Open markets need open borders

[Universe Prince]

Excerpted from "Open Markets, Closed Borders: Immigration reformers miss the point. Again." by Kerry Howley:

As the U.S. decides how many immigrants to let slip through its barricades, historical contingencies should give some perspective to those who would throw up walls and slam doors. Pritchett lays out the humanitarian stakes of debate in his latest book, Let Their People Come, where he argues for a poverty-alleviation strategy that prioritizes mobility and a vision of free enterprise that embraces free movement. The greatest distortion for Chadian farmers is not American cotton subsidies, writes Pritchett, but that “farmers from Chad have to farm in Chad—and not farm in France, Poland, or Canada.”

   [...]

One place to start thinking about labor market liberalization might be with the demand our economy has already demonstrated. At present, 500,000 undocumented immigrants come into the country annually, finding employment at above native rates. The Labor Department projects that the economy will create 400,000 or more low-skilled service sector jobs every year, while the number of Americans without a high school education continues to fall. How will the immigration bill meet this challenge? The 790-page bill as amended creates a guest worker program for 200,000 workers, a number the Cato Institute’s Dan Griswold calls “woefully inadequate.” The trade-off for is not insubstantial; the bill’s provisions include a stretch of wall, 105 surveillance towers, 18,000 more border agents, and billions of dollars. Most disturbingly, the bill includes the Electronic Employment Verification System, which would require that every single worker, American or otherwise, seek the Department of Homeland Security’s permission to work legally. A guest worker program could be a step forward, in that cleaving immigration from public services and permanence addresses the incompatibility of open borders and a welfare state. And even a small step forward could be enormously beneficial. As Dani Rodrik, a professor of international political economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, explains on his blog, “since trade barriers for labor services are so much steeper in today's world economy than barriers in goods, even a small amount of liberalization in this area promises huge income gains in aggregate.” The question is whether a trickle of visas is worth an onslaught of enforcement, the billions spent to support distortions in the labor market.

Whole article at Reason Online.

[sirs]

Ummm, no they don't "need".  It'd be nice perhaps, but obviously not necessary

[Xavier_Onassis]

An open market for goods and money is unrelated to an open market for labor.

The assumption of fallacious.

[Universe Prince]

An open market for goods and money is unrelated to an open market for labor.

Unrelated? Upon what do you base that conclusion?

[Plane]

An open market for goods and money is unrelated to an open market for labor.

Unrelated? Upon what do you base that conclusion?

I belelieve that XO i refering to the goods produced and the money earned with no labor involvement.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What I mean is that one can trade jet aircraft for DVD players with China or Japan, and this in no way requires that workers from the US migrate to China or Japan, or that Japanese or Chinese migrate to the US.

Goods, regardless of how much labor they require, are by their very nature far more portable than people, who have families and arte integral members of the societies to which they belong.

This should be obvious to anyone with a minimal brain by mere observation. Those who do not find it obvious need to leave and find employment in Belgium, Bangalore, Ulan Bator or anywhere else.

[Universe Prince]

What I mean is that one can trade jet aircraft for DVD players with China or Japan, and this in no way requires that workers from the US migrate to China or Japan, or that Japanese or Chinese migrate to the US.

Goods, regardless of how much labor they require, are by their very nature far more portable than people, who have families and arte integral members of the societies to which they belong.

This should be obvious to anyone with a minimal brain by mere observation. Those who do not find it obvious need to leave and find employment in Belgium, Bangalore, Ulan Bator or anywhere else.

Yes, but this does not prove that the market for goods is unrelated to the market for labor. Because all those goods that you think are so portable, require labor to create and labor to transport. And of course, as you well know, labor for creation and for transport is something for which there must be payment, i.e. it is a cost. That makes the market for goods and the market for labor quite closely related. This should be obvious by mere observation to anyone with a minimal brain. If you do not find it obvious, Xavier, I suggest you attempt to create goods and transport them without labor. Creation ex nihilo, out of nothing, of course, because you would otherwise have to use materials that someone had used labor to make/acquire and/or transport. Let us know how that works out for you.

[sirs]

....this does not prove that the market for goods is unrelated to the market for labor.

I don't think anyone is arguing that they are completely unrelated, simply not the be-all, end all need of 1 for the other

[_JS]

True open markets and free trade do require the free movement of labor to establish an open and competetive labor market.

The issue here is political. The United States, or more accurately, the Republicans and Democrats, do not wish to have open markets, free trade, or a competetive labor market.

[Universe Prince]

I don't think anyone is arguing that they are completely unrelated

Well, Xavier was giving a good impression of it, what with him saying flat out they were unrelated and all.

[Universe Prince]

True open markets and free trade do require the free movement of labor to establish an open and competetive labor market.

Exactly.

Hey, wait a minute. How is it the guy who likes socialism is saying this? You didn't just tape a "Kick Me" sign on my back, did you? ;-]

The issue here is political. The United States, or more accurately, the Republicans and Democrats, do not wish to have open markets, free trade, or a competetive labor market.

That is, sadly, quite true.