Sanctuary suburb advocates discuss hosting a party for immigrants from Greater Boston

Every year our town sends up some fireworks in a field next to the school (currently proposed for demolition and reconstruction for $100 million). When we’re not watching fireworks we are passionate about providing sanctuary to the undocumented, complaining about Donald Trump separating adult and child migrants (at 1/100th the rate that the Massachusetts family courts separate adults and children?), and putting out Black Lives Matter and rainbow flags.

A few days ago, from our town mailing list:

Virtuous woman: I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to host a party for Greater Boston and that looks like what we are doing. Do we have to be listed in the Globe????

Response from a skeptic (not me!): do you really intend to say that townsfolks should be limited to attending only those festivities in their own towns?

Virtuous: Nope, it just does not have to be listed in the Globe. What does that do to our Public Safety Detail budget? It was a very low-key, bring your blanket walk in with kids and hang for a few hours?no barbecue back in the 70s. Crowds were not enough to make you get there hours in advance to park. Parking was not restricted as there was no need. Times have changed, clearly.

Another virtuous woman: I for one (and I may indeed be the only one) would like to limit attendance to our First of the New Year party to town residents and their personal guests. We stopped going because it had become such a zoo.

I was able to resist the impulse to suggest that we install checkpoints at our borders this evening and ask would-be migrants from other suburbs to show their documents…

Full post, including comments

Exploring the twisted personality that can result from tenure

A lot of us would exhibit far more eccentricities if we didn’t have to go to work most days at a job where we can be fired. Those among us who need not work or have union jobs are free to let our personalities become ever more twisted as we age. Dear Committee Members by Julie Schumacher is an interesting exploration of the mind of a mid-50s man who is a member of the college professors’ union: the American Association of University Professors. A tenured English professor, he lets his mind run free in a series of letters of recommendation to various committees.

A sampling:

I was barred from that [diversity] committee myself; my filibuster last year (I argued that the arts are a form of diversity) was sadly characterized as “divisive.”

It is 2:00 p.m., tomorrow is Thanksgiving, and here in my office the snow is accreting in small picturesque clumps against the ill-fitting window, which rattles in its Dickensian casement. The other faculty, including Ms. Handel’s advisors, have retreated like whack-a-moles into obscure campus locales or left town on vacation. Divorced, somewhat recently spurned, and therefore doomed to spend the holiday with two vegetarians from the Classics Department, I was apparently the only living member of the faculty the unfortunate Ms. Handel was able to find. That said: her proposal—entirely outside my field—appears to have merit. In particular, her examination of inventive phrases related to issues of gender identity—though of no interest to me—is probably worth sharing with a collegiate audience.

Iris Temple has applied to your MFA program in fiction and has asked me to support, via this LOR, her application. I find this difficult to do, not because Ms. Temple is unqualified (she is a gifted and disciplined writer and has published several stories in appropriately obscure venues), but because your program at Torreforde State offers its graduate writers no funding or aid of any kind—an unconscionable act of piracy and a grotesque, systemic abuse of vulnerable students, to whom you extend the false hope that writing a $50,000 check to your institution will be the first step toward artistic success.

Alex Ruefle has prevailed upon me to support his teaching application to your department, which I gather is hiring adjunct faculty members exclusively, bypassing the tenure track with its attendant health benefits, job security, and salaries on which a human being might reasonably live. Perhaps your institution should cut to the chase and put its entire curriculum online, thereby sparing Ruefle the need to move to Lattimore, wherever that is. You could prop him up in a broom closet in his apartment, poke him with the butt end of a mop when you need him to cough up a lecture on Caribbean fiction or the passive voice, and then charge your students a thousand dollars each to correct the essays their classmates have downloaded from a website. Such is the future of education.

I assume he listed me as a reference because of the retirement and demise, respectively, of his two thesis advisors: it took Ruefle fourteen years to earn the doctorate. During that time he became a fixture here at Payne, beginning his studies as a vigorous man and, after marrying and acquiring multiple children, staggering across the PhD finish line in late middle age.

[recommending a former undergrad for an industry job] Belatedly it occurs to me that some members of your HR committee, a few skeptical souls, may be clutching a double strand of worry beads and wondering aloud about the practicality or usefulness of a degree in English rather than, let’s say, computers. Be reassured: the literature student has learned to inquire, to question, to interpret, to critique, to compare, to research, to argue, to sift, to analyze, to shape, to express. His intellect can be put to broad use. The computer major, by contrast, is a technician—a plumber clutching a single, albeit shining, box of tools.

Good luck to her and to all of us, Camilla—and congratulations on the tenure-track line. We aren’t hiring in the liberal arts at Payne, and as a result I fear we are the last remaining members of a dying profession. We who are senior and tenured are seated in the first car of a roller coaster with a broken track, and we’re scribbling and grading our way to the death fall at the top. The stately academic career featuring black-robed professors striding confidently across the campus square is already fading; and, though I’ve often railed against its eccentricities, I want to proclaim here that I believe our mission and our way of life to have been admirable and lovely, steeped with purpose and worth defending. But we are nearly at the tipping point, I suspect, and will soon be a thing of the past.

3. Can you think of any reasons why the Pentalion Corporation should not hire the applicant? Yes. Pentalion is a subsidiary of Koron Chemical, a government contractor known to be a major producer of weaponry used overseas. I would not wish any current or former student to be employed by Pentalion; once its leadership masters the basics of punctuation, it should be closed down.

April 16, 2010 Office of Mental Health and Wellness Intervention Team Attention: Suzanne Gross, MSW, LP

Dear Ms. Gross, Having disposed of the budding psychopath, Mr. Wyatt Innes, I am sending to your office with this letter in hand a human bath of tears named Ida Lin-Smith, who tells me she called your office for an appointment and was turned away. I did not inquire as to her malady, but a simple glance in her direction suffices to inform me that she requires attention. Please offer her something more lasting and substantial than guided breathing or twenty minutes with a golden retriever.

This is an innovative form for a novel and it works pretty well considering that we have access to only one character. If you liked Confederacy of Dunces you’ll probably like it (Ignatius J. Reilly had his mom to support him so he was also able to let his personality develop fully).

More: read Dear Committee Members by Julie Schumacher.

Full post, including comments

Germans shutting down immigration because they are tired of getting wealthier and enjoying lower crime rates?

“Merkel, to Survive, Agrees to Border Camps for Migrants” (nytimes) is about the world’s smartest leader (she has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry!) substantially shutting down the pipeline of migrants into Germany’s welfare state.

The greatest American minds say that unskilled immigration makes a society better off. For example, “Immigrants Do Not Increase Crime, Research Shows” (Scientific American, from February 2017, just after the Trumpenfuhrer moved into the Reichskanzlei):

There are a number of ideas among scholars that explain why more immigration leads to less crime. The most common explanation is that immigration reduces levels of crime by revitalizing urban neighborhoods, creating vibrant communities and generating economic growth.

Several different Facebook friends recently posted this as a status. I responded with

If low-skill immigrants boost an economy and lower crime rates (as this article says), why isn’t there competition among countries to attract low-skill immigrants? Why would the U.S. have a big supply at the southern border, for example? Shouldn’t Mexico have snapped up Spanish-speaking migrants from Central and South America before they get a chance to cross the U.S. border?

The response was that wages were lower in Mexico.

If wages in Mexico are low and low-skill immigrants make an economy richer, shouldn’t Mexicans be even more eager than Americans to persuade migrants to settle? Why are Mexicans rejecting migrants? (see “Mexico fails to offer migrants asylum, Amnesty International reports”)

If you’re against inequality, which I hope that you are, shouldn’t you be upset that a lower-income country such as Mexico is being denied the opportunity to benefit from settling low-skill migrants? A rich country such as the U.S. getting yet richer by vacuuming up all of the low-skill migrants (and also enjoying a reduction in crime) is not a reasonable goal for anyone passionate about equality.

World Bank data show that Mexico has nearly the same labor force participation rate as the U.S. (61 percent versus 62 percent) so should be equally boosted by immigrant labor.

Ultimately the answer from the pro-immigration believers was that Mexicans are not intelligent enough to see the true value of unskilled immigrants and/or that Mexicans are racist. Somehow the topic switched to Europe. A low-skill immigration enthusiast wrote “For a while Merkel’s German govt seemed to be arguing that it was their answer to an aging population and growing need for workers. Sweden also. In the past year or so there has been a lot of pushback on that less for economic reasons than nativist.”

(i.e., it turns out that the people who disagree with him are nativist/racist)

My response:

so after several years of experiencing increased wealth and reduced crime due to low-skill immigration, Germans and Swedes have decided that it would be intolerable to keep getting wealthier and safer?

Apparently it is now official. Germans are so tired of getting wealthier and safer that they are building, well, concentration camps.

European readers: What happens now? Do all of the migrants who wanted to settle in Germany now go to some other European country? Do millions end up camped out at the German border indefinitely? Do fewer migrants show up because it is now tough to transition into the normal welfare lifestyle anywhere within Europe?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Why would labor unions support more immigration?

“Supreme Court Labor Decision Wasn’t Just a Loss for Unions” (nytimes):

The Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory union fees for government workers was not only a blow to unions. It will also hit hard at a vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates.

Some of these groups work for immigrants…

If the purpose of a labor union is primarily to increase wages for its members, why would they try to increase competition at the lower end of the labor market? (see “Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers” by a Harvard economist for a summary of the literature).

Is the theory that the latest crop of immigrants and their children will never achieve the level of education, skill, and connections necessary to do the kind of work performed by members of current unions?

Or that compensation for union members is determined only by what local, state, and federal governments can afford to pay? That the overall size of the labor pool is irrelevant? (for example, unionized workers in a nearby town of Methuen, Massachusetts just got a raise, e.g., from $157,000 per year for a police captain up to $440,735; median household income in the town is $72,631) I wonder if they are banking on the inherent assymetry in public worker union negotiation. The union members bargain for money that will be paid to them and they will get to spend. The government officials on the other side are spending someone else’s money.

Or that union members are mostly government workers and more immigrants means a larger government and more opportunity to expand the union? Immigrants and their children are more likely to be on welfare. There are 30 unions getting money out of the New York City Housing Authority and one plumber made $369,152 in 2016. As the population expands we will need to build more free housing and hire more union members to administer and maintain the free-to-residents houses. Unions of nurses lobby for increased Medicaid funding (example). More immigrants means more people on Medicaid. How many undocumented immigrants will earn a bachelor’s degree and qualify as registered nurses so as to compete with current union members?

Maybe the answer is that union members (like I used to be!) are better-than-average people and they want to help immigrants out of altruism. If so, why does their altruism stop at the U.S. border? If they simply want to help non-citizens, why wouldn’t unions support aid groups that operate in poor countries?

It makes sense to me, as a graduate of Econ 101, that an employer of low-skill workers would advocate for more immigration (especially if middle-class taxpayers are going to pay for those workers’ housing, health care, and food!). But Cesar Chavez was anti-immigration for most of his career as a labor union official. From ABC:

From when he co-founded United Farm Workers in 1962 with Dolores Huerta, Chavez took a hard line on illegal immigration. He thought employers would use undocumented workers as strike breakers, and that temporary workers would undermine the wages of Mexican American residents and citizens. He even reported some undocumented workers to immigration authorities, Gutiérrez writes.

(He later modified this position, but it is unclear whether there was an economic rationale or only a sentimental one that offered no tangible benefit to union members at the time.)

Full post, including comments

How can Germany exploit the eurozone?

“What Trump Gets Right About Europe” sounds like an April Fool’s piece from the New York Times (e.g., it would be a blank screen), but in fact is authored by a German in a serious mood:

Mr. Trump’s anger at America’s allies embodies, however unpleasantly, a not unreasonable point of view, and one that the rest of the world ignores at its peril: The global world order is unbalanced and inequitable. And unless something is done to correct it soon, it will collapse, with or without the president’s tweets.

The Europeans have basically been free riders on the voyage, spending almost nothing on defense, and instead building vast social welfare systems at home and robust, well-protected export industries abroad. Rather than lash back at Mr. Trump, they would do better to ask how we got to this place, and how to get out.

The European Union, as an institution, is one of the prime drivers of this inequity. At the Group of 7, for example, the constituent countries are described as all equals. But in reality, the union puts a thumb on the scales in its members’ favor: It is a highly integrated, well-protected free-trade area that gives a huge leg up to, say, German car manufacturers while essentially punishing American companies who want to trade in the region.

Here’s where I get lost:

The eurozone offers a similar unfair advantage. If it were not for the euro, Germany would long ago have had to appreciate its currency in line with its enormous export surplus.

Sure, eurozone membership makes imports to Germany more expensive than they would be under the deutschemark; wage restraint has also helped maintain the competitiveness of German machinery. But how can the very same politicians and journalists who defended the euro bailout payments during the financial crisis, arguing that Germany profited disproportionately from the common currency, now go berserk when Mr. Trump makes exactly this point?

Suppose that the medium of exchange in Europe were gold doubloons or simply gold. Wouldn’t the distribution of manufacturing and wealth among European countries be pretty similar to what it is today? If so, why blame the exotic euro? If not… maybe someone can explain it below. And also explain how this would be different than what happens among U.S. states, which can vary dramatically in wealth or manufacturing output.

Related:

Full post, including comments