It seems that there is one ethnic class that is still fair game for the overt expression of bigotry, at least among elitist economists – and that group is Americans. In the linked piece of drivel authored by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the Department of Labor (our current state of unemployment and the economy as a whole speaks volumes about the quality of her work there), she champions the notion advanced by other like-minded economists that we need to boost immigration because Americans are too dumb to handle the heavy mental lifting required to sustain our economy.
Here’s a sampling:
If Congress had not imposed a tight lid on green cards, … America in 2008 might have had up to 300,000 more highly educated engineers and graduate students performing path breaking research. They would have added about $23 billion to GDP, and the federal government would have gained about $5 billion more in tax revenues.
In other words, there are no Americans qualified to handle this work, so the jobs are left unfilled and the work is left undone. Our economy is failing because we don’t have enough immigrants to carry the intellectual load. How is this any different than saying that a particular major league sports team is failing because there aren’t enough qualified white people to fill the coaching and front office jobs? Today, such words would be the last ever written by a sports writer in a professional capacity. But similar insults and stereotyping directed against Americans are accepted as long as they’re proclaimed by our demi-god economists.
What is her real motivation? Ms. Furchtgott-Roth is an employee of the Hudson Institute, one of those “think tanks” that thinks exactly what it’s paid to think by its corporate sponsors, in this case corporations interested in abusing the H-1B immigration program in an effort to suppress labor costs with a flood of cheap foreign labor. Economists like Furchtgott-Roth rationalize their support for such policies with a blind faith in the use of population growth as an engine for economic growth.
This is a lazy, sloppy approach to economics that, unfortunately, is all too common among economists lacking the courage to consider all of the ramifications of population growth at the risk of being branded “Malthusians” by their close-minded colleagues. They never once stop to question how packing more and more people into the same space can possibly yield anything but falling per capita consumption and rising unemployment and poverty. It’s this kind of superficial economics we have to thank for the economic morass into which we sink deeper every day.