You know how the MSM is always surprised that their hero’s policies don’t work? Well, I haven’t yet seen the flip side of that regarding Alabama’s immigration law, but after all the Rotting in the Fields stories from months ago, I await headlines like, “Ala. Joblessness Drops Despite Harsh Immigration Law.”
But at least Neil Munro at the Daily Caller is on the case:
Alabama’s unemployment rate fell at a record pace in November amid stepped-up efforts by President Barack Obama’s deputies to frustrate enforcement of the state’s popular new immigration reform.
The state’s unemployment rate fell 0.6 percent in November to 8.7 percent, according to new state reports, partly because the state’s employers opened up jobs to Americans after shedding illegal immigrants.
The unemployment rate is far below October’s rate of 9.3 percent and September’s rate of 9.8 percent.
“The continued drop is proof that people — American Citizens [and] legal migrants, have suffered at the hands of politicians who choose politics over economics,” said Chuck Ellis, a council member in Northern Alabama’s Marshall County.
“What’s really amazing is that in Marshall County, a county of 95,000 residents, 30,000 workforce eligible, there are over 600 people who now have jobs that they didn’t have 6 months ago,” he said.
In November the county’s unemployment rate dropped 0.7 percent, from 8.1 percent to 7.4 percent.
“Is that a difference of great significance? Ask those families for an answer as they undertake the Christmas season,” Ellis said.
Oh, and 2011 is shaping up to be a banner year for farmers nationwide, with profits expected to be up 28 percent from 2010.
Unexpectedly?
They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe primary meaning of the word 'unexpectedly' as used by liberals (and even 'moderates,' as in the final example) can be gleaned from the following case histories:
"The Chinese communists *unexpectedly* turned out not to be agrarian reformers.
"It *unexpectedly* proved correct that the New York Times was wrong about Stalin's famine and genocide in the Ukraine."
"The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt *unexpectedly* turned out to be lying about their moderation.
Romney, after his Presidential nomination in 2012, *unexpectedly* turned out to be a lot less conservative than advertised by NRO.
One could go on predicting future *unexpectedlys*, but it is too painful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, a pure economics argument ends with advocacy of open borders.
If you passed a law saying that it was now illegal for women to work, you would see a pretty dramatic reduction in the unemployment rate for men. This would not be "economic good news", however, because the total productivity of the system would drop pretty dramatically.
If the premises of the free market are correct, adding additional labor inputs to a system helps the system, regardless of the nominal unemployment rate. And removing labor inputs from a system hurts it.
Now, there may be VERY GOOD reasons to make the completely political judgment that we want to restrict the labor pool to citizens only - but (with apologies to Chuck Ellis) they are political reasons and not economic ones in the final analysis. We might see improved conditions for some constituencies if all illegal immigrant labor went away - that's actually pretty likely. But "improved conditions for some constituencies" is not the same as "economic improvement".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Actually, a pure economics argument ends with advocacy of open borders."
Only if you don't count the cost of forcing hospitals to treat illegals for free and allowing them to collect welfare, food stamps, and whatever else they can glom onto.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's not a pure economics argument - that's a political argument. The economics of the situation would be irrespective of government policy (and might possibly be a sign that government policies are getting in the way of more efficient economic outcomes).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the people (economists) that brought us "there is no such thing as a free lunch" (due to opportunity costs), now want to ignore the opportunity costs of illegal immigration/labor?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo tbrookside: I suggest you read Robert Rector's Heritage Foundation report before you make ignorant comments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichigan's unemployment rate fell an even greater amount without any immigration law or enforcement. Using that faulty logic employed here, Alabama could have seen an even greater drop if the law had not been in place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, Michigan, the one state that is actually losing population due to people moving out of the state. If only Alabama could harm its economy enough to force many people to move away, then it wouldn't have needed such a racist law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorcery!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd yet, according to the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations' Labor Market Information Division (the state agency that complies state unemployment figures), the number of people employed is completely unchanged from October. The reduction in the labor force amounts to the sum total of the change in the unemployment rate, just like it is at the national level for the month.
Link: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(I do note, however, that for some months the labor force numbers don't equal the number of employed plus unemployed, as is the case in October... from the looks of things, the number of unemployed as well as the labor force dropped by 13,322.)
Rogue Economist,
The statistics you cite fit in with what the proponents of the law said would happen. The proponents of the law never said that the law would increase the total number of jobs in the state but rather that it would increase the number of jobs that are held by legal residents. We know that many illegal immigrants have left the state (this is one thing that both opponents and proponents of the law agree on and this explains the decline in the workforce). The opponents of the law said that no legal residents would fill the jobs, i.e. that the total number of jobs would decline. Instead jobs have stayed the same, indicating that the jobs left by illegal immigrants have been filled by legal residents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that was the point of the article. The reduction came from the removal of people not entitled to work in the US legally from the workforce.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder if industrial farming's love of illegal labor is self defeating then? It may cost more to grow something using domestic labor, but the price that is charged is based on a percent of the production cost; then logically the less charged, the less money the farmer makes on his crop(?).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs usual Mark Krikorian is a fount of objectivity. It might help to look at the other states that had drops in unemployment as well before reaching any conclusions. The anecdotal evidence doesn't look so good for the law:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTuppy's usual pro-illegal alien nonsense. Do you know what the meaning of the word "partly" is?
And how about what happened after the Chipotle raids?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou tell me - what does partly mean in this story - 1%? 5%? 50%
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse