• 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!

Shock poll: Americans want massive cuts to legal immigration

Would this be from the poll:

caps.gov.harvard.edu/files/caps/files/caps-harris_poll.pptx
 
Lord of Planar said:
They are still between a rock and a hard space, because of their criminal parents.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, and it's up to the Congress to solve; but not by coercive force of one party dying to get more votes.
 
American said:
I don't believe it.
Click to expand...

I believe it.
It's the whole image of "DACA kids" in ratty clothes living under bridges that make people think of their own kids and influence their opinions.
It doesn't have to be accurate to be useful for political persuasion.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What I said was quite clear and never mentioned the minimum wage at all. Wages would be higher if not for "safety net" subsidies. If one requires $X/month to meet living expenses then what portion of $X comes from a paycheck and what is added (or made unnecessary) by the "safety net" makes no difference - thus those that "qualify" for "safety net" assistance are free to accept jobs that pay less than they need to live on.

It is less expensive for employers (job creators) to pay lower wages to all and a bit more in taxes to subsidize some workers than it is to pay all workers more so that none of them would need "safety net" assistance. What the "safety net" does is to effectively pay some workers (based on household size) more than others to do exactly the same job - employers find this to be a very sweet deal.
Click to expand...

Then why did those safety nets come into being in the first place?
 
KevinKohler said:
Then why did those safety nets come into being in the first place?
Click to expand...

The rich and powerful did not get that way by being stupid. It is a perfect system of getting away with paying folks as little as possible - the (carefully selected?) "truly needy" will be compensated in other ways largely funded by other people's money.

Don't you find it odd that as personal wage/salary income increases so do the tax rates levied upon it but that is not so for business or capital gains income? How did that nonsense come to be?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
It depends on what sector you are talking about. Some Americans, especially in construction related industries would likely earn more than enough to offset the costs. But I don’t see that being the case with most sectors. The big problem with agriculture is that in cases in which the wages have been increased as to attract American workers, the spots don’t get filled. Now, there is certainly a magic number that will attract American workers, but it appears to be several times more than what the illegals work for. I’m not saying that is bad, just that it will have ramifications.
Click to expand...

Those making higher wages will also benefit those in other industries. A pay raise does work its way through the economy, and manufacturing (where we would also see a raise) used to be one of the biggest sectors of our economy.
 
KevinKohler said:
And yet....without migrant labor, their crops rot?

Should my taxes cover their losses for failing to attract legal workers?
Click to expand...

Crop insurance doesn't cover failing to reap your harvest due to no labor. A drought? Probably. A hail storm that pounds your crops into the ground? Probably. Not being able to get legal or illegal workers to pick your crops and your crops rot in the field? Nope, not that one.
 
KevinKohler said:
And yet....without migrant labor, their crops rot?

Should my taxes cover their losses for failing to attract legal workers?
Click to expand...

You pay the wages that are enough to attract workers. You go to the unemployment agency and tell them you need people. They will find people who will lose their benefits if they don't work.
 
Cardinal said:
It would be cheaper and more to the point if trump just blew up Mount Rushmore and replaced it with a giant statue of himself.
Click to expand...

The plans are already in the works....

MountTrumpMore-WEB-1.jpg
 
Lord of Planar said:
You pay the wages that are enough to attract workers. You go to the unemployment agency and tell them you need people. They will find people who will lose their benefits if they don't work.
Click to expand...

Hasn't worked well for farm labor.
 
Deuce said:
Hasn't worked well for farm labor.
Click to expand...

Then they just have to pay more.

Farm work is far harder work than working at Burger King, under far worse working conditions than working in a warehouse. Pay the workers enough and people will show up to do the work
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Then they just have to pay more.

Farm work is far harder work than working at Burger King, under far worse working conditions than working in a warehouse. Pay the workers enough and people will show up to do the work
Click to expand...

Yep, but you left out the "safety net" which allows folks to net (often much) more than their McJob paycheck alone offers. To beat that deal you must offer more than their current wage plus "safety net" benefits combined and then either offer steady employment or enough extra to tide them over until they find steady employment.
 
Deuce said:
Hasn't worked well for farm labor.
Click to expand...

It can if you give it a chance. I remember listening to a radio interview on the radio. It was with a farmer who only hired legal workers to pick his crops. He claimed he made 4 cents a pound less for his crops than his competition, by paying enough to attract legal workers.

If you make it next to impossible to hire illegal workers, of fine employers so much they risk losing everything, then the playing field would be more equal and food prices wouldn't be too much more money.

I would prefer to pay a little more for veggies and fruits and help take people off the unemployment lines. I see it as an overall plus to our economy.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but you left out the "safety net" which allows folks to net (often much) more than their McJob paycheck alone offers. To beat that deal you must offer more than their current wage plus "safety net" benefits combined and then either offer steady employment or enough extra to tide them over until they find steady employment.
Click to expand...

Enough meaning enough money to attract people to leave their family for months on end to work in a different state every few weeks.

To get enough Americans to do farm labor pay would probably need to be $20/ he with expenses paid
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Enough meaning enough money to attract people to leave their family for months on end to work in a different state every few weeks.

To get enough Americans to do farm labor pay would probably need to be $20/ he with expenses paid
Click to expand...

More - I can easily make that doing (local) self-employed handyman work most of which is paid in (tax free) cash. You are also not counting the loss of "safety net" benefits for the sudden bump in household income that seasonal windfall (if repotred) would provide. That is one reason that folks without any "safety net" benefits are most (if not all) of those migrant workers.
 
I don't know that I'd cut immigration, but since I think we should only allow people good for America into the country, it amounts to the same thing. We need to refocus on what immigration is supposed to be about, the good of the nation over the good of the immigrants. If someone qualifies to come here, meaning they have the skills and qualifications to benefit the country, I don't mind if they bring their immediate families. Extended families? No. They have to qualify on their own.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It can if you give it a chance. I remember listening to a radio interview on the radio. It was with a farmer who only hired legal workers to pick his crops. He claimed he made 4 cents a pound less for his crops than his competition, by paying enough to attract legal workers.

If you make it next to impossible to hire illegal workers, of fine employers so much they risk losing everything, then the playing field would be more equal and food prices wouldn't be too much more money.

I would prefer to pay a little more for veggies and fruits and help take people off the unemployment lines. I see it as an overall plus to our economy.
Click to expand...

But if McDonald's workers want to raise the price of your burger by eighteen sense you flip your **** and demand they remain impoverished, collecting those very safety net checks.
 
Deuce said:
But if McDonald's workers want to raise the price of your burger by eighteen sense you flip your **** and demand they remain impoverished, collecting those very safety net checks.
Click to expand...

Not I. I just don't believe it's a joke to try to make such jobs living wage jobs. The numbers may have changed, but years back when I looked and started exploring the minimum wage argument, employee costs in the restaurant industry were in the neighborhood of 18% to 20% of the food retail cost. If we use 20% and give the employee a 50% increase, the increase in cost isn't tremendous. A 10% retail price increase.

You are trying to mix up two different arguments. Illegal immigration does help keep wages from rising however.
 
At a time when birthrates are down and people are retiring, they want fewer immigrants. They have no idea how that will be a drag on the economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom