Re: Common Dreams xenophobia

[Walt Byars <wbyars@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carrol Cox referred to an article which said that no mass migration had
been stopped, not limited. Also, it referred to a "mass migration." Given
the geographical situation of Japan, one would imagine that there would
not be mass immigration even in the absence of their immigration laws.

Also, your "common sense" is not correct. Monopsonistic labor markets
(individual firms facing upward sloping labor supply curves) exist and are
probably quite pervasive (see Alan Manning's recent book), so even by the
purest  neoclassical logic, unions or legislation could increase
employment by increasing wages. I also don't think there is empirical
evidence to support your "common sense," and in fact there is evidence
that contradicts it to an extent.

> Carrol Cox writes:
>
>>> Twenty+ years ago I came across one of the rare instances when a WSJ
>>> editorial seemed to make sense. The editorial claimed that never in
>>> history had a mass migration such as the u.s. was experiencing been
>>> stopped by any means whatever. Perhaps a bit extreme, but I suspect it
>>> was pretty correct and efforts to keep the uncivilized horde out of
>>> both
>>> the u.s. and out of europe are going to fail unless/until radical
>>> changes in the social conditions of Latin America, Africa, mideast,
>>> south and southeast asia change fundamentally.
>
> I doubt this is correct.  The US successfully limited immigration with the
> 1924 immigration laws.  The large scale immigation in recent decades
> appears to be a policy choice, not inevitable.  Just look at Japan, which
> has a policy of essentially no immigration.  Europe chose a policy of
> immigration in the 1970s, primarily because its declining populations
> couldn't sustain their welfare states.  If the Europeans (or Americans)
> want to be like the Japanese, they could.
>
> I think the discussion of unionization and immigration was a bit flippant.
>  Undoubtedly, racism plays a part in certain views.  However, as good
> Marxists, focus on the underlying economic realities.  I think it is
> common sense that, in the medium to long term, unions can only increase
> the price of labor by limiting the supply of workers.  While an increase
> of workers through immigration may increase union membership, which will
> increase union dues, it will be a certainty that the price of labor will
> be lower than in the absence of the immigration.  To me, this creates a
> contradiction between unions and their existing workers.  As Mr. Proyect's
> excerpt demonstrates, the economic realities were apparent from the
> beginning.
>
> David Shemano
>