发表时间：2024.11.03     作者：Jingyi     来源：ShoelessCai     阅读：62

由 Jingyi 翻译，百度翻译助力。

彭博推送 | 大面积驱逐移民可能会影响经济

01 大面积驱逐移民可能会影响经济

1.移民已然成为美国选举的最大议题，特朗普将“大面积驱逐移民”的政策，作为其所签署的承诺之一。然而，记者 Enda Curran 和 Emma Sanchez 写道，专家对于政策的经济影响，其实并不热情的。

2.特朗普不断发誓，要开启大面积驱移民政策，在美国历史上要重新选举的话，去颠覆足以压垮（crush）美国人就业和工资的迁徙潮。

3.本质上这是同一个观点，即那些煽动美国大面积移民的，其实是回到了 1800 年代。关键点在于，大规模移民伤害了本地的工作者，通过工作竞争加剧、工资降低这些来显示，这些通常会被认为是想当然的。然而，大量学术研究挑战了这样的观点。资料显示，并非（像想象的那样）保护美国工作者，驱逐移民运动以及限制移民进入政策，禁止（curb）更广泛的雇佣，以及降低现在工作者的身份，使其趋近于更加低工资的人

1-3 段三段新单词

deportation 驱逐出境
deport [vt] 把…驱逐出境
migratory 迁徙
migratory tide 迁徙潮
instigated 煽动
relegate existing workers to lower-paying 贬低现有工作者，使其趋近于更加低工资的人
may seem intuitively right 很可能被认为是想当然的

4.在一篇出版在国家经济研究署的工作论文，一群学者分析了一个经济余波，来自于美国 1882 年颁布的法案，该法案驱逐了西方国家的关键劳动力，即中国劳动力，这些人中的许多人努力地建造跨陆的铁路。这些文章的作者，就发现“排华法案”（Chinese Exclusion Act ），扫除了一半的当地的地区制造业，取消了数十个岗位，将前往西部找工作的美国白人减少了 28%。这是一种白人工作者的生活收入方式。因此，白人工作者的终身收入降低了（as a result 作为插入语，句子主干 a measure of lifetime income fell）。这项法案对当地经济的影响，持续到 1940 年，作者写道。

4 段单词

fallout 后果，余波
toil to 艰苦地做某事
transcontinental railroad 跨路铁路
doing away with scores of jobs 取消数十个岗位
a measure of lifetime income fell 终身收入降低了

5.“我们没有找到任何证据，显示有任何好处，在白人工作者或者当地工作者试图从该法案获取好处的人群中。” Marco Tabellini 说到，他是助理教授，在 HBS，以及该报告的共同作者之一。（唯一的例外，是当地矿工，这些人的劳动力供给是上升的。）

6.“排他法案到底做了什么？其实是降低程度，降低白人工作者找到更好工作的概率。”他说到。

7.另一篇文章在 8 月发表，调查了学术文学，关于从美国大面积驱逐未被授权的移民，找到类似的形式，不断重复，持续一个世纪。

8.这是数据关键：驱逐移民多达 45.4 万人，在美国并未被授权，从 2008 年开始直至 2015 年，这件事减少了美国当地工作者的时薪，减少了 0.6%。

9.人们估计，约莫 8 万未被授权的移民，其中部分还是美国的劳动力，等于总体人口的 5%。大面积驱逐移民的项目，像特朗普所描述的规模，将会减少这个国家的 GDP，减少 2.6 - 6.2%。依据作者调查很多类似项目之后得出的结论。

10.“2023 时候，与这些相关的经济损失，大约在 7110 亿美元 至 7万亿美元，”Robert Lynch 写道，他是华盛顿经济学院的终身教授，也是合著了上述文章，和 Michael Ettlinger 合作的，后者是 Carsey School 总监，the University of New Hampshire 的公共政策学院。

5-10 段单词

emeritus 退休后保头衔的
professor emeritus 终身教授
the University of New Hampshire 新罕布什尔大学，北美排名前 50 的公立大学，综合型研究大学。以机械工程，航天工程，海洋工程等工科相关专业，垃圾发电尤为突出。

11.这也是有通胀效应的。“如果你驱逐了大批量的工作者，你可能会造成一些行业的人员短缺，” Lynch 说到，“如果有短缺，需求会远超于供给，价格会上升。因此在短缺的时候，我会期待通胀。” 12.为了说清这件事，这些文章的作者，并未呼吁不合法移民。即使是民主党，这些人已然在这场选举的炮火之下，因其管理美墨边境的方式，意识到更加严格的控制的有必要的，为了检查非法移民。如果她赢得总统席位，VP Harris 承诺恢复边境安全法案，这些法案由共和党立法人员支持，在特朗普今年 2 月试图说服他们反对该法案之前。 13.然而，经济研究确实出现了驳斥特朗普观点的情形，大面积驱逐移民会提升美国工作者的职业前景。 14.“我们在讨论的事情是，极端限制是有损经济的。”Tabellini 说到，“至少他们现在如此。” 11-14 段单词

stringent controls 严格的控制
resurrect 使复兴
refute 驳斥
economically detrimental 有损经济的

02 简要新闻

（1）油价跳水，之前发布报告，伊朗可能准备攻击以色列，从伊拉克领土

（2）波音设立了“全球多样、公平、包容部门”，使其成为近期的高评价公司，以对其 DEI 政策产生改变

（3）预测者预期美国雇佣情况的月报，将会显示稳定的失业率

global diversity, equity and inclusion department “全球多样、公平、包容部门”，兼顾全球发展的部门

03 为什么奢侈品手袋很重要？

很多依赖于手袋。尽管这是可能的，运营一项业务基于非常好看的裤子，或者豪华的毛衣，高端手袋的潜在市场，早已超出了设计品牌的、传统的、富裕的客户预期，满足了所有税收等级客户的预期。大多情况，如果你真的想要提升时尚公司是收入，或者扩大文化足迹，你必须要出售手袋。

sumptuous 豪华的
into virtually every tax bracket 满足所有税收等级的客户的预期

有些事，关于这些设计品牌的手袋的更广阔吸引力，很容易理解，即便针对那些毫无兴趣的人：他们拥有权力地位象征，在某些社交圈内，以及和高端服装不同的是，你无需担忧大小或者是否合身，你只需要挑你最喜欢的手袋，无论过多少天（挑得多慢都行）。另外，让大多数人困惑的是，为什么手袋的一手货如此昂贵，为什么 有些成本就是要比其他的高出很多。

关于奢侈品行业定价的风暴逻辑，在行业外并未很好地被理解，这些行业靠手袋生死，这可能是为什么上一周美国联邦的决策，决定拒绝 Capri 和 Tapestry 两家的合并，似乎抓住了时尚圈内措手不及的势头。这两家公司拥有一些手袋的品牌，在其中最有名的莫属，Coach, Kate Spade, Michael Kors。他们都是中低档的人群的定位，将其定位成奢侈品等级中的最底层。

those within fashion off guard 时尚圈内措手不及的势头

01 Mass deportation might be bad for the economy

Immigration has been one of this election’s biggest issues, and Donald Trump has made mass deportation one of his signature promises. But, as reporters Enda Curran and Emma Sanchez write, experts are not enthusiastic about the economic impact of this policy.

Donald Trump has repeatedly pledged to launch the largest deportation program in US history if reelected, to reverse a migratory tide he claims is “crushing” American jobs and wages.

It’s basically the same argument that has instigated all mass deportations in the US going back to the late 1800s. The notion that large-scale immigration hurts native-born workers by driving up competition for jobs and pushing down wages may seem intuitively right. Yet there’s a pretty large body of academic research that challenges that thinking. It shows that instead of protecting American workers, deportation campaigns and restrictive immigration policies curb overall employment and relegate existing workers to lower-paying jobs.

In a working paper published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of academics analyzed the economic fallout from a US law enacted in 1882 to expel what had been a critical workforce for Western states: Chinese laborers, many of whom toiled to build the transcontinental railroad. The authors found the Chinese Exclusion Act wiped out more than half of manufacturing establishments in the region, doing away with scores of jobs and reducing the number of White Americans coming West in search of work by 28%. A measure of lifetime income for White workers fell as a result. The law’s effects on local economies persisted into the 1940s, the writers say.

“We don’t find any evidence that there were benefits among White workers or native-born workers who were the intended beneficiaries of the act,” says Marco Tabellini, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School and one of the co-authors of the report. (The only exception were local miners, whose labor supply increased.)

“What the Exclusion Act did was to slow down the extent to which White workers were able to find better paying jobs,” he says.

Another paper published in August surveyed the academic literature on large-scale deportations of unauthorized immigrants from the US and found a similar pattern repeated across almost a century.

Here’s one data point: The deportation of 454,000 individuals not authorized to be in the US from 2008 to 2015 reduced the hourly wages of US-born workers by 0.6%.

It’s been estimated that almost 8 million unauthorized immigrants form part of the US workforce–equal to about 5% of the total. A deportation program on the scale Trump has described would reduce the size of the nation’s gross domestic product by 2.6% to 6.2%, according to a range of projections reviewed by the authors of the paper.

“At 2023 levels those equate to losses to the economy of between $711 billion and $1.7 trillion,” wrote Robert Lynch, professor emeritus of Economics at Washington college, who co-authored the paper with Michael Ettlinger, founding director of the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire.

There’s an inflation effect too. “If you deport a large number of workers, you’re gonna probably create shortages in some industries,” Lynch says. “And when there are shortages, demand’s going to outstrip supply and prices are going rise. So in the short run, I would expect that there would be inflation.”

To be clear, the authors of these papers aren’t advocating for unchecked immigration. Even Democrats, who’ve come under fire this election cycle for the way they’ve managed the border with Mexico, recognize that more stringent controls are needed to check unauthorized immigration. If she wins the presidency, Vice President Kamala Harris has promised to resurrect a border security bill that had support from many Republican legislators before Trump persuaded them to vote against it in February.

Nevertheless, economic research does appear to refute Trump’s argument that deportations will improve employment prospects for US workers.

“What we are saying is that extreme restrictions are economically detrimental,” Tabellini says. “At least they were at the time.”

02 In Brief

(1) Oil jumped after a report that Iran may be preparing to attack Israel from Iraqi territory in the coming days.

(2) Boeing has dismantled its global diversity, equity and inclusion department, making it the latest high-profile corporation to make changes to its DEI policy.

(3) Forecasters anticipate a monthly report on US employment will show a steady unemployment rate.

03 Why Luxury Handbags Matter

Much depends on handbags. Although it’s possible to run a business built on beautifully tailored trousers or sumptuous sweaters, the potential market for high-end handbags reaches far beyond designer brands’ traditional wealthy customers and into virtually every tax bracket. In most cases, if you really want to increase a fashion company’s revenue or expand its cultural footprint, you want to be selling handbags.

Some things about the broad appeal of designer bags are easy enough to understand, even for people with no interest in them: They’re powerful status symbols in certain social circles, and, unlike with high-end clothing, you don’t have to worry about sizes or fit, and you can carry your favorite bag as many days in a row as you want. What’s more bewildering to most people is why handbags are expensive in the first place, and why some cost so much more than others.

The bizarre logic of luxury pricing is not well understood outside the industries that live and die by it, which is probably why last week’s decision by a US federal judge to block the merger of Capri Holdings Ltd. and Tapestry Inc. seems to have caught those within fashion off guard. The two companies own a handful of handbag brands between them—most notably, Coach, Kate Spade and Michael Kors. They all retail in the low- to mid-three figures, situating them toward the bottom of the luxury pricing hierarchy.

长按/扫码，有您的支持，我们会更加努力！