with Randall Parker and Steve Sailor that the dumping of 20% of Mexico's population onto us, especially of the dregs of Mexican society, reduces the pressure on Mexico's upper class to reform Mexico's economy so that there is more opportunity for these people to stay in Mexico and make a living. In essence, we are allowing Mexico's upper class to maintain its class previlege and oligopolistic status as free-riders at the expense of our own society's well-being. This is not acceptable to me either. We should be ending the free-riding of Mexico's upper class by putting the fire under their feet to reform their society by not allowing these people into the U.S. This is certainly an argument that libertarians should be receptive to.

Kenelm Digby said at April 5, 2006 3:55 AM:

Of course, those insufferably pompous but "oh-so very clever" bufoons at the Economist magazine, the NY Times and WSJ produce this complete guff about open-borders every single day.
Rather like that classic Hans-Christian Anderson tale of the "Emperor's New Clothes" (which is NOT a children's "fairy-tale", but like the fables of AEsop contains very, very profound truth about human psychology, that is eternal and immutable, and deserves the the deepest respect from the wisest among us), many puffed-up pseudo-intellectual rubes like to think they are "clever" and "educated wise men" just like the Economist staff-writers in fact, by repeating positions that are plainly not just nonesensical, but actually self-destroying.
All we need is the little boy to cry "but he's naked!!".

Big Bill said at April 5, 2006 5:24 AM:

Of COURSE liberals have difficulty recognizing that ten million Mexicans will lower wages. They were unable to see (and still won't admit) that doubling the workforce in America by encouraging all women to work would soon lower everyone's wages to the extent that all working class women would have to work. The current no-borders immigration plan the Democrats havee is an assault on America's poor by those that pretend to want what is best for them.

Now that the Democratic Party has tied its wagon to any minority oppressed groups and has abandoned the working man, the only way it can take poeer in America is by constantly creating oppressed groups to nurture and care for and to set up government funded programs and agencies for.

It needs suffering and degradation, poverty, alcoholism, raccism, racial strife and disease in order to keep going in order to give it a reason to exist, to give meaning to the lives of its adherents.

Bob Badour said at April 5, 2006 6:20 AM:

Kurt,

"I live in the U.S. because I don't want to live like I am in Tokyo or Shanghai."

"I ... have no problem with lots and lots of Asian immigration"

I have trouble reconciling the above two statements, and I wonder what sort of logic you use to reconcile them to yourself.

Quequeg said at April 5, 2006 6:46 AM:

From the main post:

The public's divisions over illegal immigration are mirrored in views of legal immigration; 40% say the current level should be decreased, but almost the same number (37%) believe it should be kept at its present level, while 17% prefer to see it increased.
Actually, I think the numbers are more strongly in favor of reduced immigration.

Take for example, this poll done just before 2004 election:
http://www.ccfr.org/globalviews2004/sub/usa.htm - click on "Topline Results - Public [pdf]"
------------
Question 260: Should legal immigration into the United States be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?
54% Decreased
11% Increased
31% Kept at Present Level
4% Not Sure

4/9. Controlling and reducing illegal immigration
59% Very Important
33% Somewhat Important
6% Not Important
2% Not Sure


CBS News Poll
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/24/opinion/polls/main971577.shtml
------------ poll was taken in years 1996, 2001, 2005
LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S. SHOULD BE?
Decreased
51% 10/2005
51% _7/2005
59% 12/2001
50% 10/1996

Increased
11% 10/2005
13% _7/2005
9% 12/2001
8% 10/1996

Kept as is
30% 10/2005
32% _7/2005
29% 12/2001
35% 10/1996

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Immigration%20November%207.htm
November 7, 2005
------------
Seventy-five percent (75%) of Americans say that immigration issue are somewhat or very important in terms of how they will vote for President and Congress on Election Day. That includes 46% who consider the issue "very important."

Sixty percent (60%) of Americans say they favor building a barrier along the border between the United States and Mexico to help reduce illegal immigration. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 26% are opposed to this approach.

Forty-nine percent (49%) also favor a proposal that would end "birthright" citizenship to children born of illegal aliens in the United States. Forty-one percent (41%) are opposed.

http://diageohotlinepoll.com/Final_Topline_WHP_Hotline_2.pdf
February, 2005
------------
Would you support or oppose a program in which illegal immigrants from other countries, such as Mexico, would be allowed to live and work legally in the United States?
57% Oppose
38% Support
5% no answer

http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/883a41Immigration.pdf
January, 2004
------------
3. If this program is created, do you think immigrants who apply for it should be allowed to live and work legally in the United States for (a limited period of time, say six years); or for (an unlimited period of time)?
67% Limited
25% Unlimited
8% No Opinion

On Meet the Press on December 18th, 2005, Russert described some poll data:
------------
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10479765/page/7/
NBC NEWS - The Wall Street Journal - Dec 9-12

Immigration - Strengthens the U.S. 37%, Weakens the U.S. 51%
Immigration in the U.S. - Too Closed 10%, Too Open 57%
Allow Foreign Workers to Apply for Temporary-Worker Status - Favor 46%, Oppose 49%

Quequeg said at April 5, 2006 6:50 AM:

I saw a debate among 3rd party candidates for President in 2004. One member of the audience asked the Libertarian candidate what his party's stance was on immigration.

The candidate's answer was that one half the party wants wide-open borders and the other half wants strongly enforced borders. The division among libertarians is perhaps greater than any other group. Some libertarians sound like ardent conservatives and others sound like ardent liberals (on the issue of immigration).

Angry Anthony said at April 5, 2006 8:34 AM:

Amazing, looks like the Senate guest worker bill and all those proposals to double (or otherwise increase) the legal immigration quotas are headed for defeat. The House GOP stood firm here, they deserve the most credit-- the Senators realized it wouldn't be worth the effort if the House was so bitterly opposed. But also, it looks as though the majority of GOP Senators also stood firm against the bill. Seems that the Dems were almost entirely in favor of the guest worker bill, since it would buy them some easy votes, while the vast majority of Republican Senators held their ground against it-- they've even threatened a filibuster, and the Dems now admit they couldn't defeat it. This is the quandary as far as selecting parties for people like us. There are plenty of GOP traitors out there on immigration, but the majority really do stand against flinging open the borders, even if they aren't as articulate as Tom Tancredo. It's one reason why, despite my dissatisfaction with them in many cases, I still can't leave the GOP fold entirely. Even if they aren't perfect, they're better than the alternative. Now we just need to get them to not only maintain, but sharply reduce the legal immigrant quotas, and to stop this ridiculously idiotic India nuclear proposal that Bush is so enthralled with. (BTW, I count Bush as one of the GOP turncoats-- if he's considered a conservative, then so is LBJ.)

Angry Anthony said at April 5, 2006 8:49 AM:

BTW, I'm especially intrigued by the role of Ted Kennedy, you know, Chappaquiddick man in all this. Teddy was instrumental in getting the whole immigration mess started in the first place, since back in 1965, he was the one pushing for the chain migration provisions. Now, he's the principal sponsor of the disgusting 2006 bill as well. He was on one of the news shows recently, and I wanted to sock that loser, the way he smugly and stupidly kept babbling on about how it's good for our nation, we're a nation of immigrants, the standard bromides you always hear.

Kennedy said the bill should be acceptable to conservatives because the former-illegals would be "required to learn English after several years." What an idiot! He just doesn't get it! The language isn't the issue-- the basic culture underneath is the issue, and the absolute numbers are the issue. Language is the most superficial, the least meaningful aspect of a culture. We could invite in 5 million English-speaking Nigerians, 5 million English-speaking Kenyans, 5 million English speakers from Bangladesh, a few million English-speakers from Jamaica, a few million English-speakers from Guyana. In the process, we'd aggravate our crime and gang problems, strain our environment and public health systems, drain social welfare resources, and in general make things even more difficult for ourselves when we're already struggling as it is. It really doesn't matter what language they speak-- the guest workers won't suddenly become hard-working Finns or Danes if they start speaking English, they won't suddenly leave their gangs and sing songs of love and respect, the crime in the neighborhoods won't go down (if anything maybe it would go up, since they would be able to participate in a greater range of crimes and be more willing to mug and beat up Whites in the neighborhood-- you know, a common language between mugger and mugged is helpful for communications). The language is merely a veneer and a diversion, and frankly, it serves as a sort of Trojan Horse to give a thin, superficial facade of conservative acceptability to a bill, while distracting from the real root problems of mass immigration-- increased crime and gangs, reduced wages overall, ethnic strife, environmental strain in the neighborhoods, strain on public health and education systems, flow of narcotics and so on. Any immigration bill that says anything about language or English proficiency should be immediately regarded as suspect and rejected at once.

Robert Speirs said at April 5, 2006 8:49 AM:

The real problem is how exactly do you prevent illegal immigration, or even monitor it, if you're not willing to spend so much money that the overall expense outweighs the benefit and if the people who would do the work refuse to abide by the simplest principles? It's a bit like the TSA. The most urgent need is to screen all immigrants for criminality and terroristic tendencies. I have no hope or faith whatever that any Federal bureaucracy is going to do this very limited task properly. I'm not saying they couldn't, I'm saying they won't. A wall sounds good, but then the entry points would be controlled by - a bureaucracy. I'm afraid it's hopeless. Maybe it will take several elections where the main issue is immigration and the open borders crowd loses big, over and over, in order for the political will to emerge to tackle the problem.

Pytheas said at April 5, 2006 8:54 AM:

"You can't build a 2,000 mile wall ... You can't do the full 2,000 mile border. You just can't."--Joe Klein, Chris Matthews Show, 4/1/06

Really? Someone might want to tell Joe Klein that the Chinese build a "Great Wall" stretching almost twice that distance about 2,000 years ago. I guess Joe Klein doesn't think that 21st century Americans are as talented as first century Chinese. And, hey, looking at our national political discourse ... maybe we're not.

crush41 said at April 5, 2006 10:59 AM:

Anthony,

There is a substantial number of Irish illegals in Massachusetts, especially Boston. The language provision, superficial as it is, is only supported by Kennedy because his illegals already speak English. It is frustrating to see him not held accountable for his statements on the eve of the 1965 disaster when he promised "Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually," and that the act would not change the "ethnic face of America." He was wildly wrong, yet he's still treated as a credible spokesperson in media.

Reading former RNC cacique Ed Gillespie really makes me scratch my head:

Hispanic voting percentages are increasingly decisive in swing states like New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Colorado and Arkansas. Mishandling the immigration debate today could result in the Republican Party struggling in these states and others in the same way it does now in California.

You would think he was talking about fighting judicial injunction against prop 187, how empowering underclass immigrants cost the GOP California, and how the Republican Party needs to get tough on the borders and fast. Instead, he's advocating Republicans pander to Hispanics in a bunch of states that were solidly GOP before being inundated with Hispanics. The Republican leadership has no sense of self-preservation. It's truly inane.

AMac said at April 5, 2006 3:35 PM:

A theme running through the comments is, "considering the weakness and illogic of their arguments and the obvious and strong reasons to oppose massive influxes, are these pro-immigration Americans crazy?"

It seems clear that most in that movement decided on their position first, and then cast about for their logic afterwards. Not a particularly unusual approach.

However, it's worth noting that there is an "Open Borders" Ideology that the leadership of the pro-massive-immigration subscribes to. These folks aren't crazy--they just have different ideas of what desirable outcomes look like. Presumably, they think a majority of Americans would vehemently disagree with them if they came out and said what they really believed (I think they are correct). Under these circumstances, it's quite sensible to work to achieve your goals without being clear on what they actually are.

Back in January, 2004, David Horowitz' not-always-reliable website "Front Page" had a long essay entitled The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation's Security After 9/11 by William Hawkins and Erin Anderson. It's mostly quotes and synopses of statements made by the Open Borders movement--organizations like MALDEF, the Ford Foundation, and the National Immigration Forum. These radical-chic policy intellectuals seem like the sorts that would be at ease in The Hamptons or at a classy Hollywood cocktail party. If the articles quotes and footnotes are accurate--and I don't know of a reason to think otherwise--then Hawkins and Anderson provide a pretty good explanation of what's driving the pro-influx side of the current debate.
by .

Mik said at April 5, 2006 4:01 PM:

Robert Speirs:

"The real problem is how exactly do you prevent illegal immigration, or even monitor it, if you're not willing to spend so much money that the overall expense outweighs the benefit"

You postulate that to prevent illegal invasion you have to spend so much money it is not worth is economically.
And how, pray tell, you know that?
Even if we forget that our country is not just economy, it is also culture, society, history, etc., how do you know what you think you know?


I bet an office with $50M/year budget focused exclusively on prosecuting execs of large corporations could do the job. For example, IRS knows that McDonalds employs 20K+ people whose SSN do not match (IRS publish that data without mentioning corp names but mentioning their headquarters locations). We can be sure that no more than 1% of those mismatches are typos or other honest mistakes. There is 99% chance that mismatch is due to an illegal.

Step 1: send one or more VPs of McDonalds to jail for 5-10 years.
Step 2: repeat with BurgerKing, Holiday Inn and Wall Mart.
Step 3: prosecute HomeDepot and Lowe's for allowing illegals to wait for day jobs at their property.
Step 4: selectively start prosecuting small fry
Step 5: recruit citizens to monitor their towns, place of work, etc. Pay a small bonus to whistleblowers who cause
an illegal deportation.

In 2 years we would see a tremendous improvement in number of illegals.
Remember how quickly Pakis self-deported after 9/11?

Antinomy said at April 5, 2006 4:41 PM:

I can think of a cheap way to monitor a wall between the U. S. and Mexico that involves little bureaucracy: put cameras along the wall and allow their pictures to be displayed over the Internet. The Minutemen have already shown that there would be lots of volunteers willing to monitor those cameras. Heck, people are willing to watch webcams that show parking lots.

Randall Parker said at April 5, 2006 6:16 PM:

I've calculated a couple of different ways that a formidable barrier along the US-Mexican border would cost less than $10 billion.

Time to build a wall. We need a fence. A border barrier similar to the Israeli barrier with the West Bank would cost well under $10 billion dollars or less than 2 months costs of the war in Iraq. Or we could look at highway construction for construction costs for a wall. The materials that are used to build sound barriers along highways in populated areas would cost about $3.2 billion for a 5 meter high wall 2000 miles long (see my comment below the original post where I calculate out the numbers). There'd be additional costs for barbed wire, sensors, and additional fencing layers as well as an access road. But we could easily afford all this. It'd be similar scope to building an interstate highway along the border.

A wall is cheap.

Antimony,

I think border cameras on the internet are a good idea. Yes, lots of people would watch. One problem: How to prevent false reports of an alien sighting? The Open Borders crowd would try to waste time by making false reports to waste time of government agents. We'd need volunteer groups of known membership that would filter the reports and pass along real reports. Speaking as someone who fights blog spam on a daily basis we'd need some of the same tools that get used to fight blog spam (and you are going to see some changes here on comment posting in coming weeks to help reduce the spam).

Randall Parker said at April 5, 2006 7:53 PM:

Mik,

I agree. Prosecute some big corps and big effects would follow. But other strategies are needed for smaller businesses. Allow local police to detain illegals for deportation and also offer rewards to the public. Also, fund enough jail cells to hold all OTM (Other Than Mexican) illegals caught crossing the border.

Jorge D.C. said at April 6, 2006 1:53 AM:

Parapundit says:

...with the Senators believing that doubling legal immigration will help the U.S. be "more in touch with 21st Century reality"...Is this for real? Just what "21st Century reality" do they want to put us in touch with?

Perhaps the end of the United States as you know it?

Kurt says:

Have the senators collectively lost their minds? Inquiring minds would like to know.

I assume that the phrase "in touch with 21st Century reality" is another talking point. These senators are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Feinstein and Boxer are genuine lightweights. McCain ranked near the bottom of his class in the Navy and he sounds like it. "The Maverick" does not have a resume of original political analysis. They all rely heavily on staffer notes and party talking points.

Frist is a highly educated man and nothing more. Leahy can be accurately described as an utterly unremarkable mediocrity. Byrd is really old now but remains capable of reflection and analysis which is much more than the average senator.

To be fair I guess the US Senate has always housed people whose primary skill is getting elected and reelected and nothing more. The list of great senators is short. But this batch seems particularly lame. The vast majority don't create anything, reflect on anything, analyze anything or solve anything. Watch CSPAN and listen to the staffer's notes get recited by the elected official.

I believe there is a quote from some executive at the ADL available on these here internets describing how much (a great deal) you can get done at the staff level on Capitol Hill. Translation: to a frightening extent it is the staffers who write the opinions, arguments and laws.

Out of the list of 100 senators only about 15 get regular television time on the news shows. For good reason. The rest are excruciatingly boring. The networks can't afford to put them on the screen due to loss of viewers.

The most amusing guy in the senate is Levin - who never, ever fails to appear on camera peering over his bifocals. The idea is to communicate a Ben Franklin aura of sagacity. The difference between the two men - for starters - is Ben Franklin INVENTED BIFOCALS.

Lawrence Auster said at April 6, 2006 4:26 PM:

Jorge writes:

"Out of the list of 100 senators only about 15 get regular television time on the news shows. For good reason. The rest are excruciatingly boring. The networks can't afford to put them on the screen due to loss of viewers."

True. The "Greatest Deliberative Body in the World" is an astonishing collection of sub-mediocrities. Scratch that: sub-sub-mediocrities. And they remain in office forever. Think of that Kohl from Wisconsin. When he came into the limelight during the Hill-Thomas hearings in '91 you wondered, what is this nothing doing in the Senate? (Yeah, he was a wealthy businessman who had the money to run a Senate race.) And now, 15 years later, he's still there. And what about Lautenberg? It wasn't enough that this undistinguished zero (can anyone remember a single significant thing he ever said?) served for 18 years before finally retiring; when New Jersey needed a substitute senator they picked him to go back to Washington. It goes on and on. A sleazy demagogue like Dick Durbin is now in the Democratic leadership.

I don't mean to be letting off the Republicans. It was just Democrats who came to mind. The bottom line is, there's not a single second-rate brain in the U.S. Senate.

Also, they stay so long in office the average age of the Senate must now be about 70. Seeing a coloquy among Specter, Biden, and the baldheaded bigot from Vermont (I forget his name at the moment), you think, this is not a legislative body, it's a retirement home for egomaniacs.

Ivan Kirigin said at April 6, 2006 6:02 PM:

Talk of increasing income inequality as an inherently bad thing is misleading. Poor people can move to this country and get richer. Everyone can get richer at the same time. When only looking within a nation, the end result is greater inequality and lower average wealth.

Looks bad.

Until you look across borders. Average wealth increases. Total wealth increases.

Folks that believe in "the ultimate resource" being human brains will tell you it is no mystery with respect to immigrants coming to the US. The US frees people to reap what they sow. More minds working together. Synergy. Settlers of Catan. Call it what you will, but it is most certainly NOT an increase in inequality.

My ideal immigration policy: total freedom with no government resources but defense & courts. Deportation of criminals would be a common offense -- even for citizens, who would lose there status after a felony.

Getting closer to that policy: letting in more normal people, letting in as many exceptional people as possible, and building walls (physical & virtual) to make sure we're in control. One big change I would make: don't ban immigrants from working. You handicap people, then act surprised when they do worse. I'm not denying studies on differences on IQ. Hell, if they're true it is an even stronger reason not to handicap immigrants. Criminals (those that break laws that directly hurt others) should be removed from society. Everyone else shouldn't be bothered by government which consistently proves incompetent.

___

ps I had a carnitas Mexican Plate today from Anna's Taqueria. Eating it, I contemplated the joy of human intellect to create such a grand meal
http://boston.citysearch.com/profile/34199642/cambridge_ma/anna_s_taqueria.html

Randall Parker said at April 6, 2006 6:23 PM:

Ivan, see my post Benthamite Libertarian Collectivists Wrong On Open Borders where I explain why you are wrong.

The answer is the slope of a graph. Bringing in lower IQ people lowers the productivity of higher IQ people. One can see this by comparing nations by per capita GDP and average IQ. Lower IQ people lower the incomes of higher IQ people.

Antinomy said at April 6, 2006 9:07 PM:

>How to prevent false reports of an alien sighting?

Perhaps they could use a trusted group to automatically check the intruder reports. The report comes in, and the view from the camera in question automatically comes up on the trusted person's screen. The alert only goes to the Border Patrol if he confirms the report. If he starts confirming false reports, he is no longer considered a trusted person.

Ivan Kirigin said at April 7, 2006 8:26 PM:

Randall, if I were to work in India, I could hire three maids. I can't here. Even with the purchasing power parity adjustment, I don't think it takes into account the great differences in life styles between different nations.

I think you should go back to some intuition. Dumb people don't make smarter people dumber. In fact, they make menial tasks I'd like to get done cheaper. I have more money to pay for other things.

Lowering average per capita GDP because of a lower IQ is not the same thing as lowering the wealth of high IQ folks with the entrance of lower IQ people. Isnít it obvious that poor/low-IQ people will low the average. Donít you appreciate the way numbers lie wrt averages?

I think my explanation makes the most sense: very poor people get richer moving to richer/more free nations. Rich/intelligent people benefit by division of labor from pretty much anyone moving to their country. Everyone gains Ė save perhaps native high school drop-outs. Pardon me if I donít set policy based upon the nationís laggards.

Cultural issues are serious. Crime issues are serious. Taxing government coffers is serious. The economic argument is just incorrect.

Show me a graph with comparable nations where lower average IQ lowers the income of equivalent IQ classes, and I might agree with you. How about a 3D graph with points plotted: IQ, PPP-income, avg. IQ of the nation. Hell, add a 4th dim. of mean income, and you'd get really busy with the numbers.

Another scatter plot I'd like to see: the correlation between frequency of consumption of Mexican food and the desire to halt immigration.

Ivan Kirigin said at April 7, 2006 8:58 PM:

I should clarify if my first statement: "if I were working in India at the same job, making the local wage for that position, I could hire..."

Randall Parker said at April 7, 2006 10:03 PM:

Ivan,

The ability to buy low skilled laborers to clean your house or make your food is not as valuable as the ability to buy a vacuum cleaner, washing machine, dishwasher, microwave oven, clothes to put in the washer, etc.

Of course, the Indians violate drug patents. So your job in India wouldn't deprive you of drugs to the same extent it would deprive you of some other higher tech medicine.

In Latin American kidnapping is a big problem. Do you want to live in a society where your risk of kidnapping is very high? You could buy kidnapping insurance.

Intuition: Again, did you read what I wrote? Add 100 million 90 IQ people to the US population and lots of smart people will be diverted to serve as doctors for them. Others will become detectives, prosecutors, prison wardens, and others to deal with their higher rates of committing crime. Hispanics are imprisoned at 3.7 times the rate of whites in the US.

Also, again, the slope of per capita GDP versus average IQ is steep when comparing countries. That fact supports my possition, not yours. Do you understand why?

Bob Badour said at April 8, 2006 3:38 PM:
Pardon me if I donít set policy based upon the nationís laggards.

Who the fuck are you to deprive the poor the privileges and benefits of their citizenship?

Ivan Kirigin said at April 8, 2006 3:51 PM:

My point is simply that looking at per-capita GDP is not good enough. I think you will agree that lower IQ folks will do worse, right?

Then having more lower IQ folks means more people doing worse. Does that mean that the rest of the people are worse off?

I work for a high-tech company. I would venture to guess that there are very few low-IQ folks where I work. Would an influx of lower-IQ people affect me? I might pay more in taxes. I already granted that.

But here is the rub: would _I_ be worse off? How about my company?

Other than paying higher taxes for services that are given to poor/uneducated/low-IQ at higher rates -- no, I wouldn't be worse off.

This makes sense, and is not captured buy the overly simplistic per-capita GDP vs. average IQ.

Again, what is needed is IQ vs. income vs. national average IQ. That would answer the question, roughly, of how more lower IQ folks affect the rest of the population. If they only affect the worst off, I would say that those coming to this country are improved much more than native laggards are hurt. This is a question of absolute poverty.

Few in America are absolutely poor. Many immigrants were poor, but move here and become not poor. That benefit is something you continue to ignore.

If you consider immigrants a problem because they use law enforcement resources more, do you consider the poor a problem? What about blacks and Hispanics? Is the only difference that they are already here?

Either way, I would venture to guess that most of the 12 million illegal immigrants benefited far more than the rest of society lost by the larger proportion of those immigrants who were criminals. Then you add how much the rest of us benefit from 12 million more brains and cheaper brawn, and the picture is even more positive.

But that might be wrong. Youíd need some serious numbers to guess how much we have gained from the complex interactions of millions of people in the market. I donít think you have them, and you only quote the numbers that are easy to find, e.g. crime rates and incarceration costs.

Randall Parker said at April 8, 2006 4:02 PM:

Ivan,

I've spelled it out for you on how you will be worse off. But you ignore the arguments. Again:

- Lower IQ people will generally make worse choices in the voting booth. Governments will therefore run less well in general.

- Lower IQ people will demand taxes to redistribute the wealth.

- Lower IQ ethnic groups will demand racial preferences. That'll reduce the efficiency of companies. This already happens. It will happen much worse when ethnic groups will low IQs become larger fractions of the working population and voting population.

- Lower IQ people will break more laws and therefore higher IQ people will need to support more spending for police, prosecutors, parole boards, jails, judges, and other parts of the criminal justice system.

- Lower IQ people will need to have higher IQ people employed to deal with them. That will shift brains away from productive pursuits. People working as judges, prosecutors, doctors, and nurses are not doing engineering, science, or managing production lines or doing other productive work.

- Companies and individuals will need to spend more on security. People will need to restrict their movements more based on security considerations. You will be less free to go where you want to go.

The empirical evidence is that higher IQ people are worse off in lower IQ countries. I've explained to you mechanisms for why this should be.

Bob Badour said at April 8, 2006 4:37 PM:
Then having more lower IQ folks means more people doing worse. ... But here is the rub: would _I_ be worse off? How about my company?

Yes, both you and your company would be worse off. Since you hypothesize a high-tech company, the influx of cheap labour will reduce the demand for automation, which in turn will reduce the demand for high-tech products. The reduced demand for high-tech products will reduce the demand for the knowledge workers who invent them.

Thus, a causal relationship exists which will tend to reduce the gross income of your company and the wages you can command in the market. At the same time, because these immigrants are a net drain on society, your absolute tax costs will increase.

Higher taxes for less pay means you will be worse off.

Ivan Kirigin said at April 8, 2006 5:32 PM:

Bob, I don't think you appreciate the difficulty of many tasks which are considered "unskilled". Roughly, 20 tera-flops computers are currently doing it, namely anyone with a brain.

Examples: a waitress clearing a table, a construction worker installing siding, a farm laborer picking delicate fruit. These are hard problems which require a great deal of dexterity. All work at automating these tasks in those realms is research, which is already heavily funded. Those tasks which can be automated are "dull, dangerous, & dirty". Vacuuming (though not dusting or picking up loose things), tele-operated explosive ordinance disposal, and nuclear waste cleanup are a few good examples.

Those tasks which are done by cheap labor continue not because lack of demand for automation, but lack of technological know-how.

What does it mean for knowledge workers if non-knowledge work gets cheaper? More money left for knowledge work.

And if you think that the army wants fewer robots, or housewives fewer cleaning bots, because of immigrants, well... you're wrong. The alternative for the former is an extremely expensive soldier, and the competition for the latter is doing it yourself, not maids.


Randall,
You list costs, in a qualitative fashion. Please quantify them. Then quantify the benefit of immigrants. Then quantify the benefit to immigrants. If you re-read my last comment, you'll see that is what I ask for, rather than just ignoring the problems you present. You can't present a cost-benefit argument and only argue the costs. I gave the often used example of cheaper labor, but the alleviation of absolute poverty in the immigrants is also a benefit. Also consider the contributions of those who arenít criminals or vagabonds. They count too, right? All these things are also hard to quantify.

Further, you didn't address my question about how you feel about the lower-IQ natives. Should they be deported? Apparently, they are a tax on our society.

Finally, I'd like to hear what you think about my view that absolute poverty is more urgent than marginal increases for people who are not absolutely poor. I get the impression that if problems are outside our border, you don't care about them.

Randall Parker said at April 8, 2006 5:55 PM:

Ivan,

You blithely dismiss the importance of crime as a cost. What's the toll of Hispanic crime rates that are over 3 times higher than whites? What price do you want to assign to a rape or to a rape avoided? How about a murder? How about a maiming? You want to quantify? I've supplied lots of information. But the costs depend on your values.

Also, you ignore my argument that higher IQ people will be so much more productive in higher IQ societies that even the lower IQ people will be better off in the long run if the higher IQ people keep the Third World out of the First World.

Ivan Kirigin said at April 8, 2006 6:28 PM:

"Also, you ignore my argument that higher IQ people will be so much more productive in higher IQ societies that even the lower IQ people will be better off in the long run if the higher IQ people keep the Third World out of the First World."

That is a pretty interesting claim. I'm not sure how you'd validate it though. I don't see how I'd be less productive with more lower IQ people around, but that's just me.

And again, I don't dismiss the problems you address, I'm simply saying that they don't prove a net negative.

So crime is 3X as bad for immigrants. That could mean 3% of immigrants are criminals rather than 1% of natives. Fine. What about the contributions of the other 97%? That is my WHOLE point.

Your emtional plea about crime sort of high lights the point. A single murder can be made to look like a huge injustice. If you're talking about limiting the freedom of, in this case, 12 million people, I don't think emotion should enter the debate. I could easily wail about the plight of the billions of people on the planet that deserve more help than spoiled natives.

The thing is that I agree with you that there are many problems with today's immigration policies. I agree with some of your policy recomendations. I just don't think things are as clear as you'd like to believe.

Bob Badour said at April 8, 2006 7:42 PM:
Examples: a waitress clearing a table, a construction worker installing siding, a farm laborer picking delicate fruit.

You are wrong.

Serving food has been automated for decades. It's not dexterity that keeps waitresses employed -- it's 5 million years of human male evolution that keeps them employed.

Siding, itself, is an automation of earlier, more labour-intensive technologies. The only obstacle I see to automating the task is the availability of cheap labourers.

Automated methods for harvesting delicate fruits exist. The automated methods are even more gentle on the fruits than hand-picking. Necessity is a mother.


Those tasks which are done by cheap labor continue not because lack of demand for automation, but lack of technological know-how.

I am familiar with this talking point. Like most talking points, it is simply a lie.


What does it mean for knowledge workers if non-knowledge work gets cheaper? More money left for knowledge work.

Non sequitur. I already established a reduction in demand, which means a reduction in price except for the stiffest supply curves. The supply curve for high-tech labour is not that stiff.


I don't see how I'd be less productive with more lower IQ people around, but that's just me.

Well, after your employer lays you off due to lack of demand for its high-tech products and you have to accept lower paying work in the social services branches of government, you will be less productive. A lot less.

I suspect, however, that your failure to see it has more to do with willingness than anything else.

Bob Badour said at April 8, 2006 7:58 PM:

"Pardon me if I donít set policy based upon the nationís laggards."

"But I feel bad for those who have bad genes. I would like them to be empowered."

I really am having a great deal of difficulty finding anything resembling logical consistency in what you post.

Bob Badour said at April 8, 2006 8:13 PM:
Finally, I'd like to hear what you think about my view that absolute poverty is more urgent than marginal increases for people who are not absolutely poor. I get the impression that if problems are outside our border, you don't care about them.

Your view is flawed. You assume as an axiom that an illegal immigrant with low IQ is absolutely impoverished without establishing what that means let alone that it is true. You ignore the benefit to the immigrant of staying in his country of origin.

If the immigrant were prevented from stealing the wealth of some poor american, he would have to find a living at home. It's true that he would earn a lower wage, but that lower wage will buy more local labour than it would in the US. The lower wage increases his incentive to increase his productivity. He will have the incentive to automate his work as much as possible. Without a language barrier, he will find himself able to hold a higher valued job and perform more productive work.

Border enforcement increases utility to all parties and increases overall utility.

Ivan Kirigin said at April 8, 2006 10:28 PM:

Bob,

Have you ever tried to make a vision system see things like glasses on a table in an unstructured environment? I have. It's hard. You could engineer a whole restaurant system to work reliably, but a robot to replace a waitress in today's environment doesn't exist.

Humans are actually using some amazing skills when they do things I gave in the example. Either way the point is that the technology to tackle those problems is strongly in the realm of research (as opposed to development in a company with a product coming about around the corner).

I assure you research funds for robotics are doing quite well. Saying that immigrants are making fewer research dollars available is a bit of a stretch. So what, it will be 15 rather than 16 years before the technology is done? Restricting research funds for robotics and automation is probably one of the weakest arguments against immigration.


Also, policy for immigration today (re: nations laggards), has little to do with the longer time range of research for genetic manipulation. I can both not care as much for America's poor compared to the 3rd world's poor, and desire genetic manipulation to enhance humans. I see no logical inconsistency, especially considering that the former is today and the latter is decades away.

As for your last comment, I think it safe to say that immigrants come to the US because they're lives are improved. There are many more very poor people in the countries that send many emigrants to the US. I think then it's a safe bet that many people coming to the US are far poorer than the poor already in the US.

As for greater productivity for folks by staying where they are -- I call bullshit only because we see they are coming in droves. If they would be better off staying, why would they leave?

Randall Parker said at April 9, 2006 8:40 AM:

Ivan,

Each criminal victimizes dozens or hundreds of people. An emotional plea? You reject costs that are real costs. You just pass them off as an emotional plea. People pay big bucks to live in safer neighborhoods. They pay big bucks to live in neighborhoods where their kids won't grow up around dummies and criminals and juvenile delinquents. Those are real costs.

I've already explained why I think that lower IQ people reduce the productivity and wealth of higher IQ people. I've pointed you to a graph of per capita GDP versus average IQ. I've explained mechanisms for how it works. You just come back repeating your libertarian faith.

Bob Badour said at April 9, 2006 11:14 AM:
a robot to replace a waitress in today's environment doesn't exist.

Why would you assume a robot is necessary to automate a waitress's job? You sound like the NASA scientists who spent millions inventing a pen that writes in microgravity while the Russians used pencils. Robots are NOT necessary. Neither are artificial vision systems.

Of course, even though automating the server's job is very easy, the market isn't really paying for service. 5 million years of human male evolution drive the market for waitresses. Waitressing is basically modelling with lots more stress and lower pay.


Humans are actually using some amazing skills when they do things I gave in the example.

Yes, those are amazing skills -- amazing skills that are NOT needed for those tasks and that could be re-allocated to more productive tasks. Remind me: What does increased productivity do to standards of living again?


I see no logical inconsistency, especially considering that the former is today and the latter is decades away.

In one post you claim not to care about the damage done to the poor by your foolish policy prescriptions and in the other you claim to care about the poor. The fact that you cannot see any inconsistency in such a blatant contradiction speaks to a much deeper problem.


As for your last comment, I think it safe to say that immigrants come to the US because they're lives are improved.

Well, duh. I think it's safe to say muggers beat people senseless and steal their wallets because their own lives are improved (in the very short or immediate term.) Muggers can improve their lives a lot more by doing other things, but those other things require more investment than a few seconds of violence and delay the eventual reward.

Likewise, the illegal immigrant steals the property rights of another. That doesn't mean the illegal immigrant cannot improve his life even more by refraining from the criminal act and instead investing in his future at home.


If they would be better off staying, why would they leave?

Temporal discounting -- a basic phenomenon in primate psychology. Primates discount benefits and costs that lack immediacy. Thus, we are prone to make decisions that harm ourselves in the long run in exchange for small benefits in the short run. This is why so many people smoke, overeat, overspend etc.

Thus the illegal immigrant discounts the eventual benefit of investing at home far more than the immediate benefit of violating his nothern neighbours' property rights.

Ivan Kirigin said at April 9, 2006 6:19 PM:

"I've pointed you to a graph of per capita GDP versus average IQ."

This is ridiculous that I have to keep repeating this. The wealth of the average is not the wealth of those with high IQ folks. You have no graph showing lower income for high-IQ people because of an influx of low-IQ people.

But considering how I'm not convincing anyone (and bob and I are two ships passing in the night), I'll end it here :)

Bob Badour said at April 9, 2006 7:11 PM:

Ivan,

I suggest you review the concept of rate of change. Randall already provided the evidence to support his position: Per Capita GDP v. mean verbal IQ--See Figure 7 here.

At the dumb end of the curve, the slope is pretty much horizontal. This means that adding a bunch of intelligent people sufficient to increase mean Verbal IQ from 60 to 80 (an increase of 33%) does not measurably change the mean income. In other words, all of those intelligent people who drove up the mean Verbal IQ are just as dirt poor as the retards around them. This explains why intelligent people do not flock to Togo in spite of the low wages for unskilled labour there.

In the middle, adding a bunch of intelligent people sufficient to increase mean Verbal IQ from 95 to 105 (an increase of about 10%) increases mean income by more than 100%. Conversely, adding a bunch of stupid people sufficient to decrease mean IQ from 105 to 95 (a decrease of about 10%) reduces mean income by more than 50%.

To achieve that reduction in mean income, the intelligent people have to lose out by the addition of stupid people. The introduction of the stupid people introduces a negative net average income.

Randall Parker said at April 9, 2006 7:54 PM:

Ivan,

To state this slightly more formally: If the derivative of the curve is sufficiently high then obviously the high IQ are worse off mixing up with the low IQ. If the derivative is low then the high IQ are better off mixing in with the low IQ.

Don't you get that? It seems obvious to me. I could work this out in even greater detail. Maybe there are small steps in my chain of reasoning that I expect to be obvious that you are missing.

Do you dispute that if a curve of per capita GDP to average IQ has a high slope then higher IQ people are better off without the dummies around? Or are you saying that the slope of the graph isn't high enough for this to be the case?

Bob Badour said at April 10, 2006 9:16 AM:

Perhaps my electrical engineering education makes the graph clearer to me. It's basically the same as the response curve from a transistor or amplifier.

Over an operating range of 0 to 200, it approximates a unit step function at 106. Over an operating range of 95 to 115, it approximates a linear amplifier. Just like every amplifier, it turns small changes in an input into large changes on an output. In this case, small changes in mean IQ become large changes on per capita ability to create wealth.

The easier it is to create wealth, the wealthier everyone will be.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©