On this week’s Trumponomics, we look at how Trump's immigration policies will affect the nation’s economy, and especially whether it will be good or bad for American workers. Oren Cass, joins host Stephanie Flanders and Bloomberg Opinion Senior Executive Editor Tim O’Brien.
Cass, formerly with the right-leaning Manhattan Institute and founder of the conservative think-thank American Compass, is author of The Once and Future Worker: A Vision for the Renewal of Work in America.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
First, I will declare a national emergency at our southern border. All illegal entry will immediately be halted, and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came Boom.
I'm Stephanie Flander's head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg, and this week on Trumpnomics, we're asking how will President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown affect American workers. Now, as you know, we usually go to our in house reporters and experts for our discussion, and this week for the home side, we do have Tim O'Brien, senior executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion, back with us, catching up with him in London for a change, because there weren't enough opinion here in the UK.
Hello, Tim, it's going to be here seventy. Thank you for having me.
And I'm delighted to also be including Orn cass Oran is the founder and chief economist of American Compass and author of The Once and Future Worker, a vision for the renewal of work in America. He served as Domestic policy director for Governor Mitt Romney's twenty twelve presidential campaign and has been senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for many years, and then his prolific writing and speaking in support of a more worker centric conservatism, he has definitely helped to shape the thinking of Vice President J. D. Vance and others on what you might call the blue collar wing of the mega coalition. Orn Cass Welcome to Trump Andomics. We're really delighted to have you.
Oh thank you.
Donald Trump told supporters last week he thought immigration was what got him elected, even more than the cost of living, and we've seen him follow through on that in his first hours as president with a slew of executive actions that are already having consequences. There are troops down at the southern border, for example, where he has declared a national urgency. Asylum appointments have been canceled, and refugees around the world have had their travel approvals revoked. So one way or another, we know that Donald Trump intends to lower the number of immigrants in the US. There'll be plenty of discussion in the months ahead of the policies he's using to do that, whether they're too much or not nearly enough. But what we're looking at today is how it will affect the economy, and especially whether it will be good or bad for American workers. Many businesses do fear it will put America's exceptional recent growth and productivity record at risk and push up inflation. Others take a more supportive and a certainly more nuanced view of it. Welcome to Trumpnomics, the Bloomberg podcast that looks at the economic world of Donald Trump, how he's already shaped the global economy, and what on earth is going to happen next. There's lots of strands here, but let's start with what impact do you think presidence more aggressive approach to illegal immigration will have on the economy and workers who remain in the US.
Well.
I think there will be an immediate effect and a longer term effect. I think the immediate effect is that we will start to see the labor market tightening significantly, especially at the lower end. The reality is that illegal immigration overwhelmingly goes into the labor market in a set of low wage sectors, and those happen to be sectors where working conditions are not very good, where typically we have not seen significant investments in productivity increases because there has always been an assumption that we can find illegal immigrants to do the work, and so as those folks leave the labor market, what we are going to see is employers having to offer higher wages and better conditions to attract the workers that they need, and that will be a very good thing for workers. I think, probably even more importantly is the medium to long run effect, which is a real shift in the expectations of labor market conditions. We have now been for decades running an economy where if employers can't find enough cheap labor, they scream labor shortage, and policy makers are supposed to respond by providing more cheap labor. And that is not a formula for economic prosperity. In fact, it is a formula for the low productivity growth and wage stagnation that we've seen, and so I expect to see much higher investment in productivity, gains, in training, in bringing workers off the sidelines, all of which is what our economy needs and what it should be doing.
If you think the short term effect is going to be to improve working conditions, because employers are forced to offer more to workers, I mean higher wages, short term surely spells higher prices, So you would agree with those who are worried about the inflationary co consequences.
Well, I think it depends how the higher wages translate into prices. One thing you may see, and we've seen in the past also, is that when you bring in some of those other workers, when you do offer higher wages, when you do provide better working conditions, you also get better productivity. And particularly in a competitive market, we should expect there to be enormous pressure on employers to actually find ways to get those productivity gains very quickly and to keep prices low. I'm always a little bit puzzled when the exact same folks who celebrate the wonders of the free market and competitive forces then turn around and if we're talking about immigration, say you know, oh no, none of this works. It's all broken, Everything will be terrible. Businesses are designed to operate under constraints and solve the problems put in front of them. And the problem is for our economy we have not put the problem of provide a good product at a low price with the workers in America as the problem to solve, And now that is going to be the problem to solve. And I'm actually somebody who has a lot of faith in markets and businesses to solve that problem. It's very funny to me that the quote free market folks are the ones who run around with their hair on fires saying if we actually let the market work, somehow everything's going to fall apart.
That was I find, or at least it's sort of ironic. Is the same people who say that immigration doesn't push down wages do insist that reduced immigration will push up prices, which I don't know it's one way or the other.
That's right.
I mean, we've gone through several rounds of this, right, because when inflation was high, of course everybody said, well, we need to bring in more immigrants to bring down inflation and to suppress wage growth. And then of course when inflation is not high, they turn around and say, well we need to bring in more immigrants. That will have no effect on wages. I think immigration absolutely does have an effect on wages. I think it's just important to recognize that the relationship between wages and prices is not a direct one, and that in a healthy economy, higher wages comes alongside higher productivity gains and in fact lower prices. That is the tradition of capitalism working well and generating prosperity.
There is one aspect of the economic research that I wanted to put to you. I mean, we have a team of economists here at Bloomberg, and you'll be interested to hear that we don't think that cutting immigration and expelling more illegal immigrants will raise inflation. In fact, because of how much demand they represent, if you have a lot of deportations, that's going to reduce consumption enough to we actually think reduce GDP per head and even reduce inflation. But for the same reason, we do think it will hurt growth and jobs for everyone. And I don't know you're probably aware of this, but the studies that have been done in different counties that have had enhanced deportation programs, they found that for every hundred migrant workers that was deported, nine fewer jobs existed for natives because the demand of those migrant workers was creating jobs for everyone, and the native workers' wages also fell slightly. So are you not concerned about that just directly deflationary effect and the possible reduction and employment.
Well, first of all, I think it's very important to distinguish between overall GDP and GDP per capita, because there's no question that if you remove people from a population, absolute GDP is going to decline, at least in the short run.
There are on our findings is GDP per head I think, because you're obviously aware of that issue, but this is also about jobs for the Americans who stay behind as well.
But just to put a fine point on the GDP per capita point, I'm not familiar with the particular study that you're citing, but it's really important to keep in mind also that the illegal immigrants who would be removed from the labor force tend to be far below the median GDP per capita, median wage level and so forth, and so removing a significant number of them from the population, just as a sheer matter of math, I think it's extremely unlikely to reduce GDP per capita. I think the best examples we have of what happens when you actually enforce the law and remove people who are in the country illegally is from the places that have actually done that at scale. And you know, you can go all the way back to the history of the end of the Brasero program up through Florida imposing mandatory everify and enforcing it over the last couple of years. I know many people who predicted that Florida's economy would suffer as a result. I don't know anybody who would say Florida's economy has in fact suffered as a result.
Or in what lessons you take from Brexit in the context of looking at other case studies. You know, one of the arguments for Brexit, For example, Polish migrants were taking farm jobs in Lincolnshire away from native Brits and Brexit was imposed and the workers didn't come, and it turned out that a lot of native laborers didn't want those jobs anyway. So what do you have any lessons real world lessons at a national level rather than a state level from Brexit in the context of what we're discussing about the impact of migration and restrictions.
Well, I don't take any lessons from Brexit in this respect. I think Brexit was an entirely different context in terms of both what was going on in the UK beforehand. I mean, you're talking about very large numbers of legal workers, and you're talking about a far broader economic Whether you want to call it a dislocation or a shift in the economic relationship that the UK had with the rest of the EU. But I also do want to challenge this sort of basic framing of somehow jobs that native workers won't do. I'm not aware of any job that anybody wants to take that is poorly paid in bad conditions, and frankly, I'm aware of many people who will take just about any job that is well paid in good conditions. I'm not sure where we've gotten this idea that employers are entitled to have workers take jobs that certainly the employers themselves would not take. And again, it goes back to this mental model that we've adopted that treats labor as a commodity input, like it's lumber or steel or something, and the cheaper and more plentiful it is, the better off we will be. That's just not true. A key feature and function of an economy, what we need it to do, is to create good jobs for native workers and legal immigrants, and having large numbers of illegal immigrants makes that harder, and it's not something we should be pursuing.
I think one of the tricky things right now in the discussion is that there are a lot of moving parts, and a lot of them are theoretical. And in an ideal world, yes, the economy would pay middle class wages to everyone, so we could have a nation full of middle class people. But the reason we don't is that some industries thrive on low wage labor by design, and there are jobs that some people prefer not to take. But we could go down a rabbit hole on that.
Well that that's no, I'd like to stay there for them. That's not a rabbit hole. That's That is the exact crux of the issue. Yeah, because why on earth should we accept that some industries are designed to have bad jobs that workers don't want to do.
I mean, because I think the rabbit hole. The rabbit hole would spin off of the ways in which the wage and price dynamic and labor supply. It is never a perfect sphere of factors influencing one another. And and the reality is low wage jobs have always existed in the US that sometimes are at subsistence levels or certainly don't provide entry into the middle class. That has been a true forever, regardless of the models.
The other least the social safety net. It was one of the things that was supposedly one of the strengths of the US is that had a social safety net that incentivized people to take to low paid jobs.
Let's take economics editor at Bloomberg as an example. I don't know of anyone who would be economics editor at Bloomberg for thirteen dollars an hour sitting on a dusty crate in a hot field twelve hours a day.
But those aren't the jobs we're talking about. We're talking about sledgehammer wielder at construction site. Why and we're talking about hotel made or we're talking about restaurant workers at the.
Why should they have worse job experiences than you have?
Welluse because the market deems them to be less skilled.
That's that's why we just a market has done that because of the illegal immigration and the massive influx.
Of low skill I would argue, I would argue that's where the rabbit hole emerges.
Bat Really, what is interesting about that and what is kind of revealing about where you've gone with that or is that you are you represent a strand of conservative thinking that is very focused on the well being of workers, and indeed, your your book was very focused on that and a critique of a certain what you might call in the a liberal approach to economics to immigration that the administration has promised is one that you are in principal sympathetic towards. And have you made a case for in all the ways that you've just described. But you've made that case not in the spirit of some of the rhetoric of that we might say was kind of dehumanizing of immigrants or anything else. It's very much focused on improving the livelihoods of people here. So I just wondered if that is one's focus, and if that's the thing that one's most concerned about, as opposed to kind of dividing Americans from each other or making people kind of blame immigrants for everything that's wrong in society. What's the kind of thing we should be looking for in the administration? What will you be hoping to see the kinds of policies, you know, for example, cracking down on employers employing illegal immigrants, give us a guide to the sort of if you care about workers, what should you be most wanting to see the president prioritize.
Well, I think there are a number of directions from which we have to come out at this problem, because it has been a problem that is fester. It has festered for a long time. It obviously metastasized under the Biden administration. And so one element that I think you see is a focus from day one is just actually stepping up border enforcement, staunching the incoming flow. And that's obviously an incredibly important first step. You're not going to reduce the level of illegal immigration and illegal workers in America if you still have large numbers coming in. So I would say that in a sense is step one. I think step two, which is where you see the Trump administration, then focusing out of the gate, is in actually enforcing the law in terms of folks who already have active deportation orders, in terms of folks who who are have already been convicted of other crimes, and making sure that those farks are being removed as the law requires. And then step three that I hope we get too quickly is actually pursuing workplace enforcement, because I think at the end of the day, where the rubber meets the road for these labor market issues is in terms of how employers behave and whether employers are able to hire people who are in the country illegally and not authorized to work. And so a mandatory everify system, again, which they've done in Florida to great effect, is a very important tool that both empowers employers and holds them accountable for only employing people who are in the country legally, and then you need very harsh sanctions against both employers who fail to use the system properly and against people who try to work around it and continue to work illegally.
I may be wrong about this, but I just haven't heard that the folks who are coming into the administration, and indeed sort of restoric on the campaign trail in previous sort of eras of this discussion. I've definitely heard people talk about Everify, and obviously the Florida example was used a lot. Just haven't heard members of the incoming administration talk about it very much. Is that just I've not been listening carefully enough.
I think it depends who who you're focused on. Vice President Vance is certainly somebody who has talked a lot about this employment side of things and the need for enforcement in the labor market. I think you're certainly right that President Trump's focus has been first and foremost on the border and on the deportation of criminals. And that's what you see them doing out of the gate. But I think this will be a process over a number of years, and hopefully we're headed in the right direction.
On the deportation side of it or in right now. We've had, you know, in the first week, small insignificant numbers relative to what they say they want to do the administration around deportation. The number Trump put out on the campaign trail was eleven million. Do you have a sense of whether or not different sectors of the economy, different businesses are really positioned to adapt to a shock of eleven million people vacating? And yeah, is there a number you've like sort of landed on that is acceptable and taking human rights and those issues off the table for this particular discussion. But for example, if you moved several million people simply into camps and didn't even deport them right away, what would happen to the construction trades, What would happen to hotels and restaurants and farms that all depend on a lot of workers who don't have criminal records and have wanted to be processed legally. But we, in addition to having a poorest border, have a horrid judicial system for processing those migrants in a timely and effective way. How quickly actually you get a snap back to those jobs just being filled right away in a way that's also cost effective for the businesses themselves.
Well, I think there are a few things going on here, but I actually think that the market's ability to adapt to this very quickly is quite high. You know, I would point based on what well, I would point to two things. One is, I think it's very funny that when the economy goes into a recession, let's say you see employers lay off millions of workers much more quickly, and everyone just sort of shrugs and says, that's the business cycle. In fact, we, in fact, we do see very large swings in the labor market over time and in very short periods of time in some instances. But I also think that the aftermath of COVID is a good illustration of this, where we had labor market shocks probably in order of magnitude at least larger than what we're talking about now. Were there challenges for employers, Were there times when when there were disruptions in various local markets. Absolutely.
The government also spend quite a bit of stimulus money to keep consumer demand high and to keep businesses afloat. So actually the full effect of those job losses weren't effect, weren't felt.
I'm not sure what that has to do with your question, which is whether employers could cope with disruptions in the labor market and workers coming in and out. And the reality is that in the aftermath of COVID there was a dramatic short term shortfall in labor market participation, and you saw widespread concern about labor shortages and employers complaining that they couldn't hire and find anywhere near the workers they needed. And one thing that happened was that wages went up a good deal and a lot of people were brought in off the sidelines. But at the end of the day, the market is an extraordinarily flexible one. I mean, let's keep in mind just how many millions of workers enter and exit the labor market every year anyway. And so what I find, again so peculiar is this attitude that you know people it's you said, like, oh, these people they're just they're waiting to be processed. They do not have a right to be in the country. They crossed the border legally. They know that they crossed the border illegally.
Employers wanted them to work for them.
That makes it legal.
I'm not saying it makes it legal. I'm saying people were winking and nodding at the inefficiency of the processing system, which I agree with you needs to be fixed. But they weren't regarded whole cloth as economic balls and chains or as a pox upon the functioning of the economy.
Yeah, I'm not sure how we decide which laws we do have to follow in which we don't based on why employers want that, again, is not how markets work. The way that a well functioning market democracy should be operating is that we have laws establishing who can enter the country under what conditions. We enforce those laws, and we expect employers and people trying to immigrate to the country to comply with them. And that seems to me to be a much better formula for capitalism and broad based prosperity than the crazy situation that we've had with this sort of vague hand waiving encouragement in recent decades.
They do have a different status if they're even if they've crossed the border illegally, if they're seeking asylum, a refugee status. I think that they do have, they're not I think they're not technically illegal. But can I just ask you about the skilled immigration because a lot of evidence around US innovation, the production of patents, and contribution to the productivity of companies has shown that you get very good return on your investment from a lot of skilled immigrants that we've had, and that seems particularly front and center at the moment when you think of the aggressive competition with China, that the administration has called for an investment in AI and all these things. A colleague was pointing out to me the Ohio State Dashboard of engineering enrollment. Half of the students who are applying for graduate degrees in engineering are international. Are you on the Elon Musk side of the argument when it comes to some of those skilled vas or are you worried about the impact of that immigration for workers at home.
Well, I think you've just blurred a few issues together there. I don't know of anyone, frankly, who is saying that we should not have skilled immigration. And obviously, we have always had an immigration system that brings large numbers of people into the country legally every year, and I think reorienting that toward focusing on people with highly valuable skills who are likely to succeed in the US economy is exactly the way to make that system work well. The question of temporary visas like H one B is entirely different, and even Elon Musk has conceded the H one B program is poorly structured and widely abused. And so I don't think the temporary visa programs the way that we are operating them at all achieve those very important benefits that you were describing. I think they are yet another way that employers have found to gain the system and create lower quality jobs at lower wages.
Would you want to see that skilled immigration, the more permanent immigration go down over the course of the next few years in this new environment.
No.
What I would like to see is US actually get the system under control so that immigration is limited to legal immigration, and we then use our level of legal immigration to focus on bringing in those who will make the greatest contributions to the country.
Or and Cass, thank you very much for joining us.
It was my pleasure.
Thank you.
I appreciate your patience as we go through all these questions on immigration, and that there clearly is a very wide agenda here which we'll be looking at sort of week to week. Thanks for listening to Trump Andomics from Bloomberg. It was hosted by me Stephanie Flanders, with special thanks to our guests Orncass and Tim O'Brien. Trump and Noomics is produced by Summer Saudi and Most and with help from Chris Martlou. Sound designed by Blake Maples. Brendan Francis Newnham is our executive producer. To help others find the show, please give us five stars wherever you listen to podcasts