• 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!

Washington to California: Drop dead

This is based on two faulty assumptions:

1) California's jobs are only subject to demand from Californians.
2) Illegals produce as much demand as everyone else.

They do? I beg to differ with your second assumption. First, you would be paying a lot more for food if it weren't for exploited agricultural workers. Second, they do not have the income to generate mass demand like those who have jobs which are under labor laws, etc. You understanding of the whole situation lacks nuance and information.
 
What's the justification for having the government do it instead of charities?

That relies on people's generosity, which is pretty poor (just read comments by conservatives on many a political forum about the poor). Frankly, government is the only entity large enough to do some of this work. While I support some charities, I don't expect that most people will give.

As a trained minister (I'm not ordained, just trained), I can tell you this: 10% of the people sitting in conservative churches tithe. The people in those churches will tell you that the tithe is necessary but 90% of them don't give. I can't imagine how it would be different with the general populace.
 
They do? I beg to differ with your second assumption. First, you would be paying a lot more for food if it weren't for exploited agricultural workers. Second, they do not have the income to generate mass demand like those who have jobs which are under labor laws, etc. You understanding of the whole situation lacks nuance and information.

Which is why I called it a faulty assumption.

Reread my post.
 
Except that's not how an economy works. When those people leave then their demand also leaves. You're assuming that there will be just as much demand by saying that the jobs will be filled. Demand will drop when you ship people off and so the number of jobs will also drop.

If they are sent back to where they came from,their countries of origin,it would save Ca. about 10 billion dollars a year.

Then tell most of the welfare people, hey we have jobs,but if you don't want to work we'll cut your welfare a lot.And if you still don't want to work, to nothing.
 
That relies on people's generosity, which is pretty poor (just read comments by conservatives on many a political forum about the poor). Frankly, government is the only entity large enough to do some of this work. While I support some charities, I don't expect that most people will give.

As a trained minister (I'm not ordained, just trained), I can tell you this: 10% of the people sitting in conservative churches tithe. The people in those churches will tell you that the tithe is necessary but 90% of them don't give. I can't imagine how it would be different with the general populace.

Do you think it would be ethical for you to force all who come to church to pay 10% of their income? After all, you need that money.
 
If they are sent back to where they came from,their countries of origin,it would save Ca. about 10 billion dollars a year.

As I've been trying to say the calculations are not as simple as you seem to think. When they leave there also goes the demand.

Then tell most of the welfare people, hey we have jobs,but if you don't want to work we'll cut your welfare a lot.And if you still don't want to work, to nothing.

Or just get rid of welfare altogether and the minimum wage concurrently and then you can only blame people themselves for not having a job.
 
Or answer mine.

I don't know what to say, because you're just wrong.

The only demand that changes is the demand from illegals. If they are forced back, then their demand will drop because the prices will be more expensive to them compared to when they lived in California.

The analogy wasn't perfect, but it was meant to prove a point. You can't ignore the drop in demand that WILL happen.

The point is that there's absolutely no evidence that the drop in demand will be equivalent, which is pretty much the heart of the matter.
 
The point is that there's absolutely no evidence that the drop in demand will be equivalent, which is pretty much the heart of the matter.

It won't be, but just shipping off illegals will not get you full employment. If you don't have full employment then there is some other problem, namely minimum wage.
 
It won't be, but just shipping off illegals will not get you full employment. If you don't have full employment then there is some other problem, namely minimum wage.

Yes, those are the only two possibilities - illegals or minimum wage.
 
As I've been trying to say the calculations are not as simple as you seem to think. When they leave there also goes the demand.



Or just get rid of welfare altogether and the minimum wage concurrently and then you can only blame people themselves for not having a job.

No the bottom line to what I'm saying is that Ca. will save 10 billion a year,or 1/3 of our budget deficient,without them here.

And yes you are right it won't give 100% employment, but it will make room for people who are hungry ,and who have to work now with their welfare reduced or eliminated.
 
No the bottom line to what I'm saying is that Ca. will save 10 billion a year,or 1/3 of our budget deficient,without them here.

I'm not disagreeing with you that kicking them out would decrease the amount we spend on prisons and welfare.

And yes you are right it won't give 100% employment, but it will make room for people who are hungry ,and who have to work now with their welfare reduced or eliminated.

I don't even get what you're trying to say here.
 
Yes, those are the only two possibilities - illegals or minimum wage.

With minimum wage, we would have full employment, even with illegals. Kicking out illegals does not give you full employment. It's easy to see what the better solution is.
 
With minimum wage, we would have full employment, even with illegals. Kicking out illegals does not give you full employment. It's easy to see what the better solution is.

Link?

....
 
Link?

....

Link? I already showed you show kicking out illegals would not solve the unemployment.

If you get rid of minimum wage, the only excuse for people not having a job is that they are either lazy or are holding out for a higher wage, and at that point you should call it voluntary unemployment. Involuntary unemployment is what we want there to be none of and minimum wage is pretty much the only hindrance to it being at 0.
 
Link? I already showed you show kicking out illegals would not solve the unemployment.

No, you stated your conclusory assumption, at which point I explained its flaws.

If you get rid of minimum wage, the only excuse for people not having a job is that they are either lazy or are holding out for a higher wage, and at that point you should call it voluntary unemployment. Involuntary unemployment is what we want there to be none of and minimum wage is pretty much the only hindrance to it being at 0.

Even assuming this is all true, you're claiming that such a world would be an improvement over the society we have today. I don't know of anything that would support this assumption.

This of course ignores the fact that it's hilariously absurd to assume that eliminating the minimum wage would eliminate all barriers to full employment.
 
No, you stated your conclusory assumption, at which point I explained its flaws.

I told you the analogy wasn't perfect, but it did show that kicking out illegals will not bring about full employment.

Even assuming this is all true, you're claiming that such a world would be an improvement over the society we have today. I don't know of anything that would support this assumption.

Everyone would be producing instead of a group of people not able to be employed. It would be an improvement. The more production, the better off we all are.

This of course ignores the fact that it's hilariously absurd to assume that eliminating the minimum wage would eliminate all barriers to full employment.

I specifically made reference to voluntary and involuntary unemployment. Full employment is a vague term.
 
I told you the analogy wasn't perfect, but it did show that kicking out illegals will not bring about full employment.

And I never said it would, so I'm not sure why that's what you were trying to disprove.

Everyone would be producing instead of a group of people not able to be employed. It would be an improvement. The more production, the better off we all are.

This assumes that everyone actually would be producing, and that the net production would be greater. I don't see anything to support either of those claims.

I specifically made reference to voluntary and involuntary unemployment. Full employment is a vague term.

And my point is that simply labeling all those who would not have work as being voluntarily unemployed doesn't really do much for the situation.
 
And I never said it would, so I'm not sure why that's what you were trying to disprove.

You found a problem with my argument. You couldn't possibly be arguing just for the sake of stirring up ****, would you?

This assumes that everyone actually would be producing, and that the net production would be greater. I don't see anything to support either of those claims.

So when people don't get as much money as they want, they'll take no money? If that doesn't make sense, then everyone will be producing (or finding a source of income somewhere).

And my point is that simply labeling all those who would not have work as being voluntarily unemployed doesn't really do much for the situation.

It does because eventually those that are holding out for higher wages will eventually relent and just take the highest wage that they are being offered.
 
You found a problem with my argument. You couldn't possibly be arguing just for the sake of stirring up ****, would you?

No, I'm trying to debate politics. God forbid.

So when people don't get as much money as they want, they'll take no money? If that doesn't make sense, then everyone will be producing (or finding a source of income somewhere).

That's exactly what I'm saying, as it's exactly what happens in real life. When a lawyer or businessman is laid off from a $500k/year job, do they immediately take whatever job is available to them, regardless of pay? Of course not. They will spend weeks, months, or even years looking for a job with commensurate pay and responsibility. I know literally tens of people who have done this exact thing over the past few months and will probably be doing it for the near future. Every one of them has the skills necessary to get jobs making $10/hour somewhere, but it's a terrible career move and not something they can really consider.

This effect is even more pronounced among lower income groups. While that businessman might eventually relent and take a job paying $75k as a middle manager somewhere, someone laid off from a job making $60k a year is not likely to rush to accept a job offer at $5/hr.

In your hypothetical world where there is no minimum wage, the discrepancy would be even more pronounced. Many people would simply decide that a job offering them $3/hr is not worth it at any point whatsoever, and that their time would be better spent looking for a job closer to their previous $60k salary.

It does because eventually those that are holding out for higher wages will eventually relent and just take the highest wage that they are being offered.

In theory, after some undetermined amount of time, some may do this. That's a long way from what was being discussed.
 
That's exactly what I'm saying, as it's exactly what happens in real life. When a lawyer or businessman is laid off from a $500k/year job, do they immediately take whatever job is available to them, regardless of pay? Of course not. They will spend weeks, months, or even years looking for a job with commensurate pay and responsibility. I know literally tens of people who have done this exact thing over the past few months and will probably be doing it for the near future. Every one of them has the skills necessary to get jobs making $10/hour somewhere, but it's a terrible career move and not something they can really consider.

This effect is even more pronounced among lower income groups. While that businessman might eventually relent and take a job paying $75k as a middle manager somewhere, someone laid off from a job making $60k a year is not likely to rush to accept a job offer at $5/hr.

In your hypothetical world where there is no minimum wage, the discrepancy would be even more pronounced. Many people would simply decide that a job offering them $3/hr is not worth it at any point whatsoever, and that their time would be better spent looking for a job closer to their previous $60k salary.

In theory, after some undetermined amount of time, some may do this. That's a long way from what was being discussed.

It has everything to do with what was just being discussed. Eventually people will take that lower paying job because it is better than nothing. You can't go on very long without some source of income.

So the person who wants the job making $60,000 a year may eventually relent and take the job that pays $3 an hour since that is closer to his real worth. With minimum wage, that job wouldn't even be open to him and he would have to go to welfare.
 
It won't be, but just shipping off illegals will not get you full employment. If you don't have full employment then there is some other problem, namely minimum wage.

No.

Not having "full employment" is not a problem.

It's the normal state of affairs for a healthy capitalist society. Some people have left work voluntarily, some businesses are undergoing the downside of their cycles and letting people go, and the crude reality of life on earth is that there are some people no one wants working for them.

However, the presence of invaders who can and are exploited by employers to take jobs at lower wages and less cost than others would in a free market place depress the job opportunities for legal residents and thereby further increase the burdens on public services as well as reducing the available tax base for the state to pay for those services.

Invaders should be heaved out, and soon.
 
Yes, those are the only two possibilities - illegals or minimum wage.

How about no minimum wage and no invaders?

That's a perfectly reasonable free market approach. I don't benefit from minimum wage, why should I have to pay higher product costs in support of it?
 
That relies on people's generosity, which is pretty poor (just read comments by conservatives on many a political forum about the poor). Frankly, government is the only entity large enough to do some of this work. While I support some charities, I don't expect that most people will give.

As a trained minister (I'm not ordained, just trained), I can tell you this: 10% of the people sitting in conservative churches tithe. The people in those churches will tell you that the tithe is necessary but 90% of them don't give. I can't imagine how it would be different with the general populace.

Just think how wonderful the churchworld would be if they had the same power to point machine guns in people's faces and COMMAND them to pay up or else, which is the power you insist your government have.
 
I told you the analogy wasn't perfect, but it did show that kicking out illegals will not bring about full employment.

Regardless.

The reason "illegals" should be deported is the fact that they've broken the law.

Everyone would be producing instead of a group of people not able to be employed. It would be an improvement. The more production, the better off we all are.

Production without the pre-requisite demand is worse than pointless, it merely fuels the next period of stagflation.

I specifically made reference to voluntary and involuntary unemployment. Full employment is a vague term.

Full employment is fairly easy to define.

Everyone that wants a job has one.

Never has happened, never will happen. It's an absurd socialist utopian.
 
Back
Top Bottom