Migration and economics - the lazy arguments of Thomas Sowell?

Thomas Sowell, a distinguished social scientist and columnist, recently criticized then-Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) for his statement that America needs immigration reform to avoid a "worker shortage." Sowell pointed out that Ryan's term "shortage" was incorrect economically. While Sowell was right to correct Ryan's terminology, his broader argument against immigration reform is flawed and oversimplified.
 
Sowell suggested that if American farmers don't have enough workers, they will raise wages to attract American workers. He claimed that as long as there is an "unlimited supply" of farm workers coming from Mexico, wages will remain low, and Americans will continue to be unemployed. However, this argument ignores several critical economic realities.
 
Firstly, Sowell's use of the term "unlimited" to describe the supply of farm workers from Mexico is misleading. If the supply were genuinely unlimited, wages would drop to zero. The reality is that while there is an ample supply of immigrant labor, there is more than infinite. Additionally, Americans are not willing to take any job at any wage. Even during high unemployment, wages remain relatively sticky, indicating that people are not desperate enough to take highly low-paying jobs. This undermines Sowell's argument that Americans would take these jobs if only wages were higher.
 
Moreover, Sowell overlooks the broader economic impacts of reducing the supply of low-skilled immigrant labor. He argues that wages for farm workers would increase, but he fails to consider that many American farmers would respond by reducing their production of labor-intensive crops. Without a sufficient supply of low-skilled immigrant workers, labor-intensive farming would shrink or disappear. Farmers might switch to crops that can be harvested mechanically or abandon farming altogether. This would lead to increased imports of fruits and vegetables from countries with abundant labor or decreased consumption of these goods, directly impacting American consumers.
 
Labor economics further explains why the American production of fruits and vegetables would only decline with low-skilled immigrant labor. The marginal value of a worker's production must exceed their wage for employment to be profitable. Given the vast array of work and welfare options available to Americans, farmers would have to offer significantly higher wages to attract enough American workers, rendering much of labor-intensive agriculture unprofitable.
 
Sowell's argument also ignores the potential negative consequences of raising wages for low-productivity farm workers. Increasing wages in occupations that do not require a high school diploma contradicts public policies aimed at encouraging higher graduation rates. Evidence suggests that more immigration incentivizes Americans to complete high school, and diverting higher-skilled workers into low-productivity jobs could reduce overall economic and productivity growth, a complex issue that Sowell's argument fails to address.
 
Sowell's critique of immigration reform proponents is also selective. He mocks the claim that "Americans won't do these jobs," stating that Americans have done them for generations. However, even though Americans have historically done specific jobs, they should continue to do so if better and cheaper alternatives are available. It's akin to arguing that because Americans once used wind-powered ships and horses, we should continue to do so despite technological advancements.
 
Lastly, Sowell is right that the economy would adjust to a reduction in low-skilled labor, but he fails to mention that this adjustment would involve economic contraction, a significant concern. If the government artificially creates labor scarcity, the economy will shrink. Restricting low-skilled immigration will not raise American wages sufficiently to attract domestic workers to pick crops; it will devastate sectors of the economy reliant on low-skilled labor.
 
Therefore, Sowell's surface-level explanation of how wages would adjust without low-skilled immigration is misleading. He needs to acknowledge such policies' economic contraction and other negative effects. Immigration restrictions increase labor scarcity and harm the economy, contrary to Sowell's arguments. The complexities of immigration economics require a more nuanced and inclusive approach than Sowell provides.
 
Thanks for reading. You can support and reward me via: 
Pay Pal — lauvlad89@gmail.com
Algo — NCG6LBALQHENQUSR77KOR6SS42FGK54BZ5L2HFDSBGQVLGYIOVWYDXFDI4
ADA — addr1q9vfs6nqz4xmtnpljwhv4tukyskd2g7enxd87rpugkwwvfun5pnla5d5tes2mvurrc77e7837yd0scrfk063qlha8wgs8d4ynz
Bitcoin 3HbxyDXE9MhNQ8RqsirqgYvFupQzh5Xby2
ETH — 0x8982cdb97bd23f092f78a16a4fc93c5c4607a285
Seeds — vladlausevic
Skycoin — ZxjhWMJRbTNCRQzy5MekZzH4fhdWFCqBP8
Tezos — tz1QrRzkTAKuPKF8dmGW6c1ScEHBUGvoiJBM