Category: Economics

Science proves that the U.S. needs immigrant workers; U.S. companies say that they don’t need more workers

by philg

It’s Veterans Day. Historically, one of the things that U.S. society tried to do was ensure that good jobs were available for those who left the military and returned to civilian life. This was a matter of great concern around the end of World War II. See for example “JOBS FOR VETERANS REPORTED FEWER; Full Impact of Discharges Is Yet to Come, Says Commerce Bureau” (New York Times, December 20, 1945):

Veterans are beginning to encounter difficulties in finding employment, with the full impact of discharges upon the labor market yet to be felt, the Department of Commerce said today in this month’s issue of its Survey of Current Business.

With Army surveys showing that at least 75 per cent of the returning veterans would be job-seekers, the article concluded that the country faced a “primary problem” of developing a labor demand sufficient to provide employment for the returning veterans,” along with the additional problem of “finding jobs satisfactory to the veteran with previous training, newly acquired skills and generally high expectations.”

Ever since we opened our borders in 1965 we’ve forced veterans to compete with an ever-larger group of immigrant workers. We’re informed that it is a Scientific fact that an open border enriches every American, including veterans, because immigrant workers are critical to the U.S. economy and there are more than enough jobs to go around. For this post let’s ignore that our immigration policy doesn’t select for immigrants who are able to work; someone who is 2 years old or 85 years old or disabled or completely unskilled has the same entitlement to lifetime residence/citizenship under our asylum-based system or under our family relation-based system as someone who is of working age. Let’s assume that, in fact, immigration does bring in mostly people who are capable of working and who want to work (an irrational desire in a cradle-to-grave welfare state!). Does the assumption that there are ample jobs both for new veterans and new immigrants still make sense?

“More Big Companies Bet They Can Still Grow Without Hiring” (Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2025):

American employers are increasingly making the calculation that they can keep the size of their teams flat—or shrink them through layoffs—without harming their businesses. Part of that thinking is the belief that artificial intelligence will be used to pick up some of the slack and automate more processes. … “If people are getting more productive, you don’t need to hire more people,” Brian Chesky, Airbnb’s chief executive, said in an interview. “I see a lot of companies pre-emptively holding the line, forecasting and hoping that they can have smaller workforces.”

Many companies seem intent on embracing a new, ultralean model of staffing, one where more roles are kept unfilled and hiring is treated as a last resort. At Intuit, every time a job comes open, managers are pushed to justify why they need to backfill it, said Sandeep Aujla, the company’s chief financial officer. The new rigor around hiring helps combat corporate bloat.

“Amazon Plans to Replace More Than Half a Million Jobs With Robots” (New York Times, October 21, 2025):

Over the past two decades, no company has done more to shape the American workplace than Amazon. In its ascent to become the nation’s second-largest employer, it has hired hundreds of thousands of warehouse workers, built an army of contract drivers and pioneered using technology to hire, monitor and manage employees.

Now, interviews and a cache of internal strategy documents viewed by The New York Times reveal that Amazon executives believe the company is on the cusp of its next big workplace shift: replacing more than half a million jobs with robots.

Amazon’s U.S. work force has more than tripled since 2018 to almost 1.2 million. But Amazon’s automation team expects the company can avoid hiring more than 160,000 people in the United States it would otherwise need by 2027. That would save about 30 cents on each item that Amazon picks, packs and delivers to customers.

Executives told Amazon’s board last year that they hoped robotic automation would allow the company to continue to avoid adding to its U.S. work force in the coming years, even though they expect to sell twice as many products by 2033. That would translate to more than 600,000 people whom Amazon didn’t need to hire.

“Amazon to Lay Off Tens of Thousands of Corporate Workers” (WSJ, October 27, 2025):

The latest round of job cuts would be the largest since 2022, when Amazon eliminated around 27,000 roles. That layoff occurred in waves.

The company views the cuts in part as an effort to correct an aggressive hiring period during the pandemic, the people said. During that period, a boom in online shopping led Amazon to double its warehouse network over a two-year period.

Amazon CEO Jassy has sought to find ways for the company to do more with less. In June Jassy sent a note to employees that said increasing use of artificial intelligence will eliminate the need for certain jobs. He called generative AI a once-in-a-lifetime technological change that is already altering how Amazon deals with consumers and other businesses and how it conducts its own operations, including job cuts.

“​​As we roll out more Generative AI and agents, it should change the way our work is done,” he said at the time. “It’s hard to know exactly where this nets out over time, but in the next few years, we expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce.”

Veterans are above-average in health, intelligence, and education and they come from richer-than-average families. Nonetheless, I wonder if the combination of AI and a continued inrush of legal immigrants (somewhere between 1.2 and 2.6 million annually, according to ChatGPT) will make it almost impossible for tomorrow’s veterans to get decent jobs.

Related: The Bobs.

Full post, including comments

Immigrants expand our economy, but millions of immigrants exiting the U.S. don’t shrink our economy

by philg

Immigration Logic 101 requires us to believe that low-skill immigrants expand the U.S. economy (aggregate GDP growth) and make everyone in the U.S. richer (per-capita GDP growth).

We’re informed that the U.S. economy is growing or, at least, not shrinking.

We’re informed that, apparently contradicting the two items above, that the U.S. is becoming impoverished in immigrants (not as enriched by enrichers). “Immigrant Population in U.S. Drops for the First Time in Decades” (New York Times):

An analysis of census data by the Pew Research Center found that between January and June, the foreign-born population declined by nearly 1.5 million. … experts predict looming negative economic and demographic consequences for the United States if the trend persists. Immigrants are a critical work force in many sectors, and the country’s reliance on them is growing as more baby boomers retire.

Covering a somewhat longer time period and announced with a bit more color, DHS says that 2 million migrants are no longer among us:

If immigration makes us rich how is it possible that de-immigration doesn’t make us poor?

Related:

Full post, including comments

The soybean crisis that has left soybean prices unchanged

by philg

“China’s Snub of U.S. Soybeans Is a Crisis for American Farmers” (New York Times, September 15):

On a windy September morning, Josh and Jordan Gackle huddled to discuss the looming crisis facing their North Dakota soybean farm.

For the first time in the history of their 76-year-old operation, their biggest customer — China — had stopped buying soybeans. Their 2,300-acre soybean farm is projected to lose $400,000 in 2025. Soybeans that would normally be harvested and exported to Asia are now set to pile up in large steel bins.

If we ask the Google for a quick summary of “soybean futures” we get the following chart that shows prices almost exactly where they were on January 1, 2025:

How can there be a “crisis” and at the same time an unchanged price? Is there some other soybean price index that should be considered?

Full post, including comments

Raging inflation despite high interest rates

by philg

Inflation is currently raging at an annual rate of 4.8 percent (up 0.4 percent in the last month times 12) and is 2.9 percent if we look back to August 2024. From the BLS, yesterday:

High interest rates from the Fed haven’t slain the inflation dragon. My posts on this subject:

How eagerly/aggressively is Congress indulging in deficit spending right now? From the Bipartisan Policy Center (a “center” with two or three people in it?):

FY2025 (purple) is one of the most profligate years in U.S. history, but it doesn’t look that profligate because Congress was borrowing/printing money at an even faster rate during coronapanic.

Flash back to January 2, 1957, in which the New York Times praises President Eisenhower for eliminating an astounding and upsetting $4 billion deficit for 1954 (adjusted for the inflation that the government assures us does not exist, this would correspond to a $48 billion deficit in 2025 (compare to the nearly $2 trillion deficit that Congress seems to have built into our economy and government; Eisenhower took strenuous action to eliminate a deficit that was 1/40th the size of today’s deficit)).

Full post, including comments

Democrat economists hate Black women (NYT)

by philg

The New York Times:

Years before Lisa Cook became President Trump’s latest target in his effort to exert control over the Federal Reserve, she wrote about her experience as one of a relative handful of Black women in a field long dominated by white men.

“Economics is neither a welcoming nor a supportive profession for women,” she and a colleague wrote in a New York Times opinion essay in 2019. She added, “But if economics is hostile to women, it is especially antagonistic to Black women.”

What is the overwhelming political identity of those who are hostile to women in general and Black women in particular? “Political Affiliations of Federal Reserve Economists” (2022):

According to a new analysis of voter registration data, Democrat economists at the Federal Reserve outnumber Republicans 10 to 1. The imbalance is even larger among economists in leadership positions, among younger economists, and among female economists.

Previous studies look at the political ideologies of the broader economic profession. For instance, Langbert, Quain, and Klein (2016) report that Democrats outnumber Republicans 4.5:1 among economics faculty at 40 leading universities. In addition, Langbert (2020) finds a ratio of 4:1 among members of the American Economic Association (AEA), 4.1:1 among academic AEA members, and 2.5:1 among AEA members working outside academia and government. Earlier, Klein and Stern (2006) estimateds the ratio at 4.1:1 among public sector economists and 1.4:1 among private sector economists. McEachern (2006) shows Democrats outnumber Republicans 5.1:1 among AEA members in terms of political contributions.

I find that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans among Fed economists is 10.4 to 1. The lack of political diversity is especially pronounced at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (48.5:1). Economists at regional Reserve banks range from 3:1 (Cleveland) to 12:1 (San Francisco). The lack of diversity is also noteworthy in leadership positions (22.25:1). Economists who are 40 years old or younger at the Fed are more likely to lean left (20.33:1), as are female economists (27.5:1). This suggests the Fed is likely to become even less politically diverse in time.

We are informed that if Republicans were eliminated (liquidated?) the U.S. would become a paradise of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Yet it seems that the discrimination that has kept and continues to keep qualified Black women from assuming leadership positions at the Fed has been almost entirely perpetrated by Democrats.

Full post, including comments

Why isn’t Cleveland gentrified?

by philg

Some photos from a recent trip to Cleveland. Here’s some signage from the Cleveland History Center:

By 1920, according to the local history nerds, Cleveland was rich in precious immigrants, had achieved a dream level of diversity (30 different ethnic groups), and was “progressive”. Just a few years later, though, the economic and population growth was over. It doesn’t seem as though Cleveland per se has ever recovered even as many of its suburbs have prospered and even though Cleveland is home to one of the world’s most successful health care enterprises, the Cleveland Clinic.

Nearly every other American downtown has become gold-plated. How did Cleveland manage to fail?

Across town at the Aquarium, the scientists say that immigrants “cause harm to the habitat”:

Back to the history center… It’s free to anyone who wisely refrains from work (EBT card) and they’ve preserved their COVID signage and mask-wearing habits:

The museum reminds those who are buying Cirrus SR22 G7s at $1.4 million (now fully deductible in Year 1 due to the recent One Beautiful Bill) that we live in an inflation-free society. A P-51 Mustang that could take off at 12,000 lbs. and cruise at 315 knots cost $50,000 brand new or $3,500 lightly used:

If Tesla can get Optimus to work, how about a return to wood-sided cars? The robot can apply polish to the wood every week:

The museum’s collection is especially strong in hybrid and electric cars, some more than 100 years old. Visitors are reminded that Cleveland was at one time a close second to Detroit in mass production of automobiles (which raises the question of why Cleveland auto manufacturing faded into insignificance).

The museum was hosting a special show of Islamic-American fashion:

A temporary exhibition featured Black photographers and, as it happened, all of the photographs on display were of Black subjects (i.e., there weren’t photos of architecture, landscape, or nature taken by Black photographers, but only pictures of Black people by Black people):

(More than half of the money for any museum like this comes from taxpayers, either through deductibility of donations or from direct grants from the government. So taxpayers are funding exhibitions from which some artists/photographers are excluded due to skin color, apparently contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.)

In a similar vein, the museum had a show devoted to women and politics, ignoring the other 73 gender IDs recognized by Science.

I wonder if nonprofit orgs are, after government and universities, principal sources of division in American society.

Circling back to Cleveland, though, why is this waterfront city such a spectacular failure?

Full post, including comments

MIT Nobel laureate says you’re not going to make money on Nvidia and LLMs

by philg

“A Nobel laureate on the economics of artificial intelligence” (MIT Technology Review, March/April 2025):

For all the talk about artificial intelligence upending the world, its economic effects remain uncertain. But Institute Professor and 2024 Nobel winner Daron Acemoglu has some insights.

Despite some predictions that AI will double US GDP growth, Acemoglu expects it to increase GDP by 1.1% to 1.6% over the next 10 years, with a roughly 0.05% annual gain in productivity. This assessment is based on recent estimates of how many jobs are affected—but his view is that the effect will be targeted.

The full paper is available for download as a PDF.

The news gets better:

“We’re still going to have journalists [especially in Gaza where food, health care, education, and shelter are all paid for by US/EU taxpayers via UNRWA?], we’re still going to have financial analysts, we’re still going to have HR employees,” he says. “It’s going to impact a bunch of office jobs that are about data summary, visual matching, pattern recognition, etc. And those are essentially about 5% of the economy.”

If “artificial intelligence” includes self-driving, I’m not sure that the effects on the economy will be small. As of 2016, supposedly about 3 percent of jobs were for drivers per se (CNBC). As anyone who has taken an Uber or Lyft can attest, many of these folks speak no English. If their driving jobs disappear, at least some percentage of them will be on track for the lifetime full welfare lifestyle (public housing, Medicaid, SNAP/EBT, and Obamaphone).

Related: Mindy the Crippler is preparing for the stock market panic when people realize that AI is fizzling…

Related:

Full post, including comments

Should Elon Musk get an award for reducing inequality?

by philg

Any time that money is spent in a richer-than-average state, e.g., via a federal handout to Harvard University or a Medicare/Medicaid purchase of pharma from California or New Jersey, America’s income inequality level is increased (and it’s already “a public health crisis” according to Stanford and “obscene” according to our best lawmaker).

We have tremendous inequality among U.S. states. Household income in California was $95,500 in 2023 dollars (Wokipedia) while Texas households enjoyed only $75,800 in income and in Mississippi the median household income was only $54,000. Who works to redress this inequality? Not the federal government, which keeps spending taxpayer money in the richest states, either directly (grants to universities, student loan subsidies, tuition subsidies) or indirectly (pharma and health care purchases).

But let’s consider Elon Musk. He has moved at least four companies from richer-than-average California to poorer-than-average Texas: Tesla, X, SpaceX, and The Boring Company. Is there anyone else alive who can be said to have done as much to reduce inequality among the states? If not, we must anoint Elon Musk as America’s Greatest Social Justice Warrior.

BBC:

The company is also getting an injection of $17.3m (£13.4m) from the Texas government to develop the site, a grant that officials say is expected to create more than 400 jobs and $280m in capital investment in Bastrop.

Although I can’t blame Elon for taking the state’s money, that last bit is upsetting to me as a 14th Amendment Equal Protection purist. Why is it acceptable for a government (state, in this case) to favor one business with tax breaks while hitting smaller and less-connected businesses with the full force of taxation. I would like to see all of these state programs eliminated so that 2-person company is on a more level playing field with a 2,000-person company.

Full post, including comments

Car price predictions in view of tariffs?

by philg

Democrat-run media says car prices will go up 25% due to Trump’s new tariffs. My prediction: average transaction price goes up 3% and if we hold the car model and trim level constant, up 5%. What’s the basis of my prediction? Americans spend every penny they can earn, borrow, win in family court, inherit, or steal. There simply isn’t any way for people to spend more on cars. (Prices did go up during coronapanic, but interest rates were low and the government was handing out $trillions in free money.)

Readers: who wants to take the other side of this?

(I’m personally in favor of free trade (zero tariffs) based on standard Econ 101 arguments. I believe that the classical Econ belief is that the U.S. is best off with zero tariffs even if other countries erect tariff barriers to our exports. In other words, we would be better off exporting nothing if it came to that so long as we could get cheap imports. However, if other countries blink first in the trade war that Donald Trump has started we might be better off than we were a few months ago.)

What happened to out family so far? The imported bicycles that we wanted to purchase have gone down by nearly 17 percent compared to a week ago:

REI (expanding in Florida, while closing stores in Portland, Oregon and Cambridge, Maskachusetts) and some independent bike shops all wanted to sell us XS adult bikes, which have enormous 700C wheels and weigh about 7 lbs. more than this Trek 26″ bike. Supposedly the kids won’t outgrow the XS adult bike as fast. My position is that road bike nerds will pay $thousands to shave 7 lbs. off a road bike so we should be happy to buy these with the expectation of reselling them in 2 years.

Loosely related…

And from today at Sun ‘n Fun, a Nash Metropolitan (it actually made economic sense to build cars in England back then!):

Full post, including comments

Immigrant-poor Japan vs. immigrant-rich Germany

by philg

Pierre Poilievre, the potential replacement for Mx. Trudeau as Canada’s leader, recently highlighted this chart showing the stagnation of the Canadian economy from an individual’s perspective (the economy grew with the population, though, so politicians had more money to spend every year). Let’s look at Japan, a frequent example of a worst-case outcome for Population Doomsayers and Open Borders advocates:

Japan is right in the middle of this chart, with superior economic performance compared to immigrant-rich nations such as Canada, Germany, the UK, Australia, and France. In other words, Japan retained their language and culture, supported a growing fraction of the population that is elderly, and managed to achieve substantial per-capita GDP growth despite a falling percentage of the population being of working age.

There is a Scientific consensus that immigration is the only viable path to prosperity, especially for countries with low native birth rates and high median age. Yet the above chart, especially the bar for Japan, is completely inconsistent with Proven Science (TM).

Circling back to Canada, Aporia has some interesting charts on this best-case scenario for immigration.

Unlike in the US or Europe, where most immigrants are either illegals, refugees or persons brought in through family reunification, Canadian immigration is designed to be selective. Most permanent Canadian immigrants are granted that status through employment, while the (supposedly) temporary immigrants comprise about one-third students. I say “supposedly” because this group makes up a full 7.3% of the entire population of Canada, and there’s no plan or real mechanism to remove them from the country. Note that Canada has birthright citizenship, giving “temporary” immigrants an easy path to permanent residency and citizenship through anchor babies.

Unlike most countries, Canada has imported humans who do better on academic tasks than its natives do. Given the correlation between academic performance and later earnings, Canada’s economy should be doing quite well.

Canada chucked its culture, value system, and religion in hopes of achieving economic growth. What they achieved instead is a society of incel males living in apartments:

Despite the miracle of 2SLGBTQQIA+ Science, apparently it isn’t practical for an incel male to produce a baby:

Canada will thus have to double down on immigration in order to keep its politicians supplied with taxpayers. Support for this program is particularly confusing to me with respect to Quebec. The Québécois fought for two centuries to preserve their distinctive culture, religion, and language. In the past 10-20 years, though, they gave it all up because of their passion for open borders. Is there any scenario in which a Muslim from India would want to learn French, convert to Catholicism (punishable by death, traditionally, in Islam), and follow Québécois customs? If not, Quebec is guaranteed to lose its distinctive character and will become just another poorer-than-anywhere-in-the-US random assemblage of humans, cultures, and religions in which the English language is the only thing that people have in common.

Loosely related… a friend’s comment: “Canada will obliterate us in this kind of trade war because they are already poor and are happy staying that way.”

Related:

Full post, including comments