Letters to the Editor
-
How Does This Explain Huge Numbers of Immigrants From Mexico?
From wikipedia:
"Mexico has thirteenth largest economy in the world. Mexico is also firmly established as an upper middle-income country with the highest income per capita in Latin America, in market exchange rates. Mexico is the only Latin American country to be member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development."
Mexico is doing pretty well. I would not consider it a poor nation. So why are so many citizens of Mexico fleeing this in-no-way-poor nation to come to the United States? Could it be because income disparity within countries is more important than income disparities between nations?
-
"Economics"
"Mexico has thirteenth largest economy in the world. Mexico is also firmly established as an upper middle-income country with the highest income per capita in Latin America, in market exchange rates. Mexico is the only Latin American country to be member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development."
Mexico is doing pretty well. I would not consider it a poor nation. So why are so many citizens of Mexico fleeing this in-no-way-poor nation to come to the United States? Could it be because income disparity within countries is more important than income disparities between nations?
I think it has to do with the absurd bias and subsequent meaninglessness of economic statistics, which pretty much makes it impossible to even discuss the topic, even for people who are cognizant of the fact and care about it.
If a patient in a hospital began recovering from an illness but suddenly had their arm start rotting and falling off, could they be considered in any way "healthy"? Of course not. Yet, an economy can be classified as "growing", "robust", or any number of other nonsensical descriptions even if a substantial portion of the population is growing poorer, already impoverished, or is just plain miserable.
Have you ever taken an economics class? You might as well take a class in jabberwocky. The absurd ideas put forth in college-level economics classes are even classified as "laws," as though humans suddenly discovered some immutable force of nature that compels our institutions to be greedy and ruthless.
-
@cosmo...we agree.
Cosmo, we may differ on the existence of God, or lack thereof, but on economics, we're pals.
Economics as Jabberwocky. That's a good one.
Your post put me in mind of this, by Robert Nelson, from his book "Reaching for Heaven on Earth," to wit:
The members of the American economics profession, as Arnold contended, performed a vital practical role in maintaining this unique system of corporate socialism American style. It was their role to prevent the American public from achieving a correct understanding of the actual workings of the American economic system. Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of 'laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals.' However false as a description of the actual U.S. economy, this vision in the mind of the American public was in practice 'transferred automatically to industrial organizations with nation-wide power and dictatorial forms of government.' Even though the arguments of economists were misleading and largely fictional, the practical -- and beneficial -- result of their deception was to throw a 'mantle of protection ... over corporate government' from various forms of outside interference. Admittedly, as the economic 'symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up.' But as long as this arrangement worked and there could be maintained 'the little pictures in the back of the head of the ordinary man,' the effect was salutary -- 'the great [corporate] organization was secure in its freedom and independence.' It was this very freedom and independence of business professionals to pursue the correct scientific answer -- the efficient answer -- on which the economic progress of the United States depended.
*******
see more good stuff at www.dieoff.org
-
A different take
"Wage gap differentials between rich and poor countries today are at least twice as great as those between the U.S. and its primary sources of immigrants during the age of migration."
This isn't an argument for labor immigation. It's a sign that labor and environoment standards need to become conditions of trade. Only through globalization of higher wages, unions, and better working conditions can this differential be addressed. Conversely, this great differential shows how great the effect of such standards can be.
-
Once again...
...they come here because we go there. The imperialistic economic (and otherwise) policies of rich countries (not just the U.S.) produce most (not all) of the poverty around the world, thus forcing people out of their homes and into the immigrant stream. These policies don't benefit citizens of the Empire(s,) in any event.
So, since the Empires are mostly relatively free and rich countries, why can't we change this situation, even for purely selfish reasons?
-
And yet the income disparity between Mexico and Guatemala yields zero migration
Because Mexico is quite hard on immigrants illegal or not. Mexico's GDP PPP is 2.5x that of Guatemala. 56% of Guatemalan households are below the poverty line compared to 40% in Mexico. In Mexico the top 10% consumes 35% of the 'total' compared to their neighbor where the top 10% consumes 46%. So why is it that people from Guatemala don't flock into Mexico? Because Mexico is very aggressive at keeping people out.
-
RealName, the Guatemalans come here instead
Go skiing some time. In Aspen all the maids and the checkout clerks in the supermarkets are from Guatemala.
-
comparing Mexico to the U.S.
Just an FYI, a lot of Guatemalans enter Mexico, some of them try to work there, many more travel all the way through the country to enter the U.S., hence the number of Guatemalans that enter the U.S. illegally each year.
Mexico does crack down on illegal employment, probably to protect its unemployed/underemployed population. It seems the failure of the U.S. to deal with the millions of people working illegally is directly related to the fact that we need unskilled, low-wage workers, or people who are willing to do those jobs. If a large number of Americans were clamoring for jobs cleaning hotel rooms, flipping burgers and picking strawberries, I don't believe the undocumented population would have ever reached what it is today.