|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 1, 2006 22:38:13 GMT -6
The biggest problem created by uncontrolled illegal immigration is wage suppression. According to economics professor George Borjas, immigration reduces the average annual earnings of U.S.-born men by an estimated $1,700, or roughly 4%. (See ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/cis504.pdf) If that reduction is applied to the roughly 143 million employed Americans, that reduces aggregate annual worker income by $243 billion, or $0.243 trillion. That's roughly 2% of our $12 trillion GDP. That's a loss in consumer spending of $243 billion (less taxes). Given that our entire GDP growth in 2005 was $384 billion, this is a significant amount. Considering that consumer spending is approximately 70% of GDP, that makes the "growth" in consumer spending around $269 billion. Again, the loss of that $243 billion is no small amount. And it is also $243 billion less money that could have been taxed, costing the Federal government anywhere between $36-61 billion per year. (Calculating the average income used in Borjas's article: $1,700 ÷ 0.04 = $42,500; Increasing the taxable income of a single taxpayer making $42,500/year by $1,700 increases Federal income tax by $425. Increasing taxable income of a married taxpayer filing making $42,500/year by $1700 increases Federal income tax by $255. Multiplying these numbers by 143 million amounts to $61 billion and $36 billion, respectively. Thus the income tax revenue lost is somewhere in between.) Right-wingers will argue that this wage suppression is offset by business profits, and that these profits fuel investment. But investment capital is OVER-abundant at present. Increasing this excess even further will not result in more capital investment. It will result in higher CEO salaries, further overinvestment in the stock market, and further investment in foreign production facilities, the latter of which puts even further downward pressure on American wages. Furthermore, business profits don't fuel consumer spending. And consumer spending is the engine that drives our economy, not investment. Without consumer spending, there are no returns on investment. And if no returns are anticipated on investment, no investment takes place. The immigration-fueled reduction in wages does NOT help our economy. It hurts it. It reduces aggregate consumer income and the consumer spending it finances. The reduction in consumer spending reduces consumer production demand, further reducing demand for the labor to provide that production. The reduction in labor demand drives down employment and wages. The resultant labor demand reduction further reduces aggregate consumer income and further reduces consumer purchasing power. As consumer buying power declines, so do investment opportunities, since those opportunities are created by consumer demand for production. Thus the increased profits resulting from reduction in labor costs create even more excess capital, while reducing investment opportunities still further. Does anyone really think that wage suppression is "good" for the economy? Doesn't someone have to purchase the goods produced for business to profit? Won't reducing consumer income also reduce consumer goods purchasing? Won't a decline in consumer goods purchasing reduce business revenues and reduce potential profits? Once again, is immigration-fueled reduction in worker/consumer income really "good" for the economy?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 30, 2006 13:28:55 GMT -6
Labor economist George Borjas has published a more recent paper regarding immigration and wage suppression. This study confines itself to the effects of immigration from Mexico exclusively. The article is an overall discussion of immigration from Mexico, including the effects on Mexican immigrants, their relative pay, as well as the American wage suppression caused by their immigration. Borjas notes that the wage suppression caused by immigration from Mexico alone, between 1980 and 2000, was 3.3%. Below is modified copy of the chart showing this, as well as the verbal interpretation of the chart. Here is a link to the article containing this information. The chart above is on the last page of this reference. Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States
|
|
|
Post by SciFiGuy on Jan 9, 2007 22:04:04 GMT -6
I think this news report not only is absurd, it is downright DANGEROUS.
First of all, who is this guy? And what makes him such an expert?! How was his research conducted? Were the results duplicated and verified by another, independent, reliable research team?
Next, the article states:
"While consumers and businesses may benefit from such cheap labor, the U.S. born-worker could be hurt by it, according to some research."
What double-talk! Who are U.S.-born workers if not consumers and businesses?! That sentence is pure gibberish. It makes no sense at all!
The whole concept is absurd. How can anyone know what the average worker would earn if millions upon millions of people were not here? The only way something like that could be determined is if someone used a "Sliders"-type device to go into a parallel universe to compare life there with life in our universe.
And finally -- and this is perhaps the most important point of all -- even if it is true that Americans do earn a little less, or even a lot less, because Méxicans and other immigrants are here, SO WHAT?! Is that fact meant to be used to justify that we should have immigration laws?
For example, what if it is true that because there are blacks in the United States, whites earn 45% less than they would if blacks were not here due to having to pay for extra schools, extra police, extra prisons, and so on. If it were proven that whites earn 45% less money than if blacks were not here, would that justify rounding up all the blacks in American and shipping them out?!
So, to sum, there are two issues here:
1) I don`t believe those figures that were cited.
2) And secondly, even if those figures are accurate and true, so what?! I don`t feel that the fact that Americans are earning a little less justifies our treating human beings badly by having immigration and deportation laws.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jan 9, 2007 23:53:33 GMT -6
There are over two billion people earning less than $2 a day. That's 7 for every person in the US. Where are you going to put your seven?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 10, 2007 2:05:51 GMT -6
I think this news report not only is absurd, it is downright DANGEROUS. No, SciFi, it is your reaction that is absurd and downright dangerous. Everytime an amnesty/open borders advocate is faced with facts, research, and unassailable logic, they respond like you have. Common sense, in addition to basic economics, indicates that increasing the "supply" of any commodity (including labor), reduces the price. The price in this case is wages. Increasing the "participating" labor force by adding 7 million illegal immigrants suppresses wages by increasing the supply of labor. This is something that doesn't even need a study to be proven. Increased suppy decreases price (wages). That's universally accepted economic theory. This "guy" is an economist at Harvard with some degree of renown. "Were the results verified by another, independent, reliable research team?" Did you even read his study? Did you even go through it to see if there is any justification for not accepting his results? Regardless of his study, does anyone really need to do a study to "prove" that increasing the supply of workers reduces wages? Labor unions have understood this concept for almost a century. Is accepted economic theory and labor dynamics suddenly invalid because it's an "inconvenient truth" for you open border/amnesty advocates? Again, it is your response that is pure gibberish. Did you miss the word "may"? If U.S. workers are consumers, and their income is suppressed by illegal immigration, then it definitely hurts them. If some workers (and consumers) don't experience a drop in wages, then it "may" help them, but it helps them onlyYour argument is beyond absurd. None of your comments make any sense whatsoever. You state "How can anyone know what the average worker would earn if million s upon million of people were not here?" You could start by applying simple common sense. You could start by looking up known government statistics and applying basic economic concepts. We have a working age population of 230 million. If we reduced this labor supply by 7 million illegal alien workers, what would happen? Employers would have to offer higher wages to employ enough workers to meet production demand. Again, this is EXACTLY what the principle is behind unions and collective bargaining -- restricting the available labor supply to improve the bargaining power of the unionized workers. That's exactly what reducing the number of illegal immigrant workers in our labor force would do. And that's exactly why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Corporate America want open borders and amnesty, because it keeps wages down by increasing both the total supply of workers, as well as the supply of workers willing to work for ultra-low wages. Completely ridiculous. There are multiple historic examples of improvement in wages when populations suddenly declined, such as the period following the Bubonic Plague in Europe. Absolutely!!!!!. It certainly DOES justify immigration laws. This United States government is supposed to protect the wellbeing of the people of the United States 1st and foremost. It is not supposed to be protecting the interests of lawbreaking foreigners and illegal immigrants over those of the American citizens. It certainly is "justified" on those grounds. And it is "justified" to aggressively prosecute those who break those laws, especially the employers who hire such illegal workers. What a completely childish and illogical argument. Black Americans are legal U.S. citizens, and are legally protected by the same laws that non-Black American citizens are protected by. In this case, Black Americans are even more victimized by the wage suppression caused by lawbreaking illegal aliens and their employers. Furthermore, your subtext of this being a "racial" issue is disgusting, dishonest, and slimey. The crime of illegal immigration is very simple to understand. Illegal immigrants are lawbreaking foreigners who have slipped into this country illegally, and have been illegally hired by "willing" employers. It is those same employers who can't find enough American workers, because they are "unwilling" to pay high enough wages to hire Americans, and because there is an alternate, cheaper, and illegal source available. So, "to sum" it up, you've presented NO valid argument to disprove Borjas study, NO valid argument to disprove that illegal aliens suppress wages, and made NO point whatsoever, other than that you're willing to put the needs of lawbreaking illegal immigrants above those of American citizens. You've also proven once again that open borders/amnesty advocates have no argument to support their views, though plenty of illogical, poorly thought-out rhetoric. It's disappointing to see another person who cares less about his fellow Americans than he does about lawbreaking illegal immigrants. Fortunately, you are in the minority, and a rapidly shrinking one at that.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 10, 2007 7:26:32 GMT -6
One could make the case that its the globalist open borders position that is "racist" as it pits illegal immigrants against legal minorites and other low income folks against each other.
|
|
|
Post by SciFiGuy on Jan 10, 2007 17:13:58 GMT -6
I noticed that you beat around the bush when I asked if anyone has verified what this guy has said. I don`t care if he does come from Harvard. What I care about is whether his results have been replicated. That is how science works. I don`t know this guy from Adam. Maybe he is a liar.
Also, I will show you how absurd his statements are. Entire cities, such as East Los Angeles and Santa Ana, are comprised of Latinos, many ~ perhaps most ~ are illegals. Those cities would not even exist were it not for those immigrants.
In fact, I work in Santa Ana. Were it not for immigrants, and Santa Ana, I would not even have my job!
You have cited ONE person who says that our incomes are less because of illegal immigrants. Shall I find two experts who say the opposite? If I do, will you switch positions?
I don`t think you would because I think you made up your mind in advance, and then went looking for someone who says what you wanted to hear.
The fact of the matter is, our immigration laws are rooted in bigotry. People don`t want Latinos in this country because they speak another language. That is the bottom line, and all the other reasons which people offer are phoney ones.
|
|
|
Post by SciFiGuy on Jan 10, 2007 17:18:28 GMT -6
Oh, I forgot to say: The statement was made that I support these people who are breaking the law.
What I am supporting is the elimination of discrimination and bigotry. Before I support the law, I need to know why this law exists in the first place. WHY is it that we have immigration laws? Answer that question satisfactorily first.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 10, 2007 17:42:49 GMT -6
We are a nation of laws, and we expect those people who come here to live and work to respect those laws.
No one is against legal immigration, its those who disobey our laws, both the illegal aliens and the employers who hire them that most citizens have a problem with. There are many many more than one journalist, economist, and other experts who can confirm that illegals depress wages and take jobs, as well as burden communities social services, prisons and charities. This is pretty darn well documented by numerous credible sources and easily searched out on the net. we won't even get in to the security aspect of criminals or terrorists sneaking across the border - there are plenty of cases both documented and anecdotally of this as well.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 10, 2007 17:45:29 GMT -6
Oh, I forgot to say: The statement was made that I support these people who are breaking the law. Right. You support changing the law so that current lawbreakers are no longer breaking the law. Why don't we just make bank robbery legal while we're at it. If you support the currently illegal activities of illegal immigrants, you are supporting those currently breaking the law. This has already been very well answered and in tremendous detail. Since you seem to have missed it, I'll briefly restate some of them. (You might also spend more time trying to comprehend the reasoning posted here, and spend less time trying to dispute it.) #1: Protect American workers from wage suppression by illegal immigration impoverished workers from foreign countries, and their employment by lawbreaking employers #2. Protect American taxpayers from incurring additional costs from paying for social services of lawbreaking illegal immigrants. #3. Protect the security interests of the United States by not allowing foreign nationals from any country to enter this country and commit crimes or acts of terrorism, and then retreat back to their country of origin to escape prosecution. #4. Protect Americans from the drain of American labor income and spending power being sent out of the U.S. back to a foreign country, decreasing American consumer spending power. #5. Protect Americans from the overcrowding caused by lawbreaking illegal immigrants' entry into this country. #6. Protect American education from diversion of resources to teach bilingual education, instead of devoting full resources to educating Americans.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 10, 2007 17:59:24 GMT -6
Every sovereign country has a right and responsibility to protect its borders and therefore its citizens from threats abroad, not just security threats, but economic threats as well.
Another thing that bears mention is that allowing for amnesty and rights to illegals is a slap in the face to those who took the time and sometimes great personal risk to go thru the process to come here LEGALLY
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jan 10, 2007 23:00:48 GMT -6
Scifiguy: "Also, I will show you how absurd his statements are. Entire cities, such as East Los Angeles and Santa Ana, are comprised of Latinos, many ~ perhaps most ~ are illegals. Those cities would not even exist were it not for those immigrants. In fact, I work in Santa Ana. Were it not for immigrants, and Santa Ana, I would not even have my job!"
Santa Ana is the Seat of one of the most prosperous counties in the world, and it has been a viable city for well over a hundred years. The illegals have turned much of it into a crime-ridden barrio. If you depend on illegal aliens for your job, you must be either a welfare worker, parole officer, or other bureaucrat feeding at the public trough.
I go to a Dr. in Santa Ana, near the exclusive neighborhood of Floral Park. Illegals didn't create that; they just haven't been able to destroy it yet. You don't hear many people complaining about Little Saigon, just west of Santa Ana, so your racism charges are fraudulent.
Racism is bringing illegal aliens to clean up and rebuild New Orleans, while its legal residents remain displaced and unemployed.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 13, 2007 18:09:43 GMT -6
Also, I will show you how absurd his statements are. Entire cities, such as East Los Angeles and Santa Ana, are comprised of Latinos, many ~ perhaps most ~ are illegals. Those cities would not even exist were it not for those immigrants. You're certainly proving that "ignorance is bliss." As 'graybeard' pointed out, Santa Ana existed and thrived long before there was a significant number of illegal immigrants. I grew up in Orange County myself, and I completely concur with 'graybeard', as I experienced the "pre-llegal immigration" times in Orange County myself. You're also completely wrong about East Los Angeles, and the surrounding areas. One area adjacent to East LA, Boyle Heights, is the site of White Memorial Medical Center. (I did my medical residency there and I lived there for 3 years.) I also have a close personal friend who frequented the Boyle Heights area in earlier years. Boyle Heights used to be a largely Jewish area. Clearly that's changed. Now it's nearly 99% Hispanic with a high percentage of illegal immigrants. There's gang graffity everywhere. This is an area that would have existed without illegal immigrants. However, it's an area that has certainly been transformed by illegal immigrants. Most legal residents, including many Hispanics, don't consider this transformation a positive one. Just what kind of job do you do? Are you a contractor who illegally hires illegals to reduce your labor costs at the expense of American citizens? Are you one of those employers who can't find Americans willing to work for less than the market rate for labor, and who illegally hires illegal immigrants instead? Are you one of these "free market" advocates that truly hates a "free market" when it comes to paying workers, but loves it when it comes to the price you charge for goods and services? Or are you in one of the professions suggested by Graybeard, that feeds at the American taxpayer trough? I've cited one, you've cited none. Yes, you should find "two experts" who offer solid evidence that our incomes are not less because of illegal immigrants. Yes, you should find "two experts" that offer proof that the laws of economics, pertaining to price & supply, are not applicable in this case. Yes, I certainly would like to see such evidence and proof. You've taken a chapter right out of the NeoCon-Artist Republican playbook - accuse your opposition of doing exactly what you yourself are doing. (You've earned a grade of "A+" for that chapter.) You've started out with your own unsupported conviction that ALL opposition to illegal immigration is "bigotted" or "racist," and that all other arguments in opposition are false. You've done this without even reading the other arguments, including even what's posted on this board. Your position is that of having intrinsic knowledge that all opponents of illegal immigration, amnesty, and open borders are bigots or racists. You've not only dismissed all of the well thought-out and logical arguments opposing illegal immigration, you've never even considered them. You simply "know" they're wrong, without even bothering to follow them. No, the "fact of the matter is" that all supporters of illegal immigration have run out of any other arguments, and need to resort to the "race" card. Otherwise, they'd have nothing else to say. You have no argument to make, other than blindly and illogically claiming "our immigration laws are rooted in bigotry," without a shread of evidence to support such a claim. And to back up your illogical, and often self-serving position, you call everyone a bigot or racist who disagrees. Is this your idea of "science," or "scientific" evidence? As someone with a college degree in a natural "science," I find your arguments very "un-scientific."
|
|