Little did I know at the time that just three weeks earlier, Williams had penned a defense of Trump's (Sessions's, Miller's) immigration policy, Immigration Lies and Hypocrisy also published at FrontPage Mag. One may admire the accuracy of article's heading as a label of its contents until one realizes it is not actually intended as a confession.
I wrote to Professor Williams about the bizarre discrepancy between his January 30th column and his February 20th claims. I don't really expect to hear back.
Dear Professor Williams,
I appreciate that you "can't respond to every query" but my question raises urgent questions of morality and intellectual integrity. In February of this year, you wrote an opinion piece decrying the so-called "lump-of-labor fallacy" that you claim lurks behind concerns that automation will "kill jobs." I noticed that one outlet that carried your syndicated column was David Horowitz's "FrontPage Mag."
Today, the Guardian featured an interview with Mr. Horowitz in which he asserted that Donald Trump's immigration policy is "100% right." Horowitz, the article notes, was a mentor to Stephen Miller, the Trump advisor who in 2015 authored Senator Sessions's "Immigration Handbook for the New Republican Majority." Here are a few excerpts from that document:
The last four decades have witnessed the following: a period of record, uncontrolled immigration to the United States; a dramatic rise in the number of persons receiving welfare; and a steep erosion in middle class wages. But the only “immigration reforms” discussed in Washington are those pushed by interest groups who want to remove what few immigration controls are left in order to expand the record labor supply even further.
---------------------
No issue more exposes the Democrats’ colossal hypocrisy than their support for an immigration agenda pushed by the world’s most powerful interest groups and businesses that clearly results in fewer jobs and lower wages for Americans.
Here are the findings from a poll of likely U.S. voters commissioned by GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway:
- 77% of respondents said jobs should go to current U.S.-born workers or legal immigrants already in the country—instead of bringing in new workers to fill those jobs
- 88% of conservatives, 78% of moderates, 78% of independents, 71% of Democrats and 62% of liberals says current U.S. workers should get jobs preference
- 80% of respondents said businesses should recruit the currently unemployed instead of expanding the labor supply with new workers from other countries
---------------------
How are any members of the Democrat caucus going to explain why they are determined to provide instant work permits to every illegal immigrant and visa overstay in the country? How are they going to explain why they want to double the number of guest workers when we don’t have enough jobs for the workers here right now? How are they going to explain why they voted for legislation that will surge the labor supply at a time when wages are down and a record number of Americans can’t find work?
As you will no doubt agree, these arguments conform with what you have denounced in your column as a lump of labor fallacy. In fact, at the time the handbook came out, Walter Ewing of the American Immigration Council countered the handbook's claims with one of the fallacy claim's stock surrogates -- the "not a zero sum game" rebuttal:
Employment is not a "zero sum" game in which workers compete for some fixed number of jobs. Immigrant workers spend their wages in U.S. businesses—buying food, clothes, appliances, cars, etc. Businesses respond to the presence of these new workers and consumers by investing in new restaurants, stores, and production facilities. And immigrants themselves are 30 percent more likely than the native-born to start their own business. The end result is more jobs for more workers. The economic contributions of unauthorized immigrants in particular would be amplified were they given a way to earn legal status.So, what does Walter E. Williams think of this Trumpian lump-of-labor fallacy policy? Judging from your column published in January of this year, people who disagree with that policy are liars and hypocrites. Your automation column was published about three weeks after your immigration column. How do you reconcile the discrepancy?
Sincerely,
Tom Walker
11 comments:
"A piece of work is Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University. Back in February, I flagged a column by Williams in which the nimble prof performed the lump-of-labor fallacy shuck and jive."
Perhaps you did not know that Professor Williams is a conservative African-American economist. Now that you do, I wonder whether you believe your "shuck and jive" comment reflects the care and racial sensitivity with which I presume you write all your articles?
Anonymous troll,
Walter E. Williams is an affirmative action, right-wing troll. And so are you.
By the way, anonymous troll, please read the racist filth in professor Williams's immigration column before lecturing people about "racial sensitivity."
I am a different person and am only trying to understand what is being argued:
Is the argument that there is only a limited amount of work to be done so increasing productivity or population growth say through immigration will mean fewer jobs to go round?
Forgive me for being a bother, but I did not want my question to be lost:
"Is the argument that there is only a limited amount of work to be done so increasing productivity or population growth say through immigration will mean fewer jobs to go round?"
Unknown,
No, that is not the argument. It is an argument about the ideological uses of what is essentially a dead metaphor. The "fixed amount of work" is a FIGURE OF SPEECH that has been used by reactionaries in opposite ways to justify reactionary policies. If you want a detailed explanation, pleases read my 2007 article "Why Economists Dislike a Lump of Labor." I can't summarize it in a sound bite because the rhetorical trick employed by the reactionaries is to both affirm and disavow the same proposition: "1. I am right because there is a certain quantity of work to be done 2. You are wrong because there is NOT a fixed amount of work to be done, as you assume."
Catch 22
I assume this is the article and will read it carefully:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/29770416?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Why Economists Dislike a Lump of Labor
Tom Walker
First I need to understand the argument, then consider the politics. Thank you.
Also Unknown Anonymous,
there is a summary of the argument at http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2018/05/lompigheid-omgekeerd-omgekeerd.html
Anonymous troll,
I deleted your second comment and will delete any further shuck and jive from you about "shuck and jive" the expression is an apt African-American expression that refers to exactly the kind of discourse I was referring to. It is also not antisemitic to call Benjamin Netanyahu a schmuck. I suspect though that you are a white supremacist doing a political correctness police impersonation. GFY
https://www.jstor.org/stable/29770416?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Why Economists Dislike a Lump of Labor
Tom Walker
The article is excellent, also thank you for the summary:
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2018/05/lompigheid-omgekeerd-omgekeerd.htm
I am pleased.
Sorry, the "l" was left out:
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2018/05/lompigheid-omgekeerd-omgekeerd.html
Directly relevant and I think excellent:
http://cepr.net/publications/briefings/testimony/can-work-sharing-bring-the-us-workplace-into-the-20th-century
June 21, 2018
Can Work Sharing Bring the US Workplace into the 20th Century?
By Dean Baker
Post a Comment