Kuttner For An April First

In honor of the new blog Fisking Central, which was kind enough to list Joust The Facts under links for "serious fisking," along with Christopher Hitchens, no less, a look at today's Robert Kuttner column in the Boston Globe.

Since it is April Fool's Day, it's entirely appropriate that the Boston Globe carries an op-ed today by Robert Kuttner.  Mr. Kuttner discusses the conflicting ideas in immigration policy and politics, with an economic slant.   We'll look at the two areas he 'covers' in due course.

Throughout the piece he makes use of the classic slight of hand by referring to "immigrants" and "illegal immigrants" interchangeably.  The arguments he makes with regard to legal residents of America are applied to those here without permission, as if the two groups are the same.  Let's have a look.

He begins with a statement of fact that wide-open immigration slightly depresses wages, noting appropriately that minimum wage - or less, if under the table - could be considered plum by someone accustomed to third world living conditions.  What's puzzling is his lament that workers here illegally are unable to defend themselves against "subminimum wages and working conditions otherwise against the law."  Aside from the fact that he provides no examples of such illegal working conditions, should these workers desire recourse they should probably remedy their illegal status first.

Mr. Kuttner then moves to irresponsible epithets:

The Republican Party is now split between business groups who want cheap workers and jingoists who are just plain anti-immigrant. The nativist wing of the GOP plays both to the national security and economic fears of ordinary Americans.

This third grade caricature of Republican positions is deeply embedded in Mr. Kuttner's psyche, so it will be impossible to root out.  He conveniently ignores those in my camp - who seem to be most of the Republicans I see and hear quoted, and apparently including Oliver Willis as well - who believe that the legal immigration of those who really want to be  American, who want to embrace American ideals and American principles, and who want to make America their cherished new home is a good thing.  Many, like me, are descended from immigrants themselves.  And, frankly, I could care less for the cheap labor needs of businesses.  That's just another cost of doing business, like higher energy costs and new technologies.  The businesses will adjust if necessary.

The attacks of 9/11 did happen (though the attackers were not Mexican.)

Uh, yup.  But judging by the inverted American flag flying under a Mexican flag this week in California, and by professed desires by some for "reconquista" it's not all that far-fetched to consider that group of illegal immigrants a different kind of threat, is it?

But it's Mr. Kuttner's economics that is most perplexing.  He provides the transition with this sentence:

However, it is worth leaving the immigration debate to explore the deeper causes of stagnant living standards that make so many Americans fearful of immigrants.

What Americans are fearful of immigrants?  Are you referring to union members who don't want low cost non-union laborers competing for work?  Then there's this, written just before citing the statistics for wage growth from 1999 to 2004:

In the current recovery, for the first time since the government has kept such statistics, median household income has lagged behind inflation in a recovery for five straight years.

Mr. Kuttner conveniently ignores the fact that the economic slowdown began in 2000, during the tail end of the Clinton administration, and was extended into 2003 after the events of 9/11.  Thus the statistic he cites covers only the first year of recovery, not five years of recovery as he implies.  He later looks at wage growth over a longer period, from 1991 to 2002, and finds it inadequate.  Of course this time frame includes both the recession under Bush 41 and that starting late under Clinton, as well as the economic effects of 9/11.  And it doesn't include any of the effects of the economic policies of Bush 43, such as the 2003 tax cuts.  You'll see why that realization is important in a moment.

But, okay, I'm in a giving mood, so even though it's arguable I'll grant Mr. Kuttner the point that wage growth from 1991 to 2002, and maybe even 2004, has been inadequate.  His thesis deriving from that point is this:

Why does this [stagnant wage growth] describe America in 2006? Don't blame it on immigrants. Blame it on the people running the government, who have made sure that the lion's share of the productivity gains go to the richest 1 percent of Americans. With different tax, labor, health, and housing policies, native-born workers and immigrants alike could get a fairer share of our productive economy -- and still have the nifty iPods.

George W. Bush is, perhaps, the most powerful president in American history.  He'd have to be.  Now he's responsible for bad economic statistics originating from policies established when his predecessors led the nation, before his 2003 tax cuts had even passed, let alone taken effect.

Comments

[Jason Spalding]

How ironic is it that those in government make the argument that illegal immigrants are just willing to do the jobs Americans don't want to do when the one job the government seems to be trying hard to avoid doing is dealing with illegal immigration.