Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Free Market Immigration is in Direct Conflict With a Central Planning "Need" Approach

At the post, U.S.Tech Firms Go Anti-Trump in Court, a commenter writes:
Of course, 'libertarians' like RW and others think we need more third world immigration. I would love to see Trump squash the H-1 program and limit green cards. I'm doubtful of these companies need for outside talent. Given the crappy wages and such and competition with foreigners, why would any parent recommend a STEM degree to their child?
I don't "think" we need more immigration of any kind. My view is let the markets decide. If employers want to hire immigrants I have no problem with that. Why should I get in the middle of a mutually agreed upon exchange?

If employers want to hire immigrants, there must be a reason. Most likely they are willing to work at a cheaper price, that is, they will work for less than current Americans will with the same skill set. If Americans aren't willing to compete with foreigners at the lower wage, it means they have better alternatives.

This is how free markets work. Capital and labor are directed toward the most useful functions.



  1. "and competition with foreigners, why would any parent recommend a STEM degree to their child?"

    I think this quote lays bare the real issue. Americans don't want to compete with foreigners who will work harder, do the job better and/or do the same job cheaper. People whining about immigrants are losers. Plain and simple. All the talk about culture or terrorism is nonsense. If a white American laborer who had access to 12 free years of education, speaks English and has local social and family networks loses his job to Jose, who shows up from Nicaragua with no education, no connections and unable to speak English, it's a slap in the face. Jose just laid bare how replaceable you are because you have failed to cultivate any useful skill, despite how cushy your existence has been relative to Jose's.

    Similarly, the Vietnamese kid who goes to the same public school as all the white kids in town, but actually studies in his free time and then becomes an engineer is a slap in the face to all those Americans who were too busy playing football or video games or whatever to learn calculus.

    Everyone complaining about immigration is a wussy loser who just can't stand the fact that he is being outperformed by people he looks down on. Losers losing.

    1. Youtube --> Doug Stanhope --> Immigration

    2. I'm sorry, do you encounter a lot of affirmative action programs in unskilled labor market?

    3. American kids have more lucrative options in financialization of the economy. Less work, much better pay, better career path, licensing and other blocks to keep foreigners out, and more. In other words the work people who say those in stem who describe the reality are losers for saying it. And that is all it is,saying that a stem career is no longer worth the effort for American kids with other and more financially rewarding options.

  2. Yes if the state doesn't tell people where to shit it will be chaos! CHAOS!!!

  3. I too would doubt my free market ideals if that were their logical conclusion. A true free market involves the respect for private property. First, do you really know people who want to live in their own sewage on their own property? And, if you do, what do you propose to do: lock them up in a cage (where presumably they will continue to live that way)? Second, if they did this on someone else's property then, in a private property society, that would be a wrong that would subject them to punishment. Those are the key points to keep in mind when thinking about foreigners coming here: either they are acting on their own property, in which case they make the rules (assuming they don't cause damage to someone else's property) or they are acting on someone else's property, in which case that someone else makes the rules.

    1. You don't have to be educated to understand freedom at all. Most of your interactions every day are free or anarchic. You don't have to understand Rothbard to know it's better that you can buy toilet paper without being told with how to use it.

    2. Honestly I'm not sure that the average American values the rule of law or private property all that much, especially in light of the success enjoyed by statist political candidates.

    3. @Unowned

      Depends on your framework, to be honest. If you mean in the current context, there can issues related to assimilation when someone from Seattle moves to Atlanta. If you're talking about say, a North African Islamic immigrant migrating to the West, the cost for anything related to the individual's own acclimation to the new environment, assuming it was voluntarily entered into, is on them and them alone. If it's your contention that immigrants shouldn't receive welfare, I agree, but I don't limit it to immigrants, but expand this to all. That's not really breaking new ground though.

    4. Again, it depends on your framework.

      Right now, because the state has a monopoly on security and guaranteeing who comes and who doesn't, and drives most of the reasons why an employer would want to hire an illegal (avoiding taxes, regulations, more control over working hours, not having to participate in pension schemes), the employer would have no responsibility, legally, for actions committed by someone here illegally.

      In an Anarcho society, one could imagine that they would bear this responsibility. Why? At first it seems counter intuitive, but in reality not really that difficult to imagine.

      Let's say I own a large chicken farm, and constantly want low skilled workers, who I invite from the third world. I don't care who these people are. I do care if my property is insured for fire, damage, or other problems. I can't imagine the insurance company would be OK with insuring property that had a steady flow of low skilled, unaccountable workers, without some kind of reasonable safeguards. Secondly, people now carry all sorts of personal liability insurance, and this service could easily be a requirement by any employer, or a background check. Your property still is damaged or stolen? You could potentially arbitrate with me and my farm, you may say that I, Colonel Sanders, have no requirement to arbitrate with you, but it's likely that such claims will drive any insurance I have up if I don't do something reasonable. I should add that this system is far more responsive to the court monopoly we have now, if you're thinking that you'll get stiffed, that's likely the current case.

      Finally, in current Visa regimes and it's not difficult to imagine that this wouldn't be the case in a private property society as well. sponsors of immigrants or Visas are required to sign documents vouching for the behavior of those they are inviting, and taking on liability if they misbehave. It's not a stretch to say that this is how it would work in a private property society either.

    5. It seems like you're admitting that the imperfect statist scheme that exists now forces the society to bear all the costs of immigration, which you view as a net negative (meaning the costs are higher than the associated benefits, otherwise why would you care?) If that's the case, then do you justify the 20Bn to build the wall, and the huge increase in the size and authority in the border patrol to possibly (big stretch) make it effective? That seems like a terrible solution to a debatable problem, namely of cultural assimilation and the economic benefits of immigration. If you advocate some other non-utopian reform to the immigration system, I'd love to hear it, given that net immigration from Mexico is negative.

    6. incognost, is simple border control "utopian"? I am really curious if you have been to any other countries that actually enforce borders with ease. I really wonder about people like you that think that border control is either impossible or prohibitively expensive. Border control will save ENORMOUS amounts of taxpayer money.

    7. You think a $20bn wall is a "simple" border control?

      I'm very well travelled, I hope that satisfies your curiousity. Of course, I'm traveling through airports, not attempting to cross a desert, vast body of water, or hide in some kind of cargo container.

      Yes, I think controlling the Mexican border is impossible. The government can't even keep drugs out of prisons, you think they can keep thousands of people from crossing illegally? I wonder about your confidence in the government, it seems misplaced. How can you reconcile that the government can't even substances that are illegal outside of the walls of a prison from getting into the hands of violent criminals that are totally under their control? Do you think that same government can realistically expect to police this border? I don't even trust the government to run a post office, let alone a vast border bureaucracy.

      Any savings you see to tax payers will likely be offset by the massive amounts of money they'll be paying for things they used to get much more cheaply, and the vast permanent structures that will be put into place to ineffectively police the border. I believe that the illegal immigrants are a net positive to the economy.

    8. @icognost

      While I don't necessarily disagree with the point you're making about government being ineffective at stopping people from moving, I'd actually consider that a good thing.

      If the wall were actually effective, the economic loss it would cause by preventing transactions would dwarf any "savings" the taxpayers might enjoy from living in a country with a relatively smaller population.

  4. Re: Unknown,

    The difference is that immigration is a voluntary and peaceful action whereas what you describe is the effect of a problem you have.

    The market is the network created by the billions of daily interactions between human individuals of will. The fact that you would use such a disgusting example and ascribe it to the market indicates in no uncertain terms that you have no idea, no clue or even a hint of the nature of Markets. I've read stuff from Trumpistas that show their ignorance but you just don't want to showcase yours - you are advertising it.

    1. Unowned, who can tell if someone lawfully coming here will then go on to commit a crime? Unless we have the Pre-Crime Unit of the Tom Cruise film, "Minority Report", this is impossible to know, and thus not a reasonable basis on which to interfere in a voluntary employment relationship established by company A and immigrant Y.

      As to your second paragraph, you are paying this "monthly bill" now in the form of taxes supporting your local police. The fact that the cost is higher than it would otherwise be in a free market, and the service levels lower, is an issue that warrants re-thinking this particular service, not whether to interfere in immigration.

    2. Your complaint about anarcho capitalist immigration policy is that it *may* result in too high of a security bill, therefore the state control of immigration and security services? You also seem to be conflating anarcho capitalism and some kind of statist immigration scheme.

    3. Re: Unknown,

      --- I think you meant to address "Unowned" vs "Unknown," right Francisco? ---

      I'm addressing YOU.

      --- If X number of companies are granted permission to bring in X number of immigrants ---

      The fact that you would start your question with the assumption that companies have to ask permission to hire people is interesting, coming from someone who uses the nickname "UnOwned"...

      Moving on...

      --- and those immigrants come from cultures that don't have the same respect for private property ---

      You mean like the prevailing culture in North Korea? Or are the Oneida community still around to beget immigrants? Or just what the heck are you talking about? What *culture* does not respect property rights?

      --- who do the native people who live in adjacent communities contact when their property is routinely burglarized. ---

      From my part, I wouldn't call 911. That is what God created Smith & Wesson for. But maybe you're a statist who believes only the State should protect your property...

    4. @ Unowned I don't know what you're criticizing because you're not being specific enough. You are conflating them, it's obvious:

      "If X number of companies are granted permission to bring in X number of immigrants and their families" Granted permission by who? In an anarcho capitalist world, they would only need permission of themselves and those they're are inviting. If you're suggesting the state, then this is a statist scheme.

      You go on to say:

      "I know, the victim's own private security companies, right? But now I am faced with a monthly bill for security services or security system that was not necessary before"

      This would only result from an ancap or private property society, unless these houses would have private security in addition to their own state provided security for some reason, and that does happen but isn't very often. If you want to wiggle out this way, then in your scenario they are paying for both the statist security (remember, these companies obtained permission) and the private security (double security payments).

      That doesn't make sense in your formulation, you need to stick to a framework, either Ancap borders with no permission for companies to hire immigrant workers and private security, or permissions on borders and no private security or at least private security in addition to state security (which again makes your complaints about payments silly, given that you said they'd complain about private security payments, whereas they are already paying both for the border security and for their state security agents.)

      I'm not sure what lens you're using at all, really. A spaghetti lens?

  5. --- Why should I get in the middle of a mutually agreed upon exchange? ---


    (*) The rallying cry of many a Trumpista.

    1. retard, this is simple. Follow carefully. Because your "mutually agreed upon exchange" infringes on the property that I paid for and maintain, and does so in a way I did not authorize you to use it, I have a say in your "mutually agreed upon exchange". Have the immigrant land in your backyard directly, prevent him/her from accessing any property paid for and maintained by the taxpayers, and agree be on hook for any costs the "immigrant" imposes on anyone but yourself, and you are free to bring in anyone you wants. Understand?

    2. By your logic the employer has just as much of a property right to the "public" land as you do, so why should he be forced to fund the enforcement of your segregationist utopia? Cuts both ways.

      But the whole idea that you come to own public property by paying taxes is ridiculous IMO.

  6. --- "I would love to see Trump squash the H-1 program and limit green cards." ---

    RW the statement above shows you that Trumpistas are not being truthful about only being against "illegal" immigration and being fine with legal immigration. They are clearly against legal immigration as well.

    --- "I'm doubtful of these companies need for outside talent." ---


    Why would this commenter think it is incumbent upon him to determine the needs or wants of others? This is further evidence that Trumpistas are merely right-wing Socialists with a frightening hostility towards free markets and people's freedom to act.

    1. Are you an American first, or what country are you from? The current H-1B is a market distortion. You know, the ones libertarians always gripe about.

      Few us mind working for a decent income in return. The issue is these companies are so obsessed with cheap that this has corrosive affect on society. Perhaps they are reacting to the over regulation, but the long term harm is already showing up in what I could call 'dis-civilization'. Customer service less competent, buildings less maintained or cleaned, lower quality products, lower quality services especially in health care. Why do better if there is no incentive to do so? That is what we have now.

    2. Re: The Lab Manager,

      --- Are you an American first,[?] ---

      I'm a person first. I don't draw my importance from an accident but from my nature as a being of will. In other words, mind your own business.

      --- The current H-1B is a market distortion. ---

      Inasmuch as that program is a barrier to entry imposed by a State, then yes. If you say that because it lets too many "undesirables" in, then you should know that your bigotry is not the standard by which market decisions are measured.

      --- The issue is these companies are so obsessed with cheap that this has corrosive affect on society. ---

      Right. Bargain hunters: the scum of the earth. They're coming for our daughters.

      GROW UP.

    3. The "market distortion" is the government banning companies from hiring foreigners in the first place. H1B only grants some (insufficient) relief from this imposition.

    4. No. The government is paid for by taxpayers, who do not want the infrastructure they financed to benefit anyone but american citizens. This is not so hard to understand, even for retarded libertards with brain damage. You senile libertards need to realize that your old and half assed vain theorizing has run it's course. Even 5th graders can see the limitations of your "philosophy".

    5. Did valley sapien just appeal to democracy on a libertarian economics blog???

      Good luck with that...

    6. Yes, Francisco, you are an idiot. Totally oblivious to inferior cultures.

    7. I'm amused at the irony of the alt-right talking about "inferior cultures"

  7. Robert Wenzel only looks at why the companies want to employ foreigners, people he terms "immigrants", rather than why the foreigners themselves are willing to be employed for rates less than they would earn if they were actual Americans.

    The reason is that these immigrants want to live in America. Instead of walking around in the sewage ridden streets of their homelands, they are able to take advantage of the first world infrastructure of America, painstakingly built by American for their posterity, but inherited by these immigrants. Living in America itself is a form of subsidy, which is explains part of why they are willing to work on H-1 type visas, which are far from a free market system of employment.

    For those low wage foreigners ("immigrants") coming to America legally or illegally, every low wage "worker" represents a net drain on the state coffers, as they consume more taxes than they pay. The difference is made up for by the American taxpayer. The reason why companies want to employ these people is clear - the net taxes that these foreigners consume represent the subsidy that these companies get for employing them, amounting to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per immigrant. The foreign immigrant himself could not offer his low wage labor in America without this subsidy.

    So what we have is the greatest transfer of wealth from the the poor to the rich in human history. If you want to find reasons for rising 'income inequality', this is the reason.

    If you are against being fleeced by statists and companies in this manner, then according to Wenzel you are against 'muh freedom' or something. This is why libertarians have to be stopped - they have their fingers in your pocket, just like the state!

    1. RW has not good explanation for Disney and other companies to replace people with H-1's, yet somehow they will buy $250k plus card board shacks and $60k F-150 King Ranch edition pick up trucks.

      I have international friends and love them, but I've told them that Americans need to come first as it would in their home country. You can't tell me that all 30% of the foreign workers in Silicon Valley are some sort of special 'geniuses' that would warrant that high of a number.

      Again, I'm for a lot less personal, corporate taxation and regulation. But a lot of us get kind of irritated when the tech companies lay off thousands and then agitate more for a government privilege. I know many unemployed people and I'm doubtful that these companies can't find these 'skilled' Americans to do these jobs.

    2. This isn't an argument against immigration. The state will continue to rob you no matter how many immigrants cross that imaginary line. Empowering it to also dictate whom people are allowed to employ is adding insult to injury.

    3. Re: The Lab Manager,

      --- RW has not good explanation for Disney and other companies to replace people with H-1's, ---

      Oh, there's a good reason: because IT'S THEIR MONEY. Not yours. Theirs. Their property. Not yours.

      Go ahead and buy out Disney and then you can hire all the "American Workers®" that your bottom line can muster. Otherwise your opinion on the matter is worthless. Maybe it could be of interest to a psychiatrist.

      --- You can't tell me that all 30% of the foreign workers in Silicon Valley are some sort of special 'geniuses' that would warrant that high of a number. ---

      It's always envy with Trumpistas, isn't it? "Why does the jock get the cheerleader?" "How come that guy has more money than me?" "Why did a foreigner get that job?" Because rational thought, it ain't.

    4. Evan Smiley,

      That is a retard tier statement. So you are saying that if the state takes a cent, you cannot object when it also takes a dollar.

      Guess we just have to give up all our money in the cause of 'muh freedom', huh?

    5. We got along fine without H1 programs before? Who is stopping from employing citizens? Now, if they want to employ them overseas and work via the internet, fine. But don't tell me there is a lack of talent.

    6. Matt,

      You are an angry little racist.

      The immigrants are not taking your money. The US government is.

    7. Nice of you Fracisco and Evan not to address any of the points I need. That's ok, I won't be buying anything Disney in the future. I guess if I'm willing to work for the lowest common denominator, I can come crap on your property whenever I like, right?

    8. The Lab Manager,

      Go ahead and boycott them. I would never dream of violating your freedom of association.

  8. So who decides who comes in? No one? If a evil jewish billionaire (like Soros)decides to devote his fortune to moving the population of Somalia to every white neighborhood out of hatred and spite you just throw up your hands and say "the market is deciding."

    Libertarians never want to talk about money-power because in their view only the state has power. Well, if you remove the state (assuming that was possible) who has power? Is it not the ones who hold the most capital? The oligarchs? Surely they can't have other goals then profit right?

    On that note, you keep jumping between the economic and the political. The "immigration" we are currently seeing is not driven by economic factors. The reason being that none of these people we are debating about would have been allowed in before 1965. It was political actions that created this situation.

    If you wanna debate a libertarian thought experiment about your ideal world, whatever man. However, if you are seriously arguing that we should roll over on this question because of the "free market," then something isn't right here. You claim you want the state to go away, but you are obviously a smart man so you have to know that this train is not headed where you want it to go. Are you just trying to get your piece of the loot?

    What is up with this shit?

    1. Maybe he's not a national socialist?

    2. Re: Unhappy Conservative (2.0),

      --- So who decides who comes in? ---

      The market decides.

      That means: NOT YOU. You possess no special insight or wisdom to know what's best for everyone else.

      --- Libertarians never want to talk about money-power because in their view only the state has power. ---

      Libertarians don't talk about "money power" because it's a red herring. It is a favorite red herring from the left and, now it seems, the right-wing socialists who are also known as 'Trumpistas.'

      Money doesn't grant you the power that States wield, because States can always steal what it needs whereas wealthy people accumulate their wealth by creating value which they trade with others, many times. The State does not bother itself with trade and competition.

      --- The "immigration" we are currently seeing is not driven by economic factors. ---

      Of COURSE it is driven by economic factors. Immigrants face opportunity costs just like everyone else. What, do you think they were taken by a space ship and brought over? Do you even understand what "economics" is or entails? It's called the science of human action for a damned good reason.

      Just like their brothers and sisters on the Progressive Left, Trumpistas don't waste a second to showcase their own disdain for liberty, markets and basic economics, preferring the facile and the emotional arguments.

  9. Show me the evidence that these foreigners work harder or better? What a laugh! Another asinine assumption like when a factory moves to Mexico, we supposedly get cheaper and yet the same quality product. Don't forget by staying here they potentially screw up the voting dynamic and let us be honest - brown folks and those from South American don't have a record of a limited government mindset.

    The unemployment rate in the double digits and there are millions of educated and other Americans unemployed yet somehow we need more 'turd worlders' to come in and do jobs Americans supposedly won't do. I acknowledge that we are not entitled to anything, but it would help if American employers could do something for Americans first. How low are we supposed to go if I can't afford decent housing and other amenities? Yes, I agree the government and federal reserve screws up these daily necessities and a number of other relationships.

    1. Re: The Lab Manager,

      --- Show me the evidence that these foreigners work harder or better? ---

      They're employed and their incentive to stay employed is powerful. Ergo, they have to work harder and better.

      --- [...] there are millions of educated and other Americans unemployed ---

      What a bargain they must be!

      Has it occurred to you that there's a different incentive at play which would sway these supposedly unemployed to eschew the jobs that immigrants are willing to do?

      --- yet somehow we need more 'turd worlders' to come in and do jobs ---

      "We" don't need anything, Kemosabe. YOU may not want immigrants in America. But many others are more than willing to hire them, rent to them, cater to them and even marry them. If this makes you uncomfortable, there are plenty of therapists who are willing to take you in at affordable prices.

    2. @lab manager...so, stop buying the products you think are inferior? Why is that an argument for centralized trade control?

      Like Valley Sapien, sounds like you actually think you own the property you were forced to pay taxes on. Ever tried not paying? Find out who really owns it?

      Why are you arguing with the AnCaps or Libertarians who want to give you real ownership and decision making power over your property?

      Sounds to me like you aren't interested in taxes or freedom or immigration or trade, but just want control over people. From your writing and others thank goodness you remain powerless.

    3. You still made some asinine assumptions. Not an argument. Thanks Francisco for showing what ignorant trash you really are on these issues. These immigrants are here because of a government market distortion. Maybe you can show me how I have benefited. Meantime, I'm willing to have you taxed to support my welfare if necessary.

    4. @Unowned I think your missing my point. I didn't ask why you are arguing in the general. I asked why you are specifically arguing against people who only want you to have real sovreign ownership and decision making about your property.

      Because it seems to me you are either trolling or really don't want true ownership. Seems like you just want state control to make us all comply with your whims. Or something else? Which is it?

    5. I understand where you are coming from, sure.

      But I'd like constructive answers to the questions I posed on the topic at hand instead of what feels like flailing around from topic to topic.

      And maybe you're not the best target of my specific questions (probably Sampien Valley or Lab Manager are).

      But what exactly is so much better about not actually owning the land, infrastructure, and services which permit foreigners from traveling where you don't want them? That is the argument I see your "side" making here and other forums.

      You appear to be just fine with a state, that is out of control, answerable to nobody, including yourself, as long as from time to time, they do something you want with the money they have taken at gunpoint from you.

      Not sure I can make it more clear than that.

      So...yea, if you can't/won't directly answer my question, I consider you just trolling around and will probably dismiss your opinion no matter how old and experiencd you claim to be.

  10. In Galt's Gulch could anyone come, or did the community limit immigration?

  11. In a free market-stateless society, before any one is allowed into a community, all costs will be factored in by the owners and the person who will be inviting the immigrant will bear all net costs to the others in the community. With a massive welfare state that we have today,unrestricted immigration is such a retarded idea on so many levels that no one except Libertardians with their heads up their asses will want an unlimited amount of it. These libertards are very low IQ and are the religious zealots of the right.