As you might suppose I do not hold with the Batman theory of American foreign relations. That is the view held by progressive interventionists (“responsibility to protet”) and neoconservative (“spread democracy”) interventionists alike. One of the things I do not understand about that view is how you reconcile shrinking defense budgets and industrial sectors with the ever-increasing need for interventions. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that.
There are many things about the contours of the present U. S. policies that I do not understand. I do not understand how an infinite number of low-skill migrants will help the United States. I don’t even know how we’ll pay for them. I’ve published the numbers before. A family of four migrants without highly desirable skills, e.g. one in which neither of the two adults is a physician or other highly compensated worker, has a maximum household income of around $60,000. In Chicago the cost of such a family (two adults, two children) to the city is right around $60,000. Said another way you lose money on every such household. And that doesn’t even include their housing. Just school for the kids, healthcare subsidies, and safety.
I also don’t understand how we will produce senior engineers when junior engineers can’t get jobs here. Or how we’ll pay the ever-increasing interest on the public debt on which we already spend more than we do on defense.
There are times when I feel fortunate that I am unlikely to live to see these flawed policies come to their fruition. I’m not planning on dying in the next year or so but the likelihood of my living another, say, 20 years is pretty low.
Dave I agree with your sentiments, as well, the list of things I find counter intuitive or not understandable, gets longer and longer.
The US is in an accelerating death spiral. Large parts of every American city are Third World shooting galleries with dying economies. With luck, we will become Mexico; without luck, we will become Nigeria.
You might want to read Gilbert Doctorow’s blog:
https://gilbertdoctorow.com/
He is a regular visitor to Russia, and he makes the point that no American or western European maintains the West’s traditional high culture as well as St. Petersburg or Moscow. Of course, no western country, not even the US, has an industrial sector that is anywhere near as comprehensive as Russia’s. And a strong industrial sector is needed to generate the wealth that supports high culture.
You mentioned engineers. Russia, with 40% of our population, has just as many engineers as we do. (China has 10 times as many.) Engineers do industry and infrastructure, and their mere number is an important index of the material economy of a country.
Beyond the (declining?) number of American engineers, is their quality. For at least 20 years, a candidate for a faculty position in the Ohio State College of Engineering has had to submit a statement asserting his or her support for the ever evolving DEI, and demonstrating that he or she had actually participated in such activities. References to those facts being required. Candidates who drifted through their doctoral studies unaware did not pass the first screening.
I guess you could start with a realistic assessment of where we are. Our growth rate exceeds other large countries. We remain the most successful large scale economy in the world. China may have faster growth but its catch up growth. It has more engineers but most fo them suck.
Now, on the immigrant side, I think you should look at the literature looking at the costs and benefits of immigrants. Start with the baseline that the US has had the most immigrants of any nation for a long time and we have also had the best economy for along time. You should also look beyond first order effects. Or, you can just complain like a lot of other people.
Steve
I have yet to see a single study that takes costs into account. When you ignore costs all sorts of things become great ideas that are obvious flops.
The wages of teachers, firefighters, police officers, social workers, etc. have risen enormously over the last 30 years. To get to the benefits of immigration in 1883 we’d need to return to the circumstances of 1883.
Dave Schuler: One of the things I do not understand about that view is how you reconcile shrinking defense budgets and industrial sectors with the ever-increasing need for interventions.
As the world grows up, the United States will lose share, even while growing richer and more productive. That’s a natural consequence of what the United States engineered after WWII.
The United States is only as strong as its alliances. Threatening to not come to the aid of NATO allies, for instance, weakens those alliances.
The United States can’t prosper by only making pig iron or even standard automobiles. Everyone makes pig iron and basic automobiles. The United States, however, can prosper by making high-tech materials and vehicles.
Dave Schuler: I do not understand how an infinite number of low-skill migrants will help the United States.
Their children will generally be higher skilled, assuming investment in education. And their contribution over time can be substantial.
Dave Schuler: I also don’t understand how we will produce senior engineers when junior engineers can’t get jobs here.
Even with high immigration, nearly everyone is working to capacity. You can’t hire good workers because all the good workers are taken.
There is a short-term glut of junior engineers—contrary to your suggestion otherwise. Junior engineers are considered investments not assets as they require time to integrate and become productive. Businesses are cautious due to the economic disruption in the aftermath of the pandemic.
This comment is baffling given the decline in preparedness over the last 30 years among our most powerful allies. Our allies are relying on our military rather than their own. This is a topic on which I have posted in the past. War games have demonstrated pretty conclusively that our allies need to be able to defend themselves for some period for our support to be effective.
Further, how can we maintain our own preparedness with military budgets that are shrinking in real terms?
I am emphatically NOT defending Trump’s comments. I thought they were dumb. But looking the other way as our allies demilitarize is dumb, too.
Dave Schuler: This comment is baffling given the decline in preparedness over the last 30 years among our most powerful allies.
The United States has always been stronger due to its alliances. The whole concept was the United States was to be first among equals. All countries in the West, including the United States, reduced military funding after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Regardless, threatening to not come to the aid of NATO alliances weakens those alliances. Trump has even threatened to withdraw from NATO.
Dave Schuler: But looking the other way as our allies demilitarize is dumb, too.
European NATO is now spending 2% of GDP on the military, from 1.5% in 2014 when they committed to increasing military spending.
Things change.
That’s irrelevant. The question is not what they’re spending but what they need to spend to achieve the level of readiness they need to have. That might be 1% of GDP, 2% of GDP, or 10% of GDP. Or more. It depends on their present state of readiness rather than on how much they’re spending now.
Dave Schuler: Things change.
Sure. As the world re-balances, alliances are even more important than ever.
Dave Schuler: The question is not what they’re spending but what they need to spend to achieve the level of readiness they need to have.
Military planners believe 2% is what is required. NATO Europe is spending $380 billion per year, not including U.S. spending in Europe. Russia is spending $84 billion. Russia gets more bang for the buck but is still being widely outspent by NATO. Agreed that readiness is an important issue. Ukraine has bought Europe time to prepare at a very high cost.
Spending 10% would be bad policy. It would lead to severe economic dislocations and could not be sustained. It would mean buying equipment that may very well be obsolete when it is needed.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/05/the-fiscal-impact-of-low-skill-immigration.html
I would say the evidence is excellent that immigrants have a positive economic impact. However, we do not know over what range of numbers that is true and we dont truly know how much the make up of the immigrants matters. Its mostly just people expressing their feelings on the topic.
Steve
We’re talking about now not 75 years ago. 75 years ago teacher, firefighter, police, etc. compensation was much lower.
It’s over the last 75 years, not just 75 years ago.
Also, think this is true?
https://www.ft.com/content/f6ba327b-5200-4deb-ba95-fba3bbd6536a
Steve
It could be true. I don’t know. If true the sanctions might finally be producing their bite.
WRT the study to which you linked:
1. Yes, it’s a study that reckons cost,
2. Like all economic studies it presumes all else equal. All else is not equal. Basically, it just says what I’ve been saying. A migrant labor force does not pay for itself. It might pay off over multiple generations.
However, the study includes an enormous boom period, possibly the largest in American history. Things are very different now than they were 75 years ago and that should be expected.
“There is a short-term glut of junior engineers—contrary to your suggestion otherwise. “
That’s simply false. An easy look at these websites that advertise jobs will tell you otherwise. Or talk to recruiter. I have. From newly minted, to less than 2-3 years experience there are scads of openings.
>>>>>>
Using a study over the last 75 years is the province of a sophist. That’s 1950. Please.
The vast majority of “job creation” in the past 5 years has been in low skill categories. And they have been filled largely by immigrants. That’s simply a fact, And it has depressed wage growth for those who need it most. Unless you don’t really care about income inequality. This is a problem NOW. Worrying about economic benefits in 2070 has some academic benefit, but its bizarre right now. And pardon me if I’m skeptical, but the typical profile of the 10million immigrants of the last few years are very unlikely to yield a material number of astronauts, engineers, software designers or biochemists. Roofers, carpenters, plumbers and handymen? Sure. All for it. Coulda got that without letting in 10 million. And they could be legal….