Originally posted by ZahlanziA dollar more. Give me a break. You are a typical Liberal. Generous with somebody else's money.
are you really bitching about paying 1 dollar more on your taxes so that children could get hospitalized? do you like to kick puppies and drown kittens? would you push your grandma down the stairs so you don't have to care for her?
you are coming back as a cockroach in the next life
Originally posted by telerionAre you saying that the only way of producing some products is illegally?
Right! Employers should just wave a wand and magically increase their revenue so that they can afford to pay workers inefficiently high wages. On the other hand, we could skip that by allowing consumers to wave the wand instead and create the products that will not be produced by the employer because he can't afford to pay such high wages. Sustained grow ...[text shortened]... ect.
A course in macroeconomics should be required before posting in these sorts of threads.
Surely there are other options. What about moving the factories to Mexico?
Originally posted by slimjimgeez this is what's wrong with america. won't do anything if it isn't benefiting you someway. so let a child die and buy yourself a vacation home somewhere near a lake in the mountains.
A dollar more. Give me a break. You are a typical Liberal. Generous with somebody else's money.
but wait, that child is mexican, and and illegal alien and therefore unworthy in your eyes. so sorry for my liberal ways.
EDIT: you know that karma will so gonna kick you in the ass. when you will be 70(if you reach that age but karma will make sure you do) and your kids will be unwilling or unable to support you then on who's money will you be living? you will probably turn into a liberal then
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou may be wracked with guilt and the need to atone, but I'm not. If you were half as righteous as the tone in your post, then you wouldn't feel the need to wag your neo-hippie, "I'm better than you are!" finger in anyone's face. And why is it any of your business to tell off someone because they bought a vacation home somewhere near a lake in the mountains? Did you ever stop to consider how many people that home may have helped? It provides workers and builders with jobs and money for the local tax roles, thus improving the lives of others.
geez this is what's wrong with america. won't do anything if it isn't benefiting you someway. so let a child die and buy yourself a vacation home somewhere near a lake in the mountains.
but wait, that child is mexican, and and illegal alien and therefore unworthy in your eyes. so sorry for my liberal ways.
EDIT: you know that karma will so gonna kic ...[text shortened]... pport you then on who's money will you be living? you will probably turn into a liberal then
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121193223213724275.html
Originally posted by ZahlanziDon't go there with your snide accusations of bigotry. My wife of 30+ years is Mexican and she says the same thing. She came here legally so why can't the rest of the immigrants do the same. I'd say the same thing if it was an Romanian living here illegally. PS. I don't have to worry about my children taking care of me because unlike you I have saved for my retirement. I'm not going to depend on some Government stipend to live on. In fact I will live quite comfortably Thank You.
geez this is what's wrong with america. won't do anything if it isn't benefiting you someway. so let a child die and buy yourself a vacation home somewhere near a lake in the mountains.
but wait, that child is mexican, and and illegal alien and therefore unworthy in your eyes. so sorry for my liberal ways.
EDIT: you know that karma will so gonna kic ...[text shortened]... pport you then on who's money will you be living? you will probably turn into a liberal then
Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you saying that the only way of producing some products is illegally?
No.
Surely there are other options. What about moving the factories to Mexico?
Can and does work for many products. Capital mobility is certainly an important part of NAFTA and one that is often overshadowed by its more (in)famous counterpart, labor mobility.
Specifically, I was criticizing the author of the following:
"Employers simply need to offer good enough wages and conditions that legal US citizens and working residents are willing to do those jobs. If they don't, they've got no-one to blame but themselves if they can't find workers. "
My point was that the economy is much more involved than karnachz would have us believe. Employers can't "simply" offer those sorts of wages and conditions if the demand for their product isn't great enough. There's a real "gimme-gimme" attitude in this whole immigration debate. It's almost as if it's a company's patriotic duty to pay laborers more than the value of their work. Attempts to do so over a prolonged period of time would result in reduce output growth.
Originally posted by telerionBut there is no such thing as 'the value of their work'. Labour is all about supply and demand. If the illegal immigrants are stopped then the factories will either have to pay higher wages or close down.
My point was that the economy is much more involved than karnachz would have us believe. Employers can't "simply" offer those sorts of wages and conditions if the demand for their product isn't great enough. There's a real "gimme-gimme" attitude in this whole immigration debate. It's almost as if it's a company's patriotic duty to pay laborers more than ...[text shortened]... ttempts to do so over a prolonged period of time would result in reduce output growth.
I don't see where the 'gimme-gimme' attitude fits in. The bit you quoted is not demanding higher wages but pointing out that if the employers use the lack of available labor as an excuse for breaking the law (and employing illegals) then they have only themselves to blame.
We have a similar problem here in SA. Unions are very strong here and have managed to push up the wages. The result is that wages here are much higher (for the same work) than in neighboring countries. One side effect of this is it causes unemployment.
So people are migrating (illegally) to SA for work where they work for far less than a typical South African would. The local people feel cheated and blame the foreigners for all their problems (xenophobia). Recently there have been riots and killings over it.
But there is no such thing as 'the value of their work'.
Yes there is. By "the value of their work" I mean the marginal contribution to the total profits of the firm from a worker's labor input (i.e. "marginal value of product of labor" ). This is a basic economic concept, not a phrase I'm pulling out of my behind.
Labour is all about supply and demand.
You're preaching to the choir on this one.
If the illegal immigrants are stopped then the factories will either have to pay higher wages or close down.
Sure. What is the point of this comment?
I don't see where the 'gimme-gimme' attitude fits in. The bit you quoted is not demanding higher wages but pointing out that if the employers use the lack of available labor as an excuse for breaking the law (and employing illegals) then they have only themselves to blame.
Employers don't use the a "lack of available labor" as an excuse. They instead say that there is a "lack of profitably cheap labor." I'm sure you understand the difference. My beef is primarily with populist pro-American worker types, who seem to think it is the responsibility of fellow Americans to subsidize their labor inefficiency. Theirs is the gimme-gimme attitude to which I refer.
My position in illegal immigration debates has always been that we face a "black market" in unskilled labor. The price of unskilled labor has been pushed up because of the government restriction on foreign labor supply, so an underground market has arisen to fill the supply/demand gap.
In the absence of this illegal market, higher input prices (here in the form of unskilled wages) get passed on, at least in part, to the prices consumers pay. Border fences and harsh sanctions against employers only serve to exacerbate the problem by defending inflated consumer prices. Essentially a majority of Americans subsidize an inefficient minority of American workers. And for what reason? Patriotism? Cultural identity? IMO, and speaking in a very general sense, if you are born in America and can't obtain enough labor market skills to compete against an illegal Mexican immigrant, then why should the rest of us give you a hand out for the rest of your life? There are plenty of hardworking American families that could make those extra dollars go a lot further.
Now, I'm not against border fences and tough penalities per se. They can be helpful, but only if their primary purpose is to support a greatly expanded legal immigration program. This would satisfy the desire (both by employers, and more importantly, American consumers) for cheap labor. It would also decrease the amount of illegal immigration by offering a safer, cheaper legal channel to potential immigrants. Without an effort to increase labor supply, all fences and penalties do is make Americans pay even more for maintenance and litigation. We end up taxing ourselves to ensure that we continue to pay higher prices.
Now, I haven't gotten into how the ideal solution would work. Frankly, I don't know enough about all the small details to construct such a solution. Certainly there will always be some illegal immigration, but simply reinforcing the government restriction ignores the fundamental economic problem and makes it worse. Long term efforts at improving the situation must be aimed at removing the black market by expanding the legal labor market to include more foreigners.
We have a similar problem here in SA. Unions are very strong here and have managed to push up the wages. The result is that wages here are much higher (for the same work) than in neighboring countries. One side effect of this is it causes unemployment.
So people are migrating (illegally) to SA for work where they work for far less than a typical South African would. The local people feel cheated and blame the foreigners for all their problems (xenophobia). Recently there have been riots and killings over it.
It's a difficult political problem. I agree with you that xenophobia is a major contributor to the dilemma.
Originally posted by teleriontelerion: Essentially a majority of Americans subsidize an inefficient minority of American workers. And for what reason? Patriotism? Cultural identity? IMO, and speaking in a very general sense, if you are born in America and can't obtain enough labor market skills to compete against an illegal Mexican immigrant, then why should the rest of us give you a hand out for the rest of your life?
[b]But there is no such thing as 'the value of their work'.
Yes there is. By "the value of their work" I mean the marginal contribution to the total profits of the firm from a worker's labor input (i.e. "marginal value of product of labor" ). This is a basic economic concept, not a phrase I'm pulling out of my behind.
[/b] Labour is all about s I agree with you that xenophobia is a major contributor to the dilemma.[/b]
I suppose you have similar objections to a healthy majority subsidizing a sick minority by providing public funding of health care. Should the members of a society be totally disinterested in the misfortune of other members of the same society? Should economic efficiency trump all other values in your view?
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterdon't you ever get tired of criticising immigrants, or more precisely, Latinos?
Politicians, immigration attornies, the Department of Labor, business owners and all illegal aliens all benefit from illegal immigration. So what do We the People get out of it besides cheap lettuce?
http://projectusa.org/2008/05/18/biggest-immig-raid-ever-much-worse-than-you-think/
😞
I suppose you have similar objections to a healthy majority subsidizing a sick minority by providing public funding of health care. Should the members of a society be totally disinterested in the misfortune of other members of the same society? Should economic efficiency trump all other values in your view?
No, I don't think it should, however I do think economic efficiency is sufficient in the case of immigration because the arguments against it are weak.
As for universal healthcare, I am ambivalent toward it. While I am not convinced that it is better than private coverage, I can think of reasons why it may be. Universal health care may actually be economically more efficient as a solution to adverse selection in the health market. Even if it were not more efficient, a case could be made that it would improve the welfare of a large fraction of Americans.
I don't see a similarly strong argument against increasing the flow of unskilled foreign labor. In trade, you can have win-win situations, and freer labor mobility comes close to one. The argument behind why Mexicans win is trivial. As for Americans, though a very small fraction of American workers would be made worse off (at least in the short run), the vast majority would benefit from an increase in their real wage through lower prices. That means hundreds of thousands of poor American families could put more food on their tables.
Besides how many people honestly have to compete with an illegal immigrant for a job? How poor does your skill set have to be if some one who probably can't speak English is more qualified than you for your best job option? Frankly, I don't think it's that many. Most arguments against increased legal immigration amount to either xenophobia or a misunderstanding about the effects on wages.
Originally posted by telerionThere is no direct relationship between wage costs and prices, so there is no assurance that lower wage costs will translate to "more food on the table" for poor American families. It may just mean increased profits for wealthy owners. Being out of a job directly translates to less food on that family's table, however. And downward pressure on wages caused by increasing the supply of labor by illegal immigration might translate to less food on the table even for those who retain their jobs, but have to accept a smaller wage or smaller increases in wages.
No, I don't think it always should, however I do in the case of illegal immigration.
I am ambivalent about universal health care. While I am not convinced that it is better than private coverage, I can think of reasons why it may be. Not only do I care at least to a modest degree about the welfare of the poor, but universal health care may actually be l immigration amount to either xenophobia or a misunderstanding about the effects on wages.
There are a fair amount of jobs in the country where proficiency in English isn't a requirement. A willingness to accept lower than the US market's wages goes a long way towards enhancing your "qualifications" in the minds of the employer.
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is a direct relationship between wage costs and prices: reduced wage costs have a negative effect on prices because they permit a firm to undercut a less efficient firms price. Now there are obviously other factors involved in setting a market price. In many cases, the reduced cost of labor savings may not be fully passed on. This may be due to the market structure (the more market power a firm possesses, the less it needs to undercut competitors and therefore the less incentive it has to pass on savings to consumers). It may also be due to an increase in the costs of other factors. Thus if you look at time series data on prices and wages in different markets you will find a scatter of points, but if you were to control for other effects you should find that in competitive markets average labor costs and price have a negative statistical relationship.
There is no direct relationship between wage costs and prices, so there is no assurance that lower wage costs will translate to "more food on the table" for poor American families. It may just mean increased profits for wealthy owners. Being out of a job directly translates to less food on that family's table, however.
There are a fair a ...[text shortened]... ges goes a long way towards enhancing your "qualifications" in the minds of the employer.
As for being out of a job, of course that hurts some one, but it's not as though the number of jobs available is fixed. As production increases, markets expand and vacancies increase.
In my opinion, the majority of Americans that benefit from increased labor immigration vastly outnumbers the number that are hurt by it. From that position, it seems to me that while we should have concern for every one of our poor and sick, the benefits to the masses are too great in this case to support strict protectionism.