Politics And Immigration

 Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
—Verse engraved on the base of the statue of liberty

Readers of my blog know that I am overall very pro-immigration. I have a strong belief that immigrants are a net plus, both for this country and for the immigrants themselves. In economics, there are hardly ever such win-win situations as there are with immigration and our country.

One of my biggest pet peeves is, when discussing politics and my views on immigration, for someone to automatically refer to my immigration views as ‘liberal’, or to imply that I am not conservative on immigration issues. The reason this bothers me so much is because immigration is much more complicated than simply reducing it to a liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican issue, and frankly, I don’t think a pro-immigration view is a liberal tenet, rather it’s more of a conservative tenet. I have refrained from discussing this topic before because it is one of those topics where it is very difficult to explain and the likelihood that someone will read into my posts what I did not mean is high. So up until now, this has been a conversation I usually only bring up over a few beers with friends. However, because of the rise of the minutemen and President Bush’s immigration plan, I have decided to write on this and explain exactly why I think immigration is more a conservative issue.

The Real Public Service

The Real Public Service

Thomas Sowell
|
Posted: Jun 01, 2010 12:01 AM

Every year about this time, big-government liberals stand up in front of college commencement crowds across the country and urge the graduates to do the noblest thing possible-- become big-government liberals.

That isn't how they phrase it, of course. Commencement speakers express great reverence for "public service," as distinguished from narrow private "greed." There is usually not the slightest sign of embarrassment at this self-serving celebration of the kinds of careers they have chosen-- over and above the careers of others who merely provide us with the food we eat, the homes we live in, the clothes we wear and the medical care that saves our health and our lives.

What I would like to see is someone with the guts to tell those students: Do you want to be of some use and service to your fellow human beings? Then let your fellow human beings tell you what they want-- not with words, but by putting their money where their mouth is.

You want to see more people have better housing? Build it! Become a builder or developer-- if you can stand the sneers and disdain of your classmates and professors who regard the very words as repulsive.

Would you like to see more things become more affordable to more people? Then figure out more efficient ways of producing things or more efficient ways of getting those things from the producers to the consumers at a lower cost.

That's what a man named Sam Walton did when he created Wal-Mart, a boon to people with modest incomes and a bane to the elite intelligentsia. In the process, Sam Walton became rich. Was that the "greed" that you have heard your classmates and professors denounce so smugly? If so, it has been such "greed" that has repeatedly brought prices down and thereby brought the American standard of living up.

Back at the beginning of the 20th century, only 15 percent of American families had a flush toilet. Not quite one-fourth had running water. Only three percent had electricity and one percent had central heating. Only one American family in a hundred owned an automobile.

By 1970, the vast majority of those American families who were living in poverty had flush toilets, running water and electricity. By the end of the twentieth century, more Americans were connected to the Internet than were connected to a water pipe or a sewage line at the beginning of the century.

More families have air-conditioning today than had electricity then. Today, more than half of all families with incomes below the official poverty line own a car or truck and have a microwave.

This didn't come about because of the politicians, bureaucrats, activists or others in "public service" that you are supposed to admire. No nation ever protested its way from poverty to prosperity or got there through rhetoric or bureaucracies.

It was Thomas Edison who brought us electricity, not the Sierra Club. It was the Wright brothers who got us off the ground, not the Federal Aviation Administration. It was Henry Ford who ended the isolation of millions of Americans by making the automobile affordable, not Ralph Nader.

Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing "compassion" for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about.

The wonderful places where you are supposed to go to do "public service" are as sheltered from the brutal test of reality as you have been on this campus for the last four-- or is it six?-- years. In these little cocoons, all that matters is how well you talk the talk. People who go into the marketplace have to walk the walk.

Colleges can teach many valuable skills, but they can also nourish many dangerous illusions. If you really want to be of service to others, then let them decide what is a service by whether they choose to spend their hard-earned money for it.

I LOVE Diversity

 I absolutely love it. Here is a recount of my day today...

I arrived at work to find my Indian/Canadian office mate in the office, we chatted a little about martial arts and what not, than I immediately went to the lab to do some work. As soon as I arrived in the lab, I started talking to an Iraqi friend, this friend is from northern Iraq, and overall supports the war in Iraq. He is always up to date on all the news, and fills me in on what it's like to be in Iraq. Today's topic of choice was the movie I let him borrow, Voices of Iraq, he hadn't watched it yet, as I was interested in his perspective on the movie.

Soon after that, I bumped into another friend at work, a native of Canada. This is a friend that I have long economic conversations with. He grew up amongst anarchists (damn Chomsky!!) and has leanings towards communism (yikes!!!). Needless to say, I immediately proceeded to talk about the wonders of Capitalism. Today's topic was some books I had recommended him (Friedman, Sowell, and Hazlitt). He is a smart cat, with a huge heart, it won't be long before he connects the dots.

Later, I chatted with a different Indian friend, not my old house mate, but a friend that is part of my group at work. We chatted about work stuff here and there, but overall touched on the topic of colonization (Queen Elizabeth, give them their Diamond back!!!) and what it does to a country. Nothing too long, just simple conversations.

I than headed to class (UCSD) with my other office mate (it's a big office, ok!!), who I have known since I started college, and who happens to be a Vietnamese refugee. His father, after the USA withdrew from Vietnam, was imprisoned for 10+ years for fighting with the USA for South Vietnam. President Reagan (may he rest in peace) went to Vietnam, and gave every family that had a family member imprisoned for a certain number of years (can't remember the exact number, I think it was 2 or 3 years) for fighting with the USA, free passage to the United States. My friend came, worked for a few years, saved saved and saved. Eventually enrolled into college, while still waking up at 4 amish to deliver newspapers, and graduated top of his class (I was second :-( ). He is now one of the top Engineers at our company. Imagine, with no help but his own will and dedication, in fact, there were many times where he had to go out of his way to support him and his father. Yet he did it, with no complaints and nothing but love and joy for this country. He never stops telling me how absolutely horrible it is to live under a communists regime, and always reminds me how lucky I am to be in the United States (God Bless America!!).

Upon arriving at school, I got the updates from our (school) lab partners. There are five of us, myself, my Vietnamese work mate, two foreign exchange students from Iran, and one Sikh from India (btw, Turbans in the USA pretty much means Sikh NOT Muslim). We chatted a bit, and than headed back to work.

When I got back to work, another friend of mine was in the (work) lab. This is another Mexican/American friend who, like myself, speaks fluent Spanish. When I was younger my dad used to give me a 'coscoron' everytime I spoke English to someone who you could clearly tell spoke Spanish better, and it's no different with this friend. I don't care how many people are around that don't know Spanish, when me and him communicate it is always in Spanish (Remember the Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo, before giving me an English Only lecture ;) ). Sometimes we talk about his kids, who btw, were raised by him and his wife of SEVERAL years (they were married very early, both are natives of Mexico). His oldest son just completed, at age 25ish, his Masters in Electrical Engineering from UCSD and now works for Nokia (making BIG bucks), and his eldest daughter is a public school teacher, his second oldest daughter is getting her bachelors degree at UCSD in Physics. Yeah, you heard that right, I am very proud (on a side note, my 13 year old sister is very good at math, I have high hopes for her, more news in a few years)!!!

While walking down the hall, I chatted with a white friend, about another Chinese friend who had been in a bicycle accident. Everything is ok, he will be back to work on Monday.

After this, I came home and chatted with my white roommate about this upcoming weekend. You see, I have friends coming over this weekend, mostly old college friends, but some friends I knew outside of college. As a matter of fact, I have a very close college white friend of mine driving from San Jose as we speak, he is due to get here at 3am in the morning. Who is coming you say, well if everything works as planned, it should be possibly two black guys, two white guys, four Mexican guys, two Cubans, and a guy from Peru. And those are just the ones staying over my place. I invited some friends from work, friends from school, and just friends that live in San Diego (Oso and Derek, you guys are invited too).

All in one day. I haven't even started talking about how my meetings at work are...It's almost a mini United Nations (except we get things done, and don't steal from the poor).

For all the crap some people give to California, this is certainly not part of it. This is the America I've known, the America I love, and the America that makes this country great. Sometimes I think it is even better than all the hot women here (ok, you're right, the hot women are better, but it's a close second). And it is very enriching.

With that out of my system, see you all on Monday, I got some partying to attend too.

PS: I also got A LOT of work done in the blank spots above...don't want anybody getting the impression... (Originally published: 1/21/2005)

Environmental Progress vs Economic Growth

 Many people try to frame environmental debates as debates between those who care about the environment and those who simply do not. This is not an accurate picture.

The tug of war between environmentalists and 'non-environmentalists' is not a tug of war between those who care for the environment vs those who do not care for the environment. It is between the environment vs economic growth and personal income (be it in the form of more money in your pocket or having a job).

I can not think of one contentious environmental law that doesn’t either harm economic growth or people's pocket book. For example, if you want to place higher taxes on gas, something that John Kerry was very fond of, that would disproportionately hurt my friends back in Compton than people in San Francisco. Why? Because the poorer you are, the more those extra cents a gallon matter. Or think of emission regulations, like those here in California. If those place a burden on companies, who bears the brunt of those burdens? Not the rich CEOs, but the people at the bottom of the economic ladder. For example, if the company decides to leave California because the restrictions are so high, that hurts primarily those w/ less economic capital, those that have less experience and education to bargain with. They lose that job, and they will have a much harder time getting another job than me and my Engineering friends. Or assuming the company doesn’t leave, say those regulations cost the company some extra money, hurting their bottom dollar, who are the first to go? Not the CEOs, but those at the bottom. In addition to personal income, economic growth is also (severely) restricted. Estimates say that it would cost us as much as $150 billion a year to transfer to a more environmentally regulated system.

This is especially evident when you look at underdeveloped countries. The last thing underdeveloped countries need is environmental regulations. At such low levels of economic growth, the first thing they are concentrating on is economic growth and feeding their children. This is the primary reason that underdeveloped countries are usually left out of environmental treaties.

This is primarily why the most pro-environmental people tend to be wealthy. All them Hollywood liberals, for example, are a lot less concerned with economic growth and bottom dollars than the poor. Or, for example, if you were to take a sample of the Sierra Club members, you would see that they are largely upper-income city dwellers (and tend to be anti-immigration, but that is a story for another day). This is why you see limousine liberals much more pro-environmentalist than say, inner city liberalism. Inner city liberals, being on the lower end of economic growth and income, tend to benefit more from the other side of that tug of war.

Of course, both sides are important. We need to preserve the environment and encourage economic growth and care for the poor. The question is where in the middle do you draw the line? The poorer you are, the more you want the line to the right; the richer you are, the more you want the line to the left. Conservatives/Republicans tend to err on the side of economic growth (and, indirectly, personal income for the poor), while liberals/Democrats tend to err on the side of the environment, both ideally wanting the best of both worlds. (Originally Posted: 5/11/2005)

More Hispanics Needed In The Sciences

 Caution, rant to follow...

[rant]I am taking two upper division courses at UC San Diego, Device Physics and Active Circuit Design. I know a lot of the material already from my undergrad, but I am planning on getting my masters in EE from there, so I figured a refresher would be good.

These are typical undergrad courses, ones that have to be taken by all engineers. The classrooms are big, holding 100+ students in an auditorium type setting. So you get to see what the average Engineering/Science class looks like. One of the first things I noticed when I started the class was how few Hispanics there are. Out of all the students in the classroom, I have not found one who looks Hispanic. Granted, not all Hispanics look alike, and there may be Hispanics who aren’t easily recognized as Hispanic. But it’s a clear fact that the majority in the classroom are Asian and White. I think I saw one black person.

I truly have a love for the sciences, and no disrespect to the liberal arts majors, but I am always bothered when I hear about a Hispanic who did well in high school and has the potential to succeed and yet decided to major in Chicano Studies or some degree like that. I always think its such a waste (especially since those majors are heavily biased towards the liberal philosophy, but that’s another topic). Why not enter a field where Hispanics are underrepresented, a field that has the most real world application, and a field that encourages math and science? Ok, I grant you that knowing where you came from is also good, but I think Chicano Studies and the like should be hobbies, or maybe minors at most, but definitely not your primary area of study.

I have three younger brothers and sisters still living at home. My two youngest brothers are only five and seven so I am just getting started with them. But my sister, she is thirteen now and is already showing a very strong understanding of math. She is top of her class despite having parents that don’t speak English very well. My dad doesn’t even have an elementary level education. I’ve taken it upon myself to encourage this side of her and to foster her love for math and the sciences. I am also doing the same for my little brothers.

I encourage all my fellow Hispanics out there to do the same. Encourage your kids to study the sciences. To study majors that heavily deal with math. Majors like all forms of Engineering, Economics, Chemistry, and Biology. Read up on important people in the sciences and talk positively about their accomplishments. Find local science functions going on around the neighborhood. If you can’t find one near your neighborhood, drive out of your way to go to one. You’d be surprised how much that affects a child’s view. For example, when I was younger, I was going down the wrong path in life and I remember seeing my dad up late studying. He came to this country from Mexico with no education whatsoever, but he is such a hard worker that his company offered him the chance to go to school and learn diesel mechanic stuff, therefore giving him the opportunity to get a job that would pay him almost double his salary. He jumped at the chance, and when he first tried to register at City College they turned him down. Arguing that with his lack of education, and bad English, he wouldn’t survive. My dad protested until they agreed to let him have a chance. So for the next six months my dad would start work at 6am, go to work until 4pm, than go to school until 10pm, come home and study until 12 or 1 in the morning, continuously, day after day. He would translate each line with his Spanish/English translator, or would have me translate it for him. To make a long story short, he got C’s his first semester, B’s his second, and straight A’s since then. He spent the next two years in City College, with all but the first two semesters getting straight A’s. Granted he didn’t take any GE course, all the courses he took were related to diesel mechanic, but with what he had to work with, it is still amazing what he was able to accomplish. To get back to my point, seeing my dad do that had a huge impact on my life. It taught me the value of education and gave me the will to do it. When I was going through a rough time in my life I registered in college and soon rose to the top of my class, not because I am the smartest kid in the class (I wasn’t), but because I had a desire to study and a willingness to give it my all. Looking back I don’t think I would have done it without my dad’s experience. So even though it can be hard and you may know very little about math, it is still very possible. What makes a kid get good grades is more dependent on the values and ethics you teach your son/daughter, than on actual help you give him in class.

So I plead with all Hispanics reading this blog. Push your kids into the sciences, start at a young age, and encourage them to continue. We need more Hispanics in the sciences.

Ok, rant over. [/rant] Time to get back to studying... (Originally posted: 10/09/2004)

What Does Exploitation Mean?

 It is often heard that transnational corporations are evil for 'exploiting' underdeveloped countries 'cheap labor' by opening up businesses there and if only corporations would stop their 'exploitation', the economies in those countries would improve.

Matt McIntosh, writing in Tech Central Station disagrees and in the process explains some economic principles:

Let us say that I am poor and you are wealthy. I live a harsh life of bare subsistence farming, while you make several thousand dollars per day as a business owner in the widget industry. One day you hire me to make widgets for you at a rate of $1 per widget, which you then sell to make a profit of $2 per widget. Which of us has benefited the most from this exchange?

If you answered that it must be you, this is wrong. It's true that you are still much, much better off than I am in absolute terms, and that in dollars, you have gained more than I have. But considering our relative starting points and the basic fact of diminishing marginal utility, this transaction has benefited me more than it has benefited you. Simply put, the principle of diminishing marginal utility states that each extra unit of a good provides less subjective benefit to an individual than the last one did: an extra dollar means much, much more to a pauper than to a millionaire. Thus I get much more subjective utility from the extra dollars I now have than you do from the extra dollars you have.

McIntosh continues on to explain why the word 'exploitation' only makes sense in economically ignorant majors like Chicano Studies but has practically no meaning in the actual study of poverty reduction, economics.  (Originally published: 7/13/2006)

Why Increasing University Subsidies Does Not Help The Poor

 Recently here in California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was taken to task for reducing government subsidies to California Universities. The argument went that government subsidies help reduce University costs, which in turn helps reduce tuition, and since the poor would have a hard time paying higher University tuition, government subsidies are a boom for the poor.

While I can understand the motivation behind this argument, frankly, the argument was never very persuasive to me. For one, the majority of people that attend these Universities, especially the elite ones like the UC system, Stanford, and USC, are not poor people, but the upper and middle class. Yet since the subsidies come from tax revenue, tax revenue that can be used to help all citizens, very poor, poor, and middle class, subsidizing Universities is a method that takes from everybody but primarily helps the upper class and middle class. In the end, becoming a very inefficient way to decrease income inequality.

Second, there is no guarantee that subsidizing Universities will result in cheaper tuition for the poor. For example, Harvard, probably the highest subsidized University in the country, either by government subsidies or by direct gifts from former students, has one of the worse records of cheaper tuition for the poor. Hispanic Business writes:

Until recently, Harvard University has been perhaps the most glaring example of an elite college's failure to welcome low-income students. With an endowment of $25.9 billion -- far larger than that of any other university in the U.S. or abroad -- Harvard clearly has the resources to educate the poor.

Yet only about 10% of its undergraduates are eligible to receive federal Pell Grants, which are usually awarded to students from families earning less than $40,000 a year. At Amherst, 15% of the students get Pells, and President Anthony Marx is aiming to boost that to 25% of future classes.

But now, Harvard's controversial president, Lawrence Summers, is on a campaign to give low-income students far greater representation at America's most prestigious university. "If Harvard is only for the children of those who have been successful, we will lose the social mobility that has always been America's strength," argues the former U.S. Treasury Secretary. "I'd like Harvard to look as much like America as possible."

How far has this program gone? Hispanic Business continues:

GUARDED OPTIMISM. Harvard's program has only been in place for one full admissions cycle -- for the class that entered Harvard in September, 2005 -- but Summers and Fitzsimmons are encouraged. Last fall's entering class had 299 students from families earning less than $60,000 a year vs. 246 the year before -- an increase of 22%.

Imagine that, with a school as rich as Harvard, with a school with as many resources as Harvard, and more importantly, with a school that gets so much free money from government subsidies and private donors, Harvard could only find 299 students - and that an increase of 22% from the following year - from families earning less than $60,000/year. In addition, since the hard left at Harvard has run out Larry Summers, the founder of the program, the problem might get worse not better.

Subsidizing Universities to help the poor is analogous to having the government subsidies upper end department stores like Nordstroms and Bloomingdales in an effort to make products cheaper for the poor. A method that not only doesn't accomplish its goal very efficiently, but when it does help make products cheaper, it does so primarily for the benefit of the rich and middle class, not the poor.

Shawna Rasul, a student at the UCLA School of Law, learned this lesson the hard way, in a letter to the editor of the Daily Bruin she wrote:

I got an e-mail from the chancellor Thursday morning that gleefully described how UCLA has managed to raise $3 billion – more money than any other institution of higher education ever!

That's truly impressive, and from now on, I will hear "$3 billion" every time I walk into the lobby of my UCLA apartment building that looks like an abandoned home-improvement project.

Every time I look at the holes in the drywall and the 1970s renaissance carpeting, I'll think about the $3 billion.

When I cautiously take the elevator up to my floor and notice that the permit expired 14 months ago, I will wonder about those $3 billion. When I pay my $24,000 in student fees (which recently went up another $1,500), the $3 billion will be on my mind. While I'm pounding the pavement looking for a full-time job because the mid-year tuition increase has left me without the ability to pay my rent and bills this semester, I will reflect on the $3 billion.

But excuse me if I don't pop open a bottle of champagne and throw a party – I can't afford it.

This is why you won't find me on the picket lines asking for more funding for Universities, and instead find me squarely on the side of those who reduce University funding and instead find efficient means to help the poor pay for college tuition.

Update: Harvard economist Jeffrey Alan Miron writes on the same thing and seems to agree with my conclusion as well, his post here.

Update: Richard Vedder of the Center For College Affordability And Productivity has more. (Originally posted: 3/6/2006)