I believe that if we do not do anything about the increase in Illegal Immigrants in America then it's just going to get worst. We need to do something about it before it does something to us. It's hard for Citizens of the US to recieve any kind of fereral aid because all the illegal immigrants have taken it away. Healthcare and insurance is rising from all of the illegal immigrants. Not only are they taking everything away, some don't even know English and it's hard to communicate when you don't know their language. If I moved to France I would definitley learn French and would abide by all the laws and rules. A lot of illegal immigrants don't even have insurance so when you get in a wreck it's twice as much and that's also against the law. So, let's do something to help the situation and slove all the problems in the world
Illegal Immigrants
By BritP - Posted on October 15th, 2007
Phoenixes are superb. They are also fictional beings..but that isn't the point!
so i agree with the fact that something needs to be done..
but not to the extent that you expressed...
"It's hard for Citizens of the US to recieve any kind of fereral aid because all the illegal immigrants have taken it away.", by saying that is kind of like saying that all these illegal immigrants have come and taken all the jobs away.. but thats not true.. jobs are available.. but there are some of the only ones who take on some rigorous jobs..
immigrants arent the only ones thatare responsible for the helth care issues... some body had to be responsible for issuing it to them...
the immigration issue tangles into a lot of other problems affecting the country today...
Healthcare and insurance is rising because your government wants it to be so. They get money from those companies...and in return they don't make standardized health care, instead they let Americans pay more for healthcare than any other nation. Jokes on you. That solution won't really solve all the problems in the world. Uniting as a species and evenly distributing wealth would solve gigantic problems. 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth of our nation. That's unbelievably ridiculous. I promise you're not in that 1%. Why not focus on pertinant issues like darfur? Instead of racism...
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi
The immigration issue is a smoke-screen.
"Humidity is when you look for air and find water. We keep track of humidity so we won't drown when we breathe."
This sounds a lot like communism. It has failed everywhere it has been tried and has usually resulted in mass murder. I guess that would be a solution of sorts.
The result would be similar to what the Pilgrams experienced for their first two winters in Plymouth while they experimented with communism. Famin!
When productive people are not allowed to keep the fruits of the labor then they refuse to produce.
Please don't drag the bogeyman of communism into this argument.
Sorry, but you are not paying attention to his argument. A very small percentage of people control most of the wealth. That small percentage is doing everything it can to increase its percentage. It has little to do with productive people not being allowed to keep the fruits of their labor.
Look at the billions of dollars in no-bid contracts given to Bush and Cheney cronies like Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root, Bechtel, and so on. With little or no oversight. That is a huge redistribution of our tax money to the already-wealthy. Not being allowed to keep the fruits of one's labor is actually a good argument for a better redistribution of wealth!
And what about executive pay vs. factory floor workers pay? (This is from The Economist.)
In Japan, execs make 11 times what workers make.
In Germany, it is 12 times.
In France, 15 times.
In Italy, 20 times.
In Canada, 20 times.
In South Africa, 21 times.
In Britain, 22 times.
In Hong Kong, 41 times.
In Mexico, 47 times.
In Venezuela, 50 times.
In the United States, 475 times!
And please don't tell me that these executives are worth that much more, especially in light of stories of faltering or poorly-performing companies giving their execs huge pay raises and bonuses, on top of already obscene salaries and despite their poor performance, while making drastic job cuts and layoffs. Why do they do it? Because they can. There is very little or no oversight.
I don't think it is communism, or any other -ism, to point out that something is drastically out of whack here ...
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I wish that you would make this blog a lot longer because I wanted to learn more about the situation.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
With respect to health care, the Democrats keep telling us about the 40 + million uninsured people in America.
Of the 40 million, at least 12 million of them are illegal immigrants. But don't be fooled! Just because these people don't have insurance doesn't mean they don't get health care. They just show up at the Hospital Emergency Room and get whatever they need courtesy of the American taxpayer. They cost us tens of billions annually.
Just image, we could solve 25% of the health insurance program AND save a bundle of money which could be re-directed towards helping solve the rest of the problem by enforcing our immigration laws.
Another bogeyman?! Oh, no! You're shooting the messengers.
Obviously, you choose to ignore any studies that show the positive effects that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, have on the economy?
Remove all illegal immigrants and I hope you are prepared for soaring food prices, probable food shortages, and huge increases in the costs of services and construction. Do you really think spoiled American kids and young adults are going to take on jobs currently being done by immigrants (and for similar wages)?
Look, I'm not saying that there is not a problem, but that the issues are much more complex than you seem to allow.
Build a fence along the souther border? Sure, then we disrupt animal migratory routes even more severely than they already are. Do people have any concept of the cost of building and maintaining a project like that? Not to mention the moral and ethical arguments against it. Are we not the nation whose president exhorted a certain communist leader to tear down that wall? (Yes, I know you did not mention the fence. It just seemed to fit here.)
It is a matter of dealing with the root causes of problems, not with the symptoms. It is like Whack-a-Mole. You may whack one symptom, but unless you deal with the roots, another symptom will pop up.
Why would we want American to work for similar wages? Why not enforce our immigration laws and let supply and demand work its magic. If employers are offering extremely arduous work in horrible working conditions why shouldn't they be forced to pay a high wage to attract the labor they need?
If the labor supply were limited it would solve most of the wealth distribution problems you are concerned about. I have no interest in making the rich poorer but I would love to see the poor get richer. A tight labor market forcing higher wages is how you increase the standard of living for the working poor.
The wealth distribution problems you are concerned about are similar to those at an earlier period of American History called the Guilded Age where it looked like America was going to develop into a European style class society led by the likes of the Vanderbuilts, the Rockefellars and a handful of others. That age happened to coincide with periods of massive immigration and because of abundant labor, workers were explioted disgustingly (sweat shops, child labor) etc. Interestingly, immigrant staffed sweat shops are starting to re-appear in Los Angelos and New York and one was busted recently I believe in Connecticut. People were docked pay for using toilet paper.
The American Middle Class did not exist in America in anything close to resembling its current form until after WWII. Employer provided insurance was a benefit that began to be prevalent in that period as employers offered perks to retain the workers they valued. The rise of the Middle Class resulted from the tight labor market caused by a 30 year hiatus from mass immigration and the post war economic boom.
You talk about addressing the root causes? Then you need to look at the labor market. When labor is scarce and valued, then workers are treated well and their lives and standard of living improve. We don't need to worry about making the rich poorer. We just need to make our poor richer.
The positive effects of immigration are ill distributed. Of couyrse immigration makes the economy grow because 70% of our economy is driven by consumption and more people means more consumption. But the average American gets almost no benefit from this growth. The benefits are almost entirely accruing to the immigrants themselves who get a better life than they would have at home and the rich who pocket fat profits. The working poor get lower wages and the middleclass gets taxed to cover the social costs which result from the influx of massive numbers of new poor people. You are increasing the wealth distribution problems you abhor.
And the nonsense about immigrants keeping prices low demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of economics. Costs and prices move independently of each other. The cost of labor is set by the supply and demand for labor. The price of the good or service produced by that labor is set by the supply and demand for that service. Consider housing over the last decade. Millions of illegal immigrants were employed in the construction industry and wages (nominal and inflation adjusted) fell for workers in some segments of that industry like drywall and framing. But did the builders pass the lower costs on to consumers? No!!!! They sold their houses for the highest price the market would bear and pocketed the fat profits that resulted from FALLING labor costs and rapidly RISING housing costs.
Costs and prices move independently. Abundant cheap labor makes the rich richer, the poor poorer and transfers the social costs to the middleclass. If you want to look at root causes then look at mass immigration.
I have a degree in Economics from Carnegie-Mellon University, so come at me with your outstanding credentials before you insult and lecture. Or, lay off the insults in general. It is not necessary.
"Costs and prices move independently of each other. The cost of labor is set by the supply and demand for labor. The price of the good or service produced by that labor is set by the supply and demand for that service." My profound lack of understanding? Umm, if you increase the cost of production, the cost of the goods you are producing must rise. You don't get something for nothing. Period. Bottom line is that you can not sell your goods below cost. At least for very long. The play in the equation is profit. They move independently of each other yes, but they are not independent of each other in the final tally.
You have created a conundrum by saying you "have no interest in making the rich poorer but I would love to see the poor get richer," then alluding to "the rich who pocket fat profits," the builders "pocketed the fat profits," and "abundant cheap labor makes the rich richer." And this increase is going to come from where? I guess it is just from the "fat profits" getting thinner, because it is not going to just appear. So, the rich will at least get less rich, if not poorer. As these profits get thinner, will the wealthy keep their investments where the return is minimal? Maybe, maybe not. Again, it is not the straightforward scenario you have given.
Bottom line: No, I do not expect Americans to do that work for the low wages currently being paid. You missed my point. The only way Americans will do that kind of work (if they will do some of it at all!) is for much higher wages. My point was that food and services will cost more, and probably a good deal more in some cases. To deny that is just not logical, nor sound economics. You can cut profit, but you can not take a loss for long.
"If the labor supply were limited it would solve most of the wealth distribution problems you are concerned about." To paraphrase the great philosopher, Jon Stewart, "Do tell." If it were only so simple. I don't know if you know what wealth distribution problems I'm concerned about. I think my concerns are more complex than you see from the little I posted earlier. I suggest that we think globally, too. If we don't we're screwed.
I don't disagree with most of your historical points, but it tends to be overly-simplified or myopic (cherry-picking to prove your point, but ignoring other factors). Granted that this forum forces some simplification. For example, you have conveniently left out the effects of regulation on the "Guilded (sic) Age.'" Much of the wealth accumulation of the wealthy class was due to (quoting from Wikipedia) "their use of overpowering and sometimes unethical financial manipulations." In your vernacular, perhaps without the cheap labor their profits would have been "less fat," but their financial manipulations are how they grew the wealth they had to its obscene size. Without regulation and constant government oversight, the rich would get richer and the rest of us would get decidedly poor. Think monopoly, insider trading, etc.
That is one example of the oversimplification of this very complex issue.
You say, "If you want to look at root causes then look at mass immigration." My response is if you want to look at the root causes, then don't look only at immigration. Causes is plural here, but it at least seems that you want there to be one simple answer. Immigration is the only problem? Broaden your analysis, please.
Final thought: We must be careful what we wish for because we may get it ... and it may not be exactly what we predicted it will be.
I have a degree in Economics from Clarment McKenna College which last I checked was ranked in the top 10 liberal arts colleges by US News. And I have an MBA from the University of Denver. Since we are only talking economics 101 in this discussion I think that my education is adequate but I am not the one who started with the condenscention. Don't you think this phrase which you used twice is just a little belittling?
And with respect to your understanding of economcis I'm glad that you finally got this part right:
That is very different from the scare tactics of higher prices that you used in the previous post and to some extent you continue that canard into your most recent post when you say:
Did they teach you at Carnegie Mellon that you can adjust the factors of production? In the long term you can easily substitute capital for labor. For example in California the raisan industry is one of the most labor intensive crops. In Australia, the raisin industry is almost totally automated. A very similar storyy can be told about the California tomato industry. Since we are talking about cheap Mexican labor that industry provides a very insightful case study:
"One of the most important lessons of the Bracero program occurred at its end, and showed that those closest to agriculture were most wrong about what would happen without Braceros. As Congress debated whether to end the Bracero program in the early 1960s, farmers argued that Americans would not do farm work and that, without Braceros, crops would rot in the fields and food prices would rise. The California Farmer, on July 6, 1963, said that growers and canners "agree the state will never reach the 100,000 to 175,000 acres planted when there was a guaranteed supplemental labor force in the form of the bracero." (Don Razee, "Without Braceros, Tomato Growers will Slash Acreage in ’64," California Farmer, July 6, 1963, p. 5).
These predictions were wrong. Take the case of processing tomatoes. In 1960, 80 percent of the 45,000 peak harvest workers used to pick 2.2 million tons of the tomatoes used to make catsup in California were Braceros, and growers testified that "the use of Braceros is absolutely essential to the survival of the tomato industry." In 1999, about 5,000 workers were employed to ride machines to sort 12 million tons of tomatoes harvested by machine on 300,000 acres. In the tomato case, the end of the Bracero program led to the mechanization of the tomato harvest, expanding production, and a reduction in the price of processed tomato products, which helped to fuel the fast-food boom. "
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back501.htm
By adjusting the factorrs of production, labor was cut by almost 90% and production increase by 600% and prices for tomatoes fell. A tremendous amount of wealth was created by investing in productivity enhancing technology.
Who lacks a sound understanding of economics?
And here you seem to think that wealth is a zero sum game. That if the poor get richer that the richness can only come at the expense of the rich. You also imply that same misunderstanding of economics elsewhere when you talk about wealth re-distriubution. You may have studied free market economics but you walked away from your studies with a belief in socialism which is a wealth destruction model.
Wealth is either grown, mined, invented or manufactured. When workers become more productive they produce (manufacture) more wealth with a given amount of labor. Productivity increases are generally driven by capital investment. Investment seldom occurs where cheap labor is abundant and almost always happens when labor is scarce. Necessity is the mother of invention. It is no accident that every single First World country enjoys scarce labor and every Third World country suffers from abundant cheap labor. Wealth is not a zero sum game because when they invest in productivity increasing technology the rich are rewarded with increased wealth and because labor is scarce they, as a matter of enlightened self interest share this wealth with their valued employees to retain them. In a first world economy with scarce labor everybody gets richer.
And isn't that almost exactly what you were compalining about in modern times when you said
I have no problem with the rich being or getting rich but I have a big problem with them getting rich by exploiting people who are already poor. A tight labor market solves this problem because if a worker does not like the way they are treated they can move onwards and upwards. A tight labor market also causes the rich to invest in ways that create wealth that benefits everybody.
Alright! I'm breaking out the popcorn... it's a showdown! You know whose side I'm on... Jackbenimble's.
I'm against UHC, I'm for tighter border control. I think that we have every right to deport immediately - even if that means deporting soon after somebody comes for free medical attention at the ER. Which is the other reason why I'm again baby bonds - no more incentives for anchor babies, no more free citizenship. These kids should be deported with their parents.
As far as the economy is concerned - we are free market. We also don't rely on the illegals as much as you think. The main industry that relies on illegals are construction - and if that industry needs to adjust it's twisted practices then so be it. The problems are also concentrated in geographic areas, which will need to adjust as well. That's just life - when you break the law, cheat the taxpayers, and hire illegals, you're going to suffer the consequences.
I don't mind paying a little extra to know that the people making my pizza are being treated fairly and have social security numbers. I also appreciate them being contributing members of society, just like every other citizen of the United States. That's what this country was founded on, and that's what it should go back to. Enough sympathy for the criminals.
That's all ...
You do realize that the illegals in this country get treated like shit by their employers, right?
Because they have no one to complain to, and no legal recourse. That's wrong. We need to fix our immigration system, and give people a fair way to become citizens, but also not be letting so many people without valuable traits into the US. That's why I'm for tighter border control and immigration policies; to be fair to everyone, illegal and legal immigrants AND citizens.
Yes, you have soundly established your credentials.
Also, lots in there for me to consider, thanks. I still stick to my point that it may be a valid answer, but is not the only answer.
Sorry for reacting so strongly to your reply post ... I hadn't meant my original reply to you to be condescending and see how it may have seemed to be (I'm new to this.).
And sorry to disappoint Katie from Clarkson, but you will probably be enjoying your popcorn alone.
Awwww... I was read to share my Coke and my popcorn.
That's ok. I enjoy a good debate, and I learned from your posting as well as jack's. I'm no economist, so I always like to read from different perspectives on this front. I hope that you'll come back!