So I was at this talk this morning at Georgetown on high-skill immigration, hoping to get some insights for the NBER chapter that I am now finally drafting.
I didn't entirely agree with the speaker, but it was good - I took more issue with his policy conclusions than his actual findings.
Anyway, I made a pretty standard argument about how it's much harder to claim that immigration hurts American workers than he asserted. After the talk, a guy from the Economic Policy Institute came up to me and accused me of wanting to "immiserate the country"! That threw me off guard a little (since, of course, I have no interest at all in immiserating the country), so I didn't respond as well as I would have liked to. I plan on sending him a more coherent email.
Anyway - it was reassuring. When I get attacked from the right and the left I feel more reassured that ideological imperatives aren't driving what I'm saying (although surely they play a role for all of us).
They should have a video of the talk - I'll post it when it comes up.
Just checked out their website - he's their vice president!
ReplyDeleteYa - I'm definitely going to need to email this guy. I can't just sit back and let him impugn my honor like that!
You should also consider that attacks from all sides indicate that you are mistaken.
ReplyDeleteThis is true.
ReplyDeleteBut if I'm mistaken - as of course I may be - it doesn't seem to be because I'm enthralled to a particular ideology.
ReplyDelete"When I get attacked from the right and the left I feel more reassured that ideological imperatives aren't driving what I'm saying (although surely they play a role for all of us)."
ReplyDeleteWhy exactly? I get attacked from the right and left all the time ... that doesn't assure me of anything more than I'm a libertarian with my own ideological imperatives.
"You should also consider that attacks from all sides indicate that you are mistaken."
ReplyDeleteCertainly something to consider--but someone agreeing with you doesn't mean you are right, either. Neither agreement nor disagreement necessarily provides support for the "truth".