Residential Real Estate Broker · Payson, AZ · Member since 2009 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
So as many know the SB1070 was to go into place at 12:01am tonight but the judge just ruled blocking the KEY components of the law.
Law enforcement are not required to make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status.
illegal immigrants DON'T have to APPLY or CARRY legal document/ I.D because its not a crime!!! I'm required by LAW to carry my identification and I'm a LEGAL citizen.
Its also ok now for the crowd of illegal immigrants to stand out in front of Home Depot and solicit for work. If I were to seek employment, I must provide identification.
Here's whats funny, the judge is allowing some of the silly stuff like making it a dumb@ss misdemeanor for harboring/transporting illegals. This means that I can become a coyote and charge $1500 a head for transporting them and if I get caught, get a slap on the wrist :roll:
Seriously, whats going to be left of our great nation if illegal immigration isn't dealt with and enforced.
One thing I know for certain is most contractors beat their wives. Not you Bill, but everytime I have ever listed a job on craigslist and looked up prospects, that ole domestic abuse charge always pops up.
This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard on this forum, and I've heard some severe loads of crap here. You need to think before you open your mouth next time given the number of contractors turned investors on this forum.
//Begin Upshot
Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.
//End Upshot
Here is Wiki's tidbit on The Center for Immigration Studies that put out the article:
Bryan, the primary fallacy in many people's idea about jobs is the notion that a new entrant into the labor pool takes away a job from an existing person in the labor pool. This is a very common misperception of the way the economy functions and if you think about it for a moment, you will realize that this concept is wrong.
For example, countries with larger populations do not have fewer jobs than countries with smaller populations. Why is that the case? Because every employee is also an employer indirectly. People use their wages to buy stuff, go on vacations, pay for health care, etc. and thus create other jobs. In effect, more people equates to a larger economy and therefore more jobs.
To be honest, most people who have studied economics know this and I am just surprised that the media does not do more to educate the public about this fairly common notion of new entrants to the economy "taking away" jobs from others. Surely the allocation of jobs will change with some people losing jobs and others gaining, but the total net effect is not a loss of jobs.
Bryan, your idea of "fair and balanced" is bizarre. The very first sentence in the wikipedia link that you gave refers to the CIS as an organization that advocates immigration reduction.
Honestly I have no problem with adding more people to our country as long as they play by the rules, are admitted legally, and are screened well to make sure they aren't really trying to blow us up.
However, your central thesis about immigration policy revolves around strictly economic principles. I do not agree that this is the only thing to consider when setting policy. The current policy clearly has negative national security issues.
Your comments above about, "Use up government benefits at taxpayer expense without contributing their fair share of taxes" seem to be inaccurate from the link that I posted as well. When people are undocumented and operate below board it has REAL costs to Americans. It also runs counter to the rule of law in our country, which is something I value dearly.
Honestly I think it is decidedly conservative to enforce laws that are on the books. It is always funny to me how people bend their beliefs when it makes sense to do so financially. You either believe in the rule of law or you don't. You either believe in national security or you don't. You can't selectively believe in things when it benefits you the most. This is similar to the argument that you can't chastise those that believe in border control and hire and/or house illegals.
Bryan, your idea of "fair and balanced" is bizarre. The very first sentence in the wikipedia link that you gave refers to the CIS as an organization that advocates immigration reduction.
Read the article in full and tell me whether or not you think it is one-sided. Let's chat more then :D
Bryan, everybody violates some law or the other regularly. For example, many people regularly exceed the speed limit. It is not because these people do not believe in the rule of law but because they believe that the particular law with respect to speed limits is not one to be taken seriously. This is partly because they do not feel that the law has a normative value. My view on immigration laws (and also speed limits) is quite similar to that.
I also think our disagreement on this subject has something to do with our views of governments. I regard governments with deep suspicion and mistrust - an attitude that was fairly prevalent when the founding fathers were doing their stuff. Today, we have a media-hyped respect for everything the government does, including laws enacted by the government that make little or no sense. I am not a party to that bandwagon.
You either believe in the rule of law or you don't. You either believe in national security or you don't.
"Rule of law" and "national security" aren't things that you just believe in or don't believe in.
For example, did those who "believed in" the rule of law 150 years ago have to agree that slavery was acceptable? And those who believed in the rule of law 100 years ago -- did they have to believe that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?
You can support the legal system while at the same time disagree with some the laws that are on the books.
As for national security, what if the government said that -- in order to protect the nation -- they were suddenly going to take away your right to free speech? If you had a problem with that, does it mean you "don't believe in" national security?
Again, you can support a system, but it doesn't mean you have to agree with every aspect of the system, and it certainly doesn't mean you can't dissent when you believe the system is being oppressive.
In fact, I'm under the impression that's why this country was founded in the first place...
JScott straighted me out on the dissent issue...thanks for that! I for one believe that the current laws should be enforced stringently because I think that this ties in fundamentally with our national security.
I also think that those that "dissent" do so because they are net beneficiaries of inexpensive, unskilled labor. To me this has more to do with look-the-other-way supporters' opinions than any other argument put forth.
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
I also think our disagreement on this subject has something to do with our views of governments. I regard governments with deep suspicion and mistrust - an attitude that was fairly prevalent when the founding fathers were doing their stuff. Today, we have a media-hyped respect for everything the government does, including laws enacted by the government that make little or no sense. I am not a party to that bandwagon.
I am distrustful of government, albeit less-so than you appear to be. I WANT my government to protect me from porous borders and bad people. I also think that the rules on the books restricting immigration are set knowing that we have plenty of unlawful immigration as substitute labor. If you want to dissent, petition the government for policy change, etc. I am all for it. However, I suspect that you will find (as is evidenced in the articles I cited) that the MAJORITY of Americans are FOR enforcing the immigration laws. This is hardly refusing to sit at the back of the bus!
I see that you haven't taken issue with the statistics cited in the article yet. Is this tactic agreement that illegals do consume more than they contribute in taxes or am I jumping the gun here?
I did not understand your point about the majority of Americans wanting something. What was the implication of that? That it is a good idea because the majority of people support it? Or that I should not have a different view on it? or something else? I honestly did not understand that point so please clarify.
Regarding the article, I did not find it enlightening in the least. I think the article's main thesis can be summarized in the following syllogism: (a) Poor people use more government resources than their tax contribution, (b) Illegal aliens are on average poor, (c) Therefore kick them out.
Now, you have in the past posted stuff on finance, present values, etc. So you must know that you cannot take a snapshot of a series of cash flows to determine its value. The article did not really analyze the long-term effects of immigration. For example, most people's earnings grow over time. Illegal aliens, being more enterprising than average (since it takes some enterprise to uproot yourself and cross the border in violation of laws), can be expected to have an even higher growth rate in earnings than average. And their kids, while becoming citizens and being entitled to benefits, will also be better-educated than their parents and have higher earnings and therefore pay more taxes. In addition, every consumer creates greater demand for goods and services and therefore generates income to society independent of their tax contribution. In other words, your contribution towards government taxes is not the same as your contribution to the economy. I found the article to be quite simplistic and lacking depth.
I must also add that the real problem is that the government provides too many services to citizens - public schools, social security, medicare, etc. Get rid of those things and increase immigration and you will have a sustainable and faster-growing economy.
BTW, I am not suggesting that we should not have a policy favoring the immigration of educated people who can contribute to our tax base from day 1. I am all for that as well. But we cannot have an economy with only people with Ph.D.s. It takes all kinds of people to create an economy and the illegals are doing their part.
Ah...I thought so :mrgreen: Well the world certainly would be boring if we all had similar belief systems and opinions.
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
I did not understand your point about the majority of Americans wanting something. What was the implication of that? That it is a good idea because the majority of people support it? Or that I should not have a different view on it? or something else? I honestly did not understand that point so please clarify.
From your perspective I could see there being no point. My guess is that most Americans agree with the policy of strong borders and enforcing laws because they agree with the rule of law and that there are national security undertones. My suspicion is that many do not like competing with low-cost labor either. Given that most people sell their labor to sustain their lifestyle I can certainly understand this.
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
Regarding the article, I did not find it enlightening in the least. I think the article's main thesis can be summarized in the following syllogism: (a) Poor people use more government resources than their tax contribution, (b) Illegal aliens are on average poor, (c) Therefore kick them out.
Your assessment and use of the term syllogism seem overly harsh to me. I thought the article did a decent job of demonstrating dissenting data and how the NET effect of everything is a burden on the taxpayer. More on this below...
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
Now, you have in the past posted stuff on finance, present values, etc. So you must know that you cannot take a snapshot of a series of cash flows to determine its value. The article did not really analyze the long-term effects of immigration. For example, most people's earnings grow over time. Illegal aliens, being more enterprising than average (since it takes some enterprise to uproot yourself and cross the border in violation of laws), can be expected to have an even higher growth rate in earnings than average. And their kids, while becoming citizens and being entitled to benefits, will also be better-educated than their parents and have higher earnings and therefore pay more taxes. In addition, every consumer creates greater demand for goods and services and therefore generates income to society independent of their tax contribution. In other words, your contribution towards government taxes is not the same as your contribution to the economy. I found the article to be quite simplistic and lacking depth.
Admittedly the article did not address the long-term effects of our immigration policy. While there certainly are many enterprising immigrants and a disproportionate number of entrepreneurs in this grouping I would also argue that there are a lot of free-loaders that consume far more than they contribute. A full-scale econometric model of the dynamics over time would be subject to massive abuse based on the variables used and would cost a ton. Any entity that performed such a study would necessarily have a motive for doing so and the data would always be suspect as a result.
Fundamentally, I don't really care about the economic implications of our policy. The national security implications trump the economic ones ten fold. It is simply poor policy to allow random people to migrate to and from our country. We may never agree on this point, but it is certainly fun to risk carpal tunnel over it :D
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
I must also add that the real problem is that the government provides too many services to citizens - public schools, social security, medicare, etc. Get rid of those things and increase immigration and you will have a sustainable and faster-growing economy.
You definitely have no argument from me here. However, I am sure you would agree that given the reality of these programs our immigration policy is, at least in the short run, a net drag on the taxpayer. I would argue that it is still a drag long-term, but I have no data to support this argument for the reasons cited above.
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
BTW, I am not suggesting that we should not have a policy favoring the immigration of educated people who can contribute to our tax base from day 1. I am all for that as well. But we cannot have an economy with only people with Ph.D.s. It takes all kinds of people to create an economy and the illegals are doing their part.
Yeah...and legals would do their part equally well for higher wages. Fundamentally, I think part of our disagreement is about the simplicity of the "comparative advantage" economics model that wants everyone competing with everyone else. In the "long run" this grandiose model makes sense, but it certainly has short-run painful consequences for people that derive the bulk of their income from selling labor. It necessarily favors the capital suppliers disproportionately as well. Given our 22% U6 unemployment number I personally think the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of capital at the present time.
But I (we?) digress...National security and rule of proper law over economic arguments. That is my main thesis.
No problem. The link in your post made an economic argument and I therefore responded with one.
I am not a big fan of the rule of law idea if it applies to following every law in all instances. I actually regard that as "the rule of government." You know the distaste that I have for the dictatoriship of the proletariat (aka "middle class"). So the idea that everyone fall behind every order from our legislatures sounds pretty horrible to me as a concept. I am glad our country is not there yet.
I do want security. But I think there are trade-offs in every decision. For example, we could spend a lot more money on each car and make them safer. But we don't because the market has decided the degree of safety that people want by pricing things such as airbags, ABS, traction control, etc. and let people decide what they want to pay for.
When it comes to government action, we do not have a similar discipline of the market. I would therefore much rather see our government working in coordination with Canada and Mexico to ensure a common inspection policy at ports and airports than in building a wall over thousands of miles and shooting anyone that comes near. I think my approach will lead to equal security at a lower cost and will also be more civilized. It will also be compatible with our various pronouncements against other countries that had built walls in the past.
I do want security. But I think there are trade-offs in every decision. For example, we could spend a lot more money on each car and make them safer. But we don't because the market has decided the degree of safety that people want by pricing things such as airbags, ABS, traction control, etc. and let people decide what they want to pay for.
I wholeheartedly agree that there are tradeoffs involved. I had a professor in my engineering program tell me that engineering is the study of tradeoffs. I have since developed an appreciation for life being a study of tradeoffs.
Your contention seems to be that building a wall and enforcing immigration laws is bad because it chokes off the supply of cheap labor and mini consumers (that grow up later on) to buy product. My contention is that we can do a perfectly effective job of legally growing the population in a manner that protects us while securing our borders.
Your contention is also that the long-run benefits of immigration outweigh the documented short-run costs of having porous borders. I argue that this is not only a net negative in the short run, it is also a net negative in the long run given that we can devise a system to do it legally.
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
When it comes to government action, we do not have a similar discipline of the market. I would therefore much rather see our government working in coordination with Canada and Mexico to ensure a common inspection policy at ports and airports than in building a wall over thousands of miles and shooting anyone that comes near. I think my approach will lead to equal security at a lower cost and will also be more civilized. It will also be compatible with our various pronouncements against other countries that had built walls in the past.
I agree that it would be more civilized.
I vehemently disagree that it will be effective. This has been our de facto policy for several decades now and we have tens of millions of criminals here illegally who impose real headwinds to our tax rolls and limit the amount of legal immigrants we can admit via reasoned policy that is in our best interest.
A reasoned discourse of the proper policy and legal admittance of those that will benefit us the most is the sensible thing to do. To keep the cheaters out there is no good solution other than to construct barriers that significantly raise the barrier to entry and simultaneously keep us safe.
Yes Bryan, like my mine field idea! LOL
I think the only national security issue is really an economic one, the last time those from the south invaded was awhile back, not forgetting the Alamo!
The AZ law, IMO, was ill concieved. Enforcing current laws is a starting point. Cracking down on the employer is a better solution reducing the economic benefits. Limiting social benefits only to leagal citizens only makes sense.
We have sufficient laws for dealing with criminal elements, regardless if they are speeding or kidnapping for ransom or dealing drugs. I'd say fight fire with fire with the criminal element and increase resources. How big is Guantanamo anyway? Only country in the world that I know of that does not have a limiation on the number of people that can become a citizen is the US.....anyone? I always thought if everyone else in the world were doing something and I was the only one not doing it, that I was the odd one out, that maybe I should rethink my position.
[[[.....the only national security issue is really an economic one......]]]]
Not 100%.
I, personally, arrested 6 East Indian terrorists who came across the US Mexican border with the intention of assassinating an Indian politician who was in Los Angeles giving a speech. (Don't remember which one; it was one of the Ghandis).
The terrorists got caught, by the way, because they were all carrying Russian cigarettes, which triggered some careful questioning. Other than the cigarettes, there is nothing unusual about East Indian nationals coming across the Mexican border. Undocumented aliens from every country in the world come across the Mexican and Canadian borders, but mostly cross through Mexico.
Since it is getting more difficult to fly directly into the USA for your average openly practicing terrorist, it only makes sense for them to enter into Mexico (quite easily) and them walk across the US/ Mexican border.
It's a little harder for undocumented persons to get into Canada, so undocumented aliens prefer to come in from the south. But plenty of aliens also cross from the north. Once in Canada, the US border is barely protected in the north.
If you consider the enormous volume of drugs smuggled across the border to be purely an economic issue, and the theft to be purely an economic issue, then you are mostly correct that border security is mostly an economic issue. The economic issue is that a large percentage of American voters are getting tired of paying for it.
Up to this point, I've been following this post on my phone so as not to be tempted to post a long winded reply.
First off, I'm not an expert on immigration, economics, or law.
I feel that immigration should be done legally, but that the process is complicated. A Russian friend of mine had to study and take a test that I'm not sure many Americans could pass. Add in the language barrier, and I can't imagine how hard it must be.
I have to vehemently disagree with any argument that illegal immigrants take jobs away from Americans. Most of the work they perform is done at wages far less that any American would ask for. Americans are free to work the same jobs, at the same wages, and choose not to. Our constantly raising minimum wage laws have continued the entitlement mentality that we have as a country.
I also disagree with Vikram that they contribute more to society than they take. Our schools, medical services, housing services, and even our police services that a disproportionate number of illegals tend to have run-ins with all cost money. That money rarely comes from income taxes on those same groups. Vikram, I think your argument that they buy products, and thus create other jobs, doesn't quite cover those costs. Again, I don't know the long-term economic benefits.
I don't pretend to know the answers, but I think the issue needs to be resolved economically rather than by new regulation. I agree that current regulation should be enforced. Past that, the use of a nation-wide consumption tax, and abolishment of income tax, would allow all members of society to contribute fairly to the tax rolls. The removal of other high-expense, non-essential programs, could further benefit our economy. (War on Drugs anyone? But that's a whole different rant.)
I don't think there's any reason to limit the number of people that come here legally, regardless of what the rest of the world does.
I probably rambled a bit, so I'll sum it up.
Enforce current laws
No new laws
Don't limit legal immigration
Revamp the way our taxes work so everyone pays
It is worth the time to read the whole thing, but here is the upshot for those that are too lazy to do so:
//Begin Upshot
Increased immigration, particularly in the short run, can carry adjustment costs, both in terms of the labor market outcomes of U.S.-born workers as well as the net fiscal contribution of immigrants. Over the long run, whether the benefits of immigration exceed the costs depends on how quickly the children of immigrants can be assimilated into the native population. Further study of Mexican-born immigrants may prove useful to inform the debate over immigration, as their importance in terms of sheer numbers, skills and share of the undocumented immigrant population continues to increase
//End Upshot
In other words the jury is still out. I could see things going either way and I still think that the data can be represented to support either argument due to the complexity.
None of this trumps the national defense argument IMO, but I think it is fun to explore things strictly from an economic standpoint as well. Here is another tidbit just for Vikram:
//Quoting Article
Therefore, the net present value of the fiscal contribution of immigrants depends crucially on the economic success of their children and how quickly their skills and earnings catch up to those of U.S. natives. Recent evidence suggests that immigrants are assimilated (in terms of earnings and educational attainment relative to U.S. natives) at a reasonably rapid pace. A controversy among the two authors remains about the success and speed of assimilation of Mexican-born immigrants, who on entry to the United States possess by far the lowest levels of educational attainment relative to other immigrants.
//End Quoting Article
1. The idea that people who work harder and for lower wages than others are bad for the economy is simply too ridiculous to rebut.
2. The article link by Brian overall supports my argument rather than negates it. The only cconomist cited in there who found a negaitve impact of immigration is a well-known anti-immigration guy who's results are suspect. The more neutral team that did a study with a more thorough methodology found a net positive for the economy. Frankly, while this is interesting to study, common sense will tell us the very same thing. Hard working people who are willing to work for a low wage are a net positive for the economy. How can someone disagree with that?
3. P NW's post was interesting. First, she calls normal criminals terrorists. The word "terrorist" seems to be expanding and will soon include everybody that we do not like. Her story, if true, is merely that of some would-be murderers trying to enter the U.S. If you take millions of people of any group, you are going to find some crooks. This is true of citizens within the country. Why should immigrants be any different? In any event, it is not even clear from her anecdote whether the people were trying to cross a border checkpoint or walk across the Sonoran desert.
4. I advocate something similar to Marc but I am perhaps less pro-immigration than him. I support the idea of removing numerical restrictions on unskilled workers from Mexico. I also support the removal of numerical restrictions on highly skilled people form other countries. But I do not support the idea if removing numerical restrictions on unskilled people from countries other than Mexico. The reasons for the double-standards are (a) the Mexicans are going to come here anyway so we may as well control it, (b) there are not enough people in Mexico who want to come here to substantially change the U.S. in the short run whereas there are billions of peoeple in other countries who can hop on a plane and cause a real mess here, (c) skilled people, on the other hand, have a much bigger positive effect on the U.S. economy and U.S. competitiveness and therefore should be encouraged to come without numerical restrictions - there aren't enough highly skilled people in the world to inundated our country.
5. Once we remove the numerical restrictions on Mexicans coming in, I am all for strict enforcement of the immigration laws. This is because a substantial proportion of those coming in illegally would then be criminals whereas now the criminals are needles in the haystacks.
P NW, I don't really consider a hit man entering the country for a hit and leaving as an immigration problem, it's a criminal activity having little to do with immigrants coming in, staying, working and consuming more resources than they contribute to. I think I mentioned the criminal element, but also agree with you points. Good for you on the collar!
1. The idea that people who work harder and for lower wages than others are bad for the economy is simply too ridiculous to rebut.
I think your perspective on this matter has to do with the fact that you are a net consumer of labor. Those that are net suppliers of labor likely would disagree with you.
In the "long run" this argument holds water. As is mentioned in the article there are transitionary periods where there are real costs and pain associated with immigration policy that favors capital over labor.
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
2. The article link by Brian overall supports my argument rather than negates it. The only cconomist cited in there who found a negaitve impact of immigration is a well-known anti-immigration guy who's results are suspect. The more neutral team that did a study with a more thorough methodology found a net positive for the economy. Frankly, while this is interesting to study, common sense will tell us the very same thing. Hard working people who are willing to work for a low wage are a net positive for the economy. How can someone disagree with that?
Someone can disagree with it because they are relying on selling their labor to make a living in the short run. Not everyone has the luxury of a large supply of capital to throw at different business models to exploit these efficiencies that you hold so dear. Some people are hard working folks that don't have a large buffer to shield them from substitute labor. In the long run we're all dead, but in the not-too-short-run some folks are out on the street when they are replaced.
It is a particularly good time to be exploring this right now when there is 22%+ U6 unemployment. The government is incurring REAL costs associated with continuously extending unemployment benefits. These costs are arguably a direct result of "efficient" labor markets and so-called comparative advantage by foreign labor supplies at the expense of home-grown products. While this may be a good thing in the long run it certainly has real costs today and real consequences for today's workers.
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
3. P NW's post was interesting. First, she calls normal criminals terrorists. The word "terrorist" seems to be expanding and will soon include everybody that we do not like. Her story, if true, is merely that of some would-be murderers trying to enter the U.S. If you take millions of people of any group, you are going to find some crooks. This is true of citizens within the country. Why should immigrants be any different? In any event, it is not even clear from her anecdote whether the people were trying to cross a border checkpoint or walk across the Sonoran desert.
I don't remember all of the verbiage in the post, but I agree that calling a whole group of individuals terrorists to augment your argument is hyperbolic.
By the same token I think that claiming something is "too ridiculous to rebut" is tending toward the hyperbolic end of the spectrum too.
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
4. I advocate something similar to Marc but I am perhaps less pro-immigration than him. I support the idea of removing numerical restrictions on unskilled workers from Mexico. I also support the removal of numerical restrictions on highly skilled people form other countries. But I do not support the idea if removing numerical restrictions on unskilled people from countries other than Mexico. The reasons for the double-standards are (a) the Mexicans are going to come here anyway so we may as well control it, (b) there are not enough people in Mexico who want to come here to substantially change the U.S. in the short run whereas there are billions of peoeple in other countries who can hop on a plane and cause a real mess here, (c) skilled people, on the other hand, have a much bigger positive effect on the U.S. economy and U.S. competitiveness and therefore should be encouraged to come without numerical restrictions - there aren't enough highly skilled people in the world to inundated our country.
Point A is only valid if we don't have a wall with guns on it. Taking it as a given is silly IMO. The short-run costs of building barriers to keep bad people out is lower than the costs of supporting the current policy.
Point B is stereotyping IMO.
Point C is something I know very little about, but suspect is inaccurate. There are tons of really smart people in the world that would like to live here and can't.
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
5. Once we remove the numerical restrictions on Mexicans coming in, I am all for strict enforcement of the immigration laws. This is because a substantial proportion of those coming in illegally would then be criminals whereas now the criminals are needles in the haystacks.
Removing restrictions altogether is bad policy IMO. Everything should be done in moderation and according to what is in our best interests as a nation. Completely lowering the standard of living of net suppliers of labor overnight with no regard for the real and moral consequences of said action is a recipe for disaster.
1. The idea that people who work harder and for lower wages than others are bad for the economy is simply too ridiculous to rebut.
I think your perspective on this matter has to do with the fact that you are a net consumer of labor. Those that are net suppliers of labor likely would disagree with you.
Bryan, this is not a matter of perspective. It is a provable proposition and my point can actually be mathematical proven to be correct. But I think this thread has already contained a pretty detailed exposition of our differing views so perhaps we can do the rest by PM?
I like the fact that we have actually had a political thread on a controversial topic with widely differing viewpoints without people becoming abusive to one another. I wish our politics could be equally civilized even when people disagree with each other.
Removing restrictions altogether is bad policy IMO. Everything should be done in moderation and according to what is in our best interests as a nation. Completely lowering the standard of living of net suppliers of labor overnight with no regard for the real and moral consequences of said action is a recipe for disaster.
The way I read this, you're saying that by removing the limits on people coming in, will create an increase of cheap labor that will be bad for everyone.
It's illegal immigrants that are cheap labor. Hiring legal, documented, tax paying immigrants would have to be done following the current minimum wage laws.
Bryan, this is not a matter of perspective. It is a provable proposition and my point can actually be mathematical proven to be correct. But I think this thread has already contained a pretty detailed exposition of our differing views so perhaps we can do the rest by PM?
I am all for continuing via PM, but others seem to be responding to points too so they may still benefit from seeing divergent viewpoints.
A mathematical proof is something I would love to see. I find this hard to believe given the complexity of the issue, but I have no doubt that you have something interesting to share and explore.
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
I like the fact that we have actually had a political thread on a controversial topic with widely differing viewpoints without people becoming abusive to one another. I wish our politics could be equally civilized even when people disagree with each other.
Agreed...I find that people generally start becoming abusive when they are losing a debate or don't understand what they are talking (typing?) about. This has happened several times in threads I have engaged in on BP. I even had a multi response email back and forth with a BP member after someone called me out on a thread on a topic he obviously knew nothing about.
I find it refreshing when someone can admit that they are wrong or have changed their mind. Perhaps you can convince me that I am misguided on this issue or I can do the same for you. At the very least I hope that we can each benefit from a different perspective.
The way I read this, you're saying that by removing the limits on people coming in, will create an increase of cheap labor that will be bad for everyone.
It's illegal immigrants that are cheap labor. Hiring legal, documented, tax paying immigrants would have to be done following the current minimum wage laws.
You lost me here Marc so I'll just respond to each point as best I can.
Removing the constraints will necessarily increase the supply of cheap labor in the short run. The question is whether or not this is a net benefit in the long run and that is what is up in the air based on the opposing views in the study above.
Hiring legal immigrants would certainly have to be done according to the minimum wage laws. I am sure Vikram and other large net consumers of labor would argue that this is a positive for the economy overall. Others would argue that establishing a floor on wages is good policy overall.
Whether or not a wage floor and/or import quotas is good for the economy in the long run, it certainly has short-run painful consequences for low-skilled laborers with a small safety net. I think it is bad policy to step function change things over night to a new policy. This would be very disruptive to the system economically.
I think that this radical change is worth it IF it simultaneously secures our borders and makes us safer. If the change is purely for economic reasons I think it should be phased in gradually over the course of several years so that workers would have time to adjust their skill sets to compete in other areas of the economy. I also feel that it is a terrible time to change right now with unemployment so high.
OK, Bryan. Here's the mathematical explanation for why hard-working and/or low cost people are good for the economy.
The economy is measured by the GDP, which is the total value of all goods and services produced in the country.
So let us take a company that has two employees. Each employee gets paid $50 per year in salary. The company uses their labor to sell products in the market. For the purpose of this example, let us say the company sells $100 worth of products each year. (It doesn't matter for this illustration that the company would not be earning profits.)
One day, the company hires a new employee who is willing to work twice as hard as the other two employees. This new employee also gets paid $50 in salary. (The lower the better, as you will see.)
The company then decides to fire the other two employees because this one new employee is as capable as the other two employees and does both their jobs for his one salary.
Here's the important point. The moment after the other two employees are fired, the economy is of the exact same size as before because the company is still able to produce the same $100 worth of products and contribute the same amount to the economy as before.
But things get better over time. The other two employees will be able to find something else to do. Even if they earn less than before, they will still be contributing to the economy. The key point is that even if these two people can contribute only $1 worth of output to the economy, that is one extra dollar in the economy. In reality, of course, people who are fired contribute more than a buck to the economy over time, so the size of the economy increases by whatever they are able to contribute in their new occupations.
But the benefit to the economy does not end there. It also includes the benefit from the fact that the company now has an extra $50 in profits that it did not have before. Some of this profit can be returned to shareholders, who can then spend it on the goods and services of other companies, thus increasing demand. Some other part of the profits will be used to reinvest to grow the business because the company is a more attractive investment because of its higher profits. And some of the profits can be used to grow the company's market through lower prices, etc. Each of these three things increases the size of the economy.
So, mathematically, you would say that lower labor costs will have a positive effect on the economy to the extent of the ability of the savings on labor to increase the size of the economy. Plus, ANY positive contribution to output by the replaced employees is an added increase to the size of the economy. How much of a positive effect these things have is hard to calculate. But the fact that the effect is positive is pretty clear.
Again...That is a great argument as seen strictly from the business owner's standpoint. You commented about the laid off employees, "Finding something else to do." The U6 unemployment numbers are 22% right now! I think it is pretty clear that the finding something else to do doesn't just magically happen over night. There are real hardships and consequences for greater than 1/5th of the working population right now so that business owners can have lower labor costs.
You also ignored the real costs to the economy when the two employees get unemployment because they can't find work. They also stop consuming with their own multiplier effect when they don't have enough money to consume. The also lose their house in some cases, which drags down the value of all of the other houses in the area. When the other housing prices go down it makes it harder for their neighbors to sell and move to where their labor is valued.
There are a whole assortment of net costs and benefits in the scenario you described that are overlooked. In the "long run" I agree that efficient labor markets are healthy. However, there are obviously transitionary periods where net suppliers of labor experience real pain with changed policies. That is why I am an advocate of changing the policy slowly over time. Construct a wall and immediately increase the quota on legal immigrants accordingly. Fine tune things as the economy waxes and wanes and sculpt policy rationally over time.