New York Times: Immigrants Are Superior to Americans and Their Kids


New York Times columnist David Brooks tells his friends that the costs imposed by cheap-labor immigration don’t exist because, really, Americans are just inferior to immigrants in every way.

He writes:





Brooks’ opinion of his former fellow-Americans is shared by many of his peers. Like them, he simply ignores the huge impact of the feds’ economic strategy of annually importing 1 million new people — or roughly 750,000 workers — into the labor marketplace just as four million young Americans begin looking for jobs.

That economic policy imposes a massive level of wage-cutting competition on blue-collar and white-collar Americans, ensuring that a huge amount of money is sliced out of wages and salaries. The sliced money is sent up to New York’s Wall Street and to investors in the form of higher profits, higher property prices, and higher stock values. The National Academy of Science estimated in 2016 that this redistributive economic policy effectively imposes a stealth 5.2 immigration tax on Americans who are forced to compete against immigrants for jobs.

The massive 20 to 25 percent inflation of the labor supply also drains investment from smaller American towns, pushes many Americans out of the workforce, reduces company-funded training and vocational education, makes it harder for young couples to buy houses and have children, and even slows the development of American-built labor-saving machinery.

Brooks simply blames Americans for problems which are exacerbated by his favored cheap-labor immigration economic strategy. But he and his peers would be appalled if the federal government imposed the same inflationary policy on investors as it imposes on employees.

If it did, the government would create one new stock for every four stock shares created on Wall Street. When Facebook announces that it will issue 4 million new shares, then the government would convert 1 million shares from favored penny-stock companies into Facebook shares. That policy would effectively steal 20 percent of the new Facebook shares’ value — and provide a huge windfall for the lucky (or well-connected) owners of the penny-share stocks.

That one-for-four policy would also tank the stock market, skew investment, enrage Brooks’ peers  — and would rapidly persuade GOP-leaning, penny-stock investors to invent new reasons why federal stock-creation is good for diversity, entrepreneurship, education, the civic fabric, neighborhood restaurants, apple pie, etc., etc.

It would also ensure that a columnist at the Topeka Times would someday declare, more in sorrow than in anger, that Brooks and his investor friends are unfortunately stuck in the outmoded era of dog-eat-puppy civic Darwinism.










Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.