• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

fair and balanced?

RetiredUSN said:
There are a lot of empty truck seats right now.

Freight volume is down overall.

It's not a "tell-all"......... but it goes to show that general goods and materials are not moving
Click to expand...

I pulled out of the stock market about six months ago so I don't follow it that much but when I want to know how the economy is going for the average person I ask my UPS driver about his work load. That isn't something that I would use as an investment tool but it is interesting how it works out to be pretty accurate.
 
fmw said:
All the news organizations report as accurately as they can. The bias is in deciding which stories to report and which not to report. I'm surprised I had to tell you that.
Click to expand...

OK, when you get over your surprise, may be you can give one or two examples of biased reporting from those outlets you dislike.

If the NYT reports that no executive went to jail because of 2008, is that left wing bias, or just reporting? Whether it runs or not will certainly give a political slant to readers, so what is the way to go?

If the Washington Post runs a feature based on the fact that life expectancy in Cuba is longer than it is in America, is that bias, or legitimate journalism?

If Fox News runs a piece interviewing someone who questions whether Obama was born in the US, is that ethical journalism, or not?
 
OpportunityCost said:
When the rate of job growth amongst illegal immigrants is twice that of native born citizens at a time when job growth is tepid at best, is a solid argument against the use of foreign labor to undermine wage growth.
Click to expand...

Are you dissatisfied with the 4.5% unemployment rate for native-born Americans? Tepid growth? Ya mean fourteen million full-time, private-sector jobs added in the last six years? And there is no credible evidence that non-native Americans "undermine wage growth."

>>I did not argue that [Obummer is a communist and that Democrats just exploit blacks, etc]. Crappy argument designed to get an emotional response, try harder next time.

I see yer like the Fox mind-readers, able to discern what others are thinking.

Fwiw, I had no intention, none at all, of provoking "an emotional response." I said what was on my mind. Obummer is, imo, fairly liberal, but he's governed as a moderate. The "journalists" on Fox are certainly entitled to think of him as being far out on the Left, but they shouldn't inject their opinions into their reporting.

I'm often told that the network's evening programming is "opinion journalism," and that the daytime stuff and Special Report are "straight news." The former is surely the case. Orally calls the ACA "a form of Communism." I won't bother to cite any comments from Handjob.

But much of the rest of their coverage isn't any different. Have you ever watched their noontime "Legs on the Couch" show? Their morning "news" program, Fox and Friends, is another example of the Ailes approach — former models with short skirts and spike heels, along with brainless right-wing hacks who come spew lies like this:

Steve Douchey: Why didn’t anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised — spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father — as a Muslim and was educated in a madrasa?​

Oh, it was mentioned, just not on any other news show … because it's a stupid lie.

fmw said:
All the news organizations report as accurately as they can. The bias is in deciding which stories to report and which not to report.
Click to expand...

Ya mean stories like that?

Ganesh said:
If Fox News runs a piece interviewing someone who questions whether Obama was born in the US, is that ethical journalism, or not?
Click to expand...

This is a common Fox strategy. Bring on people who lie and say outrageous things about, e.g., the POTUS, and then stand back and insist it's all "fair and balanced." One of my favourites is Ralph Peters (Puke Penises) who has appeared on their air calling Obummer "a coward" and "a *****." How can you put someone like that on television, praising him as an expert on national security?
 
And there is no credible evidence that non-native Americans "undermine wage growth."
Click to expand...

Labor has a certain demand and there is a certain supply of it. When you bring in more labor willing to accept a lower cost for their good (labor) the overall cost or wage is going to drop.

There is no proof of it except simple economics which should be evident to you.

As for the job numbers:
The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
 
mmi said:
This is a common Fox strategy. Bring on people who lie and say outrageous things about, e.g., the POTUS, and then stand back and insist it's all "fair and balanced." One of my favourites is Ralph Peters (Puke Penises) who has appeared on their air calling Obummer "a coward" and "a *****." How can you put someone like that on television, praising him as an expert on national security?
Click to expand...

You are confusing news with opinion. Fox does the news straight just like other news sources. There is no question that the commentary and opinion is simply commentary and opinion and all the cable news sources provide it. That will always be biased because most of the commentary is political. Usually you can hear both sides of the opinion on Fox. While I agree that Obama is a coward and a *****, I agree with you that Peters shouldn't use that language when offering his opinion. Fox felt the same way and suspended him from appearing on the channel for a couple of weeks. He seems to have cleaned up his act somewhat. He is entertaining and, of course, entertainment is what cable news is all about.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Labor has a certain demand and there is a certain supply of it. When you bring in more labor willing to accept a lower cost for their good (labor) the overall cost or wage is going to drop.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not the way the US labor market operates. The non-native population has a stronger tendency to accept jobs that native-born workers typically reject. That benefits the economy as a whole.

Think of it this way: we "employed" African-Americans for centuries as slave labor, and workers don't come any cheaper than that. How did that institution affect our economy? It can be argued that the United Sates would not exist if it weren't for all the slave labor we were able to draw one. Or am I "playing the race card"?

In this same way, the lazy, good-fer-nothing, on-the-dole Mexicans who perform very difficult, low-wage work picking our fruit and vegetables, cleaning our hotel rooms, and washing our cars, etc, actually strengthen our economy. You might check out this short article: Illegal Immigrants Don't Lower Our Wages Or Take Our Jobs, Forbes, Aug 28, 2015

>>There is no proof of it except simple economics which should be evident to you.

One thing I found in my graduate education in macroeconomic policy was that "laws" of supply and demand that have value in a microeconomic environment, such as supply and demand setting prices, can be very misleading in the context of a massive and highly dynamic economy like we have here in the US. Those forces play a role, but are typically affected substantially by things like segmentation.

>>As for the job numbers: The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

Yes, I'm familiar with the controversy about the level of unemployment. Fwiw, I've worked for the US Department of Commerce since 1999, and part of my responsibility involves collecting the data that goes into the monthly BLS reports. I've been reading them for seventeen years.

U-3, currently at 4.9%, isn't the only statistic generated. There's also U-6, the Bureau's broadest measure of under/unemployment. It's currently 9.9%, down from 17.1 in Oct 2009. I agree with the president that we still have work to do improving our labor market, but I don't think you can credibly deny that there has been a lot of improvement in recent years.

I'd say the biggest problem Americans have isn't becoming employed, it's the relatively flat wages we've had for the past thirty-five years, the result of globalization, automation, and two rounds of SSE policies, all of which have combined to create a grotesque and highly dysfunctional level of income and wealth inequality. Building a wall to keep Mexicans out of the country won't do anything to address that.

fmw said:
Fox does the news straight just like other news sources.
Click to expand...

When? I watch a lot of it, and I can't find any. Can you provide any examples?

>>Usually you can hear both sides of the opinion on Fox.

They sometimes allow for differing voices. And sometimes the host doesn't work hard to make things difficult for those speakers. Most often, they have hand-picked "liberals" who wouldn't get on the air if they didn't go along with the Fox noise.

>>I agree that Obama is a coward and a *****

Bin Laden doesn't. He's not doing much of anything these days. Fwiw, I would never use that sort of language to decribe a GOP POTUS. I save it for people like Dickhead Chaingang and Donnie Dumbsfeld.

>>Peters … is entertaining and, of course, entertainment is what cable news is all about.

I find him nauseating. I place him in the same class with the established traitor and convicted felon, Ollie North.

fmw said:
No, I mean news stories not opinionated comments.
Click to expand...

In my experience, all of Fox's "reporting" is biased. What do you have to say about that Petallides "report"? Has unemployment, as measured by U-3, been cut in half "because the amount of Americans giving up looking for work has been going up" or because fourteen million full-time, private-sector jobs have been added in the past six years? Which factor has had the great influence: the additional 265K Americans reporting that they want a job but have given up looking, which is actually a decline if you adjust for the growth in the population, or the fourteen million more full-time, private-sector jobs? If Petallides was "expressing an opinion," I'd say she doesn't know what she's talking about. Given that she does know what she's talking about, how do you explain her stupid lie?
 
Last edited:
mmi said:
In my experience, all of Fox's "reporting" is biased. What do you have to say about that Petallides "report"? Has unemployment, as measured by U-3, been cut in half "because the amount of Americans giving up looking for work has been going up" or because fourteen million full-time, private-sector jobs have been added in the past six years? Which factor has had the great influence: the additional 265K Americans reporting that they want a job but have given up looking, which is actually a decline if you adjust for the growth in the population, or the fourteen million more full-time, private-sector jobs? If Petallides was "expressing an opinion," I'd say she doesn't know what she's talking about. Given that she does know what she's talking about, how do you explain her stupid lie?
Click to expand...

You are still confusing news reporting with opinion comments but I won't be able to get you to see that, it seems.
 
The reality is, that the unemployment rate is about 1% higher than reported.
 
fmw said:
You are still confusing news reporting with opinion comments
Click to expand...

So yer saying that Petallides was not "reporting" but rather "expressing an opinion" when she said that unemployment, as measured by U-3, been cut in half "because the amount of Americans giving up looking for work has been going up," ignoring the fact that fourteen million full-time, private-sector jobs have been added in the past six years?

Grim17 said:
The reality is, that the unemployment rate is about 1% higher than reported.
Click to expand...

An interesting and somewhat reasonable thought. Will you please elaborate?
 
mmi said:
Yes, but that's not the way the US labor market operates. The non-native population has a stronger tendency to accept jobs that native-born workers typically reject. That benefits the economy as a whole.

Think of it this way: we "employed" African-Americans for centuries as slave labor, and workers don't come any cheaper than that. How did that institution affect our economy? It can be argued that the United Sates would not exist if it weren't for all the slave labor we were able to draw one. Or am I "playing the race card"?

In this same way, the lazy, good-fer-nothing, on-the-dole Mexicans who perform very difficult, low-wage work picking our fruit and vegetables, cleaning our hotel rooms, and washing our cars, etc, actually strengthen our economy. You might check out this short article: Illegal Immigrants Don't Lower Our Wages Or Take Our Jobs, Forbes, Aug 28, 2015

>>There is no proof of it except simple economics which should be evident to you.

One thing I found in my graduate education in macroeconomic policy was that "laws" of supply and demand that have value in a microeconomic environment, such as supply and demand setting prices, can be very misleading in the context of a massive and highly dynamic economy like we have here in the US. Those forces play a role, but are typically affected substantially by things like segmentation.

>>As for the job numbers: The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

Yes, I'm familiar with the controversy about the level of unemployment. Fwiw, I've worked for the US Department of Commerce since 1999, and part of my responsibility involves collecting the data that goes into the monthly BLS reports. I've been reading them for seventeen years.

U-3, currently at 4.9%, isn't the only statistic generated. There's also U-6, the Bureau's broadest measure of under/unemployment. It's currently 9.9%, down from 17.1 in Oct 2009. I agree with the president that we still have work to do improving our labor market, but I don't think you can credibly deny that there has been a lot of improvement in recent years.

I'd say the biggest problem Americans have isn't becoming employed, it's the relatively flat wages we've had for the past thirty-five years, the result of globalization, automation, and two rounds of SSE policies, all of which have combined to create a grotesque and highly dysfunctional level of income and wealth inequality. Building a wall to keep Mexicans out of the country won't do anything to address that.
Click to expand...

Starting with your link at Forbes. Its based on a study that examined companies in which they employ illegal immigrants and ignores the effect on the overall market. You can find the abstract here: The Wage Impact of Undocumented Workers by Julie L. Hotchkiss, Myriam Quispe-Agnoli, Fernando Rios?Avila :: SSRN please read the abstract or the entire PDF if you want, it doesn't address the market as a whole.

You aren't playing the race card by comparing slavery to illegal immigration but you are using an emotional argument in place of a factual one. Do you believe illegal immigrants are good for nothing? Your words, not mine.

I can't deny there has been improvement, I can deny the current government policy is improving it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
your link at Forbes. Its based on a study that examined companies in which they employ illegal immigrants
Click to expand...

I would expect that employers are able to hire undocumented workers for lower wages than they pay documented ones. So if undocumented workers aren't driving down wages or taking jobs away from native-born Americans, as that study shows, how could foreign-born Americans, either documented or citizens, be having that impact?

>>You aren't playing the race card by comparing slavery to illegal immigration but you are using an emotional argument in place of a factual one.

I don't see it as emotional. Slaves are very low-cost workers? Did their labor make it more difficult for members of the non-slave population to find employment? Did it drive down their wages? Or did it instead add dramatically to national wealth and in fact allow for a vibrant and expanding US economy to exist?

>>Do you believe illegal immigrants are good for nothing?

You must know I was being sarcastic.

>>I can't deny there has been improvement, I can deny the current government policy is improving it.

When did I refer to "current government policy"? You made a similar comment earlier:

You cannot argue both that the President deserves to be praised for job growth AND that he cannot be criticized for lack of it in certain areas.
​

I asked you to point to where I did that, and you haven't responded.
 
mmi said:
I would expect that employers are able to hire undocumented workers for lower wages than they pay documented ones. So if undocumented workers aren't driving down wages or taking jobs away from native-born Americans, as that study shows, how could foreign-born Americans, either documented or citizens, be having that impact?

>>You aren't playing the race card by comparing slavery to illegal immigration but you are using an emotional argument in place of a factual one.

I don't see it as emotional. Slaves are very low-cost workers? Did their labor make it more difficult for members of the non-slave population to find employment? Did it drive down their wages? Or did it instead add dramatically to national wealth and in fact allow for a vibrant and expanding US economy to exist?

>>Do you believe illegal immigrants are good for nothing?

You must know I was being sarcastic.

>>I can't deny there has been improvement, I can deny the current government policy is improving it.

When did I refer to "current government policy"? You made a similar comment earlier:

You cannot argue both that the President deserves to be praised for job growth AND that he cannot be criticized for lack of it in certain areas.
​

I asked you to point to where I did that, and you haven't responded.
Click to expand...

You just proved you didn't read the link which was the basis for your own source. It doesn't examine entire market segments or market trends, it examines individual pay grades at the current moment. It looks good on paper, in practice it doesn't examine if wages are lowered over time due to cheap labor coming into the market.

Oh, I know you were being sarcastic, but let's not be sarcastic and imply that horse**** on another poster eh? I don't believe that and your sarcastic disgusting comment implies I did. If you claim to know as much about economics as you say, you know that we could do an entire thread on what economic outcomes resulted from slavery. You are making a crappy argument by drawing parallels with illegal immigration and slavery, so make another tact, the two are not similar in outcomes and you know it. I never claimed illegal immigrants are good for nothing, so yet another straw man implying an argument I never made.

Your entire argument is that the media is being biased that the job market is not as strong as government sources indicate it is. That indicates a pro government stance. If you are in fact, merely taking issue with the reporting being used, well, you have yet to supply good contradiction of their argument.
 
mmi said:
So yer saying that Petallides was not "reporting" but rather "expressing an opinion" when she said that unemployment, as measured by U-3, been cut in half "because the amount of Americans giving up looking for work has been going up," ignoring the fact that fourteen million full-time, private-sector jobs have been added in the past six years?
Click to expand...

Yes it is an opinion. The fact is we have full employment and a lousy economy. There are opinions about why that is and that is hers. My own opinion is that the full employment involves too many poor paying jobs. Part of the reason for that is that U.S. workers now have to compete with workers in other countries thanks to the depth with which we have embraced in economic internationalism. To me these aren't political issues. I don't think your favorite politician had anything to do with the full employment nor can he fix the lousy economy. The national economy isn't within the president's control.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You just proved you didn't read the link which was the basis for your own source.
Click to expand...

Is that so? As a matter of fact, I read parts of it, and I think I have an adequate handle on its utility in this context. Let me say that if I were on trial for "not reading the study that was the basis for my own source," I sure wouldn't want you on the jury, as the level of "proof" you require for conviction appears to be non-existent.

>>It doesn't examine entire market segments or market trends, it examines individual pay grades at the current moment. It looks good on paper, in practice it doesn't examine if wages are lowered over time due to cheap labor coming into the market.

I did note an important element of the conclusion, that "the analysis in this paper says nothing about the impact of the presence of undocumented workers on overall employment, prices, or economic growth." You seem to be arguing that this makes it irrelevant in this context, and fwiw, I disagree, as does Dr. Carden, the Stanford professor of economics who wrote the Forbes piece. Do ya think his analysis "proves" he didn't read the Atlanta Fed study at issue here?

It looks at firms that hire both documented and undocumented workers and found that the latter have only a very small negative impact (0.15%) on the wages paid to the former. It states that in two sectors that just happen to employ a lot of undocumented workers (retail trade and hospitality & entertainment), the presence of those employees on a company's payroll actually has a positive impact on the wages of the others. I did not read the entire study (perhaps you did), but my guess is that this finding follows from the sort of argument I'm making, that companies who avail themselves of undocumented workers gain a competitive advantage that accrues to the benefit of others in the company in the form of slightly higher wages. The authors point to other analyses as possibly explaining this in more detail.

Peri (2009) and Peri and Sparber (2009) suggest that efficiency and productivity can benefit from the task specialization that is likely to result as firms hire low-skill immigrants to perform the tasks previously performed by natives. The natives are re-assigned to relatively higher-skilled tasks that make better use of their comparative advantage, say, communication. Both retail trade and leisure and hospitality, unlike other immigrant-rich sectors like agriculture, construction, and manufacturing, are sectors in which there is ample opportunity for customer contact and specialization in communication-intensive activities.​

The finding for firms in agriculture, which had the highest percentage of undocumented workers (20%+), was that wages for the other employees were lowered by three percent. That's not good, I agree, but it's not all that bad, and it's the worst effect found. My thought is that it might be better to deal with this through an even modest increase in the minimum wage (three percent of $7.25 is less than a quarter an hour) than to decide that we need to start rounding up illegals and tossing them back over the wall Frumpy wants to build.

>>let's not be sarcastic and imply that horse**** on another poster eh? I don't believe that and your sarcastic disgusting comment implies I did.

Does it really? I don't see that. I'd say yer overreacting. If I thought you were a bigot, I'd say so flatly. Yer idea of what I "implied" about you is baseless, imo. I suppose it's true that in making "emotional" comments like the ones yer concerned about, I am hoping to draw attention to what some on yer side of the argument are saying. You may agree that there's a sordid history in this country and elsewhere of blaming economic difficulties, especially the struggles of low-wage workers, on those damn ferreners. It seems clear to me that yer open to having the issue examined dispassionately and without any underlying bigotry and scapegoating.
 
OpportunityCost said:
If you claim to know as much about economics as you say
Click to expand...

Whoa, I did note that I studied macroeconomics in graduate school, but I'm sure I didn't say that "I know so much about it." I never do that.

>>we could do an entire thread on what economic outcomes resulted from slavery.

Yeah sure, makes sense.

>>You are making a crappy argument by drawing parallels with illegal immigration and slavery

Am I? Why is that?

>>the two are not similar in outcomes and you know it.

Well, as I said, I don't "know so much about economics." Perhaps you could educate me about how the impact of one population of low-wage workers is so dramatically different than another.

For three hundred years, slave labor provided a competitive advantage to the US internationally that generated tremendous wealth, which in turn created dramatically improved employment opportunities to the non-slave population. Is it so completely unwarranted to anticipate that low-wage, non-native workers provide a similar benefit to our native-born population here in the twenty-first century?

>>I never claimed illegal immigrants are good for nothing, so yet another straw man implying an argument I never made.

Again, I never said that you did. Yer misinterpreting me, and I hope my explanation above clears that up.

>>Your entire argument is that the media is being biased that the job market is not as strong as government sources indicate it is.

No, that is not my argument at all. I'm saying that Fox News, which I believe is both an embarrassment to and a very destructive influence on America, has a firmly established and omnipresent policy of advancing the most outrageous lies about the condition of the economy and a lot of other things as well.

I saw one of its senior business analysts just last week declaring with great enthusiasm that "Americans are supposed to hate the government. That's what this country was built on." Others in the right-wing "hate industry" have picked up on surveys showing a high level of dissatisfaction with the way the federal gubmint has been operating lately and joyfully describe that as "hate." See, e.g., this piece on ZipHedge: Americans Really, Really Hate The Government. The Zips are another collection of filthy, stinkin' liars who urinate on the American flag and the graves of our veterans KIA to advance their scummy, anti-democratic message.

>>That indicates a pro government stance.

Yes, I support the government of the United States, which, in my mind, is the people of the United States. My dad risked his life in the Pacific to defend this government and its citizens, and fwiw I'd like to get my hands around the throats of these smarmy sluts who put themselves forward as super-Christian defenders of our national traditions, all the while encouraging their gullible audiences to arm themselves and stock up on dried goods cuz the commie Muslim faggots are comin' for their children.

>>If you are in fact, merely taking issue with the reporting being used, well, you have yet to supply good contradiction of their argument.

Really? I'd say I presented clear and undeniable evidence that U-3 is down because of fourteen million full-time, private-sector jobs being added in the past six years, and not because 265K more Americans say they want a job but have given up looking. Perhaps yer correct that my estimation of my understanding of macroeconomics and labor markets in particular is seriously deficient.

fmw said:
Yes it is an opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, OpportunityCost says it's reporting. I call it shameless and very easily refuted lying.

>>The fact is we have full employment and a lousy economy. There are opinions about why that is and that is hers.

I can't say if Petallides thinks the economy is lousy or not, and if she thinks it's lousy, I can't say why she thinks it is. I do know that her claim regarding why U-3 has been cut in half in recent years is a ridiculous load of crap.

>>My own opinion is that the full employment involves too many poor paying jobs.

I agree that we have a serious problem with too many low-wage jobs. That's why I support a staged increase in the minimum wage to $10.10/hr.

>>Part of the reason for that is that U.S. workers now have to compete with workers in other countries thanks to the depth with which we have embraced in economic internationalism.

I agree. Of course, we need to remember that that same competition provides consumers with lower prices.

>>To me these aren't political issues.

Why is that?

>>The national economy isn't within the president's control.

I'd say the institutions of gubmint have a substantial influence on our economic performance.
 
When someone says something the exact opposite of their position with a sarcastic connotation they are generally implying it towards the person they are speaking to.

Example: Everyone except you must use sarcasm that way.

Lets see if you can figure it out.


As I said about the study they do not examine the market as a whole, they do not examine wages over more than a few years at a time and they do not look at long term wage growth nor do they look at long term employment in the market as a whole. They look at a few employment sectors and draw conclusions from less than 5 years rather than studying the market and entire market segments for longer than 15 years to see the overall impact of illegal immigration on wages and employment.

I find it amazing that you think we need more wages in the low end of the market and you can't understand why that's so when you are for adding more supply to the low end of the labor market essentially causing there to be more workers than demand. You are trying to make an appeal to authority with your knowledge while ignoring the basics of supply and demand on labor.
 
OpportunityCost said:
When someone says something the exact opposite of their position with a sarcastic connotation they are generally implying it towards the person they are speaking to.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what to make of that. Perhaps I can simply say that my usage fell outside of the "generally" category. In any event, I have to say I no longer care if you think I was being improperly sarcastic toward you.

>>Lets see if you can figure it out.

Looks like I couldn't pull that off. But I won't let it bother me. Instead, I'll give it the attention it's due and disregard it.

>>As I said about the study they do not examine the market as a whole, they do not examine wages over more than a few years at a time and they do not look at long term wage growth nor do they look at long term employment in the market as a whole.

And you've failed to provide even a speck of evidence to back up yer claim that non-native workers have a negative impact on the employment or wages of native-born Americans.

>>They look at a few employment sectors and draw conclusions from less than 5 years rather than studying the market and entire market segments for longer than 15 years to see the overall impact of illegal immigration on wages and employment.

The study focused on industries that are relevant in this context, such as agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and leisure and hospitality. I figure that makes sense. You want an analysis of the impact of undocumented workers on the employment and compensation for, what, computer programmers, motion picture producers, Wall Street bankers, real estate agents, corporate attorneys, ophthalmologists, and nuclear physicists? In case yer wondering, that's sarcasm directed at you.

And five years isn't long enough for you, eh? Fine, I'll grant you that limitation on the findings. Yer position is gonna be that the very small impact that occurs in five years becomes much larger over fifteen?

>>I find it amazing that you think we need more wages in the low end of the market

More wages? Ya mean higher wages?

>>you can't understand why that's so when you are for adding more supply to the low end of the labor market essentially causing there to be more workers than demand.

I have no idea what yer talking about. How would raising the minimum wage "cause there to be more low-wage workers than demand"? I figure it would more or less eliminate the supply of labor paid less than $10.10/hr. We know there's demand for people paid less than $10/hr, just as there's demand for people to work in unsafe environments, to work without unemployment insurance, to work overtime without being paid time-and-a-half, etc.

>>You are trying to make an appeal to authority

I disagree. I did not conduct this study myself, but I'm not simply saying that my position should be accepted because some researchers at the Atlanta Fed agree with me. I'm using their analysis and statistical findings to back me up.

>>ignoring the basics of supply and demand on labor.

I addressed that directly. Simplistic applications of economic "laws" are typically misleading. That's what you learn when you study the subject at something beyond an introductory level.
 
OpportunityCost said:
There are plenty of economists that have stated that illegal immigration is causing wage depression, and loss of low end jobs.
Click to expand...

An interesting observation, but forgive me if if I'm not satisfied that it provides proof of the validity of yer argument. Are you "appealing to authority"?

>>I don't need to provide proof

I agree. But if you don't have any, I'm not likely to be convinced.

>>it would be nice if you actually had an open enough mind to look at multiple sources.

The good news for you there is that I am more than ready to listen.

Regarding the links you posted, in my view it's bad practice to throw a pile of documents on the table and say, "Read this." Did you read them? If you did, why not help me and other readers out by citing relevant excerpts?

The GAO study is nearly thirty years old, and is loaded with qualifiers, like "information is limited," "useful evidence is scarce," and "available research has significant methodological weaknesses." I'd say it needs to be evaluated in light of all of the work done on this issue over the past three decades.

The findings are mixed.

llegal workers and international migrant workers (who are both illegal and legal) have exercised downward pressure on wages in some labor markets. However, in other labor markets, the wage depressive effect of illegal aliens also was shown to expand employment possibilities for complementary legal or native workers.​


It also notes that undocumented status is itself a negative influence. Accordingly, if we could somehow get around right-wing. anti-immigrant zealotry and manage to reform our immigration policies to include a more effective guest worker program, that impact would be eliminated.

Perhaps you could dig through that study to discover its estimate of the depressive impact of non-native labor on native-born worker wages. It might be more than the Atlanta Fed finding of 0.15%.

I ran through the OECD study but didn't notice anything useful. Perhaps you could enlighten me in that regard.

I didn't see any data in the article covering the interview with the Gallup economist. Is there something in there you want to focus on, other than a vague reference to a "substitution effect"?
 
mmi said:
An interesting observation, but forgive me if if I'm not satisfied that it provides proof of the validity of yer argument. Are you "appealing to authority"?

>>I don't need to provide proof

I agree. But if you don't have any, I'm not likely to be convinced.

>>it would be nice if you actually had an open enough mind to look at multiple sources.

The good news for you there is that I am more than ready to listen.

Regarding the links you posted, in my view it's bad practice to throw a pile of documents on the table and say, "Read this." Did you read them? If you did, why not help me and other readers out by citing relevant excerpts?

The GAO study is nearly thirty years old, and is loaded with qualifiers, like "information is limited," "useful evidence is scarce," and "available research has significant methodological weaknesses." I'd say it needs to be evaluated in light of all of the work done on this issue over the past three decades.

The findings are mixed.

llegal workers and international migrant workers (who are both illegal and legal) have exercised downward pressure on wages in some labor markets. However, in other labor markets, the wage depressive effect of illegal aliens also was shown to expand employment possibilities for complementary legal or native workers.​


It also notes that undocumented status is itself a negative influence. Accordingly, if we could somehow get around right-wing. anti-immigrant zealotry and manage to reform our immigration policies to include a more effective guest worker program, that impact would be eliminated.

Perhaps you could dig through that study to discover its estimate of the depressive impact of non-native labor on native-born worker wages. It might be more than the Atlanta Fed finding of 0.15%.

I ran through the OECD study but didn't notice anything useful. Perhaps you could enlighten me in that regard.

I didn't see any data in the article covering the interview with the Gallup economist. Is there something in there you want to focus on, other than a vague reference to a "substitution effect"?
Click to expand...


Few things. One is that the increase in the minimum wage increases illegal immigration and also leads to more manufacturing flight. Worsening situations for workers in both instances.

Guest programs we currently have are not actively enforced and are used a vehicle to replace unskilled AND skilled laborers. Regarding the mixed findings, many of the workers displaced by the illegal labor force do not have complimentary functions to fulfill, they are just out of a job. So I ask you, if the legal US citizen is out of a job and the illegal is paid less, what happens to the demand for the US citizens labor? Will he get a job with the same pay usually? Is his labor worth more or less or the same?

The GAO program is indeed old. Are disagreeing with its conclusions? Because they have had almost 40 years to play out.

I am not appealing to authority, I am presenting opposing viewpoints for data.
 
OpportunityCost said:
increase in the minimum wage increases illegal immigration
Click to expand...

Employers are not required to pay undocumented workers the minimum wage, so I don't see how that applies.

>>and also leads to more manufacturing flight.

The average hourly wage for US workers in manufacturing is $25.61. I expect very few are paid less than $10/hr, so again I don't see a moderate increase in the minimum wage as being a problem in this regard.

In Sept 2015, only 7.3% of employees working manufacturing jobs in Mississippi, certainly a low-wage state, were making less than $15 an hour. How many nationwide can be making less than $10/hr?

>>Guest programs we currently have are not actively enforced

Well then, to whatever extent that's true, it should be corrected.

>>Regarding the mixed findings, many of the workers displaced by the illegal labor force do not have complimentary functions to fulfill, they are just out of a job.

A little birdie told you this? (More sarcasm directed at you.)

>>if the legal US citizen is out of a job and the illegal is paid less, what happens to the demand for the US citizens labor?

The same thing that happens if pigs could fly, I suppose. (Ditto.)

>>The GAO program is indeed old. Are disagreeing with its conclusions?

As I noted, its conclusions are reported as being highly … inconclusive. And again, can you find in there the depressive impact?

>>Because they have had almost 40 years to play out.

What does that mean? The economy has changed a lot since Reagan left office in 1988. Give me some figures from the twenty-first century, or even from that GAO study.

>>I am not appealing to authority

By saying "many economists agree with me,"" but offering very little else, I'd say you clearly are.

>>I am presenting opposing viewpoints for data.

And I'm waiting for evidence beyond "many economists say so" and a thirty-year-old study that is loaded with caveats. Fwiw, I'm not holding my breath.
 
Employers are not required to pay undocumented workers the minimum wage, so I don't see how that applies.
Click to expand...

Do you think illegal labor as a percentage of the workforce will increase or decrease if costs to legal workers goes up?

Regarding low skilled laborers replaced by illegals, if they don't have complimentary skills are they kept as workers or let go?

Reality is the depressive impact. Wages have been largely stagnant for decades while cheaper labor kept flooding in.

I see you use sarcasm instead of answering questions. I'm done with you, you have demonstrated you cannot or will not debate with some honesty.
 
OpportunityCost said:
<snipped to get to the point>

My point, and one you did not mention is that the growth of jobs among non-citizens has amounted to a lot of the job growth during this administration. Consider or it don't consider, but it is a factor.
Click to expand...

...and your cite for this assertion is...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom