The 4 Boneheaded Biases of Stupid Voters

Most of Bryan Caplan's points ("The 4 Boneheaded Biases of Stupid Voters," October) are well-taken. But I am a bit perplexed by his lumping of anti-free-trade views and anti-immigration views into a single "anti-foreign bias."

I am well aware of the economic arguments in favor of free trade between nations, and I regard them as wholly persuasive. But immigration is another matter. My U.S. citizenship is a valuable asset. Without going into all the ways this particular asset has value, I will just say that I am fairly certain I could get a good price for it if I could sell it, and I am also sure that it would have no value at all if everyone on Earth could have it for the asking.

Large-scale immigration and naturalization is a policy of expropriating that asset by dilution. My desire not to surrender part of this asset to anyone who might like to have it may be termed a "bias," I suppose, but I don't think it is irrational. Certainly not from an economic standpoint.

Jerome Berryhill

Eugene, OR

Bryan Caplan says that an immigrant who moves from Mexico City to New York and spends all of his earnings in his new homeland does not change the balance of trade and is, therefore, unworthy of our prejudice. That's true. But many illegal immigrants remit a great deal of their U.S. earnings to the families they left behind in their countries of origin. That certainly does alter adversely the balance of trade.

Steve Henigson

Eastsound, WA

I agree with Bryan Caplan's conclusions, at least on a theoretical level. But I did want to address some of his points on the bias in favor of "make-work" programs.

A reduction in the demand for labor is great for the economy. Increased productivity reduces inflation and increases wages. And as Caplan mentioned, it allows individuals to pursue other forms of labor. He cited the example of the reduced need for farm labor that allowed more workers to enter manufacturing.

But Caplan failed to address the barriers to entering other fields. These barriers often are not a question of education level. These barriers can be as simple as geography. Or they can be more complex: Our economy has become so specialized that most firms desire a level of experience that can come only from working in a specific field for several years. On-the-job training no longer exists.

Even technology has created barriers. Online application processes have impersonalized the hiring process. In order to even get a chance at having their applications reviewed, candidates must have the right keywords on their resumes or in their letters. Often managers will rely on inside hires rather than trust a resume that appears from the Internet.

The ultimate result is that "creative destruction" proves more destructive than creative for the job seeker. The answer to labor displacement lies neither in "make-work" projects nor in an unfettered free market. Only through public-private partnerships will there be a solution.

Joseph Ingemi

Hammonton, NJ

I'd like to suggest another bias that Caplan doesn't seem to have considered in his article. This fifth bias is the bias against having your life turned upside down for either executive enrichment or abstract economic good, or to pay off the debts incurred in a leveraged buyout you had nothing to do with. There is something to be said for stable communities. It helps the annoyingly nonproductive elderly, for whom we perversely care; gives cultural continuity to the (also nonproductive, thanks to intrusive child labor laws) young; and encourages the production of delicious artisanal breads and cheeses. Which people like me, driving in from Los Angeles, can then enjoy.

Peter Basch

Los Angeles, CA

COPYRIGHT 2008 Reason Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning