Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Where Have All the Unions Gone and Where Are All the Jobs?*

Economics is a simple field. Just about everything can be described in terms of supply and demand. If the supply of something is scarce but the demand for it is strong, its price rises. On the other hand, if there is a lot of supply but little demand, its price will go down.

Now, buyers and sellers can engage in certain strategies to weight the scales. For example, sellers of a product can band together (perhaps by buying each other out) to achieve some amount of monopoly power. Conversely, buyers of a product can collude to bid down the cost of purchasing.

This is, of course, true for the market for labor. And in the labor market, one classic way for sellers of labor (i.e., workers) to raise their bargaining power, and therefore their pay, is to band together into unions. What makes unions effective is that:

1. Union members commit to acting in concert
2. While it is easy for a company with a 1,000 person assembly line to replace a few people at a time without missing a beat, replacing all 1,000 at once would seriously crimp operations.

As a result, the cost of workforce dissatisfaction to a company with a unionized workforce is greater than the cost of workforce of dissatisfaction to a company without a unionized workforce. Therefore, a company with unionized workforce will, all else being equal, be willing to make greater concessions on pay and working conditions than the same company would be if its workforce was not unionized.

But a union is not a guarantee of anything. After all, a union can be broken. And all you need to break is to make sure there is a sufficiently large, inexpensive workforce capable of replacing the unionized workforce. There might be short term pain, but on paper at least, after that its all profit.

Which brings me to this story in the NY Times. Its about a small town in Iowa heavily reliant on the meat packing industry. Despite the Times’ clear and omnipresent bias that more immigration is always a positive thing, the following paragraph provides a good summary of the entire piece:

At that point, Mr. Smith returned to do night cleanup, earning $5.50 an hour with no benefits, but a vast majority of his former co-workers were turned away, he said, because the new owner did not want to hire union supporters. Instead, the company began actively recruiting in Mexico and immigrant communities in Texas and California.

If there are enough low-skilled immigrants, unions cannot compete. They chose to turn a blind eye toward illegal immigration because they felt it was good for business. Democrats also understood that decades ago and sided with unions. This is because Democrats felt it was good for society if factory workers could enjoy a middle class lifestyle. In the past decade, Democrats have changed. (The reason for this may be the subject of a future post.)

But regardless of politics, the facts are simple: except in very limited circumstances, one cannot simultaneously have strong both unions and virtually unrestricted immigration.

* With apologies to Bonnie Tyler. And my sympathies to American workers who also need a hero.

Tags: , , , Comments (10) | |

Small Pieces of Academia

I’ve recently stumbled on a twitter account called New Real Peer Review. The twitter account is largely (but not entirely) dedicated to posting abstracts of journal articles and links to the papers. Here’s one such abstract:

This article explores the formation of a tranimal, hippopotamus alter-ego. Confronting transgender with transpecies, the author claims that his hippopotamus “identity” allowed him to (verbally) escape, all at once, several sets of categorization that govern human bodies (“gender,” “sexuality,” age). He starts with an account of how his metaphorical hippo-self is collectively produced and performed, distinguishing the subjective, the intersubjective and the social. The article then investigates the politics of equating transgender and transpecies, critically examining the question of the inclusion of “xenogenders” in the trans political movement. Finally, the author returns to the magical power of metaphors, arguing that metaphors do materialize insofar as the flesh does not remain unchanged by them. Analogizing his hippo-self to a “cut” as theorized by Eva Hayward – a regeneration of the boundaries of the self – he offers a final crossing to the world of fiction by showing how the His Dark Materialstrilogy outlines an aesthetics of porosity, which suggests that the self is, as much as a novel, a work of fiction.

The author has gotten an appointment as a visiting scholar at the U of Arizona. Here is the announcement from the Gender and Women’s Studies department:

GWS and the UA Institute for LGBT Studies welcome visiting scholar! Florentin Félix Morin is a French student who just started his PhD this year at Université Paris 8. He works at the intersection of Trans Studies and Animal Studies, focusing on tranimal body modifications, practices and subjectivities. He is beyond excited to be in Tucson for the Spring semester, benefit from all the department’s and the Institute’s activities, conduct fieldwork in the US, and meet everyone! (He uses the name ‘Felix’ in English.)

Welcome, Felix.  The U of A GWS department faculty also includes Professor Whitney Stark. Here’s the abstract of “Reconfiguring Quantum Identities,” a paper she recently wrote:

In this semimanifesto, I approach how understandings of quantum physics and cyborgian bodies can (or always already do) ally with feminist anti-oppression practices long in use. The idea of the body (whether biological, social, or of work) is not stagnant, and new materialist feminisms help to recognize how multiple phenomena work together to behave in what can become legible at any given moment as a body. By utilizing the materiality of conceptions about connectivity often thought to be merely theoretical, by taking a critical look at the noncentralized and multiple movements of quantum physics, and by dehierarchizing the necessity of linear bodies through time, it becomes possible to reconfigure structures of value, longevity, and subjectivity in ways explicitly aligned with anti-oppression practices and identity politics. Combining intersectionality and quantum physics can provide for differing perspectives on organizing practices long used by marginalized people, for enabling apparatuses that allow for new possibilities of safer spaces, and for practices of accountability.

I’ve always had a lay interest in physics, but Stark’s paper covers ground that is new to me.

Here’s some more college news.

To wrap up this post, I think it behooves society to a pay a bit more attention to what is happening on college campuses these days. After all, we (the public) are usually funding a big part of it, and colleges can be the tip of the cultural-change spear.  I am pretty sure most people don’t want to end up where some of academia is trying to lead us.

Tags: , , , , Comments (15) | |

Healthcare Costs, Externalities, and Changing Social Norms

One of the topics I’ve railed about many times during the decade and change in which I’ve been blogging is that society would be much better off if we forced people to pay the cost of negative externalities they impose on other people through their behavior. An obvious example would be making polluters pay for the cost that the pollution they emit inflicts on everyone else.

But it turns out there are a lot of these behavioral externalities in healthcare. For instance, here’s an infographic I took from Blue Cross Blue Shield:

screen capture bcbs unhealthy behavior healthcare cost 20170528a

I imagine there are a few instances where obesity is a medical condition due to circumstances outside the control of a patient’s willpower, but I suspect that accounts for very few cases. Most people in today’s America have the ability, during most of their life, to control to a fair extent how much they eat, drink, smoke and exercise.

Elsewhere, Blue Cross Blue Shield also tells us this:

screen capture bcbs cost of treating chronic diseases 20170528a

So assuming BCBS is correct, 86 percent of US healthcare costs come from treating chronic diseases. Chronic diseases include:

screen capture bcbs list of chronic diseases 20170528a

I am no doctor, but I understand some (and I hasten to repeat the word  “some”) of the conditions can, in some cases, be brought about by a person’s behavior. For example, HIV can come from unprotected sex with prostitutes or IV drug use, diabetes from poor dietary choices and lack of exercise, and some psychotic disorders can be brought on or worsened by by drug use.

What if, going forward, we should cease to cover the costs of health conditions brought on by a person’s own behavior (when they can be identified as such)? This would be disruptive, so I don’t think it should be done cold turkey, but rather the way Social Security benefits get cut by ratcheting up the age at which a person can get benefits. For example, we could simply state that on date X, any new cases of lung cancer which are traceable to a person’s tobacco use are not to be treated at the expense of Medicare or Medicaid, and private insurance companies might be encouraged to do the same.

Note – people who used to smoke, or eat unhealthy, or not exercise a long time ago might have been submitting to societal pressures. But for the past few decades, the world has been a different place. Societal pressures now are to eat healthy, eschew illegal drugs, avoid smoking, avoid drinking in excess, and to exercise. We’ve moved from “smoke ’em if you got ’em” to “if you want to smoke, you need to do it in the smoking section.” Then we went to “you need to go outside to smoke.” These days you see smokers forced to stand some distance away from many office buildings if they want to get their nicotine hit.  Next to where I work are some office buildings occupied by a health insurance company.  Smokers who work there seem to be forced leave the premises completely  (they are usually standing in the street, even in the rain).   For many people, getting lung cancer went from the cost of conforming to social norms to being a consequence of anti-social behavior.

So what would be the effect of taking the treatment for these conditions off the public purse? I’d say the following:

1. We would see some number of cases of fraud where people would insist their behavior did not induce some outcome. A lying patient is harder to treat, so I’m guessing this would go some way toward worsening the outcomes of successful fraudsters.
2. The life expectancy and perhaps qualify of life of people who self-induce these problems would go down.
3. The incentive of people to minimize these behaviors would go up. Of course, not all of them would respond the right way, but some would. Particularly in light of the life expectancy issue in point 2. Overall healthcare costs would go down.
4. The cost to the public would go down.

Thoughts?

(One comment… I am pretty sure I recently read something proposing some part of this recently, but for the life of me, I cannot remember what or where. My apologies if I’m inadvertently stealing someone else’s idea.)

Tags: , , Comments (52) | |

Terrorism and Immigration Policy

From a story in The Globe and Mail

The 22-year-old Mr. Abedi was identified Tuesday by Manchester police as the suspected bomber. British media reported that he was born in Manchester to parents who fled the violent repression of Moammar Gadhafi’s Libya.

Little else is known about Mr. Abedi – British authorities have been tight-lipped about the investigation and only released Mr. Abedi’s name after it was leaked by U.S. officials – but his profile as the child of Muslim immigrants is similar to that of other recent Islamic State and al-Qaeda devotees who have brought terror to the cities of Europe.

Second-generation immigrants born in France to parents who had immigrated from Algeria carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre in the centre of Paris in 2015. The Belgian-born children of Moroccan immigrants masterminded the shooting and bomb attacks on the Bataclan nightclub and Stade de France later the same year. All five perpetrators of last year’s bombings of the Brussels airport and subway had a similar profile.

“If the story of radicalization and Islamism in Europe is about anything, it’s about second-generation immigrants, children of immigrants who feel culturally dislocated … a sense of dislocation related to being brought up in Western culture and finding something doesn’t quite fit,” said Shashank Joshi, a senior fellow at the London-based Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.

Of course, it isn’t just Europe. Think Omar Mateen, Syed Farook, Nidal Hasan, Nadir Soofi, and add to them any number of individuals raised in the US who made their way to fight for ISIS or Al Shabaab.

One would think that the children of immigrants would be particularly unlikely to want to cause to harm to their country. Their parents, after all, got lucky when they were able to come here. That is something they should know and a message they should pass on to their children. (Those feelings are something to which I can attest; on my father’s side, I am a second generation immigrant.)

But that decency and gratitude is clearly more than some people will show to their compatriots. And that is becoming more and more of a problem, particularly now that the terrorists have become vile enough to directly target children.

(Before you decide this is something we brought on ourselves by provoking people through our behavior abroad, bear in mind two things. The first is that pacifist countries like Sweden get the same treatment we do. The second is that Osama bin Laden told us a decade and a half ago that one of his goals was the “liberation” of al Andalus.)

Of course, none of this is to say that we don’t have atrocities committed by people who aren’t 2nd-gen-immigrants.  We do, and too many at that. No decision made at the INS in the last few decades would have saved Americans from Dylan Roof or John Allen Muhammad. On the other hand, without the signature by an immigration officer a generation ago, Omar Mateen’s 49 victims would still be alive.

Now, we have the population we have. The next Mateen is already in the US, and the next Abedi is already in Europe, and they will kill more of us, and more of our children. But there is another Mateen and another Abedi that are a little farther out. They haven’t been born yet, and their parents are currently somewhere far away. For the sake of our descendants we had better figure out how to recognize not just those evil enough to perpetrate callous acts of violence, but also those who don’t have the decency to teach their children not to be evil themselves. And we damn well better make sure we don’t let them into the country.

Tags: , , Comments (38) | |

FGM in Minnesota

The Minnesota Star Tribute has a bizarre story entitled Minnesota bill against female genital mutilation raises opposition.

It begins:

Opposition from some members of Minnesota’s immigrant and refugee communities is slowing the momentum of a bill that would impose stiff penalties for parents involved in cases of female genital mutilation.

Let’s call it like it is: there are people who are opposed to a law designed to reduce child abuse, and in particular, the abuse of girls.

The Council for Minnesotans of African Heritage, a nonprofit called Isuroon and other groups argue that the legislation carries overly harsh punishment and unintended consequences, including the possibility that newcomers from countries where genital cutting is widespread would not seek medical care and other services for their children. They call for a less punitive approach focused on educating parents.

Tags: , , Comments (19) | |

Islamic Extremist Violence v. Right Wing Extremist Violence, and Our Government

Earlier this month, the Government Accounting Office released a report entitled Countering Violent Extremism”. Its a great example of how to outright lie using data. (I note that the, um, “analysis” was performed between October 2015 and April 2017, and bears the previous administration’s imprint. The current administration’s inanities lie in an orthogonal direction.)

The upshot of the report is:

GAO recommends that DHS and DOJ direct the CVE Task Force to (1) develop a cohesive strategy with measurable outcomes and (2) establish a process to assess the overall progress of CVE efforts. DHS and DOJ concurred with both recommendations and DHS described the CVE Task Force’s planned actions for implementation.

All well and good, once you get through the acronymese. But you cannot tackle something you don’t understand, or pretend not to understand. (Sun Tzu’s dictum about the need to know the enemy and know oneself comes to mind.) And this is how the authors of the piece understand violent extremists:

Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent). The total number of fatalities is about the same for far right wing violent extremists and radical Islamist violent extremists over the approximately 15-year period (106 and 119, respectively). However, 41 percent of the deaths attributable to radical Islamist violent extremists occurred in a single event—an attack at an Orlando, Florida night club in 2016 (see fig. 2). Details on the locations and dates of the attacks can be found in appendix II.

The usual narrative we’ve seen in the past decade and change in this country is that right wing extremists are more dangerous than Islamic extremists. But bad as the right wing crazies are, the narrative is getting a bit hard to sustain, what with the internet being so easily accessible. So the rear-guard action now seems to be to say that radical extremists at least aren’t any worst than the people we actually are allowed to think of as villains, and maybe better if you ignore that Mateen fellow.

But going to appendix II, where the data, such as it is, sits, is eye opening. Appendix II is basically a collection of sordid acts, described in short blurbs. Some are well-known, such as the aforementioned Mateen case: “Orlando Night Club shooting. Omar Mateen killed 49.” Some are oddly described. The John Allen Muhammad – Lee Boyd Malvo sniper attacks are broken up into 15 separate incidents, each with one dead victim. (This seems shy of the 17 deaths attributed to them in other sources, but that’s a quibble.)

Tags: , , , , Comments (31) | |

National Personalities & Genetic Traits at the BBC… Plus Something More on the BBC

So the notoriously alt-right fringe fake news organization, the BBC, had an article entitled Different Nationalities Really Have Different Personalities. It begins:

When psychologists have given the same personality test to hundreds or thousands of people from different nations, they have indeed found that the average scores tend to come out differently across cultures. In other words, the average personality in one country often really is different from the average personality in another.

From my perspective, as someone who spent around 30% of his life abroad, if the paragraph above wasn’t true, there’d be little point in traveling. Why the heck go through the hassle and expense of getting yourself to Malaysia, Mexico or Morocco if you’re just going to meet the same people you’ll find on your block?

Now, the Beeb does assure us that many of the perceptions that people do hold about the personalities of different countries are wrong. But that isn’t as comforting as you might think. To make that statement, of course, requires knowing what the personalities of the countries are, which is covered here:

Several large international studies have now documented cross-cultural differences in average personality. One of the most extensive was published in 2005 by Robert McCrae and 79 collaborators around the world, who profiled more than 12,000 college students from 51 cultures. Based on averaging these personality profiles, the researchers were able to present an “aggregate” trait score for each of the cultures.

The highest scoring cultural groups for Extraversion on average were Brazilians, French Swiss and the Maltese, while the lowest scoring were Nigerians, Moroccans and Indonesians. The highest scoring for Openness to Experience were German-speaking Swiss, Danes and Germans, while the lowest scoring on average were Hong Kong Chinese, Northern Irish and Kuwaitis. The study also uncovered variation between countries in the three other main personality traits of Neuroticism, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness.

Of course, it’s important to remember that these are averages and there is a lot of overlap between countries; there are undoubtedly a lot of people in Indonesia who are more extraverted than some from Brazil.

Of course, that result is so 2005. More recent polling seems to indicate that post-experience Danes are less open to more experience in the future, at least when that experience involves immigration from some regions of the world.

Tags: , , Comments (16) | |

The Murder Rate – A Regression with Many Variables

In this post, I want to look at the murder rate, by state. I ran a regression with the state murder rate for 2015 as the dependent variable, and literally threw the kitchen sink at it: demographics, weaponry, income, education, population density, etc. Basically, if its something some reasonable percentage of the population believes matters, and I could find data for it, I threw it into the hopper.

I also included variables relating to immigration status. The latter stems from some from some debate in the comments section to other posts in which I stated my belief that illegal immigrants drive up the crime rate. Several detractors insisted that illegal immigrants have lower, not higher crime rates than the rest of the population, and that I am racist to boot. Before presenting results, I will note – I am not too proud to admit the regression results did not fit with my preconceptions. I am also not too proud to admit the regression results did not fit with the preconceptions of my detractors. Finally, while I am always interested in whatever the data has to say, I suspect my detractors will really, really not the results.

So… without further ado, the output from R:

r output 20170402a

What does this all mean? Simply put, only two variables are statistically significant at the 5% (or even 10%) level: percent of the population made up of non-Hispanic Whites, and population density. The greater the share of the population made up of non-Hispanic Whites, the lower the murder rate. On the other hand, the greater the population density, the higher the murder rate. To those who don’t use statistics very often, remember – this is taking into account all other variables.

Now, there are a few variables that come close to being statistically significant at the 10% level. In other words, it is possible (not necessarily likely, just possible) that under other circumstances – with a better defined model, or more precise variables – these variables would prove to be statistically significant as well. These variables are:

1. Percent of the population made up foreign citizens here legally. That variable would have a negative effect on the murder rate if it were statistically significant.
2. Percent of the population that is Asian. This variable also would have a negative effect on the murder rate if it were statistically significant.
3. Percent of the population age 18 to 64. Obviously, most of the murders are committed by people within a subset of this range – probably around 18 to 30. If I had the data to separate out this cohort, I believe we would find that the more people in this cohort, the greater the murder rate.

So… what doesn’t matter? First, the percentage of the population made up of illegal immigrants. Ditto the percentage of the population made up of naturalized citizens. These did not increase the murder rate nor lower it. If the murder rate parallels the crime rate in general, then the media narrative that illegal immigrants have lower crime rates than the population as a whole is not supported and to some extent contradicted by the data.

Second, race & ethnicity don’t matter, at least once you pull out non-Hispanic Whites and maybe Asians. Holding all other variables (including education and income) constant, it doesn’t appear that the murder rate differs in a statistically significant way from one non-Hispanic White or Asian racial/ethnic group to another.

Median income doesn’t matter. Neither does the percentage of the population with an income under 20K. Or the percentage of the population with an income over 100K. Or education level. The murder rate is not affected by these variables.

Another thing that doesn’t matter is the degree to which the population happens to be armed. And Lord knows, there are all sorts of variables here. These include “destructive devices” (think grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, poison gas, explosives, or incendiary devices – apparently all these and more are registered by the ATF), machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, or other. The innocuous sounding other group includes your garden variety revolvers and pistols.

So essentially, in summary – accounting for education, income, nativity. immigration status, the regression suggests that having more non-Hispanic Whites decreases the murder rate, and having a greater population density increases the murder rate. No other variables in this regression are statistically significant.

Anyway, I can babble on about the results. For example, it would be interesting to see immigrants (both legal and illegal) broken up with enough granularity to see if the results of non-Hispanic Whites and Asians apply to immigrants as well.

But enough of my prattling. What are your thoughts?

As always, if you want my spreadsheet, drop me a line. If you contact me within a month of the publication of this post, I will send it to you and possibly make some sort of witty remark. Since I am adorable, I probably will send you my spreadsheet after that date as well, but I reserve the right to have a file crash, lose my computer, acquire dementia, or die if too much has elapsed. My contact info is my first name (mike) and a dot, then my last name (kimel – only one m there) at gmail dot com.

Links and details to the data are in my spreadsheet.  But if you want to replicate it yourself (it was a pain in the butt, but who am I to stop you?) the data are listed below. Where possible (which was the case for only a few exceptions, as noted below), I tried to use 2015 data to match the murder rate.

2014 data on firearms came from Exhibit 8 from this document produced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Population from the Census. 2015 data was used for most purposes. 2014 data was used for firearms per capita data.

Population density from 2010 was obtained from the Census.

2015 median hh income came from the Census.

A number of other variables came from the Census CPS Table Creator. This was used for data on race, income, native v. naturalized citizens v. foreigner, educational attainment, age, and gender.

Pew estimates on illegal immigrants, including Mexican v. non-Mexican, were available for 2014.

Finally, the number of 2015 murders originated with the FBI, but was present in this handy dandy file compiled by the Murder Accountability Project.

 

Update…  April 2, 2017  4:01 PM

I forgot to mention a couple corrections to the data:

1. The Pew data on % of illegal aliens that come from Mexico included a few NAs, in each case for states with a very low percentage of the population being made up of illegal immigrants.  In those instances, I assigned the national average share (i.e., 52% of the unauthorized aliens are from Mexico).

2.  The CPS table information on race and ethnicity had a few examples where no information was given for a given combination of race & ethnicity.  In each case, it was possible to determine that the number was very small because the sum total of the other race & ethnicity combinations came close to 100%.  In those instances, I simply replaced the NA with a zero.

Tags: , , , , Comments (23) | |

How Much Crime Do Illegal Immigrants Commit?

You probably never heard of SCAAP, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.  But I expect it will be showing up in the news a lot pretty soon.

This is what it does:

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, administers SCAAP, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SCAAP provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and who are incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.

Translation: state and local jurisdictions are compensated by the Federal Government for expenses incurred for holding criminal aliens. Why do the Feds pay? To quote from a letter signed by California’s Congressional delegation to key members of the House Appropriations Committee a few years ago:

As you know, SCAAP is a grant program that reimburses states and local governments for the cost of incarcerating undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes. By law, the federal government is ultimately responsible for immigration enforcement, including the incarceration of undocumented criminal offenders. When this is not possible, the law requires the federal government to compensate state and local governments for their incarceration costs.

So… the Federal Government is responsible for immigration enforcement, which is to say (in this context), preventing illegal immigration. Therefore, if a non-immigration related crime is committed by someone the Feds failed to keep out of the country, the Feds compensates state and local law enforcement.

The number of prisoners for which the SCAAP program provides compensation are hard to find. It is almost as if those figures are kept deliberately opaque. However, according to the General Accounting Office:

The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico.

The same GAO document tells us that there were about 10.8 million aliens with undocumented status in the US in 2009. 296,000 is 2.74% of 10.8 million, so about 2.74% of the aliens with undocumented status were incarcerated in the state prison system and local jails that year.

How does that compare to the population at large? According to Appendix Table 2 of this Bureau of Justice Statistics report, in 2009, the state prison population was 1,319,426 and the local jail population was 767,620 for a total of 2,087,046.

The US non-institutional population at the time was about 301,500,000, so add in the 2 million for state and local prisoners, and add in about 205K Federal prisoners, and you have a US population of about 303,705,000.

2 million and change divided by 303.7 million comes to less than 7 tenths of a percent of the US population ending up in state and local prisons. That is well under the 2.7% for the undocumented aliens. Or…illegal immigrants are around four times more likely to be imprisoned in a state or local jurisdiction than the population as a whole. (Note that this ratio is probably even more lopsided since SCAAP only applies to aliens with at least four consecutive days of time served.)

Now, illegal immigrants having 4x everyone else’s crime rate is a far cry from the often repeated claim that “illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the native born.” Thoroughly contradicting popular wisdom makes for an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So let’s see if we can find some additional support for the claim.

As luck would have, it isn’t just state and local jurisdictions that imprison people. The Federal government does it too. The 2015 US Sentencing Commission Report states that:

A majority of federal offenders are United States citizens (58.5%). Most non-citizen offenders committed an immigration offense (66.0%).

So let’s assume that those who committed an immigration offense are innocent of any other offense, and disregard them completely.

Endnote 13 of the same document tells us:

Non-citizens primarily are convicted of immigration crimes. Non-citizens were the offenders in only 14.1 percent of all other federal crimes in fiscal year 2015.

According to Pew Research undocumented aliens accounted for about 3.5% of the total population in 2015.

So 3.5% of the population represents 14.1% of Federal prisoners incarcerated for non-immigration related crimes. That is to say, illegal immigrants were four times as likely to be in a Federal prison for a non-immigration related crime as the rest of the population in 2015, which is about the same proportion we see in state and local jurisdictions in 2009. Coincidence?

You don’t have to like something for it to be true. But the relative crime rates of the illegal population are what they are. Now perhaps you don’t think crime rates matter to the illegal immigration debate. Fine. That’s a topic for another day.

What I think is more topical, though, is that sooner or later the Trump administration is going to figure out that SCAAP exists, that it is part of the Federal Budget, and that it can be used as a cudgel against the sanctuary movement. And frankly, stopped clocks being right twice a day and all, they will have a point when they do so.

Demanding compensation from the Feds’ for their failure to enforce a law while simultaneously preventing the Feds from doing so seems very squirrelly. I am no attorney, but it seems like the sort of argument even the team Trump has put together might be able to win in court.

Corrections (May 29, 6:45 AM PST)

1. Reader Longtooth notes that the GAO link mentioned in the post is severed. This one works as of this writing.
2. Reader Longtooth also notes that I missed something in that document – not all criminal aliens are in the SCAAP program. For more detail, see the comments, but, about two-thirds of the criminal aliens are either known to be in this country illegally, or “unknown.” The latter group is believed by the states to be in this country illegally, and eligible for SCAAP funding. As far as I can tell, they are essentially aliens who cannot be shown to be in the country legally but have not, at the time they were arrested, come to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security. I think this needs a further look, but based on various statements in the GAO report, I now believe that illegal aliens are not 4X more likely to end up in state and local jails, but rather somewhere between a bit more than one and a bit less than 3 times more likely.

Leaving aside the question of crime rates among the undocumented, there is the issue that the SCAAP program deals involves taxpayer dollars. This information should be readily available, whether from the Justice Department or the General Accounting Office.

Tags: , , Comments (74) | |

Do Patents Lead to Economic Growth?

Recently I discussed a paper by David Autor, David Dorn, Gordon Hanson, Gary P. Pisano and Pian Shu. The paper noted that as competition from China increased, innovation by US firms, measured by patent output, decreased. I believe the result, but started to wonder… are patents a good measure of innovation? Do patents drive economic growth?

I don’t know how to measure innovation, but I can look at the relationship between patents and economic growth. We being by looking at patents per capita. I found patent data going back to 1840, and population to 1850.  The graph below shows patents per capita beginning in 1850. (All data sources provided at the end of this post.)

patents per capita 20170326a

Next, let’s compare that to growth rates. We would expect patents today to lead to growth tomorrow. So, I will add a line to the graph showing, for each year, the annualized growth rate in real GDP per capita over the next ten years. That is, for 1950, the growth rate from 1950 to 1960, and for 1980, the growth rate from 1980 to 1990. Unfortunately, real GDP per capita data begins in 1929, so the original graph gets truncated.

patents per capita v. annual change, real gdp per capita t to t+10

If it kind of looks to you like patents are not driving economic growth, well, it kind of looks like that to me too. In fact, if anything, the lines seem to be more negatively than positively correlated.  In years where there are more patents, the subsequent growth rate in real GDP for capita over a ten year period seems to go down.  Conversely, fewer patents in one year seem to be associated with more growth over the next ten years.

What’s going on?  Well, obviously, if there is no protection for developing intellectual capital, nobody is going to put much effort into creating that capital. On the other hand, protecting intellectual capital too well can stifle economic growth. For one, it requires spending an awful lot on on attorneys. For another, it forecloses on a lot of areas of potentially fruitful research by a lot of people who are worried about stepping into a mine field potentially defined by other people’s patents.

 

A few notes…

 

1.  I have a question. Anyone have any idea why there was a big rise in patents per capita beginning in 1983? What changed? Was it some aspect of the law? Something having to do with how research was written off? What’s going on?

2. Data… Data and estimates for the US population originates with the Census, but I’m using the set cleaned up by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission since its in an easy to use format. Since data was only available decennially with no annual estimates from 1850 to 1900, I linearized the decennial to generate my own annual estimates. Real GDP per capita comes from NIPA Table 7.1. Patent data comes from the US Patent Office.

3. If you want my spreadsheet, drop me a line at my first name (mike) dot my last name (that’s kimel with one m) at gmail with a dot com.

Tags: , , Comments (16) | |