illegal immigration and the US workforce

[Jack V Savage]

There should be a 5th explanation added: CEOs like to keep as much of the money as possible.

Is that something that's changed, though? Are CEOs greedier today than they were pre-Reagan? If so, why? It doesn't make sense to me that there would have been a change (though the lowered top marginal rate does mean there's more incentive to push top-end incomes higher and the lower capital-gains rates means different incentives for labor vs. capital income).

And then there's the issue of why workers would accept that. They are still needed, after all. That's where the explanations from the Bloomberg piece come in. De-unionization is probably a small factor there, but the four explanations offered in the piece can also explain it.

Here's a good response to it, BTW: http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017...e-in-the-horserace-noah-smith-is-running.html

I don't think the difference is as big as DeLong thinks, though, as the first piece is somewhat indirectly about *why* there's slack in labor markets, while the response is just to say that slack exists.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that it's a settled question; I'm saying it's complex, and we should really try to figure it out instead of settling on simple answers, even if they support policies I tend to agree with.

Let's take Trump, for example. He's a billionaire who has reportedly ripped off relatively low paid workers repeatedly throughout his career. Why? Can he not afford it? Of course he can. But he makes even more money if he crushes the little guy, so that is what he does.

These people have a different mentality. They are often brutally unfeeling and emotionless when it comes to business. I do not know what industry you are in, but most of us have seen this first hand.

Sure, but there were Trumps in the '60s, '50s--every decade of human history. It's not an explanation for any changes.

 

[IGIT]

I'm talking welfare, ebt cards the whole 9 yards... Not just public education which they certainly are taking advantage as well but hey who can blame them for getting an education.

hello colby25,

Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/

as i said earlier, illegal immigrants surely must pay into public education. they either own their homes or they rent, and in either case, they're paying property taxes (either directly or indirectly).

i'm not really pro or anti illegal immigration, for the purposes of this thread.

i'm trying to get a better understanding as to whether they are a net boon to the US economy or whether their presence in the US is deleterious.

- IGIT

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I don't think it's loss of unions per se, but the related loss of manufacturing jobs or IOW high paying jobs for relatively low skills....

Once all those people had to get other jobs, likely in the now dominant service industry, their wages were going to drop statistically

That likely explains a huge portion of the income gap, the types of actual work our economy is now based on

the less skills and intelligence you have, the easier you are to replace and the lower you can be paid.....I mean how many truly intelligent people are poor?

virtually none

 

[lilelvis]

hello and good evening Pwent,



you know, its interesting...nothing you just wrote has anything to do with the questions posed in the OP.

perhaps then, its ham you'd like to discuss?

i'm happy to oblige!

In a way, our delicacy for the day is something like that of a side dish. Yes, although the Italian Parma Ham could be served alone – its thin slices make it ideal to add more spike to other dishes, like pizzas and salads.

*cheers*

- IGIT

You are funny IGIT.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think it's loss of unions per se, but the related loss of manufacturing jobs or IOW high paying jobs for relatively low skills....

It's the opposite. There's nothing particularly special about manufacturing jobs (as we now see). The fact that the industry was heavily unionized helped drive wages up.

Once all those people had to get other jobs, likely in the now dominant service industry, their wages were going to drop statistically

Seems like that contradicts your normal dumb narrative about poor people being genetically inferior or something. If people's labor is actually worth a certain amount, losing their job should just mean that they immediately get another job that pays that amount. In a world where income=worth (the one you have argued we live in), losing a job is a minor inconvenience.

That likely explains a huge portion of the income gap, the types of actual work our economy is now based on

I'd like to see your numbers.

 

[IGIT]

Shut down companies caught knowingly hiring illegals. That'll deter some of the demand, maybe even a large portion if the states and feds would actually enforce immigration laws on businesses, not just illegals.

To me this issue is as clear cut as law enforcement going after drug users instead of the major suppliers.

hello mr.bigglesworth,

yes, i've heard this argument many times over...but this particular thread isn't about ICE enforcement; it's about whether having illegal immigrants working in construction, agribusiness, restaurants, hotels, etc, are a boon for the US economy and how it affects US born low wage workers.

it's also about whether or not H1b and H2b visa holders affect US workers in a negative or positive way.

anytime illegal immigration has come up, my fallback response has always been the same - they're here because American ownership in the various industries i cited want them here. it's really that simple.

for the purposes of this thread, though, i wanted to try and get beyond that and go into the economic effects of having these folk in our country.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

You are funny IGIT.

hello lilelvis,

thanks lilevlis.

anytime anyone veers off topic so early in a thread, i figure they must really want to talk about....ham.

- IGIT

 

[lilelvis]

hello lilelvis,

thanks lilevlis.

anytime anyone veers off topic so early in a thread, i figure they must really want to talk about....ham.

- IGIT

And that was some damn fine ham...

 

[HunterSdVa29]

It's the opposite. There's nothing particularly special about manufacturing jobs (as we now see). The fact that the industry was heavily unionized helped drive wages up.



Seems like that contradicts your normal dumb narrative about poor people being genetically inferior or something. If people's labor is actually worth a certain amount, losing their job should just mean that they immediately get another job that pays that amount. In a world where income=worth (the one you have argued we live in), losing a job is a minor inconvenience.



I'd like to see your numbers.

i personally like how you interpolated eugenics into a conversation that has literally NEVER mentioned any form of genetics, race, inferiority, etc....

Take a bow for that one

I've never actually said income=worth, that being said if you don't produce your own adequate income you are worthless. The most basic tenant of adult self responsibility is providing for yourself and your dependents, period. A majority of our society are net takers in the tax system, which apparently you're fine with, but it shows how little value the average person actually produces THROUGH THEIR OWN WORK...

 

[Jack V Savage]

A majority of our society are net takers in the tax system, which apparently you're fine with, but it shows how little value the average person actually produces THROUGH THEIR OWN WORK...

It's not just a majority, it's near 100%. Which was the point you missed. Like I said, if people were just getting their own value back, losing a job would have no impact on incomes. In reality, there's a huge amount of existing value (land, natural resources, ideas, etc.) that people put themselves in a position to capture as well as contribute to with labor sales (and of course, capital income is unearned).

 

[MaxMMA]

hello everyone,

i was following the election in France, whilst also thinking about the immigration/H1B/H2B situation here in the states, and i had a question;

if the Trump administration were to completely staunch the flow of illegals to this nation, continue its unleashing of ICE officials from sea to shining sea, while also restricting H1B/H2B visas, would the result be more employed Americans along with higher wages across the board for everyone in those respective fields?

and, if the answer is "yes" to the above, wouldn't that be a wonderful boon to the United States?

my second question would be this;

i figure there would be a cost offset for everything too, as American ITs filled those jobs in the tech industry and earned more....and as Americans replaced Mexican and Central American labor in the kitchens of various restaurants and earned more....and this trend would continue in the construction and hospitality industry, along with the agribusiness.

meaning, either there would be less profits for ownership or the cost for everything would rise for the general public.

so would the end result be a net positive for things like GDP and government spending (since presumably there would be less public assistance as wages went up) or would it be a net negative?

- IGIT

If you asked me this 15+ years ago i would have said that wages would have most defenitly gone up for most Americans. But most people have no first hand knowlege of this subject and like to spout off a bunch of nonsense, mostly about the myth that undocumented workers are working for below minimum wage, which is a humongous crock of shit. I've been a member of the Texas workforce for 15 years and I can tell you that undoubtedly most illegal laborors earn far more than minimum wage. Illegals aren't moving halfway across the globe to make $2 an hour. They can do that were they come from.

Illegal laborors are filling jobs that Americans don't know how to do anymore. Carpentry, metalwork, construction, etc. BLUE COLLAR work. A lot of Americans think that getting your hands dirty for a living is not the way to go, vocational training in highschool is almost non existant. I spent my "college years" going to trade school and worked in numerous trades for numerous companies. One thing was always consistant at these jobs. I was always the youngest American at each job. Even in my late 20's when i would roll up to a jobsite, if your face was white/black, you had at least 15-20 years of age on me.

If you remove all the illegals today, I have no doubt that American companies would drastically increase their wages in a desperate attempt to fill skilled positions. Unfortunately they are going to have to wait 5-10 years for the American workforce to get up to speed with the rest of the world in terms of skilled trades.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

It's not just a majority, it's near 100%. Which was the point you missed. Like I said, if people were just getting their own value back, losing a job would have no impact on incomes. In reality, there's a huge amount of existing value (land, natural resources, ideas, etc.) that people put themselves in a position to capture as well as contribute to with labor sales (and of course, capital income is unearned).

capitol income is 'unearned' technically but it is taxable and REQUIRES REVENUES IN THE FIRST PLACE TO INVEST which you're clearly leaving out in this redistribution equation

TANF and the ilk are unearned as in literally unearned, you have to actually be NOT EARNING to even qualify for it.....

I have no rpoblem w/ you classifying both of those as 'unearned income' and part of the redistribution of revenues, i also feel most people are naturally going to add a value statement to this process.

also poor people generally don't have those other items w/ existing value (land, resources, ideas, IP) so i'm not even sure why you brought that up

 

[Jack V Savage]

capitol income is 'unearned' technically but it is taxable

It's completely irrelevant that it's taxable since 100% of it is due to the gov't. It's like taxing gov't employee salaries.

and REQUIRES REVENUES IN THE FIRST PLACE TO INVEST which you're clearly leaving out in this redistribution equation

It's not relevant to the point at all.

I'm getting that you have some kind of "magic money" model in your head. Money doesn't do anything to grow the economy (except by making it easier to do business).

I have no rpoblem w/ you classifying both of those as 'unearned income' and part of the redistribution of revenues, i also feel most people are naturally going to add a value statement to this process.

It doesn't matter if you have a problem with it. It's how they are rightly classified.

also poor people generally don't have those other items w/ existing value (land, resources, ideas, IP) so i'm not even sure why you brought that up

Maybe read again? Seems pretty clear what I was saying. Not sure how I can put it in simpler terms.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

It's completely irrelevant that it's taxable since 100% of it is due to the gov't. It's like taxing gov't employee salaries.



It's not relevant to the point at all.

I'm getting that you have some kind of "magic money" model in your head. Money doesn't do anything to grow the economy (except by making it easier to do business).



It doesn't matter if you have a problem with it. It's how they are rightly classified.



Maybe read again? Seems pretty clear what I was saying. Not sure how I can put it in simpler terms.

you're not getting it

if you don't see how others don't agree w/ you in placing equal weight into say a Mortgage tax deduction in comparison to food stamps and welfare as means of redistribution.....

there's nothing anyone here can tell you

 

[helltoupee]

You're going to believe what you want but trust me it's not the jobs illegals are here for anymore it's the benefits... I shouldn't say all but there's a lot.

What if I told you that drug dealers aren't allowed to slang drugs on the street to argue against illegal drug use. You would laugh at me. This is essentially your argument here.

It's sounds rediculous how an illegal could get benefits but these benefits- welfare, ebt, low income housing is often state provided.

I don't think you quite understand.

You are ineligible for benefits/welfare etc. if you are an illegal immigrant.

You must have legal status to qualify, so not sure what you mean by the above.

 

[Jack V Savage]

you're not getting it

if you don't see how others don't agree w/ you in placing equal weight into say a Mortgage tax deduction in comparison to food stamps and welfare as means of redistribution.....

there's nothing anyone here can tell you

The fact that I know you're wrong doesn't mean that I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

i laughed, good post

 

[Bat Dad]

saw this today
worth a watch

 

[helltoupee]

Is that something that's changed, though? Are CEOs greedier today than they were pre-Reagan? If so, why? It doesn't make sense to me that there would have been a change (though the lowered top marginal rate does mean there's more incentive to push top-end incomes higher and the lower capital-gains rates means different incentives for labor vs. capital income).

I definitely read a study regarding a trend that started in the mid 90's citing the huge disparity between officer compensation and salaried workers, which, according to said study, was a contributing factor to lower wages for salaried workers.

The overarching point was that the difference in pay was vastly more significant that it had ever been in history, and that it was continuing to grow.

I'll see if I can dig it up if you are interested.

 

[freaky]

hello everyone,

i was following the election in France, whilst also thinking about the immigration/H1B/H2B situation here in the states, and i had a question;

if the Trump administration were to completely staunch the flow of illegals to this nation, continue its unleashing of ICE officials from sea to shining sea, while also restricting H1B/H2B visas, would the result be more employed Americans along with higher wages across the board for everyone in those respective fields?

and, if the answer is "yes" to the above, wouldn't that be a wonderful boon to the United States?

my second question would be this;

i figure there would be a cost offset for everything too, as American ITs filled those jobs in the tech industry and earned more....and as Americans replaced Mexican and Central American labor in the kitchens of various restaurants and earned more....and this trend would continue in the construction and hospitality industry, along with the agribusiness.

meaning, either there would be less profits for ownership or the cost for everything would rise for the general public.

so would the end result be a net positive for things like GDP and government spending (since presumably there would be less public assistance as wages went up) or would it be a net negative?

- IGIT

Yes it would mean more American jobs for American with higher wages. OR it could mean jobs moving to overseas. But let's go with the former of more high paying jobs for fellow Americans. It would not be a wonderful boon for USA. Higher pay means businesses aren't earning as much, therefore prices will be higher. Look at SF for example. It's flourishing for high wage ITs. It is also the most expensive city. Even the high paying ITs can't afford to live there.

So does this mean, it is a bad thing? No, I will continue to support higher American because they are American. It will be better in the long run. You higher outsiders, half or more of their paycheck is going back home to some other countries. In the long run, it will be better for the US economy if we hire within the states.