Congressional Issues 2010
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
POLICY
Immigration in a Division of Labor Economy
|
Prof.
Reisman now highlights the answers to arguments against free
immigration.
Refutation of the Arguments Against Free Immigration
It is necessary to refute the arguments advanced against
the freedom of immigration and the population growth it
causes.
It is claimed that the larger population resulting from
free immigration creates the need to resort to inferior grades
of land and mineral deposits and is accompanied by diminishing
returns. This argument has already been answered both in our
discussions of population growth and in our discussion of
private ownership of land.
Here it is only necessary to add a further point which
applies particularly when the population growth results from
immigration. Namely, that the immigration can be accompanied
by the importation of additional raw materials along with the
additional people.
Imagine, for example, that workers of the British steel
industry immigrated to the United States and became steel
workers here. This would not mean that the iron ore they
required must be taken from the Mesabi range in Minnesota.
Very probably, it would simply mean that iron ore that used to
go from Labrador to Britain will now go from Labrador to the
United States.
This example points up the fact that those who fear
population growth are thinking in terms of a non-division-
of-labor society, in which people work the land and in which
more people in a territory means more working of the land in
that territory. Actually, immigration into towns and cities
has no necessary connection with the extent to which the land
and mineral deposits of the surrounding territory must be
worked, because the towns and cities can draw their raw
materials from anywhere in the world. The notion that more
people in a country must mean a higher ratio of labor to land
in that country, and thus diminishing returns, simply does not
apply in a division-of-labor society. *
* *
|
| It is also claimed that a
larger population must reduce the productivity of labor
because it means a higher ratio of labor to capital goods,
or, what is the same thing, less capital goods per worker.
Those who advance this argument believe that population
growth and increases in the supply of capital goods are
independent processes. Capital accumulation, they believe,
is determined simply by saving, which allegedly has no
connection with the growth of population.
The fact is that a larger number of people working and
producing is itself the cause of a larger supply of
capital goods. A larger number of people working and
producing in conjunction even with an unchanged supply of
capital goods results in an increase in total production.
This no one can deny. It is only necessary to realize that
what is produced in an economy is not only consumers’
goods, but also capital goods. Labor and existing
capital goods are used to produce both consumers’ goods and
capital goods, and, as we shall see in later chapters,
they do so in accordance with the relative demands for the
two types of goods.
The implication of this is that if there is any single,
one-time increase in the number of people working and
producing, it automatically tends to be followed by a growth
in the supply of capital goods per worker and thus in output
per worker at least back to their original levels. This is
because the larger number of workers produces more capital
goods with which that same larger number of workers then
works in the next period, and with the aid of which it
enjoys a higher productivity. The further effect is another
increase in production in the following period—both of
consumers’ goods and of capital goods, until the
original levels of capital goods per worker and the
productivity of labor are equaled and, indeed, surpassed.
Thus, it should be clear that no reasonable case exists
against any single dose of immigration or population
increase based on the argument that it reduces the amount of
capital goods per worker. For the additional labor itself
results in progressively more capital goods.
|
George
Reisman's Program of Self-Education in
the Economic Theory and Political Philosophy of Capitalism
In the case of a continuous increase in the supply
of labor, it could be argued that just as the first group of
additional workers brings about an increase in the supply of
capital goods, a second group arrives on the scene, so that the
ratio of capital goods to labor does not increase and may even
fall further. Read Prof. Reisman's
answer to this argument:
- MALTHUSIANISM
VS. COVENANTALISM
- Gary North's essay on Darwin, Malthus, and a Biblical
world-view
|
In his book The Myth of Over-Population,
R.J. Rushdoony shows that the symptoms of
"overpopulation" are actually symptoms of
government intervention. Darwinian and Malthusian
assumptions govern the modern State, and both the Republican
and Democrat Parties.
|
|
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
NEXT: 8 |
9 |
10 |
Recent Blog Posts
- In the Next Two Years, Congress should:
- expand, or at least maintain, current legal immigration
quotas;
- increase permanently the number of H-1B visas and
deregulate employment-based immigration to facilitate the
entry of skilled immigrants;
- remove the new one-year time limit on filing for
political asylum and reform the "expedited
removal" laws;
- repeal employer sanctions;
- stop the move toward a computerized national
identification system and the use of government-issued
documents, such as birth certificates and Social Security
cards, as de facto national ID cards; and
- reduce restrictions on the movement of workers within
the North American Free Trade Agreement area.
|
By the end of
the decade, Congress should:
- Abolish all anti-immigration laws.
As soon as possible, America should:
- Create a vast network of voluntary
social service agencies to meet all immigrants at the
borders or piers and ensure their literacy and familiarity
with American values.
- Commit to on-going transmission of American values to
immigrants in all areas of life. Read
more about this.
|
|
|
.