Why regular people's pay doesn't increase

[Eva Webster]

On 1/28/17, 11:12 AM, "David Strati" <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com on behalf of da...@uniformsforamerica.com> wrote:

Saw Will on Greater Boston pushing for that 40% pay increase.  Most of us would go for any increase.  Wow.  Congratulations. 

Dave –

Your succinct message in reaction to the legislative pay raise brought an avalanche of thoughts to my mind (in addition to what I already wrote in my earlier posting today).

I will have to choose my words carefully here because what I believe runs against the grain of the current liberal thinking/beliefs — but I hope people can read this with an open mind.

You, and others like you, are not getting any pay increases because this area (and the country as a whole) has many people who would gladly take your job at your current or maybe even lower pay.

BTW, the official low unemployment rate is very misleading. There is more than one way to calculate unemployment rate, and the rate that usually gets publicized in the main stream media is the one that makes things look better than the actual reality — it does not count as unemployed many people who got discouraged and gave up on looking for work (but would return to work if given an opportunity); and it also does not categorize part-time workers who would like to have full-time jobs as partially unemployed.

So the question is:  Does expanding the labor pool by letting too many immigrants into the country (or by expanding work visas, or by not cracking down on illegal immigration) at a time when wages of low- and middle-income Americans have not been going up for quite a while make sense?

We are not even allowed to have public conversation about it.  Many politicians do not want to discuss this because corporations, business owners and the investor class (all of which have a strong grip on the political establishment behind the scenes) do not want wages to rise.  Keeping immigration at high levels keeps wages low.

To that end, big businesses join forces and finance supposedly independent “think tanks”

Fwd: How Think Tanks Amplify Corporate America’s Influence - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html

and they hire all kinds of bought-and-sold “industry analysts”, PR people, lobbyists and publicists — all of whom plant ideologically motivated articles, “reports”, and programs in the media to influence the immigration policy — while brainwashing people (including politicians) into believing that immigration, no matter how high, has only a positive effect on the country. (By propagating this falsehood, they don’t think of themselves as liars because they conflate business elites’ interests with those of the country as a whole.)

Corporations and industry groups often complain about labor shortages (even when lots of middle-age and older workers are unemployed, or begging to be retrained, and others are languishing on welfare).  They like to argue that allowing wages to rise would slow down the economic growth — yeah, sure, it would slow down the growth of corporate profits, which keep accruing to the very top.  But allowing wages to rise would increase the standard of living and economic security in working people’s families/households — and just make America a happier, more civilized country.

I know of no politician in Boston or Massachusetts who will speak about this  — they all seem to be deeply convinced that they would antagonize everyone if they were in favor of tightening the labor pool by reducing immigration (or reducing the number of work visa, or cracking down on illegal immigration).  Who knows what they really think — but one thing is for sure: they will not touch this issue with a 10 foot pole.  They must assume we are all so stupid that no one realizes that excessive immigration hurts the workers (American-born or immigrant) who are already here.

And there is also the issue of the increasing (and in the long-term likely unsustainable) burden on the country’s social safety net — which is fragile and can only survive without significant cuts if we don’t have policies (incl. immigration policies) that increase, intentionally or not, the number of people who qualify for all kinds of tax-payer funded assistance.  

Low-skill immigrants, and especially those who come from very different cultures, are much more likely to be dependent on taxpayer-funded subsidies/benefits, and they often also have more children than Americans. (In Boston public schools, the cost to the taxpayers is $18,000 per pupil per year.)

Wages have been stagnant for years – and if you study wage growth and immigration levels data from credible sources, there appears to be a correlation between stagnant or falling wages and immigration levels being high.  Since the end of WW2 through the end of 1990s, immigration remained low — and it was also the time when the US had a strong middle class and upward mobility.  

So that is why I believe that increasing immigration, in conjunction with the loss of jobs due to globalization (as it happens, both of those things seem to go hand in hand), is the principal reason why so many working people in the US  are not doing as well as in previous decades, and why they cannot afford to buy homes, or support families — and those who do have families are struggling under a mountain of debt.

It seems to me that many young people’s high student debt burden is also linked to high immigration and disappearing jobs — because when an increasing portion of the US population becomes dependent on public benefits/programs, there is not enough money left to subsidize higher education (or to invest in public transit, or affordable healthcare).  The more people receive taxpayer-funded benefits, the harder life gets for those who don’t qualify for such benefits — because they get very little in exchange for the taxes they pay, while their paychecks keep getting “milked”.

And this whole unfortunate sense of circumstances is like a snowball rolling down the hill — the more strained the middle class becomes, the fewer people can afford to buy homes, and the more people will be turning over more and more of their hard-earned money via rents to the investor class — and the latter will be getting even fatter and more powerful politically.

Without pointing the finger at any specific individual, one thing needs to be said:  nearly all elected officials are on board with this deeply troubling process — if not in words, then in deeds.

Many of today’s workers will have no choice but to rent all their lives. They will be retiring (some as early as at 50, and not by choice) — and they will have no real estate assets, no pensions or equities (as members of their parents generation often had) — which is why in retirement they will be unable to afford market rate rents, and will be at risk for homelessness.

So there will be huge pressure on the state and the city to build/provide subsidized housing for thousands and thousands of people (and not just for those who are 50+).  But building subsidized housing in Massachusetts costs around $500,000 per unit (and effectively even more than that, because the state often issues bonds to fund subsidized housing projects — so the taxpayers also need to pay interest on those bonds).

Doing the math to figure out the costs of all of that makes your head spin.  That is the price that we pay for policies that INTENTIONALLY CREATE poverty and ensure people’s dependence on government programs — because that too is a big business for some special interests.

I’ve heard from someone at the DND that the City is considering instituting rent subsidies for low-income renters that would be paid directly to the  landlords — so the landlords would be getting market rate rents paid party by the tenants, and partly by the city.  Perhaps that is a better deal than building new expensive subsidized housing — but still, isn’t there something really obscene about it?

The same politicians who say that they are for reducing/eliminating poverty and economic inequality, promote policies that make it impossible for working people to escape low wages and dependance on taxpayer-funded programs.

This is a sick economic and social system — and one that is intentionally perpetuated to enrich some people at the expense of others.

More immigration anyone?

Eva

(immigrant myself, 33 years ago)

[Dave]

This is all very interesting, although I disagree with a lot of it, but what does it have to do with the Legislature pay raises?

Dave. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 29, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net> wrote:

On 1/28/17, 11:12 AM, "David Strati" <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com on behalf of da...@uniformsforamerica.com> wrote:

Saw Will on Greater Boston pushing for that 40% pay increase.  Most of us would go for any increase.  Wow.  Congratulations. 

Dave –

Your succinct message in reaction to the legislative pay raise brought an avalanche of thoughts to my mind (in addition to what I already wrote in my earlier posting today).

I will have to choose my words carefully here because what I believe runs against the grain of the current liberal thinking/beliefs — but I hope people can read this with an open mind.

You, and others like you, are not getting any pay increases because this area (and the country as a whole) has many people who would gladly take your job at your current or maybe even lower pay.

BTW, the official low unemployment rate is very misleading. There is more than one way to calculate unemployment rate, and the rate that usually gets publicized in the main stream media is the one that makes things look better than the actual reality — it does not count as unemployed many people who got discouraged and gave up on looking for work (but would return to work if given an opportunity); and it also does not categorize part-time workers who would like to have full-time jobs as partially unemployed.

So the question is:  Does expanding the labor pool by letting too many immigrants into the country (or by expanding work visas, or by not cracking down on illegal immigration) at a time when wages of low- and middle-income Americans have not been going up for quite a while make sense?

We are not even allowed to have public conversation about it.  Many politicians do not want to discuss this because corporations, business owners and the investor class (all of which have a strong grip on the political establishment behind the scenes) do not want wages to rise.  Keeping immigration at high levels keeps wages low.

To that end, big businesses join forces and finance supposedly independent “think tanks”

Fwd: How Think Tanks Amplify Corporate America’s Influence - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html

and they hire all kinds of bought-and-sold “industry analysts”, PR people, lobbyists and publicists — all of whom plant ideologically motivated articles, “reports”, and programs in the media to influence the immigration policy — while brainwashing people (including politicians) into believing that immigration, no matter how high, has only a positive effect on the country. (By propagating this falsehood, they don’t think of themselves as liars because they conflate business elites’ interests with those of the country as a whole.)

Corporations and industry groups often complain about labor shortages (even when lots of middle-age and older workers are unemployed, or begging to be retrained, and others are languishing on welfare).  They like to argue that allowing wages to rise would slow down the economic growth — yeah, sure, it would slow down the growth of corporate profits, which keep accruing to the very top.  But allowing wages to rise would increase the standard of living and economic security in working people’s families/households — and just make America a happier, more civilized country.

I know of no politician in Boston or Massachusetts who will speak about this  — they all seem to be deeply convinced that they would antagonize everyone if they were in favor of tightening the labor pool by reducing immigration (or reducing the number of work visa, or cracking down on illegal immigration).  Who knows what they really think — but one thing is for sure: they will not touch this issue with a 10 foot pole.  They must assume we are all so stupid that no one realizes that excessive immigration hurts the workers (American-born or immigrant) who are already here.

And there is also the issue of the increasing (and in the long-term likely unsustainable) burden on the country’s social safety net — which is fragile and can only survive without significant cuts if we don’t have policies (incl. immigration policies) that increase, intentionally or not, the number of people who qualify for all kinds of tax-payer funded assistance.  

Low-skill immigrants, and especially those who come from very different cultures, are much more likely to be dependent on taxpayer-funded subsidies/benefits, and they often also have more children than Americans. (In Boston public schools, the cost to the taxpayers is $18,000 per pupil per year.)

Wages have been stagnant for years – and if you study wage growth and immigration levels data from credible sources, there appears to be a correlation between stagnant or falling wages and immigration levels being high.  Since the end of WW2 through the end of 1990s, immigration remained low — and it was also the time when the US had a strong middle class and upward mobility.  

<316EF91E-2208-40B8-BBA3-309A589CA407.png>

So that is why I believe that increasing immigration, in conjunction with the loss of jobs due to globalization (as it happens, both of those things seem to go hand in hand), is the principal reason why so many working people in the US  are not doing as well as in previous decades, and why they cannot afford to buy homes, or support families — and those who do have families are struggling under a mountain of debt.

It seems to me that many young people’s high student debt burden is also linked to high immigration and disappearing jobs — because when an increasing portion of the US population becomes dependent on public benefits/programs, there is not enough money left to subsidize higher education (or to invest in public transit, or affordable healthcare).  The more people receive taxpayer-funded benefits, the harder life gets for those who don’t qualify for such benefits — because they get very little in exchange for the taxes they pay, while their paychecks keep getting “milked”.

And this whole unfortunate sense of circumstances is like a snowball rolling down the hill — the more strained the middle class becomes, the fewer people can afford to buy homes, and the more people will be turning over more and more of their hard-earned money via rents to the investor class — and the latter will be getting even fatter and more powerful politically.

Without pointing the finger at any specific individual, one thing needs to be said:  nearly all elected officials are on board with this deeply troubling process — if not in words, then in deeds.

Many of today’s workers will have no choice but to rent all their lives. They will be retiring (some as early as at 50, and not by choice) — and they will have no real estate assets, no pensions or equities (as members of their parents generation often had) — which is why in retirement they will be unable to afford market rate rents, and will be at risk for homelessness.

So there will be huge pressure on the state and the city to build/provide subsidized housing for thousands and thousands of people (and not just for those who are 50+).  But building subsidized housing in Massachusetts costs around $500,000 per unit (and effectively even more than that, because the state often issues bonds to fund subsidized housing projects — so the taxpayers also need to pay interest on those bonds).

Doing the math to figure out the costs of all of that makes your head spin.  That is the price that we pay for policies that INTENTIONALLY CREATE poverty and ensure people’s dependence on government programs — because that too is a big business for some special interests.

I’ve heard from someone at the DND that the City is considering instituting rent subsidies for low-income renters that would be paid directly to the  landlords — so the landlords would be getting market rate rents paid party by the tenants, and partly by the city.  Perhaps that is a better deal than building new expensive subsidized housing — but still, isn’t there something really obscene about it?

The same politicians who say that they are for reducing/eliminating poverty and economic inequality, promote policies that make it impossible for working people to escape low wages and dependance on taxpayer-funded programs.

This is a sick economic and social system — and one that is intentionally perpetuated to enrich some people at the expense of others.

More immigration anyone?

Eva

(immigrant myself, 33 years ago)

--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<316EF91E-2208-40B8-BBA3-309A589CA407.png>

[Eva Webster]

Hi Dave, thanks for the brief but enlightening response.

You seem to think we should be barking up only this one particular tree (legislative pay raise) — while there is a much larger and more important tree to bark at, that you and many others apparently don’t see. (I’d be happier if I didn’t see it too — but once you become aware of its presence, it’s hard to ignore it.)

(As for the legislative pay hike, I think it was needed — though not as big — because it may help attract smart contenders to challenge incumbents, which would be good for democracy, don’t you think?  However, I did not like the way in which it was orchestrated.)

With respect to the big tree that few people, at the moment, see…

If folks like you cannot see the connection between those in power effectively rigging the system, and the fact that most working Americans are stuck in neutral (at best) — which is obvious to me — then I’m thinking that perhaps it is not a good use of my empathetic energy to feel sorry for anyone.

This country is doomed. Most of the afflicted do not understand the underlying causes of their affliction - so they can’t possibly fix anything.

Sad to see that working people, American citizens, are treated as disposable cogs in a machine — and yet they themselves think it is normal and don’t rebel against it (at least not in Massachusetts where identity politics still distracts and overshadows everything).  You cannot build a strong nation on that.

Things are moving at breakneck speed. I wonder if we may see a time when as many young Americans, those in pursuit of comfortable middle-class and peaceful life, will be leaving the US, as those from other countries coming here.  The cultural implications of that would be tremendous. Everyone will need lots of good luck to adjust to a very different landscape.

I don’t know if the US, only 240 years old and a mosaic of many different shapes and colors, will be strong enough to withstand what’s coming.  

Best,

Eva

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-co...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.

[Dave]

Hi Eva I wish I really had enough time to spend on emails as you do. I agree with some of what you say. I have a big problem with all the lies and exaggerations coming from the current administration. It makes it difficult to have a real conversation.  

Definite need for immigration laws but a lot of the jobs the immigrants do Americans will not do. I do not believe in a 15 billion dollar wall but you have a lot of good points. 

 The way the pay raise was passed by the legislature is outrageous. Constituents should think seriously about whether they should vote for people that voted for it. All the time I have right now. 

Dave. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Fred Hapgood]

The effect of immigration on employment is an old issue.  I think the consensus
is that sometimes the effect is negative and sometimes positive. In either case
the effect is pretty small in the short run.  The effect is negative when the
economy is depressed; when it is near full employment, as it is now, the effect
is positive. Even when the economy is depressed, the people who lose most from
the competition posed by recent immigrants are other recent immigrants, not
natives.  I invite you to read the studies indicated below.*

 

How can it ever be positive?  Lots of reasons. Immigrants, of course, are
consumers. As Roodman says, "They expand the economic pie even as they

compete for a slice." They are twice as likely as natives to start businesses --

think how many restaurants you go into that are run by immigrants -- and as such

compete for workers, driving wages up. Third, immigrant labor complements native
labor as much as it competes with it, and complemented labor drives supply,
which drives employment. An influx of workers with skill A opens new doors
for natives with skill B.

 

That is all in the short run.  In the long run the positive effects of
immigration are overwhelming.  If you divide the (industrialized) countries of
the world into those that embrace immigrants (Canada, the United States, Israel)
and those that do not (Italy, Japan) you will find you have also sorted the
healthy economies from the lackluster ones.  When people diagnose Japan's
problem their essays always begin with the consequences of the lack of
immigration.  Same if you sort the regions in this country with immigrants

(like Boston) and those that do not. 

 

Again, why should this be? One obvious point is that countries with declining

populations are naturally going to do worse than countries with an expanding labor

force.   Simple enough.  Since right now the birth rate among native citizens of

industrialized countries is close to zero (this is true of ours), the only way for

populations to grow is through immigration. But the long-term positive effects of

immigrants run a lot deeper than that.  By their nature they look at things differently,

and cultures that contain lots of ways of looking at things win.  Nobody who goes

to a high-tech conference about anything and looks at the attendees will doubt the

importance of immigration for an instant.  I have read that 40% of the faculty of MIT

are immigrants.
 
Historians have long wondered what it was about the little village by the Tibor
that allowed it to conquer the world.  As the great British historian Mary Beard
explains in her wonderful history of the Roman Empire "SPQR" the difference
seems to be that from its first moments Rome invited immigrants.  Nobody else in
the neighborhood did anything like, so manpower streamed in.  Rome had the sense
to keep expanding its definition of citizenship to embrace these newcomers,
giving them reason to fight for it, which gave them the soldiers they needed to
conquer the world. The City and the Empire became immensely rich and powerful.
Eventually the inability of the Romans to figure out how to govern such an
immense polity caught up with them, and they collapsed.  (Which might happen

to us some day.)  But they had a heck of a run.

 

 

*http://bit.ly/2jvO3jd 
http://bit.ly/2jvTuyF
http://bit.ly/2jvz3Sw

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-co...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://www.BostonScienceLectures.com

http://fhapgood.fastmail.fm/

[Dave]

Fred makes some good points. Businesses can't grow if they can't get employees. Eva also makes good points. Good conversation
  Dave
Sent from my iPhone

<316EF91E-2208-40B8-BBA3-309A589CA407.png>

 

So that is why I believe that increasing immigration, in conjunction with the loss of jobs due to globalization (as it happens, both of those things seem to go hand in hand), is the principal reason why so many working people in the US  are not doing as well as in previous decades, and why they cannot afford to buy homes, or support families — and those who do have families are struggling under a mountain of debt.

 

It seems to me that many young people’s high student debt burden is also linked to high immigration and disappearing jobs — because when an increasing portion of the US population becomes dependent on public benefits/programs, there is not enough money left to subsidize higher education (or to invest in public transit, or affordable healthcare).  The more people receive taxpayer-funded benefits, the harder life gets for those who don’t qualify for such benefits — because they get very little in exchange for the taxes they pay, while their paychecks keep getting “milked”.

 

And this whole unfortunate sense of circumstances is like a snowball rolling down the hill — the more strained the middle class becomes, the fewer people can afford to buy homes, and the more people will be turning over more and more of their hard-earned money via rents to the investor class — and the latter will be getting even fatter and more powerful politically.

 

Without pointing the finger at any specific individual, one thing needs to be said:  nearly all elected officials are on board with this deeply troubling process — if not in words, then in deeds.

 

Many of today’s workers will have no choice but to rent all their lives. They will be retiring (some as early as at 50, and not by choice) — and they will have no real estate assets, no pensions or equities (as members of their parents generation often had) — which is why in retirement they will be unable to afford market rate rents, and will be at risk for homelessness.

 

So there will be huge pressure on the state and the city to build/provide subsidized housing for thousands and thousands of people (and not just for those who are 50+).  But building subsidized housing in Massachusetts costs around $500,000 per unit (and effectively even more than that, because the state often issues bonds to fund subsidized housing projects — so the taxpayers also need to pay interest on those bonds).

 

Doing the math to figure out the costs of all of that makes your head spin.  That is the price that we pay for policies that INTENTIONALLY CREATE poverty and ensure people’s dependence on government programs — because that too is a big business for some special interests.

 

I’ve heard from someone at the DND that the City is considering instituting rent subsidies for low-income renters that would be paid directly to the  landlords — so the landlords would be getting market rate rents paid party by the tenants, and partly by the city.  Perhaps that is a better deal than building new expensive subsidized housing — but still, isn’t there something really obscene about it?

 

The same politicians who say that they are for reducing/eliminating poverty and economic inequality, promote policies that make it impossible for working people to escape low wages and dependance on taxpayer-funded programs.

 

This is a sick economic and social system — and one that is intentionally perpetuated to enrich some people at the expense of others.

 

More immigration anyone?

 

Eva

(immigrant myself, 33 years ago)

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-co...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://www.BostonScienceLectures.com

http://fhapgood.fastmail.fm/

--

To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.

[Will Brownsberger]

Love this piece, Fred.

Will Brownsberger
Cell: 617-771-8274

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-community+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://www.BostonScienceLectures.com

http://fhapgood.fastmail.fm/

--

To post to this group, send email to AllstonBrighton2006@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton2006+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-community+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com.

[Laura Bethard]

Dear Senator Brownsberger

I would like to add this research as well to the discussion of how immigration can benefit the native population:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21123

 

In particular, the concluding sentence of the abstract:
"As a result immigration had positive effects on native unskilled wages, employment and occupational mobility."

Best regards,

Laura

-Yf thou were a latyn tretise ich wolde putte thee in the vernacular.

---

From: Will Brownsberger <willbrow...@gmail.com>
To: "cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com" <cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "allstonbr...@googlegroups.com" <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com>; Hobart Park Neighborhood Association <hp...@usa.net>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Why regular people's pay doesn't increase

--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton...@googlegroups.com.

[Will Brownsberger]

Thank you, Laura.

Will Brownsberger
Cell: 617-771-8274

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:49 PM, 'Laura Bethard' via AllstonBrighton2006 <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear Senator Brownsberger

I would like to add this research as well to the discussion of how immigration can benefit the native population:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21123

 

In particular, the concluding sentence of the abstract:
"As a result immigration had positive effects on native unskilled wages, employment and occupational mobility."

Best regards,

Laura

-Yf thou were a latyn tretise ich wolde putte thee in the vernacular.

---

From: Will Brownsberger <willbrow...@gmail.com>

To: "cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com" <cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com" <allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com>; Hobart Park Neighborhood Association <hp...@usa.net>

--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBrighton2006@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton2006+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBrighton2006@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AllstonBrighton2006" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to allstonbrighton2006+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Fred Hapgood]

Donors pay off students' overdue lunch accounts

http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2017/01/donors_come_forward_to_erase_s.html

http://www.BostonScienceLectures.com

http://fhapgood.fastmail.fm/

[Fred Hapgood]

[ebhawes]

All Boston Public Schools have completely free breakfast and lunch. Lunch has been free since 2013.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/09/02/boston-public-schools-will-offer-free-lunches-all-students/2aaUy5sxJjIak9ndGDHxkJ/story.html