Illegal Immigration

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Funny. It appears as if the unregulated free market embraced by today's religious right DOES have it's limitations.

When a greedy CEO decides to cut health care benefits for minimum wage workers in order to further engorge his profits, that's perfectly legit. But when a foreign laborer willing to work twice as hard for half the pay gets hired over you, THEN WE HAVE AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

I'm tired of all the capitalist pigs complaining about losing jobs to Hispanics. This is the form of society you have embraced. Now you get to deal with the competition it entails.




Here's an idea: force companies to pay all workers the same wages, and there is no incentive to hire the immigrant over your average blue collar worker. Problem solved.

Is it really this simple, or am I just missing something?

What is the purpose of the complex naturalization process? I always thought America was the land of opportunity. Suddenly it has become an exclusive membership club. We assert the joys of a free market all over the world, but wish to deny certain groups of people these same rights on the home front.

Another idea. Enter the borders- BAM, your a citizen. Screw the little aptitude tests.

Would this cause any signifigant economic backlashes? The workforce would be no more saturated than it all ready is, right? I'm asking you guys... I'm no economist.



Please share your ideas and solutions.

[Cephus]

You think so? Could it be that they did not pay better wages? As they were forced to increase the wages to citizens, the economic incentives to illegally hire non-citizens also increased.

It's always going to be economically easier to hire illegals. Heck, it's economically easier to have slaves and not pay them at all. But given how the free market works, labor prices change as the value of the worker increases relative to the market. Most of the people in these jobs are unskilled or minimally skilled and really don't deserve to get paid much. Of course, when a cheaper labor source comes along, the market is going to embrace it, that's more money for the people on top.

Nothing is quite that straight forward. Increase the cost of labour in the US Agricultural industry and it then becomes less competitive internationally. Then to protect the US Agriculture industry, you increase tariffs. If you increase the cost of maintaining office space in the US, then you also increase the incentive to outsource office work offshore.

I've always been an advocate of requiring American companies to pay American wages regardless of where the work is done. An American company with offices in India should still be bound by American labor, environmental and safety laws. A lot of companies are making absolutely obscene profits because they are being allowed to do things elsewhere that they'd be prosecuted for here. The impetus to go offshore would be very small if there was no financial benefit to going elsewhere.

When there is a strong economic incentive to do things a particular way, legal enforcement by itself is not usually successful. Didn't we learn that from prohibition?

That means you need to change the economic incentive. If every single company that hired illegals got a $10,000 fine per offense and any hiring manager that knowingly hired an illegal got jail time, the practice would stop. The only reason there's an incentive to do it now is that everyone knows the law isn't being enforced.

[Cephus]

That was the theory with the death penalty. Now look at the crime rates.

If we ever actually killed anyone, it might help. As it stands now, you have a better chance of dying of old age than the death penalty. You want to see crime rates drop, take these people out and execute them immediately after they fail their mandatory appeal. Take the 600 people on California's death row, stretch them out in a row, have them hold hands, and apply high voltage to one end of the line. Make it a science experiment. Get rid of them. If nothing else, it'll free up prison cells.

We don't have the death penalty in anything more than name in this country.

[McCulloch]

Nothing is quite that straight forward. Increase the cost of labour in the US Agricultural industry and it then becomes less competitive internationally. Then to protect the US Agriculture industry, you increase tariffs. If you increase the cost of maintaining office space in the US, then you also increase the incentive to outsource office work offshore.

I've always been an advocate of requiring American companies to pay American wages regardless of where the work is done. An American company with offices in India should still be bound by American labor, environmental and safety laws. A lot of companies are making absolutely obscene profits because they are being allowed to do things elsewhere that they'd be prosecuted for here. The impetus to go offshore would be very small if there was no financial benefit to going elsewhere.

Now you're talking. Why should an American firm, or any western firm for that matter, be allowed to practice the kind of exploitation that they do off-shore that would be illegal at home. There may be some enforcement difficulties, but I do think that you have a good idea there. Also, countries with inadequate labour, environmental and safely laws should find it more difficult to trade (tariffs and other impediments) and to receive aid from the western developed nations.

When there is a strong economic incentive to do things a particular way, legal enforcement by itself is not usually successful. Didn't we learn that from prohibition?

That means you need to change the economic incentive. If every single company that hired illegals got a $10,000 fine per offense and any hiring manager that knowingly hired an illegal got jail time, the practice would stop. The only reason there's an incentive to do it now is that everyone knows the law isn't being enforced.

And this is why rigorous enforcement stopped bootlegging during prohibition and why America is winning the War on Drugs.

[palmera]

Quote:
While the minimum wage certainly needs to be elevated to a living wage, doing so can actually make things worse in both the short and long run in a number of ways. Companies will be forced to lay off thousands of employees just to compensate for the raise in labor cost.

I have never actually witnessed this phenomena. Orgeon has a mimimum wage of over seven dollars, and boasts the highest job growth rate in the country. From all indications, I am inclined to believe that there is very little correlation between minimum wage and the employment rate.

Where do you think businesses will get the money they lose due to the increased labor cost? Profit is the bottom line. To compensate the loss in profit, business are forced into staffing cutbacks and reducing hours.

There should be an income limit for all wealthy business leaders

This is a dangerous idea. It will only increase corruption, both within the government and the private sector. Doing this would set a dangerous precedent- it's not the government's job to cap how much someone can potentially make and it never should be.

Regulations put in place should be limited. As of now, because there are so many companies are forced to out-source to maintain profit increase and efficiency.

Hard-line capitalism measures "prosperity" in terms of the whole, which has proven to be it's downfall in building truly successful societies.

How do you define a "truly successful society?" Has there ever been one? And, what form of economy would it use? What better way is there to measure prosperity than in terms of the bigger picture?

It's always going to be economically easier to hire illegals. Heck, it's economically easier to have slaves and not pay them at all. But given how the free market works, labor prices change as the value of the worker increases relative to the market. Most of the people in these jobs are unskilled or minimally skilled and really don't deserve to get paid much. Of course, when a cheaper labor source comes along, the market is going to embrace it, that's more money for the people on top.

Good point. But it's actually more for everybody since that money goes back into the market.

I've always been an advocate of requiring American companies to pay American wages regardless of where the work is done. An American company with offices in India should still be bound by American labor, environmental and safety laws. A lot of companies are making absolutely obscene profits because they are being allowed to do things elsewhere that they'd be prosecuted for here. The impetus to go offshore would be very small if there was no financial benefit to going elsewhere.

Interesting idea. The only problem is that we in America benefit from those profits. It's a mighty tough sell to make, especially since the wages given by U.S. companies in other areas of the world are often great salaries to begin with (relatively speaking.)

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I agree. But we also have to agree that these must be legal immigrants, not exploitable non-citizens. I suggest we attack the cause, not the effect, and in my opinion that means targeting managers and corporations.

I would opt for attacking the inane naturalization requirements.

No self respecting immigrant is going to take years out of their life just to have their name on the voting roster. Why not be more accompanying? They are going to come anyway. Scrap the border patrol, put up a registration booth.

I've always been an advocate of requiring American companies to pay American wages regardless of where the work is done. An American company with offices in India should still be bound by American labor, environmental and safety laws. A lot of companies are making absolutely obscene profits because they are being allowed to do things elsewhere that they'd be prosecuted for here. The impetus to go offshore would be very small if there was no financial benefit to going elsewhere.

The same with illegal immigrants- force companies to pay them the same, the incentive to hire is gone.

If we ever actually killed anyone, it might help. As it stands now, you have a better chance of dying of old age than the death penalty. You want to see crime rates drop, take these people out and execute them immediately after they fail their mandatory appeal. Take the 600 people on California's death row, stretch them out in a row, have them hold hands, and apply high voltage to one end of the line. Make it a science experiment. Get rid of them. If nothing else, it'll free up prison cells.

And there would go our status as a civilized country.

Such were the tactics in the dark ages, and medieval crime management could not be considered effective by any stretch of the imagination. Most modern societies have progressed beyond such primitive intuitions (as have their crime rates).

We've talked about this, you've seen the statistics. At least two or three amoung that 600 is going to be innocent.

Anyway, not to stray off topic...

Where do you think businesses will get the money they lose due to the increased labor cost? Profit is the bottom line. To compensate the loss in profit, business are forced into staffing cutbacks and reducing hours.

Are they? I have never actually seen any statistics to verify this.

Cutting employees may curb the amount of the business' profit spent on wages, but won't necissarily cut into the percentage. Obviously fewer employees and less working hours means less output for the company.

You are right, profit is the bottom line- for the shareholders. Priorities need to be shifted to the well being of the workers. I maintain that the government should take a direct role in industry to ensure that the employer's profit incentives are kept within reason.

This is a dangerous idea. It will only increase corruption, both within the government and the private sector. Doing this would set a dangerous precedent- it's not the government's job to cap how much someone can potentially make and it never should be.

Why not? How would corruption increase? Can corruption increase?You'd think might all ready have capped itself off considering the current situation.

No nation in the history of the planet has had a more powerful corporate lobby system than America currently has. Drastic measures are needed to reduce the power of corporations to where they cannot influence public policy.

Political reforms are essential. Campaign contributions should be banned completely. All political campaign money should come from a government fund and be distributed evenly amoung all candidates.



Why should income be capped? Simple, no one phisically needs over a certain amount to sustain life. The starving families home and abroad do. When global poverty is abolished, then we'll talk about letting you have 10 billion dollars.

Regulations put in place should be limited. As of now, because there are so many companies are forced to out-source to maintain profit increase and efficiency.

Forced to outsource?

No, CHOOSE to outsource, because making obsene profits is held in higher esteem than providing for the common good.

My old civics teacher resorted to teaching after having to abandon his old job. Not because they were doing poorly, but because the entire productions department moved to Mexico. The last I heard, the old boss man has retired to Boca Raton.

How do you define a "truly successful society?" Has there ever been one? And, what form of economy would it use?

Standard of living is a good indicator. In which case, the US has failed.

What better way is there to measure prosperity than in terms of the bigger picture?

In the bigger picture, America seems to be one of the most prosperous nations on the planet.

Looking a little closer, you will see that our purchasing power is in decline, the average houshold debt is over $70,000, the middle class is slowly working it's way to extinction, our health coverage percentage is the lowest on earth, and the poverty level has increased to 12%.

This "economic prosperity" is exclusive to the upper class, as witnessed in our 99% total income inequality rate.


You must look deeper than total capital. Quality of life is an essential factor.

[palmera]

Quote:
Where do you think businesses will get the money they lose due to the increased labor cost? Profit is the bottom line. To compensate the loss in profit, business are forced into staffing cutbacks and reducing hours.

Are they? I have never actually seen any statistics to verify this.

Yes, they are- but I'm not talking about the biggest companies alone. Small businesses are even more likely to go out of business because they can't cut staff so they must raise prices which drives them out of town when the next wal-mart or publix comes strolling in. Not only setting a minimum wage, but hiking it disrupts the chain of supply and demand for both big and small business, which the market, if left alone, takes care of by itself. Here's an example: let's say an office needs a janitor. If the wage is set at $100 dollars an hour then thousands of applicants will show up; if it's only $1/hr, no one will show up. If the government forces the wage to be $5.15/hr, then the employer might simply have another employee(s) do it and perhaps give him/her and extra $.50/hr. Thus a potential job is lost.[1]

The fact of the matter is that the minimum wage destroys jobs and hurts the working poor more than people think. At the time of the war on poverty many economists were for the effort but against having a minimum wage law; one of the reasons is that they foresaw what might happen. Raising the minimum wage hurts the working poor with limited skills by taking away jobs- following the logic, it keeps them on welfare which then becomes more a burden on the rest of the country. Because of the hike in wages, the labor pool becomes larger and more competitive thus leaving out those with limited skills since employers will take the higher-skilled applicants. [2]

The vast majority of people earning minimum wage are not parents but teenagers, college-kids, interns, part-timers etc., who are not trying to support a family. Raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt families and while having it raised doesn't help them out either. The ones we're hurting are those seeking to get job experience. Setting a minimum wage reduces jobs and increases competition. Thus, it's harder for said people to get the entry level work in necessary to find a higher paying job later on.

I just realized I'm totally off track.

No nation in the history of the planet has had a more powerful corporate lobby system than America currently has. Drastic measures are needed to reduce the power of corporations to where they cannot influence public policy.

You're right, the lobbying situation is out of control- as is the power attained by corporations through funding political campaigns.

Why should income be capped? Simple, no one phisically needs over a certain amount to sustain life. The starving families home and abroad do. When global poverty is abolished, then we'll talk about letting you have 10 billion dollars.

While no one may need that money to sustain life, they help others by putting the money back into the market, and at levels far exceeding seeming possibilities. (where do they find the time to spend millions of dollars???) Anyway, it's not anyone's right to tell them how much they can make. Why penalize someone for being able and successful? The power shouldn't be in the hands of the government to cap income- but it always has been and always will be in the hands of the people. If we don't want corporations to earn ridiculous amounts of money, then we should stop buying their goods. The consumer wields an enormous amount of power, but, like we here in America simply don't use it- opting instead to complain (and believe me, if I weren't playing devil's advocate, I'd be griping!) Rather than have the government take care of everything, society needs to grow up, stop griping, and take action to affect the change it wants to see in the world (Ghandi anybody?)

Quote:
Regulations put in place should be limited. As of now, because there are so many companies are forced to out-source to maintain profit increase and efficiency.

Forced to outsource?

No, CHOOSE to outsource, because making obsene profits is held in higher esteem than providing for the common good.

Profits are for the greater good. And yes, forced to- in order to stay afloat in the long run, companies that can outsource do and must- the economy is global now and that's just the way it is. While hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost due to outsourcing, the cost of operations for U.S. companies that do outsource has lowered, which in turn increases company growth at home(yay, more jobs!) for the nearly 300 million people that live here. And even if the shareholders net higher profit if the company decides not to invest in growth, they in turn put more money back into the economy which creates more jobs. In the long haul outsourcing is good. It will be much tougher to do so if IT folk get unionized like the steal workers, but who knows?

Quote:
How do you define a "truly successful society?" Has there ever been one? And, what form of economy would it use?

Standard of living is a good indicator. In which case, the US has failed.

What?? The U.S. has one of the highest standards of living worldwide every year. Constantly in the top ten- we're also the country with the highest population out of those top ten. We also have, next to Japan I think, the lowest unemployment rate of any industrialized country- at 300 mil. strong, that's impressive. So, going by standard of living, the U.S. is in good shape as a successful society.

You must look deeper than total capital. Quality of life is an essential factor.

Very true- we have a bad wealth distribution here. But looking more closely, our poverty level at 12% is a bit of a misnomer. First, poverty in the global sense is a relative term. 12% of out populous aren't living in huts with worms and no food for weeks at a time. Also, we have a large percentage of immigrants coming in yearly which adds to the poverty level of the country in the short term. Further, what is deemed as poor now would have been comfortable a few generations ago and average nigh 40 years ago. What's poor now just isn't what it used to be. And while there is a level of destitution, it's a small fraction of the 35 million living in poverty. [3]

[Cephus]

And this is why rigorous enforcement stopped bootlegging during prohibition and why America is winning the War on Drugs.

It might help if we actually had a war on drugs. We've just had a "Media Campaign on Drugs" so far. There is a way to win it, or at least seriously stem the tide, but America doesn't have the guts.

[Wyvern]

And this is why rigorous enforcement stopped bootlegging during prohibition and why America is winning the War on Drugs.

Actually enforcement during prohibition wasn't very effective and if anything it both exacerbated the depression and led to the rise of the gangster era in america. Al Capone being the most famous and powerful, he basically owned most of Chicago and even when he was taken down it wasn't for bootlegging or any of the other more egregious crimes he undoubtedly was guilty of instead it was merely for not paying his taxes.

I see alot of similarities between prohibition and the current war on drugs except the crime lords that have risen from the current activities are mostly in Colombia and thus untouchable.

[Cephus]

Al Capone being the most famous and powerful, he basically owned most of Chicago and even when he was taken down it wasn't for bootlegging or any of the other more egregious crimes he undoubtedly was guilty of instead it was merely for not paying his taxes.

That was only because it was the crime they could demonstrate most easily in a court of law. It got him off the street, which in the end was the whole idea anyhow.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Yes, they are- but I'm not talking about the biggest companies alone. Small businesses are even more likely to go out of business because they can't cut staff so they must raise prices which drives them out of town when the next wal-mart or publix comes strolling in. Not only setting a minimum wage, but hiking it disrupts the chain of supply and demand for both big and small business, which the market, if left alone, takes care of by itself. Here's an example: let's say an office needs a janitor. If the wage is set at $100 dollars an hour then thousands of applicants will show up; if it's only $1/hr, no one will show up. If the government forces the wage to be $5.15/hr, then the employer might simply have another employee(s) do it and perhaps give him/her and extra $.50/hr. Thus a potential job is lost.[1]

The fact of the matter is that the minimum wage destroys jobs and hurts the working poor more than people think. At the time of the war on poverty many economists were for the effort but against having a minimum wage law; one of the reasons is that they foresaw what might happen. Raising the minimum wage hurts the working poor with limited skills by taking away jobs- following the logic, it keeps them on welfare which then becomes more a burden on the rest of the country. Because of the hike in wages, the labor pool becomes larger and more competitive thus leaving out those with limited skills since employers will take the higher-skilled applicants. [2]

Sounds reasonable on paper, but does not seem to work out in reality.

All the reports I could glean show no correlation between minimum wage and employment (most notably the ones conducted by the FPI and the EPI).

"The overall conclusion of this analysis is that since 1997, employment growth (all nonfarm employment and retail employment) in states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum has performed at least as favorably as in states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails. That is, state minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wages have not adversely affect employment growth over the past few years. This conclusion holds for both the expansion phase of the economy the years 1998 through 2000 as well as the years of recession and extraordinarily slow growth since then (2001 through 2003).

In fact, when considered in the aggregate, taking all states together in two groups, employment outcomes have generally been more favorable in the higher minimum wage states than in all other states. Consider these examples:

- Total employment in the higher minimum wage states increased by 6.2 percent from January 1998 to January 2004, 50 percent greater than the combined job growth of 4.1 percent for the other states where the federal minimum wage prevailed; and
- Retail employment grew by 6.1 percent in the minimum wage states versus 1.9 percent in the other states."

http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/press_040421.stm

This report publishes similar findings amoung small businesses:

"- In the under 50 employee size range across all industries, the number of establishments increased by 3.1 percent for the higher minimum wage states compared to a 1.6 percent increase for the balance of the states; and
- Within the retail industry, the number of establishments increased by 0.6 percent for the higher minimum wage states (compared to 0.3 percent for all other states), the number of employees increased by 3.7 percent (versus 2.4 percent), total annual payroll increased by 17.9 percent in the higher minimum wage states and average payroll per worker increased by 13.7 percent (versus, 14.7 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively, for the other states."

Practices such as higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale have been shown to counterbalance the hike in wage minimums.

To site some specific states:




No apparent effect.

A bit of a peek at the other side of the argument:


The states depicted in this chart with higher unemployment rates are often sited by in arguments against pay raises. However, it is essential to note what 4/5 of the more unemployed states have in common- large manufacturing industries. The nationwide decrease in manufacturing employment can be blamed for these state's losses.


There is simply no sufficient data suggesting that higher minimum wages adversely effect employment, and even some reports that cite an opposite trend.

The vast majority of people earning minimum wage are not parents but teenagers, college-kids, interns, part-timers etc., who are not trying to support a family.

The earnings of many of these workers (around 40%) greatly impact the family income. On average,their wages contributed to 70% of the family's earnings, a signifigant amount.

While no one may need that money to sustain life, they help others by putting the money back into the market, and at levels far exceeding seeming possibilities. (where do they find the time to spend millions of dollars???)

Between the multiple estates (some of which are inhabited only one week out of the year), billion dollar yachts (used once or twice annually), and the private jets (about nine minutes faster than a commercial airline service), the world's upper class seem to find ample time to spend their money.

Those too busy figuring out ways to cut costs by mandating which brands of toilet paper company branches are allowed to use will hire people to spend their money for them.

Sure, they put massive amounts of money back into the market. In this case, the term "massive" being relative to their TOTAL wealth, the size of which transcends modern vocabulary.

Point is, they are not contributing near as much as they could be. The accumulated wealth which is recirculated back into the economy is merely the small surplus of the millionaire's funds.

Imagine if the government did not allow the excesses of the upper 10%'s funds to be spent on personal matters. Imagine that money back in the hands of the common man. Our new poverty level would reach the economic threshold in which the middle class currently resides.

Bill Gates' net worth surpasses the annual budget of Russia (a recorded fact). Poverty in Somalia could be wiped out overnight if Bill decided to cede just half of his funds. An overstatement? I think not.

In fact, the world's roughly 400 billionaires have enough money between them to squash GLOBAL poverty. In the medical field, a doctor neglecting to treat a dying patient when all necissary resources are available can be tried for murder. 4,000 hungry children leave us per hour from starvation. Why can't a billionaire be charged with their murder?

The power shouldn't be in the hands of the government to cap income

But it is okay for the government to blatantly INCREASE their income via tax cuts?

You don't have to worry about the government having the power to cap income any time soon- any congressman making such a proposal would only be hurting himself.

America is no longer a true democracy. We have reverted to a plutocracy (by definition). Voters are, by large, completely ignorant of this less-publicized fact.

If you don't believe me, look at the last election. Amoung ALL winning canidates, 95% spent more money on their campaigns. Much of this money, of course, comes from personal savings. When the deciding factor in the election does not come down to which canidate is richer, the political party with the most money to spend on campaigning becomes the prime matter of circumstance. Look it up. Most elections are basically sold to the highest bidder.

It's no mystery why big business and high income disparity rule our economy.

...but it always has been and always will be in the hands of the people. If we don't want corporations to earn ridiculous amounts of money, then we should stop buying their goods. The consumer wields an enormous amount of power, but, like we here in America simply don't use it- opting instead to complain

Then we should stop driving to work? Lower income families should stop buying buying cheaper food from large industrial agriculture companies?

In feudalistic Europe, it was either buy into the rich's products, or starve to death. Such is our current situation. Monopolies still rule supreme, though not in the traditional sense.

The government is the sole regulator of business.

Which means nothing regulates business.

What?? The U.S. has one of the highest standards of living worldwide every year. Constantly in the top ten- we're also the country with the highest population out of those top ten. We also have, next to Japan I think, the lowest unemployment rate of any industrialized country- at 300 mil. strong, that's impressive. So, going by standard of living, the U.S. is in good shape as a successful society.

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/8Comparison.htm

The US has the highest productivity per worker in the world. How we use that productivity is another issue entirely. Most of this GPD is invested in $400,000,000,000 worth of miliarty endeavors, including 60,000,000,000 just to maintain our vast nuclear arsenal. Things such as health care, crime, pollution, home ownership, democratic participation, social programs, teenage sex/pregnancies/abortions, the middle class, poverty, investment, and debt are held in much lower esteem.

Very true- we have a bad wealth distribution here. But looking more closely, our poverty level at 12% is a bit of a misnomer. First, poverty in the global sense is a relative term. 12% of out populous aren't living in huts with worms and no food for weeks at a time. Also, we have a large percentage of immigrants coming in yearly which adds to the poverty level of the country in the short term. Further, what is deemed as poor now would have been comfortable a few generations ago and average nigh 40 years ago. What's poor now just isn't what it used to be. And while there is a level of destitution, it's a small fraction of the 35 million living in poverty. [3]

I think that this status quo is often overestimated. The United States has up to 300% more poverty than industrialized contemporaries. Even taking population and the higher national median into account, we still have a higher percentage of starving citizens than most other nations.

A lot more than our country's leaders would have you believe, at any rate.