• 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?

OpportunityCost said:
Economist: Lackluster jobs growth continues
All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants | Center for Immigration Studies

Economist: Immigrants have taken all new jobs created since 2000 | PunditFact

Note: I am not saying all. I am saying a significant amount. Which even politifact agrees with. Even I'm not going to say all, I know its not true. But, I do believe there is an impact.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate the reference. Please note, however, that this comes from Center of Immigration Studies, an anti-immigrant organization. The politifact article rates the claim as "Mostly False". So, I think its safe to say that we have an unsubstantiated assertion that we can assume is "mostly false" until you come up with something better.

I realize you said "most", which you can support that statement with this article AND you stated "non-citizens", but article talks about immigrations (illegal and legal), without regard to their citizen status so your use of the term "non-citizen" is a bit curious.

However, perhaps the most misleading factor in all of this is we are talking about aggregate jobs. There are always more low wage jobs than high wage jobs. Low wage jobs have, throughout American history, been entry jobs that are usually taken by immigrants.

In the end, I think you are ascribing a value statement here (its a bad thing that immigrants are taking jobs... and inferring they are taking "our" jobs) when likely this is nothing different than it has always been.



"If you parse Morici’s statement, you can see where these numbers get him into trouble. If he wants to speak of nearly 9 million new jobs, then he has to accept that about 70 percent, not 100 percent, went to immigrants. If he wants to assert that all the new jobs went to immigrants, then he should have talked about 5.5 million new jobs in the 16-65 age range. As it stands, the two parts of his statement don’t fit together.
The center’s study also noted that the time period you pick will change what the data show. The report said, "Since the jobs recovery began in 2010, 43 percent of employment growth has gone to immigrants." That, obviously, is much less than "all" of the new jobs.
It is worth noting that the study lumped legal and illegal immigrants together. Morici made a passing reference to illegal immigrants taking "many" of the new jobs. That claim is difficult to verify one way or the other because within the group of foreign-born workers, the ratio of American citizens to noncitizens has changed greatly in the past 15 years. In 2000, no citizens outnumbered citizens by about 60 percent. In 2014, the difference was just 10 percent."
 
Last edited:
OpportunityCost said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think we should enact comprehensive immigration reform, which would take those questions off the table.

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

Wages have been stagnant becuae of globalization and automation. You have yet to offer any evidence that "cheap immigrant labor" depresses wages.

>>I see you use sarcasm instead of answering questions.

I do both. If you can't see that, try repositioning yer head.

>>I'm done with you

Breaks my heart.

>>you have demonstrated you cannot or will not debate with some honesty.

You've demonstrated that you complain about me not answering questions when it's you who avoids them. E.g.,

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?

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"?

Yer position is gonna be that the very small impact that occurs in five years becomes much larger over fifteen?

How would raising the minimum wage "cause there to be more low-wage workers than demand"?

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?

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%.​
 
mmi said:
I think we should enact comprehensive immigration reform, which would take those questions off the table.

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

Wages have been stagnant becuae of globalization and automation. You have yet to offer any evidence that "cheap immigrant labor" depresses wages.
Click to expand...
Actually I did.

>>I see you use sarcasm instead of answering questions.


I do both. If you can't see that, try repositioning yer head.
Click to expand...
Don't be a jerk. Try that.

>>I'm done with you

Breaks my heart.

>>you have demonstrated you cannot or will not debate with some honesty.

You've demonstrated that you complain about me not answering questions when it's you who avoids them. E.g.,

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?

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"?

Yer position is gonna be that the very small impact that occurs in five years becomes much larger over fifteen?

How would raising the minimum wage "cause there to be more low-wage workers than demand"?

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?

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%.​
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could as well. I'm not going to keep digging out sources you don't even bother to examine.
 
upsideguy said:
Thank you. I appreciate the reference. Please note, however, that this comes from Center of Immigration Studies, an anti-immigrant organization. The politifact article rates the claim as "Mostly False". So, I think its safe to say that we have an unsubstantiated assertion that we can assume is "mostly false" until you come up with something better.

I realize you said "most", which you can support that statement with this article AND you stated "non-citizens", but article talks about immigrations (illegal and legal), without regard to their citizen status so your use of the term "non-citizen" is a bit curious.

However, perhaps the most misleading factor in all of this is we are talking about aggregate jobs. There are always more low wage jobs than high wage jobs. Low wage jobs have, throughout American history, been entry jobs that are usually taken by immigrants.

In the end, I think you are ascribing a value statement here (its a bad thing that immigrants are taking jobs... and inferring they are taking "our" jobs) when likely this is nothing different than it has always been.



"If you parse Morici’s statement, you can see where these numbers get him into trouble. If he wants to speak of nearly 9 million new jobs, then he has to accept that about 70 percent, not 100 percent, went to immigrants. If he wants to assert that all the new jobs went to immigrants, then he should have talked about 5.5 million new jobs in the 16-65 age range. As it stands, the two parts of his statement don’t fit together.
The center’s study also noted that the time period you pick will change what the data show. The report said, "Since the jobs recovery began in 2010, 43 percent of employment growth has gone to immigrants." That, obviously, is much less than "all" of the new jobs.
It is worth noting that the study lumped legal and illegal immigrants together. Morici made a passing reference to illegal immigrants taking "many" of the new jobs. That claim is difficult to verify one way or the other because within the group of foreign-born workers, the ratio of American citizens to noncitizens has changed greatly in the past 15 years. In 2000, no citizens outnumbered citizens by about 60 percent. In 2014, the difference was just 10 percent."
Click to expand...

Here is what I'm trying to get across. We would have some wage deterioration with just globalization and mechanization, but we have a flood of low end wages earners that are making the problem worse. Further when you raise the minimum wage you make it more attractive to make hires under the table to prospective employers that have not done so yet. Adding both policies to the equation makes it worse.

Politicians in this country should have some concern for the people that voted for them and create an environment in which they have stable employment. Allowing unlimited low wage labor to replace their jobs is not making that. It has a terrible effect across the board. Wage pressure occurs from the bottom up not the top down. We haven't had low wage pressure where low wage jobs have to pay more to attract good people in nearly 2 decades.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Actually I did.
Click to expand...

In yer imagination, perhaps. Let us know again which is the non-CIS source that offers credible evidence.

>>I'm not going to keep digging out sources you don't even bother to examine.

A common loser's stance. The only source I didn't "examine" is the one from CIS. And since you didn't even "bother" to cite relevant excerpts, why should I "bother" digging through yer anti-immigrant rag? You claim that my comments "proved" I didn't read the Atlanta Fed study, and, as I said already, you were wrong about that.

OpportunityCost said:
Here is what I'm trying to get across. We would have some wage deterioration with just globalization and mechanization, but we have a flood of low end wages earners that are making the problem worse. Further when you raise the minimum wage you make it more attractive to make hires under the table to prospective employers that have not done so yet. Adding both policies to the equation makes it worse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we have no problem understanding what yer "trying to get across." The point is you've offered no credible evidence.

>>It has a terrible effect across the board.

So terrible that the well-populated anti-immigrant community can't provide any valid statistical evidence of its presence. I can't say with any confidence there that is no significant impact, and by the same token, those who suspect there is can't legitimately argue for their position beyond stuff like "basic economic theory makes it inevitable" or "it's just common sense."

>>We haven't had low wage pressure where low wage jobs have to pay more to attract good people in nearly 2 decades.

Where'd ya get that? The little birdie again?
 
Last edited:
mmi said:
In yer imagination, perhaps. Let us know again which is the non-CIS source that offers credible evidence.

>>I'm not going to keep digging out sources you don't even bother to examine.

A common loser's stance. The only source I didn't "examine" is the one from CIS. And since you didn't even "bother" to cite relevant excerpts, why should I "bother" digging through yer anti-immigrant rag? You claim that my comments "proved" I didn't read the Atlanta Fed study, and, as I said already, you were wrong about that.



Yeah, we have no problem understanding what yer "trying to get across." The point is you've offered no credible evidence.

>>It has a terrible effect across the board.

So terrible that the well-populated anti-immigrant community can't provide any valid statistical evidence of its presence. I can't say with any confidence there that is no significant impact, and by the same token, those who suspect there is can't legitimately argue for their position beyond stuff like "basic economic theory makes it inevitable" or "it's just common sense."

>>We haven't had low wage pressure where low wage jobs have to pay more to attract good people in nearly 2 decades.

Where'd ya get that? The little birdie again?
Click to expand...

You do know what wage stagnation is don't you?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Carefully explain what conditions can create wage stagnation.
Click to expand...

Hmm, sounds challenging. You seem to have a point about wages and the labor market, but I don't know what it is. Perhaps yer saying that globalization and automation by themselves have placed strong downward pressure on US wages, and that low-income immigrant labor adds to that influence. My argument has been that the evidence indicates the effect is negligible in some industries, slightly negative in others, and in fact slightly positive in some others.
 
mmi said:
I figure it's possible I might be able to use facts and reason to persuade others.

>>you aren't shining a lot of light on media bias, you are shining more than a little onto your own.

Fwiw, my OP had nothing to do with immigrants. I was pointing to the heavily biased way Fox News "reports" on the economy. Here's another example:

On Orally's show last night, he had a segment with Geraldo Rivera and Eric Bolling. At one point, they discussed the employment report. Orally and Rivera agreed that they should defer to Bolling's judgement, calling him "the economist." Hilarious. Here's part of the conversation:

Orally: Why have so many millions of Americans left the labor force, not even looking though they want jobs?​

More Fox crap. The number of Americans "not even looking though they want jobs," has expanded by 265K, a lot less than "many millions," under Obummer, and was actually down by 71K two months ago, as I observed in my OP. The labor market is getting stronger all the time, and so more people are reporting they want a job, but apparently over the past sixty days a few hundred thousand of those haven't actually begun a job search.

The number was more than seven million in Aug 2012, so there's been a fairly sharp decline over the past three-and-a-half years. And as I've noted, these figures are not adjusted for the growth in the civilian labor force.

Nothing new there, of course. Orally is a fountain of disgusting lies. Here's Bolling's gem of a response. He's another inveterate liar.

Bolling: If you add the people who have stopped looking for work and bring them back in, and you also take those who say they want jobs who have given up, who realize they can either go on unemployment or when the unemployment runs out, they go on disability, you bring those people back into searching for jobs, and the unemployment number pushes ten percent again.​

He refers to "people who have stopped looking for work." He then talks about "those who say they want jobs who have given up." Sounds like the same group to me, because if you don't say you want a job, why should you be considered unemployed? But I suppose he's talking about so-called "discouraged workers." That population is down from 1.32 million in Dec 2010 to last month's 623K. If all of them re-entered and started looking, the rate would go up from 4.9% to 5.3%.

The entire population of those who report that they're not working but want a job is about six million. This includes people who ARE NOT LOOKING, either because they're in school and focused on their studies or they don't think they have enough job skills or they think they'll be discriminated against (typically elderly or disabled) or they have temporary issues with their health or are looking after a sick relative or have problems with transportation, or for some other reason. They're not looking … because at the moment they're NOT ABLE to work. We can't "get them back in" until they're able to work.

Anyway, it's very clear to me, because I hear it all the time, that Fox News LIES and LIES and LIES about the economy and about a very long list of other things. The garbage they peddle appears on these boards on a regular basis. It's just what Chomsky says — propaganda engineered by Ailes and his minions. And it has a destructive influence on the country, not because it represents views liiiiiiibruls disagree with, but because it's a very big pile of dirty, stinkin' right-wing lies.
Click to expand...






Lying Liars and the Lies they Tell

7.99999999999

Candy i said it was terrorism didnt i? (oh thats right i blame it on the Youtube fella hahaha)

I GOT HIM! I GOT HIM! DID I TELL YOU I GOT BIN LADEN? (right there behind you desk you did?)

YOU GET TO KEEP YOU DOCTOR! WE GONNA SAVE YOU $2500 A YEAR ON YOU HEALTH PLAN bla bla bla
 
Last edited:
In my experience Fox is much more likely to air views from the left than MSNBC is to air views from the right. I don't watch CNN enough to have an impression.
 
Carleen said:
There may be alot of factors, but you will never hear them on Fox.
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble but I don't really watch Fox. Thanks for your less than useful contribution to the thread.
 
What I interpret from the 'fair and balanced' claim by FOX NEWS is they're attempting to level the ideology of reporting by being strictly conservative. In their opinion, most of media is liberally biased (which it is), and to balance this ideology in reporting, theirs will be conservatively biased.

Oh, I yearn for a news station that just read the news and, if ideology was provided, ideology from both sides was presented so we could make up our own minds. Unlike American education, these days.

Sidenote: this really sounds creepy. Like big brother in many areas of our lives. Is this one reason for all the divisiveness in American politics? I think so. People are taught NOT to think for themselves.
 
Last edited:
lb_on_teh_cb said:
Candy i said it was terrorism didnt i? (oh thats right i blame it on the Youtube fella hahaha)
Click to expand...

As the president said, "check the transcript."

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.​

>>I GOT HIM! I GOT HIM! DID I TELL YOU I GOT BIN LADEN? (right there behind you desk you did?)

He authorized the mission. If it had failed and Americans had been killed, would you say Obummer was not responsible?

>>YOU GET TO KEEP YOU DOCTOR! WE GONNA SAVE YOU $2500 A YEAR ON YOU HEALTH PLAN

That was in regard to his campaign proposal, which included a public option, a feature not included in the ACA. And notice how the cost of healthcare and health insurance are growing at slower rates. That piles up over time.
 
mmi said:
As the president said, "check the transcript."

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.​

>>I GOT HIM! I GOT HIM! DID I TELL YOU I GOT BIN LADEN? (right there behind you desk you did?)

He authorized the mission. If it had failed and Americans had been killed, would you say Obummer was not responsible?

>>YOU GET TO KEEP YOU DOCTOR! WE GONNA SAVE YOU $2500 A YEAR ON YOU HEALTH PLAN

That was in regard to his campaign proposal, which included a public option, a feature not included in the ACA. And notice how the cost of healthcare and health insurance are growing at slower rates. That piles up over time.
Click to expand...

He never said Benghazi was an act of terror; his lawyerly circumlocution was meant to skirt that issue.
 
Jack Hays said:
In my experience Fox is much more likely to air views from the left than MSNBC is to air views from the right. I don't watch CNN enough to have an impression.
Click to expand...


If I might observe..........MSNBC does NOT call itself a NEWS source.....Faux does.............


BTW

I listen.....watch...and read from ALL sides...........So what does that make me?
 
imyoda said:
If I might observe..........MSNBC does NOT call itself a NEWS source.....Faux does.............


BTW

I listen.....watch...and read from ALL sides...........So what does that make me?
Click to expand...

I guess that makes you someone with lots of free time.
 
Last edited:
imyoda said:
If I might observe..........MSNBC does NOT call itself a NEWS source.....Faux does.............


BTW

I listen.....watch...and read from ALL sides...........So what does that make me?
Click to expand...

Im sure that's why their link on google reads : MSNBC: NEWS, video and progressive community. Lean forward.

Your argument is false on even the most basic examination. I'm guessing it makes you a progressive font of misinformation judging from this post.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Im sure that's why their link on google reads : MSNBC: NEWS, video and progressive community. Lean forward.

Your argument is false on even the most basic examination. I'm guessing it makes you a progressive font of misinformation judging from this post.
Click to expand...

Could be...........but I have never heard them ever say "MSNBC News..."

....Now would you like to comment on how Roger Ailes memos to staff on how to slant the news is "fair and balanced"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom