Another Bogus Report From Edwin S. Rubenstein

Edwin S. Rubenstein is one of many hacks that contribute to the white supremist web site VDare. He claims to be a well educated economist with years of experience. He uses that as a pedestal to spew propaganda disguised in skewed reports.

The National Policy Institute has published a paper, “The Cost of Diversity”, by Edwin S. Rubenstein that purports to tally the cost of diversity to the nation. In short, the paper doesn’t have anything to do with the costs of diversity. It actually addresses the costs due to affirmative action programs and immigration, and those supposed costs are intentionally tremendously overstated.Some effects of multiculturalism are discussed at the end of the paper.

In a few paragraphs Rubenstein addresses a study that found that the level of trust is lower in more ethnically diverse communities. However, Rubenstein doesn’t attempt to estimate a cost with respect to that effect.

At first the narrative of the report isn’t clear about what it’s reporting. It starts off claiming to be a report about the cost of diversity. Then Rubenstein makes the claim that the report calculates the reduction in gross national product caused by diversity. But there is nothing in the report explaining how diversity affects gross national product.

The report is actually about costs to the government as a result of immigration and what Rubenstein refers to as affirmative action programs.

It starts off discussing the cost of affirmative action programs. Rubenstein includes the entire budget of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as a cost of affirmative action programs even though affirmative action is a very, very small part of EEOC's mission. The EEOC enforces laws that prohibited discrimination in the work place based on age, disability, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, retaliation and sex.

Rubenstein also includes the entire budgets of other agencies including National Labor Relations Board, an agency that Rubenstein refers to as the "Employment Benefits Security Administration" [the real name of this agency is the Employee Benefits Security Administration, and it is charged with enforcing laws affecting private sector retirement and health plans (in other words it has absolutely nothing to do with diversity or affirmative action)] and what Rubenstein calls the "Occupational Health and Safety Administration" [the real name of this agency is OSHA the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and it enforces worksite safety laws (this has nothing to do with affirmative action either)].

At this point I would normally accuse a writer of intentionally attempting to deceive his readers by including the budgets of agencies that have absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action in his tally of the cost of affirmative action. But Rubenstein apparently doesn’t even know the actual names of these agencies. It would be too much for me to expect him to have a clue as to their actual mission. So in this case I suspect that it is Rubenstein’s blatant ignorance that is most at fault for this mistake.

In calculating the costs of immigration, Rubenstein considers several factors including the reduction of native wages due to competition from immigrants and the reduced taxes paid as a result of the aforementioned reduction of wages and costs to taxpayers.

He cites Professor George Borjas (an actual economist, not a hack like Rubenstein) claiming that wages of native workers is reduced as a result of immigration.The Borjas paper cited in Rubenstein’s report states that a 10 percent increase in supply reduces wages by 3 to 4 percent thereby resulting in reduced wages of native workers of about 5.5%. The Borjas study cited by Rubenstein was from 2003. In 2006 Borjas amended the estimate to 3.3% in the short run and 0.1% in the long run (i.e. after capital adjusts to the increase in labor). Rubenstein simply ignores the new figures and uses the outdated figures instead.

What Rubenstein also ignores is the fact that if wages are lower, then the result is an increase in the net income to businesses. Think about it. If your boss reduces your salary by a dollar, then automatically your boss’s income is increased by the same amount, other things being equal. The net effect to the nation as a whole is $0. Yet Rubenstein formed his argument this way in order to deceive his readers.

This paper is peppered throughout with what I can only describe as white supremacist rhetoric. Rubenstein laments that non-Hispanic white people only constitute two thirds of the population. He laments that, due to immigration and higher fertility rates of minorities, the percentage of the population that is white is expected to decline in coming years. An uninterested reader would be inclined to ask, “What’s so horrible about that?” In Rubenstein’s report the answer is not clear. However, what is clear is that for some reason Rubenstein considers this a crisis.

Are there costs associated with enforcing affirmative action programs? Of course. But Rubenstein intentionally inflates those costs. Does immigration result in costs? Yes, but again Rubenstein inflates said costs. Most economists believe that the benefits by far exceed the costs.

The real purpose of the report is for use as a citation. People can now cite this report in blogs, columns and debates. “According to a comprehensive study by Edwin S. Rubenstein of The National Policy Institute, diversity costs the nation $1.1 trillion.” Most people won’t even read this report past the first couple of pages. Even fewer will actually inquire as to its validity.