I was aware of the studies before I commented.
Fair enough, and I didn't intend the "digging" comment as a swipe. I am giving you credit for attempting to justify your claims even though I believe they are clearly wrong.
And I'm aware that people will look for reasons to reject data that they do not want to believe.
You're being disingenuous. I clearly stated that I am skeptical of all econometric studies, regardless of the conclusion drawn from them. This is a debate about epistemology, not immigration policy.
The problem is that your position (that mass deportations will raise wages) has no sound basis (the unsound basis is a fallacy, as I've already pointed out).
It has sound basis in supply/demand theory and common sense. If the price of a substitute falls, demand for the original good/service falls. Check Chapter 3 of Krugman's high school
textbook or
Wikipedia.
When there are no valid empirical methods available, we must rely on theory and common sense to make policy.
We could have the same meta-debate about minimum wage policy. You would likely cite Card/Krueger. Instead of responding with myriad econometric studies showing the opposite result (and yes, there are many), I would criticize the use of econometrics in general to try to make absolute policy arguments. In other words, I would never cite an econometric study to attempt to bolster my view that minimum wage laws reduce employment. Again, this is about epistemology.
It's not simply that there exist studies that don't show the effects you predict, it's that studies that do show the effect you predict don't exist (one flawed one on the Mariel boatlift is what tribalists looking to make liberal-sounding arguments had pinned their hopes on).
Same response as above.
I never dove into the Borjas study after its publication because I believe it's foolish to draw definite qualitative conclusions from econometric studies in most cases. That's despite the fact that the Borjas study's conclusion aligns with my personal belief that large changes in the supply of low-skill immigrant labor directly affect the wages of native low-skill workers.
By the way, you do show a strong proclivity for throwing accusations of tribalism my way. Which tribe do you assert that I belong to? I've never tried to pin you down on that one, and you never seem to address the variety of evidence I've presented showing my lack of tribal affiliation.
The description of Krugman as "my hero" already makes me disinclined to want to bother with this.
Learn to take a joke.
I've pointed out that he has by far the best prognostication record of any notable pundit, and generally has kicked ass in big debates post-crisis.
We never came to agreement on this point. You have yet to come up with an impressive list of Krugman's predictions. I do give Krugman credit for his prediction of low inflation post-stimulus, but I've also presented you with multiple facepalm-worthy predictions of Krugman's about the internet, bitcoin, the markets under President Trump, and the "end of the Republic". Your incessant repetition of the "best prognostication" line leads me to think you've slipped into lazy thinking on the matter.
Among credentialed academics-turned-pundits, I think Krugman is in the 90th percentile of tribalism/lazy hackishness. The tweet I mentioned above about the private jet tax is a great example. Nobel Prize winner doesn't even bother to read a six-paragraph article before jumping to tribalistic conclusion. He should be embarrassed.
But noticing that track record doesn't obligate me to agree with or defend everything he's ever said. I suspect that part of the issue is a natural tendency of right-wingers to personalize arguments (I've seen the same thing with Clinton, where noting her manifest superiority to the incompetent boob the GOP nominated and rejecting dishonest smears of her character is interpreted as personal affection).
This is off-topic and irrelevant.
I can't fathom how it would indicate that. Is your view that had he known that Brown sponsored the change, he would have a different view of it?
No, my view is that if Krugman had actually bothered to read the article he posted, he would have seen that he totally misrepresented the proposed tax change. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation,
it wouldn't cost the Treasury anything, and it's more of a clarification than a "break". The fact that Sherrod Brown was a sponsor of nearly identical legislation would have been a big clue, but Krugman didn't even bother to read the article that he posted. If that's not an example of tribalist disease rotting someone's brain, what is? Krugman is supposed to be a great thinker, but he gets his news---in an area he is supposed to be an expert on---from headlines on thehill.com?