Tier Tournament 2 [Top], R2: Let Anyone Work Anywhere

Thanks for the response Pro. Since I have two rounds to respond to, I cannot address everything, but I will try cover it all next round Burden of proof I take it Pro accepts the BoP, yet his statements are not consistent with what the BoP involves. If both cases are tied its is requisite to vote against the side with the BoP. It would mean the resolution has not been upheld which would make it entirely appropriate to vote Con. Besides, my burden is to refute Con. If my case consisted of one weak argument but I successfully refuted Pro’s case, Pro’s BoP would not be upheld entailing a Con win. Pro’s case I would first like to raise question to Pro's claim that the motion would put no new onus on governments. It’s true that, in a sense, we would be erasing government regulation but abolishing borders would itself put stress on government due to the flood of immigrants and changes to the labor market. Justice Misogynist hiring practices are not in any way analogous to restricting the flow of workers from one country to another. Sexism is irrational but regulating borders is a purely rational matter. Nor is it about xenophobia, as anyone reading my case for controlled borders would gather. Pro did not directly say they were analogous but I see no other reason he’d bring it up. Pro’s moral argument is too simplistic. He argues that we are all fellow human beings deserving of employment and any person capable of certain labor should be able to apply to that work. Altruism can have detrimental costs if not applied prudently and opening work borders I argue would have some serious consequences. Moreover, it is questionable how obligated one nation is to others. We are not obligated to make everyone else as well off as us, otherwise it would be our duty to give away most of our wealth. Humans are entitled a degree of egoism in their individual pursuit of happiness. Moreover, as I argued, governments act in self-interest and are obligated first and foremost towards their own citizens. The well-being of other nations is a concern but does not trump the rights of that nation’s own citizens. Pro’s second argument is that, “those aspects that are innate to who we are should never be used as a source of discrimination”. By this logic, we should not only let anyone work anywhere, but let anyone live anywhere. Pro should have us open our gates to all immigrants seeking a life here regardless of whether they have a job waiting. It would be ideal to not discriminate against anyone, but that’s simply not feasible in our world. Unfortunately, from the day we’re born certain persons are more fitted to their struggle for happiness than others and there’s no changing that any time soon and trying to do so could produce other unwanted results. We cannot allow unlimited persons to come work where they want, but we can selectively allow some in, especially skilled workers. Allowing open borders to low-mid skill labor puts unlimited competition for wage which would make every job in thats skill area reduce to the lowest wage and least benefits that laws allow. Competition in higher skilled areas would also depress wages and benefits for higher labor jobs. I’ll address it more latter. Human decency Pro never actually talks about human decency so the title is misleading. Pro’s main point is that the working conditions and incomes are much better in the U.S. than in other countries. I concede that plenty of individuals have great incentive to come work here. However, that doesn’t mean we’re obligated to open our borders to them all. Since most of my case points towards the U.S. and other countries suffering from open work borders, I’ll point out that the attractiveness of moving across borders would lessen. For example, wages would be less attractive and labor unions--which Pro mentions--suffer from immigration (see image). I won’t reiterate my entire case; I simply refer the viewers to my other arguments in order to show that the attractiveness in working would be much less than it is now. I’m not completely disagreeing with Pro. I’m just making sure we don’t exaggerate how appealing the U.S. would be after countless immigrants poured in. [5][6] As I argued, it’s beneficial to open some areas of the labor market in high skilled areas such as environmental science mainly if there’s a shortfall in that area. But this doesn’t make an argument for the more average jobs since we don’t have shortfalls in all areas. Diversity I’ll concede that there is utility in diversity. However, we can and do still achieve diversity in the workplace. A big part of diversity talked about in Pro’s link is gender, which isn’t significant for this debate for obvious reasons. This only applies to a select portion of jobs--most significantly jobs that require a good deal of collaboration. A room full of business executives might be less prone to groupthink if they’re diverse, but groupthink has little to do with your average job and any non-collaborative job. The important issue is low skilled labor but Pro keeps focusing on skilled labor--“garner the best employees from the broader economy”. We can do this now and it’s not that costly. For efficiency, I’ll address Clemens' GDP estimate under “Job market and wage”. Con’s case Controlled borders Keeping bordes regulated is not solely about meeting the needs of the labor market--though that is a big part--but also giving a select number of individuals the right to make a life here. Allowing all individuals to do so would be too strenuous on our own well-being which is why it’s necessary to restrict the number that come in. In terms of skilled labor, it might be beneficial to allow a large number of immigrants in, but there is no such need with average work. Pro’s source talks solely about highly skilled labor so I ask viewers to discount its relevance. Job market and wage GDP does not equal GDI, so we’re not talking about doubling the income of everyone on the planet.[1] Moreover, corporations are the primary benefactor of cheap labor so it would not be spread at all evenly. If we look at the broader range of studies, Clemens says, “for labor mobility barriers, the estimated gains are often in the range of 50–150 percent of world GDP.” He neither says all nor the majority of estimates are in this range and half of it falls below his “double” estimate, which is still quite substantial. However, while the estimates for economic benefit are noteworthy, Clemens adds that “research on this question has been distinguished by its rarity and obscurity”. Clemens poses four questions as his research agenda on immigration, but states that "for most of them, economists need much more evidence than we have". I’ll concede that GDP and the job market would probably increase, but we should take the estimates cautiously on account of Clemens statements that studies in this area are rare and obscure, that traditional studies suffer from a flawed agenda, and that the four points that he says should set the agenda “need much more evidence than we have”.[2] As long as we have nation states it’s necessary to distinguish between citizens and foreigners. All political leaders from the President to mayors are obligated first and foremost towards their own constituents. As stated, we are charitable to other nations to a degree, but our job is to promote the well-being of our own citizens foremost. I’ll concede that immigration does not overall currently substantially harm the economy since I want to focus on what the labor market would look like with open borders, not how it is today, and because I’m for controlled, not closed, immigration policies. The effect immigration has on U.S. workers is dependent on whether the immigrants and natives compete for the same jobs. If they compliment each other, then immigration has positive effects on wage, but if they compete, wages are lowered [3]. My argument is that if there is global competition for wage, wages will suffer and that there most definitely would be enormous competition for wage if we opened or labor market borders. Pro’s argument does not address the competition that would exist with open borders. "The equilibrium market wage rate and the equilibrium number of workers employed in every perfectly competitive labor market is determined in the same manner: by equating the market demand for labor with the market supply of labor."[7] [7] Considering the vast amount of people living under the U.S. poverty level, we should expect that there would be a substantial excess supply of labor, thus shifting wages downwards and breaking the labor market equilibrium. Currently, there is not much competition for wage [3] but that's primarily because the borders are controlled. If borders were open, it seems inevitable that those living below U.S. standards of living (the vast majority) would compete with natives in a very large range of jobs in the labor market. Opening labor borders would have the following effects on the economy: 1) Unemployment would quickly rise as citizens were forced to compete with an unlimited supply of outsiders. 2) Quality of life would lessen with lower wages and benefits. 3) People would have little incentive to pursue the education required for mid-skill jobs since there would be little to no advantage over having a mid-skill job than a low skill one. 4) Wealth inequality would grow since unlimited cheap labor mostly makes the wealthy richer.I'll try to cover everything next round. Sources [1] http://economistsview.typepad.com... [2] http://www.cgdev.org... [3] http://www.brookings.edu... [4] http://www.economicsonline.co.uk...[5] http://mnmeconomics.wordpress.com...[6] http://cis.org...[7] http://www.economicshelp.org...;