Re: immigration: net gain or net drain?
I know some immigrants send some of their money to relatives in their previous countries, but they can't send all of it; most must be spent in the host country. And even if they send the money out of the county, it eventually leads to a greater demand for exports. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/03/03 01:35PM alypius skinner wrote: This article argues for net drain. Bryan Caplan wrote: Actually, it doesn't. All it claims is that immigrants reduce wages. But this is by definition balanced by the extra surplus enjoyed by employers. Do any of these studies take into account the effect of immigrants on demand? It would see these people have to eat. I know some immigrants send some of their money to relatives in their previous countries, but they can't send all of it; most must be spent in the host country. This would drive up demand for products, and therefore the wages for labor used to make those products, at least partly offsetting the downward pressure on wages from increased labor supply. --Robert
Re: immigration: net gain or net drain?
--- Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All it claims is that immigrants reduce wages. But this is by definition balanced by the extra surplus enjoyed by employers. If the surplus is general to the economy, then is it not the case that in industries with competitive markets for labor and capital goods, and with substantial competition in the goods markets, providers of labor and capital goods earn their marginal products and firms have zero economic profits, so the surplus goes to land rent? If so then it is not employers qua firms who get the surplus, but the landowners. Firms which rent their premises would get no surplus from being employers. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Editors and Media Bias
Or, to quote Hayek, as socialists of all parties. David Levenstam In a message dated 9/3/03 3:57:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And with the budget under the Bush Administration outsocializing the socialist Clinton by triple and growing (in social spending alone) it isn't clear that there is any value in knowing whether media people are republican socialists or democratic socialists. Thanks(?) to our current President Hillary the democratic socilalists look as conservative as their so-called alternative. Perhaps they should be referred to only as republican socialists or democratic socialists, or simply all as socialists.
