Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on March 08, 2006, 05:21:56 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4780844.stm
Now this should be interesting........
-
$8.2 trillion
I think I just filled the cup. :eek2:
-
well there goes the world economy. either way this goes, it'll have a domino effect.
-
looks like you all will need to give up your decidant lifestyles and live in the woods feasting on small rodents. yum!
-
8.2 trilion. Thats insane. Is there even a number that trilion
-
Yard sale at the Whitehouse!
-
well there goes the world economy. either way this goes, it'll have a domino effect.
The only reason the dollar hasn't crashed yet is because there just isn't a totally developed alternative. Meaning that when it finally does crash, it will crash even harder.
The domino effect will be hardest for those countries that are overly dependant on America for exports; namely Japan, South Korea, and China. At least China is starting to move towards a more balanced approach to currency management (the "basket" that is uses now), but Japan and South Korea are not.
-
Ha ha ha America.
China wins!
-
" Aircraft Carriers - $15 or best offer!
Liquidation Sale, everything must go!"
-
Thing is, it's not just a question of stopping the money flowing out of the coffers, it's actually a question of turning it around so that money is flowing into the coffers. That's a big job, and regardless of how high they set their own credit limit, America is going to have to make some cut-backs, and start looking at making their exports profitable.
Defence spending will have to drop for a start. That doesn't mean less defences, it means spending the money more wisely, and dealing with the large corporations that are constantly skimming money of the top of America's outflow with no regard whatsoever for the effect it has on the country. I wouldn't be surprised if, should America stamp on it's own corporate corruption it would go a hell of a long way towards stemming the flow, that will hit a lot of congressmen hard, but at the end of the day, theres a few thousand of them, and hundreds of millions of people paying the price for it. Better to have a nother Watergate than another West Germany.
-
I'm converting my savings to Euros......
What I think should be done is:
A.) Abbolish many Labor Unions, people don't deserve $15-$20 an hour to stick a piece of metal on a car. This would lower the price of American goods and hopefully increase Exports
B.)Raise Tarrifs on Chinese Imports and Lower Tarriffs on South American ones. It's alot Cheaper to get something from Mexico to the U.S. than from China to the U.S. This would stimulate Retailers to acquire goods from American factories, and South America could act as a temporary fall back if something should go wrong.
C.)Raise the requirements for Welfare Programs. Welfare is a major drain on the government, and alot of people are simply taking advantage of the programs.
D.)Increase assistance to small businesses. Allowing a small business to grow in the U.S. could increase exports and benefit everyone.
E.)Let the illegal Immigrants stay, they make good, cheap labor. ;7
F.)Having a form of money not backed by gold seems incredibly risky, although it may not be possible, backing the Dollar with something more stable than people's confidence in it seems like a much better idea.
G.)Require everyone to go through High School as people are required to go through Grade School. Educated people are always useful, well, almost always.
H.)Raise taxes on Credit Cards, they only cause problems. Buying stuff on Credit is one thing that caused the Great Depression it should be obvious it's risky and should be controlled. Of course it was buying on Margin that was the main factor that caused the Great Depression, but people using Credit knowing they couldn't pay was also a major factor.
I know some of the ideas would probably be near impossible, but they're ideas none the less. I'm sure there are things I've not thought of, anyone got some ideas?
-
It sounds like we should stop saving US dollars and start buying foreign currencies :D
-
Better to have a nother Watergate than another West Germany.
You wouldn't be saying that if you were French....
-
Uh....
These include tapping the civil service pension funds
They're 'fixing' the budget crisis by ****ing over the people who run all the police, fire and ambulance services? Yeah, that's smart....
-
The problem is not really with wages and welfare, they are a pittance compared to what is skimmed off of the massive grants that are handed out to large corporations, reducing welfare and wages will only really increase dissent and do very little to help the problem. Better to look at the corps themselves, look at diversification and providing/encouraging jobs to those on Welfare etc, get rid of the 'Rubber Stamp' idea of handing out benefits.
However, your biggest problem is, in my opinion, grants of, say half a billion dollars being handed to companies for jobs that cost about 150 million to do, as long as those finances are managed correctly.
-
E.)Let the illegal Immigrants stay, they make good, cheap labor. ;7
Bad idea. This drives the people who would be doing cheap labor out of work, because the immigrants do it cheaper. Law of supply and demand: if the supply of labor goes up and the demand for labor stays the same, the price of labor (i.e. wages) go down.
F.)Having a form of money not backed by gold seems incredibly risky, although it may not be possible, backing the Dollar with something more stable than people's confidence in it seems like a much better idea.
QFT.
-
The problem is not really with wages and welfare, they are a pittance compared to what is skimmed off of the massive grants that are handed out to large corporations, reducing welfare and wages will only really increase dissent and do very little to help the problem. Better to look at the corps themselves, look at diversification and providing/encouraging jobs to those on Welfare etc, get rid of the 'Rubber Stamp' idea of handing out benefits.
However, your biggest problem is, in my opinion, grants of, say half a billion dollars being handed to companies for jobs that cost about 150 million to do, as long as those finances are managed correctly.
Yeah, good point about the welfare thing.
One major problem is that most large corps are ingernational these days, thus they don't really need the U.S anymore. That's why I say make it easier on small businesses, they will benefit the economy the most in the future. I see the grants as the government afraid of the corps leaving, which is bad and has the whole system turned upside down. A good example of this is the Industrial Park, the businesses never stay, and the government always takes the loss. Paying a business to come to an area is an incredibly stupid idea.
-
Keeping illegal immigrants here is plain stupid, because it encourages businesses to behave as though they do not have to pay near as much as they should to thier honest American citizen workers. On the other hand, if the stupid, lazy Americans that live off of welfare would actually get up off thier asses and look for a job, we wouldn't need the illegal immigrants to fill low-paying jobs. There's plenty of American jobs to be had, which get filled up all too quick by the illegals, leaving no room for honest American citizens to get a job. Americans are lazy, and they'll do whatever it takes to get by, by doing as little as possible. And if the government is willing to pay for it, then they'll let it. Either change welfare so it has extremely difficult standards to fill, or get rid of it entirely.
-
I'm converting my savings to Euros......
What I think should be done is:
A.) Abbolish many Labor Unions, people don't deserve $15-$20 an hour to stick a piece of metal on a car. This would lower the price of American goods and hopefully increase Exports
So you expect a man to feed his family for less, without mentioning any associated change in the actual price of goods. Think about that.
B.)Raise Tarrifs on Chinese Imports and Lower Tarriffs on South American ones. It's alot Cheaper to get something from Mexico to the U.S. than from China to the U.S. This would stimulate Retailers to acquire goods from American factories, and South America could act as a temporary fall back if something should go wrong.
It's been proven time and again that protectionism is ultimately self defeating.
C.)Raise the requirements for Welfare Programs. Welfare is a major drain on the government, and alot of people are simply taking advantage of the programs.
Ah so now we blame the poor. Your financial prowess stuns me.
D.)Increase assistance to small businesses. Allowing a small business to grow in the U.S. could increase exports and benefit everyone.
This you are correct about.
E.)Let the illegal Immigrants stay, they make good, cheap labor. ;7
Until they stay long enough to become second or third generation families who inevitably start to enter the same high-paid professions and their native counterparts.
F.)Having a form of money not backed by gold seems incredibly risky, although it may not be possible, backing the Dollar with something more stable than people's confidence in it seems like a much better idea.
You abandoned the dollar/gold system for a reason. It wasn't worth **** compared to other nations' systems.
G.)Require everyone to go through High School as people are required to go through Grade School. Educated people are always useful, well, almost always.
You're not already? Alright suddenly things are starting to make sense...
H.)Raise taxes on Credit Cards, they only cause problems. Buying stuff on Credit is one thing that caused the Great Depression it should be obvious it's risky and should be controlled. Of course it was buying on Margin that was the main factor that caused the Great Depression, but people using Credit knowing they couldn't pay was also a major factor.
Yes but generally speaking today most people CAN pay off their debts in the long term; Or they have assets that can do it.
I know some of the ideas would probably be near impossible, but they're ideas none the less. I'm sure there are things I've not thought of, anyone got some ideas?
-
A.) Abbolish many Labor Unions, people don't deserve $15-$20 an hour to stick a piece of metal on a car. This would lower the price of American goods and hopefully increase Exports
Hold on, you feel that someone who works in a car factory should be making less money than me($15-20 an hour range). Let me explain my job, I sit at a desk and use a computer to fix errors that a computer makes with connecting patent families. Heck, I am at work right now. My job requires so much work that I have the time to sit here and reply on forums. :rolleyes: I'm sorry but the person working in the car factory is doing much more work than I am(i know as many of my family members work at Honda). Maybe I'm nuts, but I believe the more work you do, the more you should be paid.
-
First labor unions, then child labor laws! They do it in southeast asia, why not us? Plus we bring back slaves.
Was that over the top?
-
Wonder how much an F-15 would make on ebay ? One not so careful owner, no (federal) reserve!
-
F.)Having a form of money not backed by gold seems incredibly risky, although it may not be possible, backing the Dollar with something more stable than people's confidence in it seems like a much better idea.
You abandoned the dollar/gold system for a reason. It wasn't worth **** compared to other nations' systems.
Every monetary system has problems but having your currency backed by nothing is really stupid. When the dollar was tied to gold, you could always say that X number of dollars bought Y amount of gold - it had tangible value. Nowadays the dollar's worth is determined pretty much "because we say so". So when our bluff gets called, the economy will have a cascade failure.
-
Seems no one actually paid attention to why we came off the gold standard. If anything it gave it more stability.
-
Seems no one actually paid attention to why we came off the gold standard. If anything it gave it more stability.
We came off the gold standard because it was inconvenient - it made it harder for the government to spend money it didn't have.
-
I'm converting my savings to Euros......
What I think should be done is:
A.) Abbolish many Labor Unions, people don't deserve $15-$20 an hour to stick a piece of metal on a car. This would lower the price of American goods and hopefully increase Exports
So you expect a man to feed his family for less, without mentioning any associated change in the actual price of goods. Think about that.
B.)Raise Tarrifs on Chinese Imports and Lower Tarriffs on South American ones. It's alot Cheaper to get something from Mexico to the U.S. than from China to the U.S. This would stimulate Retailers to acquire goods from American factories, and South America could act as a temporary fall back if something should go wrong.
It's been proven time and again that protectionism is ultimately self defeating.
C.)Raise the requirements for Welfare Programs. Welfare is a major drain on the government, and alot of people are simply taking advantage of the programs.
Ah so now we blame the poor. Your financial prowess stuns me.
D.)Increase assistance to small businesses. Allowing a small business to grow in the U.S. could increase exports and benefit everyone.
This you are correct about.
E.)Let the illegal Immigrants stay, they make good, cheap labor. ;7
Until they stay long enough to become second or third generation families who inevitably start to enter the same high-paid professions and their native counterparts.
F.)Having a form of money not backed by gold seems incredibly risky, although it may not be possible, backing the Dollar with something more stable than people's confidence in it seems like a much better idea.
You abandoned the dollar/gold system for a reason. It wasn't worth **** compared to other nations' systems.
G.)Require everyone to go through High School as people are required to go through Grade School. Educated people are always useful, well, almost always.
You're not already? Alright suddenly things are starting to make sense...
H.)Raise taxes on Credit Cards, they only cause problems. Buying stuff on Credit is one thing that caused the Great Depression it should be obvious it's risky and should be controlled. Of course it was buying on Margin that was the main factor that caused the Great Depression, but people using Credit knowing they couldn't pay was also a major factor.
Yes but generally speaking today most people CAN pay off their debts in the long term; Or they have assets that can do it.
I know some of the ideas would probably be near impossible, but they're ideas none the less. I'm sure there are things I've not thought of, anyone got some ideas?
Why do you want to flame me? I just wrote down some stuff that came to mind. At least I'm thinking about it unlike most of the populace.
-
We came off the gold standard because it was inconvenient - it made it harder for the government to spend money it didn't have.
It was inconvenient for two reasons. 1. US businessmen used their influence to control the gold supply, and then control the value of the dollar and the policy of the US government. 2. After WW2 the Dollar became the basis for the world economy with the Bretton Woods Agreement.
'Under the post-World War II Bretton Woods Agreement, all other currencies were valued in terms of United States dollars, and were thus indirectly linked to the gold standard. The need for the US government to maintain both a $35 per ounce market price of gold and also the conversion to foreign currencies caused economic and trade pressures. By the early 1960s, compensation for these pressures started to become too complicated to manage.'
In other words, gold was becoming more of a problem than it was worth.
-
So, big economic crash, hmm?
Nah. Just a repeat of 1929. The many end up with nothing, the few end up with everything. Same thing every day.
-
I'm converting my savings to Euros......
What I think should be done is:
A.) Abbolish many Labor Unions, people don't deserve $15-$20 an hour to stick a piece of metal on a car. This would lower the price of American goods and hopefully increase Exports
So you expect a man to feed his family for less, without mentioning any associated change in the actual price of goods. Think about that.
B.)Raise Tarrifs on Chinese Imports and Lower Tarriffs on South American ones. It's alot Cheaper to get something from Mexico to the U.S. than from China to the U.S. This would stimulate Retailers to acquire goods from American factories, and South America could act as a temporary fall back if something should go wrong.
It's been proven time and again that protectionism is ultimately self defeating.
C.)Raise the requirements for Welfare Programs. Welfare is a major drain on the government, and alot of people are simply taking advantage of the programs.
Ah so now we blame the poor. Your financial prowess stuns me.
D.)Increase assistance to small businesses. Allowing a small business to grow in the U.S. could increase exports and benefit everyone.
This you are correct about.
E.)Let the illegal Immigrants stay, they make good, cheap labor. ;7
Until they stay long enough to become second or third generation families who inevitably start to enter the same high-paid professions and their native counterparts.
F.)Having a form of money not backed by gold seems incredibly risky, although it may not be possible, backing the Dollar with something more stable than people's confidence in it seems like a much better idea.
You abandoned the dollar/gold system for a reason. It wasn't worth **** compared to other nations' systems.
G.)Require everyone to go through High School as people are required to go through Grade School. Educated people are always useful, well, almost always.
You're not already? Alright suddenly things are starting to make sense...
H.)Raise taxes on Credit Cards, they only cause problems. Buying stuff on Credit is one thing that caused the Great Depression it should be obvious it's risky and should be controlled. Of course it was buying on Margin that was the main factor that caused the Great Depression, but people using Credit knowing they couldn't pay was also a major factor.
Yes but generally speaking today most people CAN pay off their debts in the long term; Or they have assets that can do it.
I know some of the ideas would probably be near impossible, but they're ideas none the less. I'm sure there are things I've not thought of, anyone got some ideas?
Why do you want to flame me? I just wrote down some stuff that came to mind. At least I'm thinking about it unlike most of the populace.
I can think about things and be dumb at the same time. It's not that amazing as a skill :p
-
I'm just going to quit before I make myself look even more idiotic. :blah:
-
I'm just going to quit before I make myself look even more idiotic. :blah:
You know, you're just opening yourself up to all kinds of comments with that.
Lucky for you I'm in a peaceful mood :D
-
I'm just going to quit before I make myself look even more idiotic. :blah:
Pffft, that's how you get noticed.
-
well there goes the world economy. either way this goes, it'll have a domino effect.
The only reason the dollar hasn't crashed yet is because there just isn't a totally developed alternative. Meaning that when it finally does crash, it will crash even harder.
The domino effect will be hardest for those countries that are overly dependant on America for exports; namely Japan, South Korea, and China. At least China is starting to move towards a more balanced approach to currency management (the "basket" that is uses now), but Japan and South Korea are not.
that's true, and australia wouldn't be so hardest effected, as a lot of our import/export market comes from the asia-pacific region, rather than the americas, it would still hurt us, though, but not to the extent some countries will get, fortunately america's not the economic backbone it was way back when, still, if it falters, a lot of countries are gonna feel it one way or another. maybe the economic situation over there will get so bad, that americans will start jumping the mexican border to find work :p
Either way you look at it, this is a sheer farce of economic management on bush administration's part. really, this shouldn't have happened, wasn't there a budget surplus by the time clinton left office?
-
Expect to see lots more US Military stuff in the hands of Korea, Iraq, etc in ten years' time...
-
Expect to see lots more US Military stuff in the hands of Korea, Iraq, etc in ten years' time...
and we don't already? :p
-
A.) Abbolish many Labor Unions, people don't deserve $15-$20 an hour to stick a piece of metal on a car. This would lower the price of American goods and hopefully increase Exports
Heaven forbid should workers have rights. Despite what Rush Limbaugh tells you, not everything is their fault. GM is a good example of this.
And why is it that Germany is a strong exporter when it has even stronger unions, higher living standards, and the Euro is valued higher than the dollar? Because it has a lot of high quality, high performance products.
Why is America a net importer? Because other than the exports that are heavily regulated, America just doesn't have much to offer.
C.)Raise the requirements for Welfare Programs. Welfare is a major drain on the government, and alot of people are simply taking advantage of the programs.
Why not just throw them out on the street? Oh wait, you did that and it solved nothing.
E.)Let the illegal Immigrants stay, they make good, cheap labor.
You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? :p
-
Ha ha ha America.
China wins!
Over my dead body. We would never allow china or russia to win.
-
Why do you want to flame me? I just wrote down some stuff that came to mind. At least I'm thinking about it unlike most of the populace.
Challenging your ideas isn't flaming you. Calling you a ****ing retard for blaming the poor - now that would be flaming you.
Ha ha ha America.
China wins!
Over my dead body. We would never allow china or russia to win.
How, exactly? No money = no win. I'm not saying I think China will actually "win" in the long term, but still.
-
How, exactly?
Fuzzy math. :p
-
Ooh, can I stroke it?
-
Balance Budget Admendment & REAL fiscal responcibility
-
Damn, I just realised I worded something wrong. I meant to say, make it so that people are looked into more before they can get welfare. There are people who have an educarion, can easily work, and have gotten job offers, they are just too lazy to get out and work. So no, I'm not blaming the poor, I'm blaming bums.
Note to self, never, ever make a post early in the morning again. :D
-
Bad idea. This drives the people who would be doing cheap labor out of work, because the immigrants do it cheaper. Law of supply and demand: if the supply of labor goes up and the demand for labor stays the same, the price of labor (i.e. wages) go down.
That's one of the biggest arguments people have. I say it's void because how many Americans would want to work in 105 degree heat, at 98% humidity, 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, mowing people's yards? or painting houses? or carrying bricks to construct houses? or building highways? ... not many. I know I wouldn't. Americans are always quick to say "they're taking our jobs! deport them!" but what it boils down to is they're not really 'taking' anyone's job...
-
*snip*
In other words, gold was becoming more of a problem than it was worth.
But decoupling the dollar from its foundation isn't the solution. Honestly, I hope I'm wrong, but if the USA's debt gets called sometime in the future, we're going to have to find some way of converting paper dollars into tangible assets. If we had a dollar of gold for every dollar of paper we'd be safe, but we don't.
Bad idea. This drives the people who would be doing cheap labor out of work, because the immigrants do it cheaper. Law of supply and demand: if the supply of labor goes up and the demand for labor stays the same, the price of labor (i.e. wages) go down.
That's one of the biggest arguments people have. I say it's void because how many Americans would want to work in 105 degree heat, at 98% humidity, 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, mowing people's yards? or painting houses? or carrying bricks to construct houses? or building highways? ... not many. I know I wouldn't. Americans are always quick to say "they're taking our jobs! deport them!" but what it boils down to is they're not really 'taking' anyone's job...
It's all about pricing. Illegal immigrants are willing to do those jobs for less than Americans are. No illegal immigrants = wages go up = more Americans are willing to do them.
It's not only Joe Sixpack either - kids in high school need jobs (as well as the proverbial "character-building" experience) too.
-
But decoupling the dollar from its foundation isn't the solution. Honestly, I hope I'm wrong, but if the USA's debt gets called sometime in the future, we're going to have to find some way of converting paper dollars into tangible assets. If we had a dollar of gold for every dollar of paper we'd be safe, but we don't.
Well realisticly, putting us back on the gold standard won't solve anything. If we have enough gold to cover our bills, we're cool. If we're forced to pony up all our debts right now in solid gold, we, and by extension everyone else, is royally screwed. If you cut the feet out of the US, everyone feels the pinch. And no one is gonna be able to step up and handle the slack, I don't care how patriotic you are. Putting the US on a gold standard isn't going to slow spending.
We need to remove ourselves from precious metals, not fall back on them.
-
But decoupling the dollar from its foundation isn't the solution. Honestly, I hope I'm wrong, but if the USA's debt gets called sometime in the future, we're going to have to find some way of converting paper dollars into tangible assets. If we had a dollar of gold for every dollar of paper we'd be safe, but we don't.
Well realisticly, putting us back on the gold standard won't solve anything. If we have enough gold to cover our bills, we're cool. If we're forced to pony up all our debts right now in solid gold, we, and by extension everyone else, is royally screwed. If you cut the feet out of the US, everyone feels the pinch. And no one is gonna be able to step up and handle the slack, I don't care how patriotic you are. Putting the US on a gold standard isn't going to slow spending.
We need to remove ourselves from precious metals, not fall back on them.
true, but as you said, if the US has enough by way of gold to pay off its debts, it'd be fine, mind you, that's a band-aid solution at best, the only real long-term solution is to fix the budget, but solving the deficit itself, would help tons.
-
Fix the budget = good.
Switching to gold standard and watch the global economy go haywire while we all try to figure out what to do = bad
Remember we've been off the gold standard for 30+ years. Gold has moved since then, they can't just flip a switch and be back on gold.
-
*snip*
In other words, gold was becoming more of a problem than it was worth.
But decoupling the dollar from its foundation isn't the solution. Honestly, I hope I'm wrong, but if the USA's debt gets called sometime in the future, we're going to have to find some way of converting paper dollars into tangible assets. If we had a dollar of gold for every dollar of paper we'd be safe, but we don't.
Well, if China calls us out, we can give them California.
-
If you had a dollar of gold for every dollar of paper today, you'd have, well maybe not exactly a black hole, but a lot more gold than the world has to offer :p It's just not practical with the size of today's economies, even if sometimes the concept may seem valid enough. Besides, this isn't the end of the world yet. It's simply raising the debt ceiling, something which has happened several times before. The end of the world doesn't come until the US decides it doesn't really want to pay it's outstanding debts.
-
how many Americans would want to work in 105 degree heat, at 98% humidity, 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, mowing people's yards? or painting houses? or carrying bricks to construct houses? or building highways? ... not many. I know I wouldn't. Americans are always quick to say "they're taking our jobs! deport them!" but what it boils down to is they're not really 'taking' anyone's job...
I'd do that if you paied me enough.
-
I got some yardwork that needs to be done ;)
-
Besides, this isn't the end of the world yet. It's simply raising the debt ceiling, something which has happened several times before. The end of the world doesn't come until the US decides it doesn't really want to pay it's outstanding debts.
True, but paying INTEREST on the debt is eating up 1/3 of the budget as it is. Just wait 5 years and see how much bigger that percentage will be.....
At least the leadership in this country seems to have some foresight.....
-
I'd do that if you paied me enough.
so instead of paying lawn mowers / construction workers / etc. $7.50 per hour, let's bump it up to $22.00/hour.
... and how do you think THAT would affect the economy!? how many businesses would go under...
-
so instead of paying lawn mowers / construction workers / etc. $7.50 per hour, let's bump it up to $22.00/hour.
... and how do you think THAT would affect the economy!? how many businesses would go under...
Things don't happen in a vacuum. If they get paid more, they have more purchasing power and they can buy more stuff.
They can also save more, although saving seems to be a lost art nowadays. :sigh:
-
I ****ing hate economics. I felt like I had to say that, don't really know why. Eh, whatever... continue.
-
Things don't happen in a vacuum. If they get paid more, they have more purchasing power and they can buy more stuff.
They can also save more, although saving seems to be a lost art nowadays. :sigh:
Yea, people can spend all that extra money on the now $300 lawnmowing.
You can't just pay people more without charging more then.
-
$22/hr for lawnmowing? **** yes. I'd just buy myself a gigantic water-bottle backpack, slap on some ultra-super sunscreen, and get to it.
-
Is is just me, or does John Snow look like Jack Nichalson without the shades?
-
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the US spent ages trying to bankrupt the USSR so as to defeat communism and China took about 5 years to do it to the US?
-
It's all about pricing. Illegal immigrants are willing to do those jobs for less than Americans are. No illegal immigrants = wages go up = more Americans are willing to do them.
Goober, I have to say that I strongly disagree with what you are saying. Yes, I will agree with you that illegal immigrants take many jobs away from our fellow citizens, but getting rid of them will not make the pay higher. One of the biggest issues in this country is unions. And most of the people doing the lower paid jobs are union people. I don’t think that someone who is driving a bus, for example, should get paid what they do, but the stupid union allows them to make such money. The problem is with Americans as well. They are so used to a certain lifestyle, that they do not want jobs that don’t have healthcare, that pay like ****, and that have no benefits whatsoever. However, in dire times, like we are almost in, people will take anything. And, those who are unemployed should take the jobs, but again, because of our high lifestyle living and obsession with material objects, people feel they should not take those jobs.
The next thing is welfare. Someone on the board said it already. Make the welfare people do the jobs that illegal immigrants have instead of being such lazy dumbasses sucking off our government.
Last but not least, I would like to know, how do you know our fellow Americans will be willing to take the same jobs if the pay is higher? And how high do you reckon the pay will get without the involvement of foreigners?
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the US spent ages trying to bankrupt the USSR so as to defeat communism and China took about 5 years to do it to the US?
Funny, but well pointed out, Kara :D
-
It's all about pricing. Illegal immigrants are willing to do those jobs for less than Americans are. No illegal immigrants = wages go up = more Americans are willing to do them.
Goober, I have to say that I strongly disagree with what you are saying. Yes, I will agree with you that illegal immigrants take many jobs away from our fellow citizens, but getting rid of them will not make the pay higher.
See below.
One of the biggest issues in this country is unions. And most of the people doing the lower paid jobs are union people. I don’t think that someone who is driving a bus, for example, should get paid what they do, but the stupid union allows them to make such money. The problem is with Americans as well. They are so used to a certain lifestyle, that they do not want jobs that don’t have healthcare, that pay like ****, and that have no benefits whatsoever. However, in dire times, like we are almost in, people will take anything. And, those who are unemployed should take the jobs, but again, because of our high lifestyle living and obsession with material objects, people feel they should not take those jobs.
Is this meant to support your point? Because this sure looks like agreeing to me. :)
I would like to know, how do you know our fellow Americans will be willing to take the same jobs if the pay is higher? And how high do you reckon the pay will get without the involvement of foreigners?
1. Every person has their own threshold of pay for a given job. Some people will do it for little; some people will do it only for a lot. If you increase the wage, more people will have their thresholds satisfied.
2. I don't know how high the pay will get, but I know that it will go up. Law of supply and demand: if you decrease the supply (in this case of labor) and keep the demand constant, the price (wages) goes up.
-
One of the biggest issues in this country is unions. And most of the people doing the lower paid jobs are union people. I don’t think that someone who is driving a bus, for example, should get paid what they do, but the stupid union allows them to make such money.
Try living in a country without any unions, maybe that will change your mind. The unions exist for a reason. Before the unions employers were always ****ing over their workers, but unions changed all of that.
The problem is with Americans as well. They are so used to a certain lifestyle, that they do not want jobs that don’t have healthcare, that pay like ****, and that have no benefits whatsoever.
Do you have any idea how expensive healthcare is in America? If all you can get is a job like that, then all it takes is some bad luck to totally **** you up.
The next thing is welfare. Someone on the board said it already. Make the welfare people do the jobs that illegal immigrants have instead of being such lazy dumbasses sucking off our government.
Most of them already do. They are on welfare precisely because their jobs pay like ****. Of course there is some welfare absue, but often times such "abuse" is a myth. The welfare "reform" passed in the mid-90's ended up just throwing tens of millions of people onto the streets because they suddenly had no affordable housing.
EDIT: And FYI, more money is spent on invading foreign countries and paying off the debt than ever goes into welfare programs (except medicare and social security, but those are only for old geezers anyway :p).
-
(except medicare and social security, but those are only for old geezers anyway :p).
1-866-9-BURY ME
Call it.... :p
Farewell Ranch
-
How, exactly? No money = no win. I'm not saying I think China will actually "win" in the long term, but still.
of course china still needs someone (i.e. mainly the US) to buy it's worthless and not so worthless **** since the chinese consumer still isn't able to consume amounts like that. So an economic crash would severly hurt their manufacturing industry. The take into account the hundreds of billions of US dollars the Chinese government has stacked somewhere that would become nigh on worthless overnight...
There was a documentary on the dutch television a couple of months ago where they investigated the scenario of the dollar melting down.
Lets say that the result for the world economy wasn't pretty at all
-
It's all about pricing. Illegal immigrants are willing to do those jobs for less than Americans are. No illegal immigrants = wages go up = more Americans are willing to do them.
Goober, I have to say that I strongly disagree with what you are saying. Yes, I will agree with you that illegal immigrants take many jobs away from our fellow citizens, but getting rid of them will not make the pay higher.
See below.
One of the biggest issues in this country is unions. And most of the people doing the lower paid jobs are union people. I don’t think that someone who is driving a bus, for example, should get paid what they do, but the stupid union allows them to make such money. The problem is with Americans as well. They are so used to a certain lifestyle, that they do not want jobs that don’t have healthcare, that pay like ****, and that have no benefits whatsoever. However, in dire times, like we are almost in, people will take anything. And, those who are unemployed should take the jobs, but again, because of our high lifestyle living and obsession with material objects, people feel they should not take those jobs.
Is this meant to support your point? Because this sure looks like agreeing to me. :)
I did say I agreed with the problem of the illegal immgrants. What I disagree is your simple equations on how more Americans would be willing to work in the fields that did not seem too appealing to them at the first place simply because of a higher pay. And very importantly in this case, there's not a gaurantee source for an increase. I was trying to point out that the attitutes our people have are also keys to why your equations will not likely to sum up the way you did it.
I would like to know, how do you know our fellow Americans will be willing to take the same jobs if the pay is higher? And how high do you reckon the pay will get without the involvement of foreigners?
1. Every person has their own threshold of pay for a given job. Some people will do it for little; some people will do it only for a lot. If you increase the wage, more people will have their thresholds satisfied.
2. I don't know how high the pay will get, but I know that it will go up. Law of supply and demand: if you decrease the supply (in this case of labor) and keep the demand constant, the price (wages) goes up.
I didn't expect you would know the amount. Oh, and not all laws will give expected outcomes :)
-
One of the biggest issues in this country is unions. And most of the people doing the lower paid jobs are union people. I don’t think that someone who is driving a bus, for example, should get paid what they do, but the stupid union allows them to make such money.
Try living in a country without any unions, maybe that will change your mind. The unions exist for a reason. Before the unions employers were always ****ing over their workers, but unions changed all of that.
And how did you know I have not? I know unions are created for several good reasons, but sometimes things just might not turn out ideally. Since you're in China and probably able to get help from your students, I would like to 'present' to you an old Chinese sayings I learned a long time ago from my Chinese teacher "jia jia you ben nan nian de jing", which I find it quite appropriate in this situation :)
Just something additional after reading my post. The sayings means something similar to what aldo stated below: you will have to be part of the 'family' to see, feel and experience
The problem is with Americans as well. They are so used to a certain lifestyle, that they do not want jobs that don’t have healthcare, that pay like ****, and that have no benefits whatsoever.
Do you have any idea how expensive healthcare is in America? If all you can get is a job like that, then all it takes is some bad luck to totally **** you up.
Of course I do. I probably live close enough to Goober that we can have several coffee breaks everyday. I do not need to be told how expensive it is. I was in and out of the hospital often enough since I was a kid to 'prove' that being true. My family and I have been paying fortune for medicare that no one seems to remember when did it get started. And of course, I know darn well that not all jobs come with the package :)
-
What I disagree is your simple equations on how more Americans would be willing to work in the fields that did not seem too appealing to them at the first place simply because of a higher pay.
That's easily provable. I wouldn't want to scrub toilets for $5 an hour, but I'd certainly be more enthusiastic if it was $100 an hour. And you'd have people beating down your door if you offered $1000 an hour.
That's exaggerated for clarity, but it works at small scales just as well as at large scales.
And very importantly in this case, there's not a gaurantee source for an increase. I was trying to point out that the attitutes our people have are also keys to why your equations will not likely to sum up the way you did it.
...
I didn't expect you would know the amount. Oh, and not all laws will give expected outcomes. :)
It directly follows from the law of supply and demand, which is one of the most fundamental principles in economics. There's a reason it's the first thing you learn in Eco 101 - assuming you've studied economics, that is.
-
I've never understood the reasoning that 'illegal immigrants steal our jobs', etc. Not only is it statistically false (when applied to the UK and the EU immigration issue), the people who employ illegals usually do so to get cheap labour paid at below minimum wage rates, working overly long hours and with minimal health and safety protection - not only would no legal worker do these jobs, they wouldn't even be allowed to.... that work sector, the black economy, would more or less vanish rather than suddenly legitimise into a mass-employer, because it only exists to employ people at illegal rates and conditions. You can't even expect a constant demand, too, because demand fluctuates with price. That's not an argument for having illegal workers, of course (I'm very much pro-immigration), but you can't blame a wad of problems on an unrepresented minority ala the Daily Mail.
The other thing RE: unions is that it's easy to criticise from the outside, because they exist to represent the interests of other people who aren't you (unless you're in one). But I think it'd be daft to say we don't need them, because you just have to remember why trade unions were formed in the first place, and it wasn't just to strike for more pay, but to provide fair treatment of workers; without them, 90% of workers would be working under the same conditions as illegal immigrants on the black labour market.
NB:
Things don't happen in a vacuum. If they get paid more, they have more purchasing power and they can buy more stuff.
They can also save more, although saving seems to be a lost art nowadays. :sigh:
How many small businesses are going to speculate on the future of the economy, though? Mom & Pops Lawnmower Services aren't really going to be willing to take the risk of assuming their raised wages are going to somehow reach back to the business, and if they have to raise prices, they lose business - regardless of whether anyone is undercutting them or not.
-
How many small businesses are going to speculate on the future of the economy, though? Mom & Pops Lawnmower Services aren't really going to be willing to take the risk of assuming their raised wages are going to somehow reach back to the business, and if they have to raise prices, they lose business - regardless of whether anyone is undercutting them or not.
It's not speculation. It's an automatic consequence - the invisible hand, if you will. Fewer workers causes wages to go up, which in turn lets people spend more. Decreasing the number of workers has to be the cause, since you're right, there's no incentive for it to happen in the opposite order.
-
What I disagree is your simple equations on how more Americans would be willing to work in the fields that did not seem too appealing to them at the first place simply because of a higher pay.
That's easily provable. I wouldn't want to scrub toilets for $5 an hour, but I'd certainly be more enthusiastic if it was $100 an hour. And you'd have people beating down your door if you offered $1000 an hour.
That's exaggerated for clarity, but it works at small scales just as well as at large scales.
I think I will be more happy if it's a more realistic example, but I can't agree more with you that you did exaggerate it a fair bit :)
And very importantly in this case, there's not a gaurantee source for an increase. I was trying to point out that the attitutes our people have are also keys to why your equations will not likely to sum up the way you did it.
...
I didn't expect you would know the amount. Oh, and not all laws will give expected outcomes. :)
It directly follows from the law of supply and demand, which is one of the most fundamental principles in economics. There's a reason it's the first thing you learn in Eco 101 - assuming you've studied economics, that is.
I can see how the law is created, but still do not think it's always true :D And yes indeed, I studied Econ 101 during my first year of college.
-
I know unions are created for several good reasons, but sometimes things just might not turn out ideally.
Yet you seem to blame the unions for everything. Unions have nothing to do with the government running out of money; that was caused by 2 and a half decades worth of fiscal mis-management (mostly starting in the Reagan era, but there was some overspending before that too). Did the unions decide on the borrow and spend politics of the right? No.
And of course, I know darn well that not all jobs come with the package
Most don't these days, which is why there are 45+ million people in America with no health insurance, and before I left America I was one of them.
-
How many small businesses are going to speculate on the future of the economy, though? Mom & Pops Lawnmower Services aren't really going to be willing to take the risk of assuming their raised wages are going to somehow reach back to the business, and if they have to raise prices, they lose business - regardless of whether anyone is undercutting them or not.
It's not speculation. It's an automatic consequence - the invisible hand, if you will. Fewer workers causes wages to go up, which in turn lets people spend more. Decreasing the number of workers has to be the cause, since you're right, there's no incentive for it to happen in the opposite order.
But there's no necessity to raise wages unless prices also have risen, and there's no incentive to raise prices unless you are paying more (and need to cover those expenses) or others are paying more (and raising peoples' disposable income). Fewer workers could be argued to lower wages in certain situations, such as when the loss of low-wage immigrants, etc, reduces the number of available jobs and makes it more of a hirers' market.
-
I know unions are created for several good reasons, but sometimes things just might not turn out ideally.
Yet you seem to blame the unions for everything. Unions have nothing to do with the government running out of money; that was caused by 2 and a half decades worth of fiscal mis-management (mostly starting in the Reagan era, but there was some overspending before that too). Did the unions decide on the borrow and spend politics of the right? No.
I said unions were issues. I was giving an example to show how they could have influences on the matter that couldn't be seen obviously by public. I did not intend and not even dare to blame the one source for all the problems we face. That's just plain silly :)
And of course, I know darn well that not all jobs come with the package
Most don't these days, which is why there are 45+ million people in America with no health insurance, and before I left America I was one of them.
I do feel sorry for those who work and don't get the coverage because of the stupid healthcare system we have (and I was shocked by your previous post on the topic that China was 'modelling' our system). Also, I am sorry to hear that you were one of them So when are you returning to the States?
-
That's easily provable. I wouldn't want to scrub toilets for $5 an hour, but I'd certainly be more enthusiastic if it was $100 an hour. And you'd have people beating down your door if you offered $1000 an hour.
Yeah but the problem you've glossed over is whether anyone would pay $100 an hour for someone to clean toilets. Most people would just have dirty toilets.
You're making an enormous assumption that the demand for people to do these jobs will remain constant even though it now costs more. That's absolutely not true.
If it costs too much to do the menial labour that illegal immigrants do many places will simply do without.
-
But there's no necessity to raise wages unless prices also have risen, and there's no incentive to raise prices unless you are paying more (and need to cover those expenses) or others are paying more (and raising peoples' disposable income).
People have raised wages without (apparent) incentive before... look at Henry Ford and his $5 a day program. But that's unrelated to the point I was making:
Fewer workers could be argued to lower wages in certain situations, such as when the loss of low-wage immigrants, etc, reduces the number of available jobs and makes it more of a hirers' market.
That's precisely the situation I mean. :nod:
That's easily provable. I wouldn't want to scrub toilets for $5 an hour, but I'd certainly be more enthusiastic if it was $100 an hour. And you'd have people beating down your door if you offered $1000 an hour.
Yeah but the problem you've glossed over is whether anyone would pay $100 an hour for someone to clean toilets. Most people would just have dirty toilets.
It's unrealistic, yes, and I acknowledge that. I was using it to illustrate the supply curve: if price goes up, supply goes up. The reason for the price increase isn't necessary for the example.
You're making an enormous assumption that the demand for people to do these jobs will remain constant even though it now costs more. That's absolutely not true.
If it costs too much to do the menial labour that illegal immigrants do many places will simply do without.
Yup, and that's a mitigating factor - it's actually the demand part of the supply-demand balance coming into play. :) The mitigation doesn't completely erase the effect, though - the principle still bears out in practice.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4797400.stm
Never fear, Mr. Allen is here to get more money for you via fake refunds!
Seriously, what's with these people?
First the junk with Delay, then the Abramoff thing, Cheney's hunt, Bush's rushing through Dubai (regardless of 'racism' etc. Bush's trying to personally rush such a deal is a bit odd if it's 'just a business...')...
How fraked up are these people?
-
Again, is this news to someone?
I'd think it was kinda obvious that if a country commits itself into major military operationsa AND the re-construction of the countries in question AND want to hold to same standards of living, more money must come from somewhere. In this case, taking HUGE debts was the only answer. And, as everyone knows, debts should be paid back, which makes me even more glad I'm not US citizen, because sooner or later there has to be some impact onto standards of living, paying debts always has.
About the immigrant working problem, I'd say that as you can't stop them coming and sending them away is not really a solution, you should remove the reason for them to come to States. Basically, make sure that companies don't have any REASON to hire immigrants. So, here's the deal:
- Companies should pay always the same amount of money for the work done, regardless of who is doing the work.
To someone this might sound a bit far-fetched, but you must agree to that only reason the companies hire (illegal) immigrants is that they are willing to do more work at the less price. If the companies were enforced to pay the same amount of money for same amount of work, there were no reason for them to hire illegal immigrants in the first place. Thereby, they would hire US citizens instead. Why wouldn't they?
If you don't believe me, then perhaps you believe Professor Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1). In short words, hiring people with too little paychecks should, in fact, be made illegal. This is most easily done by strong labour unions.
But alas, the trouble with illegal immigrants is not IMO the core of the problem. The trouble is that US is trying to do more than it has got ability to do, quite frankly.
"Normal" situation
Income: Taxes
Outcome: All the normal thingz (education, social welfare, civil service, things like that) that are crucial to the well-being of the society (ie. the standard of living)
Current situation
Income: Reduced taxes
Outcome: All the normal thingz PLUS hugely increased military budget PLUS the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, if we look at the table, we can easily see that whereas income has been smartly reduced, the outcome has been very much increased. So, to keep all the normal thingz running and maintain the current standard of living, all the money going to Iraq and Afghanistan must be borrowed from somewhere and thereby they contribute to the US state debt.
So, why don't they fund their military operations & reconstruction in expense of the normal thingz? Well, they don't want - yet. That's a smart strategy to fool out people. Normal citizens don't realize that they are going to be the ones who pay the crusades of Bush the Second years and years after he's out of office. Bush and his adminstration keep the people happy today by funding the Mid-East hassle by borrowed money, and when the operations there end they start reducing the standards of living to be able to pay the huge debts they just produced. That way, people stay indifferent enough of things they do in Middle East; afterwards they accommodate to situation because it's not that obvious WHY the standard of living is now lower; the real reason was years ago.
So, the US economical situation will not be very much better after Irac is a happy, free, democratic country, because that's when paying the debt can only really start.
Assuming they don't start another "liberation" operation meanwhile... [cough]Iran[/cough] :rolleyes:
-
Fewer workers could be argued to lower wages in certain situations, such as when the loss of low-wage immigrants, etc, reduces the number of available jobs and makes it more of a hirers' market.
That's precisely the situation I mean. :nod:
So why would wages be raised? If anything, they'd be lowered to take advantage of; you'd have a labour surplus (which is exactly why illegal immigrants are hired, really; there's a surplus of cheap, tax free and responsibility free workers desperate for piddling amounts of money). I can't see the majority of hirers, especially the major businesses, opting to raise wages in a situation of labour surplus, and you'd be relying on the assumption that removing illegals would still leave their employers as hirers to have a jobs surplus that'd create wage rises through competition. Granted, this is not the only situation, but it's a possible one, and I think it's rather optimistic to assume that removing illegal immigrant workers would lead to those jobs being 'legitimised' and thus resulting in the opportunity of employment for legal workers.
-
So why would wages be raised? If anything, they'd be lowered to take advantage of; you'd have a labour surplus (which is exactly why illegal immigrants are hired, really; there's a surplus of cheap, tax free and responsibility free workers desperate for piddling amounts of money).
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I can't believe I'm saying this to you, but do you have a reading comprehension problem or something? :p You immediately caught on to the point I was making, but then apparently somehow thought I was trying to come to the opposite conclusion.
It's very simple - more immigrants = labor surplus = wages lowered; fewer immigrants = labor deficit = wages raised.
I can't see the majority of hirers, especially the major businesses, opting to raise wages in a situation of labour surplus, and you'd be relying on the assumption that removing illegals would still leave their employers as hirers to have a jobs surplus that'd create wage rises through competition. Granted, this is not the only situation, but it's a possible one, and I think it's rather optimistic to assume that removing illegal immigrant workers would lead to those jobs being 'legitimised' and thus resulting in the opportunity of employment for legal workers.
They wouldn't have a choice in the matter. If they have a job that needs doing, and there's nobody, nobody, willing to do it at the wage they're offering, they'd have to raise that wage.
-
So why would wages be raised? If anything, they'd be lowered to take advantage of; you'd have a labour surplus (which is exactly why illegal immigrants are hired, really; there's a surplus of cheap, tax free and responsibility free workers desperate for piddling amounts of money).
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I can't believe I'm saying this to you, but do you have a reading comprehension problem or something? :p You immediately caught on to the point I was making, but then apparently somehow thought I was trying to come to the opposite conclusion.
It's very simple - more immigrants = labor surplus = wages lowered; fewer immigrants = labor deficit = wages raised.
Except it's wrong IMO to assume that removing (illegal) immigrants would result in a labour deficit, because illegals work in illegal jobs that only exist because they can take advantage of their workers illegal status. i.e. those jobs only exist because of a cheap, disposable and illegal labour market, and if that labour source disappears then there is no reason to assume those employers wouldn't too (because they would be built around profiting from said illegal labour, not around paying wages and meeting legal H&S rule, etc). If they only exist to make money by exploiting illegal workers, how eager would they really be to legitimise and have a 'proper' business model of proper wages and health and safety observance, etc?
To me it's a sticking plaster to just go 'get rid of illegal workers and everyone can get well-paid jobs' (which seems to be a common assumption made, usually when you have the likes of the Daily Mail railing against illegal immigrants in their pseudo-racist editorial stories), because how many employers that hire illegals do so because it's cheap, easy, and liability free rather than because they can afford proper workers but don't want to pay?
How many of these employers are genuine honest businesses that simply can't afford legal (usually low skilled) workers, and are 'forced' to take illegal immigrants? And how many exist simply and only to take advantage, not as legitimate companies? I'd say the latter is higher than the former, myself - and these companies only exist because they provide a service that's cheap. Make them legit - assuming they'd want to - and they become too expensive for their customers and go out of business anyways.
Which is what I said before, actually....
-
Except it's wrong IMO to assume that removing (illegal) immigrants would result in a labour deficit, because illegals work in illegal jobs that only exist because they can take advantage of their workers illegal status. i.e. those jobs only exist because of a cheap, disposable and illegal labour market, and if that labour source disappears then there is no reason to assume those employers wouldn't too (because they would be built around profiting from said illegal labour, not around paying wages and meeting legal H&S rule, etc). If they only exist to make money by exploiting illegal workers, how eager would they really be to legitimise and have a 'proper' business model of proper wages and health and safety observance, etc?
Most of those jobs aren't illegal per se - take, for example, construction, cleaning, house-sitting, etc. They're only illegal if they employ illegal workers. Take away the workers and you have two choices: hire legitimate workers or do without. Some (those whose labor demand thresholds are too low) would do without, but some (those whose thresholds are high enough) would hire legitimate workers. This can be demonstrated on a standard supply-demand graph.
To me it's a sticking plaster to just go 'get rid of illegal workers and everyone can get well-paid jobs' (which seems to be a common assumption made, usually when you have the likes of the Daily Mail railing against illegal immigrants in their pseudo-racist editorial stories), because how many employers that hire illegals do so because it's cheap, easy, and liability free rather than because they can afford proper workers but don't want to pay?
How many of these employers are genuine honest businesses that simply can't afford legal (usually low skilled) workers, and are 'forced' to take illegal immigrants? And how many exist simply and only to take advantage, not as legitimate companies? I'd say the latter is higher than the former, myself - and these companies only exist because they provide a service that's cheap. Make them legit - assuming they'd want to - and they become too expensive for their customers and go out of business anyways.
They employ illegal immigrants because it's the cheapest option available. If that weren't an option, they'd have to find some alternative, and the market would adjust to accommodate it.
You know, you're doing the same thing as on Sectorgame - dancing around the implications instead of confronting the central point.
-
Except it's wrong IMO to assume that removing (illegal) immigrants would result in a labour deficit, because illegals work in illegal jobs that only exist because they can take advantage of their workers illegal status. i.e. those jobs only exist because of a cheap, disposable and illegal labour market, and if that labour source disappears then there is no reason to assume those employers wouldn't too (because they would be built around profiting from said illegal labour, not around paying wages and meeting legal H&S rule, etc). If they only exist to make money by exploiting illegal workers, how eager would they really be to legitimise and have a 'proper' business model of proper wages and health and safety observance, etc?
Most of those jobs aren't illegal per se - take, for example, construction, cleaning, house-sitting, etc. They're only illegal if they employ illegal workers. Take away the workers and you have two choices: hire legitimate workers or do without. Some (those whose labor demand thresholds are too low) would do without, but some (those whose thresholds are high enough) would hire legitimate workers. This can be demonstrated on a standard supply-demand graph.
To me it's a sticking plaster to just go 'get rid of illegal workers and everyone can get well-paid jobs' (which seems to be a common assumption made, usually when you have the likes of the Daily Mail railing against illegal immigrants in their pseudo-racist editorial stories), because how many employers that hire illegals do so because it's cheap, easy, and liability free rather than because they can afford proper workers but don't want to pay?
How many of these employers are genuine honest businesses that simply can't afford legal (usually low skilled) workers, and are 'forced' to take illegal immigrants? And how many exist simply and only to take advantage, not as legitimate companies? I'd say the latter is higher than the former, myself - and these companies only exist because they provide a service that's cheap. Make them legit - assuming they'd want to - and they become too expensive for their customers and go out of business anyways.
They employ illegal immigrants because it's the cheapest option available. If that weren't an option, they'd have to find some alternative, and the market would adjust to accommodate it.
You know, you're doing the same thing as on Sectorgame - dancing around the implications instead of confronting the central point.
I think the central point is wrong, and I've said so. These employers exist because they can make easy money through illegal immigrant employees, not for any other purpose. Their sole reason for existing is the black labour market; that's the reason they're not legit companies. Even if the industry exists in a legit capacity, there will be a group of 'providers' (so to speak) and customers who only exist because they can do it cheap and on the side; even subcontractors to large, legit, companies who only survive by cheap contract bidding based on the use of illegal labour. Same as with any black market.
Now, you seem to me to be making a big assumption that it would automatically entail that demand would be sufficiently high to legitimise those jobs, rather than illegal hirers simply vanishing away for more lucrative (and probably illegal) markets; my whole point has been that that's not necessarily true; how many companies using illegal labour do so whilst being able to use legal?
There's a side issue, of course, as in how many people would do those jobs in the first place - particularly in any first world country with a decent education system, where those types of unskilled labour are sidelined (and even skilled trades like plumbers, electricians, etc end up being short of people despite good pay). Especially as there's another question as to how many companies that would legitimise, are actually using illegals because they can't get legal workers to pick crops, etc, at the legal minimum wage they can afford?
Not sure what the hell you're on about with regards to Sectorgame, though.
Although aren't the implications the central point here? I mean, if you want to advocate it, isn't it just a wee bit important to consider the consequences and ramifications?
-
In both debates, the central point is true, or not true, regardless of its implications. Arguing that X shouldn't be true "because it implies Y, which I don't like" has no bearing on the truth or falsity of either X or Y.
As far as supply and demand is concerned, it's a law that has been demonstrated to hold true over a variety of situations and circumstances. You don't have to understand how it works, only that it does. The value of any model is its ability to predict, and this one is pretty accurate at predicting.
Attached is the graph used in Wikipedia. It's used for goods, not labor, but it applies equally well to either scenario. The addition of illegal immigrants is reflected in the shift from S0 to S1. The supply curve shifts right, causing price of labor (wages) to fall. Removal of the illegal immigrants would be a shift left from S1 back to S0, thus causing the price (wages) to rise.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You know, you're doing the same thing as on Sectorgame - dancing around the implications instead of confronting the central point.
I'm glad I'm not one of the admins at Sectorgame or I'd be really pissed at whatever that comment is supposed to mean...
-
In both debates, the central point is true, or not true, regardless of its implications. Arguing that X shouldn't be true "because it implies Y, which I don't like" has no bearing on the truth or falsity of either X or Y.
I think we all understand the concept of supply and demand. What we challenge is your simplistic assumption that it applies to the labour market in the linear fashion you describe.
As I said before no one is going to pay $100 and hour for someone to clean toilets. They'll simply clean them themselves or have a dirty toilet. Your linear graph predicts that if you got rid of everyone willing to do the job for less someone would eventually start paying $100 and that's simply not true for fairly obvious reasons.
Aldo is completely correct in saying that many of the businesses that work using illegal immigrants simply wouldn't function without them. That's nothing to do with skirting around the issue. That is the central issue. If no company exists any more who is supposed to pay the higher wages you claim would be paid?
-
I think we all understand the concept of supply and demand. What we challenge is your simplistic assumption that it applies to the labour market in the linear fashion you describe.
Okay, I get what you're saying. It is pretty simplistic - the market is imperfect, and the graph is probably curved, but I think it holds based on the available evidence.
As I said before no one is going to pay $100 and hour for someone to clean toilets. They'll simply clean them themselves or have a dirty toilet. Your linear graph predicts that if you got rid of everyone willing to do the job for less someone would eventually start paying $100 and that's simply not true for fairly obvious reasons.
I think they would, though... but you'd have to eliminate a lot of the toilet-cleaning population for that. If you only had one person in the entire US who was skilled at cleaning toilets, he'd be in high demand.
It's the same reasons brain surgeons get paid so much. If every other person was a brain surgeon, a hospital can feel free to hire any of them, and the asking salary would be very low. Since brain surgeons are a comparatively high part of the population, they command a high salary.
Aldo is completely correct in saying that many of the businesses that work using illegal immigrants simply wouldn't function without them. That's nothing to do with skirting around the issue. That is the central issue. If no company exists any more who is supposed to pay the higher wages you claim would be paid?
According to the supply-demand model, some companies indeed would do without the extra labor, but some would pay the higher wages.
-
I think they would, though... but you'd have to eliminate a lot of the toilet-cleaning population for that. If you only had one person in the entire US who was skilled at cleaning toilets, he'd be in high demand.
That's only by changing the level of skill involved. Cleaning toilets will always be an unskilled job. The supply-demand curve only works if the supply can't be surplanted by something else. You're assuming that just because no one wants to clean toilets they'll pay a much higher rate for someone else to do it but that simply isn't true. I'll pay someone a pound to squegee my windows but I wouldn't pay them £20. I'd just do it myself.
You mention brain surgeons and completely ignore the fact that it is a skilled job. Brain surgery commands a high price because you can't just take a chainsaw to your friends head and do it yourself.
-
It all basically comes down to the view held by Congress that they can't run out of money, they print the money.
Yes, I am quite serious. Most of them really do think that. Most of them are also completely fiancially secure and always have been and always will be, come hell or high water, so convincing them different is a well-nigh impossible task.
-
It's the same reasons brain surgeons get paid so much. If every other person was a brain surgeon, a hospital can feel free to hire any of them, and the asking salary would be very low. Since brain surgeons are a comparatively high part of the population, they command a high salary.
Brain surgeons are a necessity, though. The problem I think with that supply-demand curve is assuming demand is linear; I don't think that's true - demand varies with cost as much as cost varies with demand; prices rise with increasing demand but demand lowers with increasing price, and on top of that there is the profit (make vs sale cost), which affects how much the provider/s want to make something. i.e. if you only has one toilet cleaner in the country, as kara mentioned, then people would simply do it themselves as the effort has a reduced tangible cost compared to hiring the £20 per hour cleaner.
So demand would also be affected by quality; the more skill a job requires, the more demand there is due to the cost to the potential employee in learning that skill, and hence there results in both a reduced level of suitable workers and also a greater salary expectation by the potential workers. I do not think this applies in the same way to the unskilled jobs that illegal immigrants do (partially because you can't as easily check references, but also because it's a mass-numbers, min cost market), that many of these industries can't sustain themselves without using unlawfully cheap labour to produce cheap goods. Like, for example, how many of the customers buying these illegally picked cheap crops would simply switch to cheaper foreign sources rather than pay an increased (by many times) fee for the same product picked by legal workers? (and how many of these illegal producers would not just move themselves to other countries?)
EDIT
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/43/Supply-demand-P.png/240px-Supply-demand-P.png)
Another supply-demand curve from wikipedia, showing demand D1 and D2 with relation to price and quantity. This doesn't cover, it appears, when a products' price becomes greater than its perceived worth.