« The Weeds

Immigration and the minimum wage — with an armed stand-off in between

2016-01-08

America's immigration debate is peppered with terms like "path to citizenship" and "amnesty." Those catch phrases can mean vastly different things to different people — and on this week's episode of the Weeds, Vox's Dara Lind joins Sarah and Matt to explain. Also on this episode: understanding the family behind the armed stand-off in Oregon, and a new white paper that argues against increasing the minimum wage. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Start building your website today atSquarespace.com. Enter offer code WEEDS at checkout to get 10% off. Squarespace—Build it Beautiful.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This week's episode of the weeds has brought you buy square space start building a website today it square space, dot com and your offer code weeds a check out to get ten percent off swear space build a beautiful. The following podcast contains explicitly Which you can we try to keep a live issue hello happy New Year welcome to the first twenty. Sixteen episode of the weeds boxes policy, Podcast Annesley network. I met Glazier sat with his usual. My colleagues cliff as a special guess, star substituting for as recline who, I believe, is in LAS Vegas and all the Grand Canyon we have darlin. Another colleague of ours covers
immigration issues, criminal justice issues, lots of good stuff that we're going to talk about so excited she's. Here we ve been waiting for us to leave for a moment to take her. Get us, yes, is a very exciting moment for the We Ezra, I'm never easy. They're. Usually too busy helicopter ran America courting advertisers to actually know anything about anything, so we need to. So you just want to advertise on the weeds. We could take care of that problem, yeah well, one guy, actually just emailed me going through a lot easier than taking helicopter flight. So you know that's always welcome, So you know we're gonna get into some some stuff later on, there's been a wacky stand off in Oregon, get some some good hot new minimum wage research to talk about, but DORA zapped. First weeds policy love is immigration, which is a really big deal, but I think not something that we, have talked about all that much here and you know something that I've been reflecting on watching the presidential campaign unfold how this is an issue that
really dominate in some ways and in terms of catchphrase, you know, argue for a path to citizenship. Are you for amnesty who was for amnesty? Did Marco Rubio support amnesty he promised not to. You know, there's this funny acronyms at this legal status. There's. What do you call the people? who are living in the United States, but dont have legal permission to do it, and so that's a sort of in one place where I would like start out. I mean maybe it's like with this amnesty question. My conservative people are very much against it and progressive people who conservatives would say or for it like they don't use. That word. I think you're absolutely right that it is a catchphrase, dominated debate and one of them consequences of that? Is that when a catchphrase works, people start using it to apply to everything else that they also like or don't like right so. The question: what is amnesty is going to depend on who you're asking and especially what they are
to be most angry about at that moment. Right there is the old. You are saying to Jews three, means basically have to politicians three definitions of amnesty and the weeds. We try to have three June. We have to get up on this is that we should have at least five definitions of industry in this room alone. So I tend to think that you dont, tend to learn a lot about why the policy space is by having individual arguments about, does this counters amnesty does that kind of embassy, because its they depend on whose you're talking to and what they happen to decide at that time is unacceptable for in the early years of the Obama administration, when he was deporting four hundred thousand people a year. You still had you know tat and credo and sometimes it is saying that he should be impeached for offering amnesty to another. As Democrats, it's just it's a very elastic terms. I think that if you want to understand what the options are broadly for dealing with
authorized violence in the country, it's easier to start holistically and then to plot what particular ideas and proposals are on that. So the framework that I found really helpful for me is thinking about it s kind of a coordinate plain where you have on one hand what you would call it pure amnesty you. I don't even know what this looks like it's not something that anyone has ever proposed. But, like imagine, a world where Congress passed a law that you could walk into the DE envy and say I would like to be illegal residents of the United States and it would just processor apple we consider that one end of the spectrum on the other and you have pure mass irritation, which was something that no politician was proposing until Donald Trump decided to actually propose it, which is, if you do not have legal status in the United States. We find you and we will send you away and within eighteen months, we're gonna take millions enow at eleven twelve million people out of the country. No one had been proposing that previously in part, because of that,
It's something that I think I've I've seen research said when you ask people it sort of poles pretty well, actually is to say where we should deport everyone whose here illegally, but politicians had not pre trump sort of been will. To actually promised that, because Wolf forces, it is a very large population. People you're talking about ride, so the just the pure financial investment involved in hunting down eleven to twelve million people would be quite large and the second, I think in practice. Be incredibly disruptive. Is this the idea right, yeah I'm, and I think that the other thing you would you have to consider that which is kind of a thread that gets woven through a lot of the conversation about the unauthorized? Is you have no idea how well it would work or how long will it take to make? The point about cost is a huge part of this kind of gets to the other. The. Why axis of their coordinate plain? That I think about is how much effort or change would it take from the status quo?
and deporting eleven or twelve million people from the country doesn't actually require a change in the law there. All de it would require a lot of time through various immigration court due process, ass or getting a lot of people to waive their rights to a hearing and immigration court, but you could do it without changing. Who is legal in the United States? That is like that. You have your insides when he does, it doesn't mean like billions upon billions of dollars, it seems like very ideologically consistent with people beyond I'm kind kind of equipment was saying that if you think that came here illegally should not be in the country. That kind of seems the ideological position you end up bad, but you don T as many people. Getting there. Is that because I, like the costs to the pact so better. I think I think that what Mr Lange's your end, the one of the problems that you see, reporters in particular struggling with, is when you of a politician saying my answer to illegal immigration is to enforce the law. That could mean that they support mass deportation. It could mean they just don't want
legalise anyone how many people there deporting is the question there but like if you're, deporting four hundred thousand people a year, like Obama, was doing at the beginning of his first Termer Bush was doing at the end of his administration in a way old, that we have now we're net in flow into U S is if not zero than close to it, particularly from Mexico, Actually you are getting down to that, so it is. It is a very consistent logic of if we are deporting of people we are eventually going to tackle this entirely. So I think that we avert of politicians is largely that they don't have to actually prom. Mass deportation. If they're just saying we're gonna deport hundreds of thousands of people a year We're not gonna legalise anyone that should be. As to the same goal. The other thing is: if you actually promised point eleven million people and then use don't actually deport eleven million people. That is a promise that you have. And broken its much easier to say. I'm not going to.
Easier for people to get legal status in the country- I am going to enforce them. That we have right now as code for I'm going to step up deportations, mud Sadly, these are now what you don't actually which started. Down the spent right rooms and there's a lesser there's like ok, we're going. Go, get like a huge new group of people. We're gonna do a huge increase in relations. That's one view, then one click down is we're going to try to deter, dissuade new inflow of people. Not do any new legal positions keep deporting a large fraction of the the unauthorized population in a given year, and you know you consider, run the math on that takes ten twenty thirty years but in theory you should sorted train the tub delay and we actually do. I mean the.
Twenty o, seven to twenty eleven twenty twelve period is really the closest. We have common american history. To that that wasn't a stated. Oh, how I see it was. It was nigh. It was not the stated policy objective, but in terms of how it actually looks really. The best case scenario, because that happen to coincide in it. It didn't start because with the great recession, it'd predated the great recession, but it happened to coincide with the great recession. So Inga you had the benefit of a large decrease in the number of people wanting to come to the United States for jobs. At the same, have you to step up enforcement mechanism. So the problem with Oh I'm just going to enforce the law, especially when you're talking about it as a deterrent which policy often do they say if we're deporting people There will be a message sent that we dont tolerate this in more people won't want to come, which is
true in some sense there's a lot of evidence that people, when they make the decision to migrate, understand what the risks are and that they are making an informed decision about that, and that includes they. A certain amount of information about the policy of the country there go into, but it's not totally in the United States control to determine whether a better idea to live in the United States than it is to stay, and people's home country has obviously they can control what's going on in the country. So the fact that, even in The ideal case scenario, where you were deporting four hundred and people you're, not a whole lot of people were coming. You didn't have the added deterrent effect, the people making the decision to Missus Ware. That's where self deportation comes in right. The idea that People even beyond those you are actively supporting, are going the decision that it's not worth it to live in the? U S, anyone they're going to move back that he has done, Look around those ceiling referendum got supported those that, in order to seek for and every guy any politician, he supports enforcing it.
And doesn't explicitly say we're gonna deport eleven million people, that's kind of what their counting on they assume that if you tighten the screws enough, you'll have a large number of people who will make the decision on their own, which will save the? U S, government a great deal of money, and so good attention in self deportation comes with theirs. There's a contrary idea, which is that if we're going to be deporting only a fraction of the people who are here illegally in any given year, we ought to concentrate, resources on short of the most problematic case it right and so, like one thing, the Obama administration at very different times. Ellie said it wanted to do
not go after people who were quietly living their lives not getting into any trouble and two instead focus on new border crossing is people who were getting into trouble with the law Babo bar. But if you do that successfully verses catching people at random, it has a different sort of psychological right, and this is actually the this is the big problem with even when the Obama administration was deporting, hundreds of thousands of people is making a big deal out of we're. Choosing these people very carefully in practice. It them several years to actually do that, because what This being said at the age of headquarters and what's being implemented in the field, takes a little bit of time, but that was deeply
offensive in problematic to people who supported more aggressive enforcement of immigration laws exactly. For that reason, the notion of a constant threat of deportation is very important if you want to in courage, people to live on their own, and even if Obama and Democrats in general. Have tendency to say well, everyone can agree that we have a limited number of resources. We should be spending them on the worst of the worst. We should be spending among convicted criminals and people who have already been, deported and were therefore technically fugitives and, frankly, those few dont think of deportation is just being about Is this person in the? U S or somewhere else, but is about what message is the USA to everyone else really do think that it's important that if you are in the? U S without legal status, you don't know if you're going to
forty two Ngos as there was a difference in policy objective. Read him in the above ministration was emphasising enforcement, but that was part of a longer term strategy that may or may not have been wise, but that was in their view, supposed to produce a bill that would create legal status for a large share of people, whereas real restriction est want to use deportation as a tool to get rid of everyone abominable these deportation as a tool to build political credibility. I think that that is true. I do, however, think that the fundamental take the about a made in trying to use enforcement as a way to demonstrate. The Democrats could be tough on immigration to was really the logic that the administration is using the first couple of years ago. We were proposed comprehensive immigration or form just yet
border is as secure as its ever been. However, we measure that there are a whole lot of ways. We measure that the show its decreasing. We have the benefit of this recession that's preventing a lot of people from wanting to come in where deporting alot of people sure Anyone who looks at the facts can say that we're doing a good job of enforcing the laws we have and therefore that, when we have to change the laws. It's not because we don't respect laws, because we believe that this policy is better than the problem. Is that. You have a philosophical objection like you, ve been saying that some people think the purpose of deportation should be different, but there is also, frankly, a big factual gap there are a lot of conservatives who care a lot about immigration who do not think that Obama's enforcing immigration laws. You don't think that anyone has been getting deported and is still not clear me how much of that is partisan and how much of it isn't. I dont know that you know if you asked people about the Bush, restoration. The Bush administration was obviously pro comprehensive immigration reform, pro some form of giving people legal staff
and that created obvious tensions within the republican Party. You still necessarily have a lot of people saying well bushes and enforced. Laws. We already have. I wanted to understand from airspace there can be no always in change and who's coming into the United States, because they know we had this major news story like one or two years ago. We would this way Van, we need minor, is coming into the country. You a lot of immigration. We are having a hard time dealing with it. And of agencies when my best friends in DC represents unaccompanied minors and was just like this impossible thing forever to deal with and then even mentioning we ve had. This will slow down part of its economic but now we're having the economy rebound that we have a lot of indicators that the economy is getting stronger. So how do you think about what happening in terms of em like inflow into the country and like what happened with this unaccompanied by crisis that we are all worried about, but now we don't need lines about, unlike our you, seeing as the economy. Rebounds more am entry into
Who s there what's happening there? So it's it's worth pointing out that at the end of twenty fifth in the end, the leader Monday, twenty fifteen, you actually, we did see another increase and families in particular. The unaccompanied minors, got a lot of press in summer of twenty four because the notion of children and teenagers making the journey alone is super gripping, but you you even more than unaccompanied minors. Mothers with children from the northern triangle of Central America, that's watermelon, Honduras and El Salvador coming in and that decrease as the unaccompanied minors decreased when the? U S strongly encouraged Mexico to start interdicted people entertaining before they could get to the United States in the fall of twenty fourteen by has picked back up again in the later months of twenty fifteen and is the by restriction is currently trying to respond to that by rating
and arresting and planning to deport the people who came in the first wave who still left yet but who haven't been allowed to stay so broadly speaking, why people are making the decision to come to the EU. Traditionally, it's been largely economic reasons. Rightly traditionally, most unauthorized immigration has come from Mexico. It has been employment based. One of the reasons that you have the unauthorized population explode in the late nineteenth and early. Two thousands is that a lot of people been seasonably migrating for work? You know, they'd come they'd, make some money. They go back to their families and Mexico. Once the? U S, increased border security. It got a lot to do that it is much easier for them to stay in the? U S and bring their families oversee. You have is diversification and the unauthorized population that, just I well. I want to be clear about this, because I because I think, a lot of people MRS suits, traditionally, you had sort of rotating work based migration, mostly just a man and then
people in Amerika were upset about it, so they increase security on the border and what happened was that men would tend to come for work and then stay because going back and forth got really hard. So then they started trying to bring their families over as well, because they were staying here, semi permanently, so the whole demographic you of the immigration shifted as well as the sort of permanence of you, and this is it's worth pointing out that this isn't just a theory based on. Oh, we had this right the increase in the number of unauthorized immigrants. What happened there? There demographers, who have actually done work, survey, both the Eu S in Mexico and the mexican population in particular, because it is very clear demographic shifts. After around ninety ninety, six of oh all, of a sudden, this looks
the kind of population that is going to settle in the? U S and that's exactly what happened most immigrants, who are most unauthorized immigrants who are currently in the? U S have been here for a decade or more, the calculus of that going to change, obviously with what the economic situation is, and certainly the great recession took. A big hit out of that Mexico's economy has been improving over. That period has continued to improve to the economy. That is not. It is no longer an obvious improvement to risk going to the United States, especially because security is also an important factor here and as much effort as the Obama administration has now, in its second term, put into protecting the people who have been here for ten years and not disrupting the lives of people who have really made lies in the United States. Theyve and really even increased and emphasis on. If you are caught crossing the border, you will be sent to prison the most I dont know if this was true and twenty fifteen, but certainly in twenty fourteen, the most common criminal,
virgin federal courts was illegal. Re entry into the United States, you will be sent to prison and then went to prison term is complete. You will be deported, so the risk? increases. The reward is not as strong as it used to be, so that has really changed the fish so our authorized influx into the room for Central America to rights. A central what's happening this unusually over regulation and as of two fourteen Mexico is no longer the majority sender of unauthorized immigrants U S Central America as just really surgeon how many people are sending Mexico's set fewer part of that is, some economic. A lot is instability based ponderous and El Salvador are two of the top five. Reason the: U S, gonna cut in the world when it comes to homicide rates. They are both very. What places to be and part of it is that when you have
situations like that, where a lot of people want to get out of somewhere- and we see this in syria- we see it in euros some of the african countries that have been that have had real migration outflow, when you have people who are really desperate, that's a great opportunity for smugglers, and even if someone who has a good humanitarian case of like oh, I am being taught did by a gang or I'm a victim of domestic violence. If I stay here I'll be killed, if I'm Did she gets the? U S, I could get asylum that doesnt automatically yet to get them to the? U S and smugglers job particularly care about the distinction between. Could you come here, you know, could you get legal status or not? so there's been a really strong incentive for smugglers to shift their efforts from Mexico over the last several years to central. Erica, where there are lots of desperate people who are willing to pay the money and where there are not
responsible for what happens on the other end, so that the building of that infrastructure, which is really what the? U S, was trying to disrupt when its telling Mexico to go. You know patch people is too cheap smugglers from thinking that this is going to be a good market for them to operate in anymore and what it. What appears to have happened is smugglers haven't found a new central America. Instead, they have just kind of waited until things of calm down and started, picking up the old one again, but the central american migrants. We are seeing more children and we're seeing more families. And so the inference at least from that is that it is obviously economic conditions, probably always by some role in what people are doing, but it's less about people trying.
Come get jobs and, conversely it does I mean this is. I know I've. I've spoken to people who work in the home, building and and building trades and a concern that people have it in that industry. Is that as the economy recovers, the the housing sector has been a real laggard in this economic cycle, but they are anticipating that demand for building of new homes is gonna start coming. Online rents have been going up faster than inflation house prices, four covered close to bubble levels faster than most people anticipated and there's a there's, a lot of concern that the the labour force that was relied on in the MID arts and in the late. Ninety is to do small scale. Construction projects has gone away because of successful sort of enforcement efforts-
this sort of semi this every since a refugee demographic, whether or not they have a legal status of refugees, is not necessarily capable of filling a kind of need right. So I think that This is going to be, as the housing sector in particular comes back online and it's gonna be an interesting test, because. It's not totally clear how much of the flattening out of the unauthorized population in the lake in the late to thousands was because of the great recession versus because of enforcement, and obviously people who think that enforcement is a very important, a turnover as a great that wasn't Foresman people who suspects that enforcement doesnt work at all are going to It's that you know it's the economy, because the housing sector has been slow. We have actually seen whether the recovery is going to ipso facto increase the number of people who want to come to the? U S so it's going to be. At least academically in in
boosting less ending to how much enforcement really does deter future entries, the other thing I'd say is the Central America, population is largely a as you say, it's a refugee demographic, although if you think about it, if you have people who are in their mid teens who are coming, they are not currently in the workforce, but they're gonna be in the workforce, you years, bad people say you know about half of the unauthorized population are views over stays, and while there is a great data on how many will oversee their visas from year to year. That's what the easiest way to get into the U S, unauthorized, if you're not coming from Export Central America. So there's been a little bit of diversity. Asian Zambia has come to the Eu S legally right, women These maybe like it's us visa, maybe a year, usually a tourist me the tourist visa, and then it's good for three months, and it doesn't give you permission to work, but you just don't leave
and you do get a job and does the? U S usually go after those folks? Are they like? How did they get you're just going to hang out from Canada and the Eu S doesn't make a particular effort to go after views overstate, so that kind of gets rolled into the question of how much effort is the Eu S going after to deport somebody who's here again, I think that when you think of a people who are arguing against illegal immigration, like I love them, aren't thinking about visa overstates, I don't think they're. Like often I know how much are thinking about. The tourists from Canada but certainly language. When Donald Trump does his ad write letters, a video I mean it's a fake video but its, but it's a video of people storming at a wall, but I like it, I gotta admit them like getting off an airplane where or even worse. It's not someone just sitting in this office, not leaving. The interesting thing is that,
as little political purchases. It gets you to talk about visa own assessment, electronic entry exit system, that's actually in a way the republican politicians have demonstrated that they understand the issue and are serious about it. The easiest way to say I am not one of these yeah, whose he's just trying to whip up people's lino anger, I actually have a solution to the problem, is to say I understand that half of these people are here because they ve oversee their visas, and I think that this law that Congress past the fear radically requires the age has to set up an electronic way to monitor this person overstayed their visa. We should go get them now is the way to do it. The reason the data has done that yet is because it's a massive logical system that doesn't it tell- you when people have overstay their visas, it doesn't tell you where they are seems like a very serious technological solution to the problems. Eve, hurdle you'll hear a lot
if you know the marker reviews of the world talking about the sort of that is there even like you have to think of how you implement a system like that, an aside from some kind of tracking I mean like it seems exe, such a massive left you know what I do think I mean? On the one hand, I love immigration, I don't care if, on the other hand, as it as a liberal, I would kind of like to see the government you know be able to like function and do face. And it's gonna hilarious. If you think about ever travelling anywhere right or when people travel to the Eu S, you, This is like long ass lines at the airport. You ve all kinds of pieces of paper, reading all the stuff. You suppose we writing down addresses like. Where are you staying? What are you doing here? There's stamp all kinds of things and then is just in reality that augurs in the garbage cans went once you get out of the airport.
And it does seem like, like you're, not gonna, both ships and above his head and his track them down precisely, but you could in theory, you know if you look like the kind of tracking of view, unlike growth, invasions of privacy, that, like every advertising coming unlike internet, completing the universe is able to pull off. It does seem like that. Be somewhere for the government to have some kind of notion This guy came in. They told us they were here at a visit. They were so this time like do you know the visa overstay people like what are they up to take working or the hanging out in the copies. What do we know about this? population of people that, like a lot of you, probably don't think I've had a migrant populations So there is a bunch here, and I also waiting to hear from tech executives. This future secretary, J Johnson is kind to them and say: can we, about a backdoor for migration, because I feel it matters just proposed this very elegant, no technological seeming solution, yet
signing onto your facebook, from what her I've heard of experts on this just to clear this up the system that we have of writing it down at airports is about is good as doing all electronically would be. This is in a when someone like job which proposes an electronic intrinsically like we have that it's just not electronic. The question is what we do with it. I'm here we have to talk about the electronic. Go back to the main boondoggle. I like that anyone Lazarus back as far as you know what you're These are about what we know about these ever say population. There are lots of great epistemological questions about what we know about the unauthorized population generally and That's why you often hear people saying well, we say eleven to twelve million illegal immigrants, but really it could be twenty and no one would have any idea. Yet technically we couldn't there's a thing called Maugre feel that allows us to make decent estimates, but demography does Tell us a whole lot about how people came
We know that there is a substantial portion of people who have overstayed. We can accept Happily from that. As to okay, we know that there are several hundred thousand. Unauthorized indian immigrants in the United States, we assume They are views. Overstay is because a lot easier for them to come these oversight in this forum to cross the border. We don't actually have that information terribly well trap. So it's reasonable to assume, and people tend to that. The reasons that people are going to stay in the country illegally. Everything of these are gonna be similar to the reasons they come across the border illegally. To begin with, right, mostly for work partly for family, often from some combination of white migration. Experts call pushing pull factors right. We're pull factors are reasons to come to a particular country and push factors are we.
Is to leave where you are so there's going to be some combination of those two and because the Eu S has a thriving economy prospect of getting a job here, probably going to be a strong reason, but if there are substantial differences other than simply where they're coming from between the people who are overstating visas and the people who are coming crossing the border. That's just not information that is going to be out there. Something I think it is worth saying about this- is that the the unauthorized nature of so much of the immigration of United States gives it a particular economic skew. If you were talking about a population people that was all coming legally but the supply of people, but you know, could just from expand right. You would see people coming in a lot of people coming in it at the highest wage occupations right. The United States has the highest paid doctors
the world by far so you might see lots of doctors coming here, but you can't do brain surgery without a proper visa. You're not gonna, get hired as like the CFO at at Visa rightly there's a reason. We have a canadian reporter Julia and there's a reason. We went through the whole immigration processes radically. We could higher hers. You show your great, so it's the only theirs only a certain set of jobs that you can get on a sort of under the table or off the books basis in the United States. And so you know you can you can maybe get a job waiting tables, there's lots of jobs, building trades, withers, tons and tons of of instability in it a lot of people working in the domestic sector where it God only knows what's happening. But you know
it wines up, giving the immigrant population the United States a lower skill level and at a lower wage profile than you have in countries that have larger legal populations. So I think that there are a couple of have tat adds that I wanted throw out at that, and one is that there is a concept that the people who work with immigrant populations talk. Let a lot called skills mismatch. It tends to come up more in the context of people who are here on asylum or who came here to live with family or that kind of thing, the less often with people were actually unauthorized, but it is definitely true that There is a substantial population of immigrants out there who are trained. Who are trained in their home countries in higher skill and higher wage jobs than their working right now. Part of that is, maybe they don't have the language skills. Maybe they I haven't been able to find an employer who as well
take a chance on them because their credentials come from the school in a country where you or you don't have a license right. So I lose your soul. So would you you meet? People fear your parent. You know I immigrants working as nanny is, and they often have background as teacher s in the country that therefrom. But you can you, you can't get a job in an american public school. On the basis of oh, I taught school for five years in Jamaica. You need licence to teach in the United States. There are education. Schools in the United States is theirs. Medical credentials, processes, the legal credentials processes and it's it's meant to protect them, and so you know you can, you can come in with its scope, profile or experience. You, legally speaking, can't get a lot of jobs in the United States. Unless you ve been through. U S base
certification- well, you know again, there are fewer of those. The unauthorized population is lower skilled legal immigrant population in general, but you see we have that problem for anyone who is here on authorized and has been working in a higher Scott occupation and that's compounded by if you can't work in the Eu S legally, the only sectors you can get a job in sectors that are used to hiring authorize labour and those are going to be very low. Wage sector is so, I wouldn't say its full, a self fulfilling prophecy, but there is a definite a dynamic where, because the? U S kind of expects the you're going to have an author I immigrants working, largely low wage jobs. If Europe authorized, regardless of what you're qualified for the job, you're gonna get low wage Louis job, I think it's. This is also where we start to get into the gap between what people think of when they think of unauthorized immigrants and what the population actually looks like the fact.
It is illegal in migration from Mexico has basically collapsed, or at least flattened over the last several years as something that a lot of polish walks. Knowing nobody in America knows and if you ask people how unauthorized immigrants there are in the: U S, they'll give you the number of immigrants or the number of potatoes in the? U S, if you ain't it There is an assumption that immigrant equals latino and immigrant equals illegal in the minds of a lot of Americans that makes very hard to distinguish what effect the population is actually having from what do people think is going on in their communities. So you know you do have. Again kind of by default: more ethnic diversity in the unauthorized population and more skills diversity and in the unauthorized population that just isn't getting noticed. Because people, assume that if your trained as a doctor than you must be here legally right, ok
what I wanted to one one last beat on this boat before we move on, which is that date, the Obama administration obviously made some important kinds of moves here and not to drag you into endless debates over what what is it as an amnesty? But it is certainly a thing that people who would like to see less immigration and more deportation characterize that way right. His sort of big legislative, comprehensive reform dreams collapsed, and so he he issued some. I don't have they were executive order per se or just like memos to the enforcement agencies, but but changing things up right, so we were talking a little bit ago about how, in about us first term, he was doing this large but targeted enforcement thing where he was deporting alot of people, but he was saying these are very particular populations of people. We don't want to be deporting people who have lived here
for decades, whoever his family's here, we certainly dont, want to be supporting children and young adults who came here is children who have lived there who lives in the? U S, bed The way he was doing. That was just issuing memo saying if you are in field agent, and you encounter these people consider them low priorities. If you encounter these other groups of people, consider them high priorities, and so That was working. Often it was not. It certainly didn't raise the threat of deportation from anyone and it didn't allow anyone who was theoretically not a priority to work in the. U S, lilies even if there was a memo saying that you shouldn't be a priority, how much good that actually did for individual immigrants was kind of a clear, so in the second term, or starting with summer of twenty twelve, when he does this for people who would have benefited from the dream act after the dream, ACT failed in Congress and twenty ten, and then
again, in November, two thousand and fourteen, although the November, two thousand and fourteen stuff is what's currently being held up in court, so hasn't been implemented? Yet he does. This thing called deferred action, which is an established way for the executive branch to say this group of people is temporarily being given a written promise and we won't deport you for a couple of years been used in the past, with targeted groups, it'll be used with another as immigrants from one country that is in a particularly screwed up positions that we want to make sure that they don't get supported. It got used In the early nineteen nineties by the President H W Bush because they had realized so the Reagan Amnesty happened that a lot of family members of people who are covered by the regular honesty weren't covered so annoying it's you not force the family to split up. There was very protection, then Congress came in and allowed them to allow the whole family to get then refuse to initially with people flee Cuba after the revolution there
Rather they would. There was later a legislative thing right, there's like especial process for it. For me, leaving cube, oh yeah, but initially people just started showing up in Florida and because it was a sort of a foreign policy priority, their website executive guidance like ok, they can come we're gonna try This actually relates to a minimum wage. Conversation later all have mistaken aerial, but indeed we are so anyway, so Obama does this for a population and of about a million people in theory, but of course, because we will actually have to apply for it it's fewer than that. So far you have seven hundred thousand little more than that. At this point, people who have actually gotten deferred action, the twenty twelve actions and the other thing that Obama as part of that is a once. You ve gotten your written protection from deportation. You can turn around and apply for a work permit for, for that purpose,
of time, which is typically something that comes along with deferred action, but when you're doing it for seven hundred thousand people at once is a big deal as a work. Permit means that people can hire you yet legally. It's like amnesty for employers as well right, it's it's not just ok. Will you are safe from being deported from this year, this six months or whatever, but it means that you are. Eligible for a much wider range of legitimate labour market opportunities, which would mean that your life in a sort of practical day today sends may improve a lotta meaning remain. Depending on the circumstances, but you might be able to get a much more stable job. This way,
and enters. Definitely, there have been surveys of people who have gone deferred action under this programme that many of them are in career, trap jobs. Now they are better able to provide for their families, because their families are still mostly on authorize. The question, of course, that you might be asking is: why is this different from giving someone legal status- and there is a technical legal answer- that legal presence is different from legal status, which is just know that who terms are different? That freely doesn't have that much beyond that? But there is the practical answer is its temporary and it can be revoked at any time in the? U s. If you are illegal permanent residents, you can get that stripped from you if you're convicted of serious crimes that basically the wait that can get straight from you statuses that Congress has written into various immigration laws are permanent, less you violate them away. That's written out in advance, deferred action the line has always been a president cruiser president Trump comes into
this org, when he initially did it a president, Rami, comes into office and says we're honouring this anymore and it's done it's gone. And furthermore, if you are a president who is very keen on deporting a lot of people at once, you have a list of seven hundred seven hundred thousand people so that the kind of the useful distinction there there's an argument that, because you're protecting people from deportation and giving them work permits. That that is amnesty in a way that just saying verbally working try not to deport you and will deport these other people instead isn't. There is also the counter argument that. An amnesty in the way that people describe it in one thousand, nine hundred and one one thousand nine hundred and eighty six or even, if you're, calling the comprehensive immigration reform bill. That Congress tried to pass in twenty thirteen honesty. Those are ways that people who have been authorized against cannot be unauthorized anymore, and once that shifts, They can stay in the. U s
more or less indefinitely, most context right, similes when they do when state governments do like attacks. Amnesty right where it's like, if you actually show up admit you, are wrong: pay your bag, taxes pay a fine, the meaning of the amnesty. There is that, like now, Good. Yes right, like it's just that they don't, they don't get to come back next time and be like you know yourself, they re. So that's when I have talked about Obama's executive actions in twenty twelve and twenty fourteen, I've used the term protection from deportation because that's what it is, and that is like deportation is almost purely a matter of what the executive branch decides. It wants to do at the time. Deferred. Action is purely a matter of. Does the executive branch honour this thing or doesn't it so you could paper? ethically have a kind of phasing out of something like this, where it has to be renewed every two, three years. Ok, we're going stop renewing them, but in practice it's really whose in office as president, and do they feel like continuing this?
Where am I not so easy ass indefinitely in a world in which Hillary Clinton is elected and serves two terms in the bottle blah shore at that point, its functionally indistinguishable from an amnesty or from giving someone legal status but in a world where immigration is a an issue that no longer divides Democrats and Republicans in turn, is it didn't years ago, but where all Democrats are being pressured, she support maximal protections for unauthorized emigrants and all Republicans are being pressured to support, if not active deportation than certainly stripping the protections that exist. That gets very fry in terms of individual immigrants making future decisions about. Do I want to sign up for this
do. I want to go into a school program that if I lose my legal status two years and I have spent a lot of money and not gotten any benefit, etc. Ok, thank you very much for that. I think we should take a quick break, make some make some money and then come come back and and discuss matters this. We got really glad to have square space back. Is that as a sponsor again square spaces, basically the best place to go build a website has really sort of easy user friendly tools. You dont need to be an expert computer program or you don't need to be an expert designer. You can use it and you will get a site that looks like a professionally designed website, because their templates are done by professional designers. They ve got a lot You know if you look around the web used to be that you really should have had to choose between paying a lot of money to get a professionally done site or making a set yourself. That was hard to build and look terrible and square spaces. Just the solution. To that you got a sort of a modern, responsive design, so looks great and mobile phones. You get free domain,
you sign up for a whole year, so you know I mean, if you have any interest at all and having a website for yourself for your business is a great opportunity to start a free trial today, and you know see that you will like it. If you do it well, You decide to sign up for square space, makes use, offer code weeds to get ten percent off your first purchase square space, build a beautiful right so that the ban. Thing: that's that's happening this week. I mean this actually a bunch of stuff happening but said something that North Korea is exploding yeah. I just don't know anything about dignity as we, so we we kicked off the new year with some armed men of some of them affiliates of Clearing Bundy from the last great western lands. Contrary at storming into a federal facility. Psycho of welcome said I don't know it's. The building associate with a federal wildlife refuge in a small town in Eastern Oregon.
And then they said that they are not going to leave until there is a change in legal ruling against some some fellows out there who am burned they set five. Two part of national forest out and out nor again and threatened to shoot any cops. Who came in and try to get them, and you know it interesting story that I think under any circumstances, would have attracted some level of of national attention. It is not every day that armed men sees control of government facilities by you know there is an immediate social media outcry that I was certainly part of noting you know, like a certain contrast between
earlier this week it was ruled that Cleveland police officer who heard there was a kid with a gun that might have been a toy gun they rolled up. They saw a kid holding what turns out to have been a toy gun. Can I hopped out of the car, shot him and then no indictment, no harm, no foul. He was in fear of life, and you know we ve obviously had a lot of stories allotted discussion of black lives matter. A lot of push back from conservatives about a war on cops things like that, and you see so white guys with with little flags and an camel hats, and Patriot ideology, brandishing been sent frightening to kill law enforcement officials, and you know the responses to be like super
anxious about it. You know it's like wow, we're not gonna, say it's ok for you to seize this building, but the most important thing is to like handle the situation. Delicately here try to make sure people, people don't get hurt, and you know I think that the first thing that came to mind for me, Sir Was that there's a racial double standards? Here and more broadly, I would say a kind of a political and ideological double standard like its somehow sort of ok to be an armed antigovernment militant as long as you are approaching it from a of right wing and nominally constitutional list perspective in a way that its like not ok, to be like. You know, street gang or something like that that you get to call yourself a militia, you now everyone ever internet kind of respects. It I mean the contrast. Seven, I, like you, nice, autism, social media. You can easily make this contrast, like you are saying, and you so, on the one hand are totally see that other side, I also get the theory of the government is operating under
are aware for them. You know they wyant fewer cash. These are worried about like a situation where they stood in. You know, I would almost say you know, bring that same worried to other situations like you know that casualties across the board would be like, probably a great thing for America Earl S, gun, casualties and twenty sixteen? But you know when you goddamn. You know I was what an excellent vocs that come video on this and that one of the great points to a poisoner me their video made was like. When you look how the government used to handle standoffs there'd be a lot of Who did not like you know, there's two any you'd see violent reactions to that. Like Timothy Mcveigh, saying that one of the reasons you he you did, the bombing and Coherent was because of how the police have react, reacted so aggressively to other stand off situations that he was in the allowed to say. Look, let's not cast off these people guns. You we want to. TIM nicely as their occupying these federal building
but at the same time there is an inherent risk to kind of going out guns, Blake and kind of Vienna, really rising up to people who are pursued. These kind of actions, scene can see. I see the contrast, but there's also lake, relatively sound federal logic, to like not going in guns, raising lighting these people up and just like obeying a new in previous examples show. Is it possible that at some point, these guys While they said there It is easier indefinitely like their reporting. I've seen doesn't really seem like they have a sound infrastructure understand in terms of their food supplies of twenty odd Kansas. You can soup in a bag of Brussels and his mother is here and there they don't actually seem ready for you do a long along hold and don't have this massive groundswell of support. So you can see on that side like you know, why not just wait them out
for them to come out of their way right. So as someone who was not super politically aware, because I was too young in the kind of early nineties when the stand off they are talking about, Sarah were happening This is all from things. I've read, I realized tat. This was my first reaction. Initially was Joe. This sounds a lot less lake, the killing of to mere than it does like. We go and Ruby Ridge, so I've spent the first part of this week cooling myself on the things that I wouldn't have paid attention to at the time. And the narrative that actually comes out of that that I think people who lived through it haven't necessarily process is, The standoffs in the early nineties warrant immediately politically controversial. They were controversial too timid in vain, the movement that he was a part of, but most of it. Guns were like you know what those are right wing. Disease they are shooting at cops. Whatever you
the do that's totally okay, we went, Waco was caught, you right, they were called branch dvd ends and they were living in a compound near way taxes, which is a small town, any kind of place, but it's also not the middle of nowhere, but they had a compound sort of off in the skirts and there were allegations of child abuse. I wonder why the initial the stand, started when an atm taskforce raided the compound because they had illegal guns and illegal explosives, but A lot of all these people are doing bad things. There there were allegations of of child abuse if you can call them allegations if there is evidence that the current leader, bunch of child brides as the seas went on the F B, I became
started telling attorney General JANET Reno. You know. We think that children are still being abused in their knowing that JANET Reno had said. It is a priority of the Department of Justice to fight child abuse, JANET Reno, ultimately, after about six weeks, gives the decision to start to take a more aggressive stance and not wait them out and then, after the fact comes out, the FBI director knew perfectly well that there wasn't the evidence of ongoing child views and it's not super clear who, at the F B, I told we know that there are a lot of things like that. Where it's not that these people weren't crazy, because they obviously were getting from this cult of people stocking up for the for the apocalypse in compound and weaker taxes, to the way that the stand off ended with the federal government pumping in a bunch of tear gas and coal members responding by setting fires that set the entire compound on fire and killed. Eighty
people. Those two didn't have to be connected where there are a lot of legitimate mistakes made by the federal government, which kind of justice to like the more conservative attitude that their displaying in Oregon right were absolutely app is absolutely, but at the time right after the way go, stand off ended. Seventy five percent of Americans thought the federalists. It had done the right thing and that lasted for two years, and in a similarly when, when people talk about Ruby Ridge, they're talking about a much more straightforward and not involving called but a couple, weeklong stand off with a guy and his family, that ended when the guy surrendered, but before that his wife and son had been killed by federal agents, one of them in a fire fight, one of them bias neighbor, who has just told us, you don't say, So that was another case of people who were in right wing circles. Thought of that is a terrible, terrible thing. People who weren't rightwing circles relate
had it coming to them. Suddenly, when Timothy Mcveigh blows up the federal building in nineteen eighty five and deliberately blows it up on the day that the Waco compounds set on fire the two year in a variety of that doesn't give any other public statements about. This is what was going on here leave it to the media, to figure it out. Suddenly the media is talking about. Oh, there are lots of people who have issues with the way the federal government behave in Waco and that kind of guessed re litigate in the weigh in ever was and suddenly in April, one thousand nine hundred and eighty five. You have still three out of four people. Think the federal government properly and Waco. Three months later, that's fall into a fifty fifty split. Twenty five percent of Americans change their mind, not after it happened, but after
actual, honest to goodness domestic terrorist said it. This is my grievance as a domestic terrorist, and this is kind of where the two come together. The FBI has, and the federal government generally have clearly learned that if you take aggressive actions, they could come back to bite you later and it was a massive crisis of public trust for the FBI and they had to have a bunch of hearings and change a bunch of stuff, but the reason that that became This is a public trust was because the american public decided to consider G is the grievance of this domestic Harris Legitimate, which is something that is very hard to it. I didn't happening with the San Bernardino if tutors in late twenty six, why they mean to push the analogy white ye have to figure that effective. If the new black Panther Party gets a bunch of guys with automatic rifles together and they take over a building and hold it hostage and say that their grievance is to mere rice an air garner and all like that, the debt is not going to be. I think that
How can we something that is helpful to black lives matter? This can be a backlash too, that back or rather than a bunch of people being like. You know why these guys, like they're, making good some good points here I mean I don't I obviously I'm speculating we'd, we don't know what will happen if that happens, but it is difficult for me to imagine ethnic or religious minority groups in the United States. Being able to gain a new level of public sympathy by engaging in these, runs where's. You already see it in Oregon. You can see the articles on vocs dot com people do in articles. Like you know these. You guys seem crazy, but that minimum sentences a little excessive for these militia guy seem crazy, but there really are a lot of problems with with federal policy and in western lands and I know that this is a little back allows you to the backlash. I think they should kick everyone off the federated. They leave. Time like it seems like there's such a high risk in such low reward. You know going in so aggressively after the lake.
They ve been denounced even by the people who are trying to support like TED Crews, the Obama administration everyone's. As you know, they should be you, you don't see. My understanding and incorrect This is wrong as they ve called for people the come, join them in Oregon and bring their guns. You don't see, there's a big uprisings, but is it you don't need this big uprisings? There's already been. I feel like this. I knew, I should like all their issue is and their their underlying complaints. I find it odd. I think that there is less. Double standard in terms of discussion of the complaints, then we act Do you know a little bit about what would happen if someone retaliated with violence for to me her eyes, because that's what that was the expressed motive for the shooting of two New York City contract law and also resolve? We saw an authority more readily right, exactly like burn down a sea vs and, like all see vs deserved. We understand customer service basis, but there is a huge
back in time, though, if you, if you think about people talking about the criminal justice system and in particular, police treatment of people of color in summer of twenty forty, So now you do see movement pole numbers, particularly among young white people. There is growing sense that complaints with police are legitimate, which does seem to me to be the equivalent of will. Yes, these people are crazy, but let's actually look more what their grievances are. Haven't seen a huge shift on actually western lands policy is totally screw up in the federal government should sell a bunch of land back to ranchers. I feel like that. These strong ideological commitment that a lot of people haven't changed, but oh well Most of what is the actual problem. That's that's led to this point is maybe not the worst take away from us
Well, you know we ve been. We ve been going on for for awhile, and maybe maybe Dar has defeated me, but I am not going to see you so well just say we're at a time I have to have a talk of amateur white paper. Yeah I able. So today we are going to talk about one of my favorite sources of white papers. The National Bureau of Economic Research live every day. Its envy. Our day we like to say the weeds, I hope James Peterka listens to this path. I'm a couple times- and you know where we're big fans if we're you'd if ever be our wants to sponsor about gas, I think they'd reach the audience they're looking for, we would write you a jungle anyways there. An interesting paper they put out this week on the minimum wage, so there's opposition debate about minimum wage sums, cities experimental with fifteen dollars, power minimum wage and were financed Probably some really interesting economic research over the next few years about what happened, when you raise the minimum wage that much when you got that high this paper, it's from Jeffrey Climate,
Did you see I stay in San Diego? I would enter this by saying it's one of many minimum wage papers and, to be perfectly honest, there's a lot of complex economic method. Here that I do not a hundred per cent. Understand what is going to talk about his inclusions and kind of what he's finding there and then kind of how it fits into this larger body of minimum wage research so Clemens is looking at. Is the in Greece and the minimum wage in the mid two thousand and we saw the federal minimum wage go up, but it was differential across different states, can confront an experiment and see what happens differently depending on how, ass, the minimum wage Google? So it's because many states their own minimum wages that are higher than the federal minimum. When the federal minimum wage goes up, modestly, as it did their guess, the minimum wage
rises in some states, but not the federal minimum wage went up from five hundred and fifteen an hour and two thousand and seven to seven hundred and twenty five, an hour to in two thousand and nine, but, like Matt says you have, some states are already about So you saw different browser, that's like the instrument, he's actually instrument trying to control, also for some changes in the housing market. Anyways big, way from this is that Clemens finds that the minimum wage increase, their reduced employment among young individual, sixteen to thirty, who have less than a high school education by five point, six percent, so percent the idea is this rise in the minimum wage was bad for low educated America, and it's part of this kind of back and forth of research on the matter wage of veto, what does it mean for the way people are people losing jobs, Be this economic stimulus, it's really good for workers or people losing out there's something. I mentioned the marrow boat left earlier, where there's been a lot of interesting research about this influx of cuban immigrants. To Florida, and you know did that hurt low skilled workers there,
and I think this is kind of part of body research that's going to grow. Is we'll start looking at fifteen dollar minimum wage and explain what mean for low wage worker is. Is it an improvement? Is there a lot of job losses? What's the net economic effect of raising the minimum wage? Yet you know I ate it's worth giving context this paper, which is that for a long time they had just been a kind of you know you draw supply and demand curve on a piece of paper, and it says Well, if you raise a wage, fewer people work, and then you hide Beggin. Ninety ninety two. What was at the time a groundbreaking empirical studies that the David Card did it and he was exploiting. I think a state level increase in the minimum wage in New Jersey, where's Pennsylvania, isn't Jersey, New Jersey, but either way the sitting. Look at the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, border right, and so you can see like well. Ok is there, like. Suddenly all the Wendy's open up in Pennsylvania and there's none in New Jersey and they find and know that that wasn't the case.
So liberals got really excited about that, because minimally joys poles well, great to see like economic evidence that this was an idea that really worked it and could be amazing, so because it's a hot but near issue. You start seeing more and more and more and more and more papers on this, and you can see a guy named David New Mark has probably been the leading researcher in a line of papers that show adverse impacts on unemployment and a guy named debate has become the leading guy with that with a line of papers that show no impact m or sent on small positive impacts and the the rest
She has gotten very sophisticated, so we started from this very sort of simple naive study. Wednesday raises Wednesday: doesn't let's see what happens to these increasingly elaborate statistical method, so, like one key move in this new paper is, if they try to say, will look. Obviously there were big employment declines in states that had unusually severely hit housing markets. We know that the building trades employs a lot of people, don't have formal educational credentials, so we should statistically control or that Housing Morgan impact. So then we can isolate the real minimum wage impact. So that's only do I am not in a calm attrition to evaluate whether they did that control in an appropriate way, but just to say that part of what you have on both sides is like increasingly baroque. Possibly waste is to try to isolate the variable man. You can you can look at it in all kinds of different ways right. So, like one thing, you might want to say
is no look we're trying to see if increasing the minimum wage, devastates employment opportunities for low skilled people if lots of local people have jobs in the building trade sector. You'd want to control that away. Ride like as a real element of economic life. Then The counter argument to that, like is obvious, that it's a good luck. We all know that the reason employment collapsed in Florida was at the housing market collapsed would be silly to attribute that to their non raising of the minimum wage followed by it. It's difficult to know, there's like a difficult theoretical question about what do you want to do, and so you get. I think we can also to understand the workings of human psychology whereby you go back, you think to yourself. Well, do I think abortion should be legal or illegal? That's something I have extra conviction about. Then you say
which position on the minimum wage goes in. My position on abortion say: ok, that's easy, and then it's like ok, so whose empirical conclusions do I endorse right? It's that that sort of crude No, it's just a. It is very easy to persuade yourself if you are disposed towards one side or the other of this dispute like this a fuck load of paper. That support my view, which is true, because it's like a lot of papers on both sides and in a sort of honest, journalistic way, it's hard to know what to make of it. I think that there is a kind of another. Action with policy. That's a little bit less prone to which side of the debate to I want to pick papers from now. That's it see.
Like one of the other methodological innovations in this paper, is not looking at just at what was employment among demographic groups, who tend to be heard by shocks in the economy or by wage increases. You know what was the economic impact on teenagers, for instance, but actually looking at, who are the people who are individuals were working at the minimum wage and what happens to those particular people when it goes up? human, that's being given in the paper, appears to be well the point of raising the minimum wage isn't to allow teenagers to make more money for their part time jobs. It's to have people supporting families be able to support those families. That strikes me as a better policy rationale for increasing the minimum wage, and it seems to me that it has to look through the economic literature. If you, if you accept that half of the papers say well, yes, fewer people are going to be working there going to be making more money for the time. They are looking at who those people are and is the even. If your decreasing employment
that doing more to help people support their families. Theoretically, you say that Sesar ever higher than the minimum wage, not necessarily that it doesn't hurt employment, but that it helps poverty read, but you know even this is like you can. You can play these games are both I'd say like theirs papers that fine, ok, there is small decrease in employment, but their decreases concentrated among teenagers. So one argument you could make about that. Finding if true isn't like like this is fine right like we don't really need seventeen year olds, working Mcdonalds time. Maybe they should be doing their math homework and we're raising the incomes of adults ride. So, like that's our good, but I've read papers that have that empirical. Finding that cast at exactly the the way, and they then find that well turns out that, particularly for people who don't have a lot of educational credentials having work experience is really important to your life cycle things right, so you can show up at the age of twenty eight and, like maybe you don't ever Highschool deplore
I certainly do not have a college way, but you can say, look I mean I've been working. You know, I started working part time and I was sixteen. I've been working full time set was nineteen years, are by the time you get to a certain age like quite employable. I mean not in like specialised occupations that, but why are you to have gone to law school but for general work? You seem like a solid guy, whereas I mean there's, there are papers show who have you have no work history, your thirteen years. It's gets like hard to get on the whole labour market track so that gene thing is horrible, which is I dont have like a strong view on and which of these. As is right. You can do the empirics and people can argue the empirical things different ways, but then people can also argue the intersection of the empirical finding
with their broad theoretical concerns and every kind of ways I mean you don't want to be totally single that I and I think it would be wrong to imagine that these are like college professor sitting behind a desk like here's, an evil plan. But it is true that people's prior commitments, sort of shape and channel the way that there is often goes back to take The aim of the weeds and like we ve already outside, did what we think and we have our political tried that were sticking to That was you, research them in one way inside each also, true that you know if you comment this with convictions, but nuanced convictions. You can do nuanced policy, so Australia, for example, to very high minimum wage much higher than the United States, but they have an exception to where you can boy teenagers at a much lower wage rates, and so one obvious thing you my worry about Well, ok, aren't certain kinds of employers cannot get rid of all their grown ups and replacing teenagers
You do actually see that Australia that Australian, fast food chains are much more dependent on teenagers, but the view in Australia is it that is good, that they want to create a high wage for for adults to support their families, but they want to create a sort of cheap labour pool of teenagers so that people can gain labour market experience. I don't know if that's the right thing to do or not, but it reflects a view that they seem to have an australian politics of what they want out of the law Jakarta me, which is basically work. Experience for young people and living wages for older people and of the law is designed to create that America Emmi, then look at the way the minimum wage works in it. It doesn't appear to be particularly designed to accomplish anything in specific terms right, it's its broad brush, but then it has this like Hugh.
A loophole for people who get tips so I'd. I always do thing is worth mentioning, like one potential reason that the minimum wage doesn't cost many jobs in some papers is that there are a lot of loopholes in it. In my experience, the people who favour minimum wage increases tend to also be, upset about the loopholes, but you may want to pay attention there. Goes wait a minute. What is one possibility is that, since tipped, workers in most states can be paid very, very, very low wages, there's no reason for the minimum wage to sort of by right. If some people can't be employed at the new higher minimum wage, they windup shifting into maybe
the tit sector or other kinds of things, and so I would always be interested more research if it were possible to actually track individuals and like see how they flow through these labour markets, rather than tracking demographic groups like do actual people lose their jobs and possibly go get other jobs elsewhere in a war or does it also seems to me and sir, I guess I haven't read is as much economics about other policies is probably has, I think, there's more pleasant dreams. It seems like a lot of these papers take empirical data about a particular place at a particular time and then say minimum wage, good or bad, when what they're really measuring is what raising the minimum wage. A good idea at this particular plays in this particular time. Right I'd, like them, Beaumont you're, looking at in this particular paper, is a very sad caught. Him eat we're looking at a place like you're looking at the recession, you're looking at a point where you already had a lot of different economic change going on
and I mean this shows up all the time and, like I spend a lot of time, looking like the healthy economic research and recently like the last deep dive idea. It was about how increases premiums are fact wage as because you today the data you're working. Why? I think this is where economists, in Vienna was looking for an interesting good data set that describes a problem your time to study. The challenge of any data set aside from our previous weeds questions about how all survey data is horribly flawed and we're all totally screwed on that front, but even looking Non survey data they all measures like a particular moment in time. One of them Studies on the wage premium relationship looks like Illinois teachers just because the Illinois teachers were especially generous with their data and and up to you know and economists are doing this work, and I don't think this is in any nefarious way that they're trying to mix contribution to the public policy world their China's ailing here's. What this thing teaches us but
they're always limited to the fact there, like studying one narrow example, that's a particular group of people at a particular point in time and its true of do any of the minimum wage research nuts of how you end up with his body research like that, describes it where you end up with these really disparate findings, depending on. Who you're looking at and like you, can probably manipulate out of that kind of get the sort of findings that fit economic and ideological views, depending on like who look at and that my you, no matter what kind of how you in those findings you after getting. This is just to give these different ways. You can think about processions happening right, so it's like, I could publish a paper and could be say like well. You know holding this cup of hot in my hand, while I just drove the car off the road led to a lot of burns. So the coffee made my decision to drive off the road way worse. Another way frame
I would just be more one reason to not flamed your car into a bumpy offload situation is that there might be things in the car that you dont want to use. A spill and enabling economists genuinely have different views of how you should think about recessions and things like that red. If you see it s just a kind of a force of nature that, like all these things, are bound to happen, then you might want to say we're: ok, any policy intervention that makes processions more severe. You know it's like a really bad idea, or you might think that will be processions occur because of of policy error, and so you can have bad interaction of facts, but that's all just really going to show that it's really damaging to the economy, to sir things off track. I do think you would see. I mean if the temperature on the debate cool down a little. I do think almost everyone would agree. That the middle of a recession was not a really good time for the minimum wage to be going up because Natural
I mean what it means to have a recession is that companies are sitting around seeing that the revenue is coming in, seeing that they need to get rid of some people, and so big policy moves that make it like. Maybe they ve got rid of some people. You know it's it's, it's not good to do it that right, you want to do at a time when people are hiring when, when they're looking for new people, of course, politics is hard right, so this minimum wage increase it passed when it passed because demo said a majority in Congress. Didn't know there was can be recession the following year and then, when we're session starts, we don't want to undo it because you don't know who's gonna have a majority in Congress the next year. You know in a sort of theoretical dictator could have easily said you know I'd. Let us keep this on hold and then in twenty ten or twenty eleven, but like it, we were putting it back in
as it happens by twenty eleven Republicans running Congress, and you wouldn't be able to put it back in so would you really really want to know, as policymakers is what's the impact on the long term, but that's much much harder to actually study right? I mean he's to an extent what happens to people's jobs in one particular year. Doesn't matter people care about what happens to employment, what happens to poverty, but haven't even on the growth of five years over ten years of her, of course, pupils whole life but the whole lives and whole decades are really complicated too. To study, and particularly I've, seen a lot of a lot of new sir job market candidates. Coming of economics, have fresh new minimum wage papers because It's a cool way to show off here statistical skills, on a relevant policy issue but that doesn't mean just because your papers on a relevant issued,
It means that it necessarily addresses the question that is most relevant to people right. It's like it's a little hard to get its anger. We actually like mine changing in that sense, although isn't there a problem in other fields in other ways fields where that, once an interesting finding has been made instead of filling in the rest of the empirics around that interesting, finding and figuring out whether it holds in different circumstances, people just move on to the next thing. Isn't it a good thing to have a more robust body of either?
It's great that there's like so much research. I just don't know that it's clarified anything for any additional say I don't want to overtake this. I do think that the minimum wage, a literature, has changed some minds, but its changed mines in a kind of peculiar way, which is that it used to be the minimum wage increases pulled very well, but then I suspect that a lot of super knowledgeable about economics, people who work liberal in general were sceptical about minimum wage increases. But now, if you look at this coming to God, I GM does a survey of economists. Many now shows that mostly academic account,
as they survey favour a minimum wage increase. I was reading a new book by Rob Gordon economist at North, western and eastern explicitly says this in the end, he's talking matter policy solutions, and he says you know one idea: that's populars, raising the minimum wage. You know I used to think that was actually bad idea, but in others only studies so so for it. So you see economists who are generally left of centre in their overall political orientation now getting permission from the empirical literature too align their view on this topic with their other kinds of political commitments. I'm not sure that you see economists who are right of centre on other issues being persuaded by this because they have their own set of papers right, but it's like I think it's it's troubling like it's good, as just like research and like the growth of human knowledge that we have so much studies on this, but in terms of its practical impact on them
religious, mostly seems to be that it lets everyone you can go Were you want and the like escalating ladder of informed ness and still just like conform to the right thing and up up up myself in that? But I wanted to get along with with my friends and my twitter followers, so I'm very enthusiastic about liberal minimum wage research. It seems great to me, I think, that's what drives that stuff right. It's not isn't exactly that people are dishonest, but it's like it's to get along with with people who you are likely to see. Oh yeah and even better way to get along with people who see is to listen to the weeds every week.
I commend them to assess whether we recommend that favours an issue? Ask us to review S on Itunes, to tell your friends to abuse, and I tunes to tell people that they don't even need to listen to download and with you just of sky. That's! So now it's thank sir to DORA for fulfilling in thanks to making and others who have helped us out with production this week, and we will. We will see you next week
Transcript generated on 2021-09-15.