Is there a security crisis at the Southwest border?

[appleman2006]

Good questions Appleman, I am not sure if I have the answers to them but I'll do my best. I do have a question about one of your assertions though. You wrote: "If you are suggesting no immigration than may I also suggest that means no trade." I am no sure I see the axiomatic connection between the two. Why is one contingent upon the other?

Perhaps in making that statement I am misreading what you are actually saying.

But often people that make the argument that we do not need immigration and that immigration simply hurts the ability of those already here to get jobs are implying that if we just paid workers more here or paid them better wages or benefits that in fact we could fill all of our needs without immigration. Maybe that is not what you are saying and if it is not I am even more interested in what your solution might be.

The case could be made that if we did not bring in a single thing from any other country and had to be self sufficient and a world to ourselves then this might be possible. But if I in growing my apples have to compete with countries that pay a fraction of the wages we do then ultimately there is a limit to what I can pay. Do you get what I am saying?

For this reason trade is linked very closely to immigration.

[RZehr]

HK: I guess in a nutshell, from an economic consideration, do you think this county is on a good population trajectory without immigrants?

[temporal1]

HK: I guess in a nutshell, from an economic consideration, do you think this county is on a good population trajectory without immigrants?

HK has brought a number of good points, this one, may be, is a bit skewed.

Even on the most conservative sites i see (i would not be able to describe what level or label conservative they are) - i do not see anyone suggesting “no immigration.” no one.

the discussion is about LEGAL immigration. there is a huge interest in establishing respect for U.S. laws, borders, legal citizens - by immigrants, AND BY POLITICIANS, who are elected to protect and defend legal citizens and legal borders.

after that, ^^ unhappiness about disease and crime, special protections+privileges for ILLEGAL immigrants, paid by legal citizens. there is an abundance of legal U.S. citizens who do not feel secure in employment and housing. many live on the margins. too many are homeless, etc.

as HK pointed out, i don’t see much discussion on this forum about other factors, i.e., other than the economics and demographics of it, but, i agree with him, there are other factors, as he has named. he has good points about the errors in looking at it solely from the immediate demographics view.

i don’t presume others are not interested, the dialogue just hasn’t gone there, and, in the world, the dialogue is not comprehensive, either.

it suits the internet, and politicians, to keep things very-very simple. too simple, really.
HK is pointing out there’s a big downside in that.

this forum can’t cure all fails. but, we might add a bit of depth here+there.
no reason not to try.

on this one point, tho, i don’t see anyone suggesting “no immigration.”
i see political accusations of this! i do not accept it as honest.

[Judas Maccabeus]

HK: I guess in a nutshell, from an economic consideration, do you think this county is on a good population trajectory without immigrants?

Yeah, see how well that is working for Japan.

J.M.

[HondurasKeiser]

HK: I guess in a nutshell, from an economic consideration, do you think this county is on a good population trajectory without immigrants?

I honestly couldn't say and I don't think many of us can either. If the Austrian School of economics taught us anything its that man and his free choices are an unknown variable and that all the economic models in the world cannot accurately account for or predict his next move. All that to say, population growth/decline is simply a variable among many, a number of which might be unknown or hidden, such that we cannot ever say with certainty how a declining or growing population will impact the economy. For example, Judas Maccabeus brought up Japan but we could add Germany in there as well. Both countries experienced a stagnating economy through the 1980's and 90's with their populations holding steady at replacement levels. Between 2003 and 2006 their populations began declining at the same time that their economies began an upturn that has more or less continued unabated. Population decline linked to labor shortages can have both positive and negative effects on the over-all economy, its just a question of the causes of decline and the severity of it. In our current situation I might be inclined to question the wisdom of trying to artificially increase American population through immigration given that many of the current services jobs that are low-skill are expected to become automated over the next 20 years.

This then is part of the reason why I do not think these questions about immigration, fee-trade and others like it can be simply answered by economic explanations alone. We must have a more comprehensive conversation about it. I am writing a fuller response to both you and Appleman but it may take me a while.

[HondurasKeiser]

Perhaps in making that statement I am misreading what you are actually saying.

But often people that make the argument that we do not need immigration and that immigration simply hurts the ability of those already here to get jobs are implying that if we just paid workers more here or paid them better wages or benefits that in fact we could fill all of our needs without immigration. Maybe that is not what you are saying and if it is not I am even more interested in what your solution might be.

The case could be made that if we did not bring in a single thing from any other country and had to be self sufficient and a world to ourselves then this might be possible. But if I in growing my apples have to compete with countries that pay a fraction of the wages we do then ultimately there is a limit to what I can pay. Do you get what I am saying?

For this reason trade is linked very closely to immigration.

Now I see what you're saying - I want to formulate a proper response to your and RZehr's earlier questions but it's taking me a while. In the meantime I have two other questions for you.

1. You wrote above: "But often people that make the argument that we do not need immigration and that immigration simply hurts the ability of those already here to get jobs are implying that if we just paid workers more here or paid them better wages or benefits that in fact we could fill all of our needs without immigration."

Can you explain to me why you think that people that make the arguments like you describe are incorrect in their thinking?

2. As a business owner do you find free-trade to be beneficial for you economically or would you prefer to go back to the days of tariffs? Have there been any downsides either economically or otherwise to operating in a global market?

[appleman2006]

I feel I already answered your first question. In an industry where labour still accounts for 65 percent of our input costs (and believe you me that is not because we have not spent massive amounts to try and get that number down) then yes having to compete with other countries where labour laws are very different does play a big role in what I can pay people.
In our industry though because so much of it is seasonal it is not even a case of pay. Our labour costs are far above minimum wage and still we could not exist without the very wonderful off shore seasonal labour supply that our government has made possible for us.
Your second question is a bit harder to answer in some ways. I have always been a proponent of a free market because I feel that fair competition actually helps us be better at what we do. I have never had the attitude that people should feel forced to buy from me simply because they are my neighbours. I need to earn their trust and they need to feel they are getting value. But when dealing in international matters the field gets less then level at times.

So my neighbour can protest to the government and insist that I must pay all my workers 20 dollars and hour and time and a half for overtime and be given a good benefit package but then turn around and buy his apples from the supermarket who sources them from Chile where none of those things take place because my apples are too expensive. That is the problem.

The fact is that in many areas we have already given up on this fight. Our clothes and the vast majority of goods we buy already come from places where labour costs are low. We think nothing of it. Essentially we are all a bunch of hypocrites. When it comes to food however there are a few factors in play that have made this process a little bit slower. The Government so far largely recognises that losing our food supply could very quickly become a national emergency and so has made allowances while still trying to keep food affordable and actually cheap for the masses.
There is much more involved of course that makes this question more detailed then I can answer here quickly but I am still very interested in any solutions you may have.

[RZehr]

Why don’t you start growing apples in Chile? Or importing them from a grower there?
We are in agriculture and we import from many countries and also grow our own products in a handful of countries.

[Josh]

The fact is that in many areas we have already given up on this fight. Our clothes and the vast majority of goods we buy already come from places where labour costs are low. We think nothing of it. Essentially we are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Lots of people were opposed to this before "free trade" became so widespread; nowadays, there aren't really even alternatives for many kinds of basic goods if one doesn't want to buy imports.

I agree with you that trade and immigration are linked, which is why I'm opposed to "free trade". It's good at making rich people richer, and it's good at helping the poor in other countries be enslaved in sweatshops. I don't think that cheaper consumer products are some kind of over-arching societal good. If anything, if we can't produce something affordably in the U.S. or Canada, maybe we don't need it at all, and we'd be better off without it.

[appleman2006]

Why don’t you start growing apples in Chile? Or importing them from a grower there?
We are in agriculture and we import from many countries and also grow our own products in a handful of countries.

So far we have resisted that. With time it may very well come to that if we are to survive as a company. Thankfully that will probably be after I am no longer involved. As I stated there are a whole host of reasons why when a country starts to go down that road they put themselves in a huge risk. We have things so good today and most of us think of the world as being such a small place anymore that we can hardly envision a world where food shortages could be such that it will not be the richest that get it but rather the ones that are closest to it.
Even your country which is one of the most self sufficient countries (at least has that capability) in the history of mankind is not immune. When 85 percent of your fruits and vegetables are grown in one state. That should be huge cause for concern.

Let me give you an illustration of the types of things that can happen when one does not have control of their food supply.
Yesterday in Toronto celery was wholesaling for $92.00 dollars a box (24 heads) with the promise that it will rise to 100 dollars this weekend. That means that if retail maintains their standard markup celery would be retailing for
$6.65 a bunch. This is just a small example of what can happen when you become reliant on someone else growing your food. The argument of course is that the market will always correct itself. Sure with time it can. But when an area looses it's agricultural base and along with that the know how and support systems to make all that happen it does not happen over night and with time a lot of people especially the most vulnerable in our society get hurt. I would also argue that sometimes before markets can correct situations like this you get social uprisings that bring change and harm not just for years but for generations.

So I am not opposed to companies going the import method or even growing in other countries. In many cases they are just doing what they need to do to survive. I am simply saying it is not a long term solution and may even become part of the problem.