[Goober5000]

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.

[Kosh]

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 ).

[achtung]

(except medicare and social security, but those are only for old geezers anyway ).

1-866-9-BURY ME
Call it....

Farewell Ranch

[Crazy_Ivan80]

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

[Wild Fragaria]

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

[Wild Fragaria]

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 

[Goober5000]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

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.

[Goober5000]

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.

[Wild Fragaria]

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    And yes indeed, I studied Econ 101 during my first year of college.

[Kosh]

  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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Wild Fragaria]

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?

[karajorma]

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.

[Goober5000]

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.

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.

[Ace]

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?

[Herra Tohtori]

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. 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] 

[aldo_14]

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.

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.

[Goober5000]

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? 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.

[aldo_14]

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? 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....