----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 5:13 PM Subject: Re: Race to the Bottom
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If that were true, wouldn't the relative gain in the > > fraction of income > > received by the top 5% be roughly on par with the > > drop of the bottom 40%? > > > > In other words, wouldn't the 40%-95% group be not > > much worse than flat? At > > the very least, their loss of income should be > > absolutely smaller than the > > loss of income of the bottom 40%, because the > > unskilled immigrants are not > > competing for their jobs. > > > > Dan M. > > Not directly, no. But they are putting downward > pressure on the labor markets as a whole. That will > show up. Neither I nor Borjas believe that > immigration is responsible for _all_ of the income > inequality in the United States. I believe (and I > think he does) that it is the _most important_ reason > for that. So, let me understand this correctly. You are arguing that a smaller increase in labor supply that is focused on a very substantial increase in low skill labor will have a larger impact on the price (wage) of medium and high skill labor than a larger increase in supply that has a greater percentage in the medium and high skilled labor supply? In short, you appear to be arguingthat the impact of an increased supply of low skilled labor is more important to the price of high and medium skilled labor than the impact of an increased supply of high and medium skilled labor. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
