The Same Grape

Tarun and I had an argument about the death of normativity. I argued that normativity is just values + facts about the world, so unless we can agree on values, normative arguments simply become political battles. Tarun had a nuanced response, part of which was that it's worthwhile to debate facts about the world. Given a set of values, in other words, we still need to work through the logic to make sure our positions actually match our values. If we want to maximize utility, for instance, we can debate which policy will achieve that end. Tarun, if I'm misrepresenting your argument, too bad.

So anyway, I've detected a contradiction running through a lot of political debates recently (unfortunately, and for the second time in a few months, I set out to make an argument only to find it anticipated somewhere else, in this case on blogging heads tv).

Immigration and free trade aren't identical, but in terms of their effects on wages they are not much different. Both provide cheaper labor in one way or another, which means cheaper goods for us to consume. It also means lower wages for certain laborers.

Now the contradiction is that while it's become mildly disreputable to argue against free trade on the grounds that it lowers wages for low-income people, the same argument against immigration is treated as perfectly respectable. This doesn't make sense. If our values imply a certain tradeoff between efficiency and protection for our workers, then that balance should hold in both cases. Now, there are other factors that might lead you to accept one policy and reject the other. My point is merely that this particular argument has the same validity in both cases, but is taken seriously only when it comes to immigration.

Thus we are in a bizarre state of affairs. It's like refusing to drink syrah because the variety is inferior, but drinking shiraz at every opportunity. It's the same grape, and it's the same policy consideration, and to pretend otherwise is absurd.