• 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!

U.S. Voters Prefer Job Creation Over Deficit Cuts, Poll Shows

Looks like Colbert didn't do his homework. Center for Immigration Studies reported some years ago that of over 450 occupations, immigrants were in the majority in practically none. As for visas for skilled jobs, the Director of the National Society of Black Engineers said that when you have a labor shortage, wages goes up. He's right. But wages for engineers have been plummeting. Why ?
Simple answer - domestic outsourcing with work visas (hiring cheap, foreign labor). This isn't happening because of a labor shortage. It's happening because of greed - employers maximizing profits any traitorous way they can.

I forgot to mention (and apparently so did Colbert) that some of the toughest, dirtiest, and most dangerous jobs in America are being done entirely by native born Americans, with hardly an illegal alien in sight (coal miners, cops, firefighters, troops in Afghanistan, US Coast Guard, etc.).
 
There are always going to be barbacks, delivery guys, maids, dog walkers, etc. Not too much room for productivity increases there. My argument is that if there are going to be people doing those jobs, it makes more sense for them to be earning whatever they earn above the table and in fair competition with other potential employees. A system where illegal immigrants work for $5/hour and pay no taxes while an unemployed American receives welfare checks because he can't take that job benefits no one (except for the owner and the consumers who might pay a penny less for their bud light lime.)

Kandahar talks about this in his following post, but it is important none the less. Lowering the minimum wage will not cause a shift in employment to the effect of people getting off unemployment to make less than $7 an hour. We would have to assume the reduction of the wage floor has a deflationary effect on cost of living. Of course we are always going to have low skilled labor demand, but as a developed economy progresses, we should expect to see this (as a percentage of the total labor force) diminish with time.
 
You cant spend your way to economic recovery. The government needs to stop the spending, cut taxes and nix alot of these regulations that make it a pain in the ass to start business to create jobs.

U.S. Voters Prefer Job Creation Over Deficit Cuts, Poll Shows - Bloomberg

I don't mind spending if it's effective and necessary - and beneficial long and short term.

But the various measures that have gone through which have cost billions - and other efforts (like our continiung international efforts) aren't effective or beneficial to anyone. No one's lives have significantly improved or seen a turnaround.

I'd even support tax-increases if I believed that it would be beneficial.
 
Neither of those things are likely to happen to a significant degree. For business owners who can't afford to pay a proper American wage, yes, they'll drop out. So what ? If they couldn't pay a proper wage, they shouldn't be in business in the first place. I say to all those employers, go out and do the same thing that all the rest of us who cant afford to run a business do. Get a job.

That just adds to the unemployment rolls while implementing policies that favor the biggest corporations at the expense of smaller businesses. Furthermore, illegal immigrants are generally employed in industries where "not being able to pay a proper wage" isn't just related to specific businesses, but is systemic throughout the industry. That's why illegal immigrants typically pick tomatoes rather than design computers. If the work that they're doing doesn't create enough value to merit a "decent wage" (as you define it) then the industry cannot survive.

Protectionist said:
As for the costing the consumers more money, standard Microeconomics tells us when prices go up, sales (and business income) goes down. Business owners cannot raise prices in response to deportation of illegal aliens, raise in minimum wage, or any other increase in our costs. If we do we lose even more money, not gain.

That's my point. A business that suddenly has to pay a lot more in labor costs has two choices. A) Eat the additional cost themselves and continue to sell their products/services for less than what it costs to make them, or B) raise prices and drive away a lot of their customers. In either case, the result is a business that cannot survive.

Protectionist said:
In most cases, business owners actually do quite well after wages go up, due to the increase in disposeable income, and thereby increase in sales. Toughest thing in business is when you're selling a product for $500, and you ask the caller how much he can afford to put down, and he says "Uh 10 bucks". For businesses whose wages are already high, this increase in sales is pure gain. Same thing for businesses where all the workers are paid by commission (as in auto and other sales).

Yes, businesses do quite well when overall wages in the community go up...but they'd generally like to keep the wages in THEIR company as low as possible, unless their target market is their own employees. And in the case of the types of jobs that illegal immigrants typically perform, it is not.
 
That just adds to the unemployment rolls while implementing policies that favor the biggest corporations at the expense of smaller businesses. Furthermore, illegal immigrants are generally employed in industries where "not being able to pay a proper wage" isn't just related to specific businesses, but is systemic throughout the industry. That's why illegal immigrants typically pick tomatoes rather than design computers. If the work that they're doing doesn't create enough value to merit a "decent wage" (as you define it) then the industry cannot survive.



That's my point. A business that suddenly has to pay a lot more in labor costs has two choices. A) Eat the additional cost themselves and continue to sell their products/services for less than what it costs to make them, or B) raise prices and drive away a lot of their customers. In either case, the result is a business that cannot survive.



Yes, businesses do quite well when overall wages in the community go up...but they'd generally like to keep the wages in THEIR company as low as possible, unless their target market is their own employees. And in the case of the types of jobs that illegal immigrants typically perform, it is not.

Are you sure you have "the types of jobs that illegal immigrants typically perform" focused entirely right ? I know of illegal aliens who work for apartment complexes (or in construction building them) > same ones they then live in. I know of others who work for electronics companies whom they buy products from. Others drive trucks delivering all sorts of goods that illegals could buy, etc. etc.
The Center for Immigration Studies' study of this studied 450 occupations illegals were working in. There's a lot more going on with illegal aliens than picking fruit. And BTW, they do eat fruit too.
 
I don't mind spending if it's effective and necessary - and beneficial long and short term.

Most people would not know if something would be beneficial in the long term or short term. All they know is "I want, I want, I want". If something doesn't produce immediate results, it's "ineffective".
 
Most people would not know if something would be beneficial in the long term or short term. All they know is "I want, I want, I want". If something doesn't produce immediate results, it's "ineffective".

True - we don't have a crystal ball.
But we do have experience and history with our modern economy - sure, things do change. But overall, history can somewhat show what has worked and what hasn't worked well at all.

Take some things attempted during the New Deal in response to the Great Depression.
Obviously, due to their ineffectiveness or overall unconstitutional-ruling it would be unwise to do them again.
 
Are you sure you have "the types of jobs that illegal immigrants typically perform" focused entirely right ? I know of illegal aliens who work for apartment complexes (or in construction building them) > same ones they then live in. I know of others who work for electronics companies whom they buy products from. Others drive trucks delivering all sorts of goods that illegals could buy, etc. etc.
The Center for Immigration Studies' study of this studied 450 occupations illegals were working in. There's a lot more going on with illegal aliens than picking fruit. And BTW, they do eat fruit too.

Yes but those markets aren't usually geared specifically to illegal immigrants. It's very rare for a business to increase their profits by paying out higher wages. Unless, of course, it means they get better workers. Most businesses are not Ford in the 1920s. Just paying your employees more in order to boost their purchasing power, in the hopes that they'll buy more of your products, is generally a losing strategy.
 
To ease surging budget deficits, Americans prefer cutting federal services to raising taxes by nearly 2-1 in a new poll. Yet there is little consensus on specific, meaningful steps - and a wariness about touching two gargantuan programs, Social Security and Medicare.

An Associated Press-CNBC Poll showed widespread anxiety about budget shortfalls exceeding $1 trillion a year. Eighty-five percent worry that growing red ink will harm future generations - the strongest expression of concern since AP polls began asking the question in 2008. Fifty-six percent think the shortfalls will spark a major economic crisis in the coming decade.

As for detailed cures, the poll shows little agreement - a problem that has long bedeviled lawmakers who often speak about taming federal deficits but seldom vote to do so. Given more than a dozen options for helping balance the budget, majorities backed just four: Reduce the number of federal workers, trim their salaries, cut overseas military bases and eliminate the tax deduction on home mortgage interest in exchange for lower income tax rates.

Asked to choose between two paths lawmakers could follow to balance the budget, 59 percent in the AP-CNBC Poll preferred cutting unspecified government services while 30 percent picked unspecified tax increases. Republicans leaned heavily toward service reductions while Democrats, usually staunch advocates of federal spending, were about evenly split between the two alternatives.

The results underscored the political peril legislators face in considering tax boosts, especially with the struggling economy, rampant joblessness and ascendant tea party supporters insisting Washington is too powerful.

Whatever path is chosen, 54 percent want the burden shared evenly; 38 percent want the wealthiest to bear the biggest burden.

My Way News - AP-CNBC Poll: Cut services to balance the budget
 
Yes but those markets aren't usually geared specifically to illegal immigrants. It's very rare for a business to increase their profits by paying out higher wages. Unless, of course, it means they get better workers. Most businesses are not Ford in the 1920s. Just paying your employees more in order to boost their purchasing power, in the hopes that they'll buy more of your products, is generally a losing strategy.

You are missing the point, and thereby distorting the idea. It isn't businesses increasing their profits by paying their workers more, it is businesses increasing their profits by all other businesses paying their workers more.
When I owned a business, the minimum wage was typically low. If it had been doubled, my sales would have quadrupled, or even more than that. Biggest problem was people wanting my service and being unable to pay for it. Man, that was discouraging.
 
Last edited:
Yes but those markets aren't usually geared specifically to illegal immigrants. It's very rare for a business to increase their profits by paying out higher wages. Unless, of course, it means they get better workers. Most businesses are not Ford in the 1920s. Just paying your employees more in order to boost their purchasing power, in the hopes that they'll buy more of your products, is generally a losing strategy.

Why are you so concerned with a business' profit-margin, anyway?
Aside from wages - there are quite a few business-methods that can and do net more profits. :shrug:

I see a business employing illegals to be a purely selfish decision - avoiding paperwork, taxes, adequate wages, benefits and everything else that citizens are expected to complete or are entitled to - and they do this PURELY because they want to pocket more of their 'business earnings'

There are, though, countless businesses that don't make any excuses - who do care adequately for their employees and pay a very reasonable wage - and they still make a significant profit.

I, for one, have worked for quite a few different chains - and never was paid minimum wage - and they never had to worry about their profit-margin decreasing for any reason.
 
Why are you so concerned with a business' profit-margin, anyway?

I dislike the idea of harming businesses and the economy as a whole, just to satisfy someone else's xenophobic impulses.

Aunt Spiker said:
Aside from wages - there are quite a few business-methods that can and do net more profits. :shrug:

Depends on the type of business. If you're in a labor-intensive business like vegetable-picking or housekeeping, wages are one of the biggest expenses.

Aunt Spiker said:
I see a business employing illegals to be a purely selfish decision - avoiding paperwork, taxes, adequate wages, benefits and everything else that citizens are expected to complete or are entitled to - and they do this PURELY because they want to pocket more of their 'business earnings'

The fallacy here is assuming that "citizens are entitled to" a wage higher than the market is willing to bear. If that puts them at a level of poverty that society finds unacceptable, than society should pay for it in the form of social programs...not force their EMPLOYER to bear the extra cost via artificially high wages. That's completely counterproductive and would just result in MORE poverty.

Aunt Spiker said:
There are, though, countless businesses that don't make any excuses - who do care adequately for their employees and pay a very reasonable wage - and they still make a significant profit.

...and those aren't the industries that illegal immigrants tend to gravitate toward, so it's irrelevant.
 
I dislike the idea of harming businesses and the economy as a whole, just to satisfy someone else's xenophobic impulses.

Well I dislike harming the economy as a whole just to satisfy the notion that an *employer* isn't responsible to provide an adequate wage - but the government IS there for that purpose.

Depends on the type of business. If you're in a labor-intensive business like vegetable-picking or housekeeping, wages are one of the biggest expenses.
I know a lot of citizens who work these jobs and fair well.
As far as farming goes - there are government subsidies to make up for costs and keep product and labor costs low or substituted - which nestles in with your idea that the government should prop all businesses up with our taxes.

The fallacy here is assuming that "citizens are entitled to" a wage higher than the market is willing to bear. If that puts them at a level of poverty that society finds unacceptable, than society should pay for it in the form of social programs...not force their EMPLOYER to bear the extra cost via artificially high wages. That's completely counterproductive and would just result in MORE poverty.

So - instead of citizens being able to depend on their employer to provide them a reasonable wage they're suppose to just lean on the government. . .which comes from taxes that we provide because we work and spend.

What's the point of being employed at all, then, if you're going to be poor? Why bother!
If all anyone can manage is just a smidge above the poverty line then - by all means - let them eat cake, get fat and die quickly. Nevermind the notion that people should be able to care for theirselves. . . nevermind that.

...and those aren't the industries that illegal immigrants tend to gravitate toward, so it's irrelevant.

Specify which ones you're thinking of.

I hear countless situations in which companies, farms, and almost every leg of employment is raided and crunched down on because they choose to hire illegals intentionally - or simply don't check the proper papers like they should.
 
Well I dislike harming the economy as a whole just to satisfy the notion that an *employer* isn't responsible to provide an adequate wage - but the government IS there for that purpose.

There is no reason that government should get involved in determining what's a "fair" transaction, for the same reason that the government generally avoid setting price controls. If I buy a dozen ears of corn from a farmer, should the government mandate a minimum price to ensure the farmer earns enough? If I buy a dozen donuts from a mom-and-pop coffee store, should the government step in to determine if the store owner received fair compensation for his trouble?

On the other hand, I have no problem at all with government programs to alleviate poverty. That's a far better use of resources than market-distorting price controls, including the minimum wage.

Aunt Spiker said:
I know a lot of citizens who work these jobs and fair well.
As far as farming goes - there are government subsidies to make up for costs and keep product and labor costs low or substituted - which nestles in with your idea that the government should prop all businesses up with our taxes.

Huh? I don't know where you got the idea that I thought the government should prop up businesses with taxes. I'm generally opposed to that, and agricultural subsidies are among the most egregious examples of all.

Aunt Spiker said:
So - instead of citizens being able to depend on their employer to provide them a reasonable wage they're suppose to just lean on the government. . .which comes from taxes that we provide because we work and spend.

If society wants to alleviate poverty, then it's only fair that society should do so instead of blaming the employer. The employer didn't cause the poverty, any moreso than I'm causing poverty if I strike a good bargain from the coffee shop owner when I buy donuts from him.

Aunt Spiker said:
What's the point of being employed at all, then, if you're going to be poor? Why bother!
If all anyone can manage is just a smidge above the poverty line then - by all means - let them eat cake, get fat and die quickly. Nevermind the notion that people should be able to care for theirselves. . . nevermind that.

Except you aren't actually arguing that people take care of themselves. You're just trying to shift the cost of caring for the person from society to the employer, but you're still more than willing to have the government impose its will to alleviate poverty.

Aunt Spiker said:
Specify which ones you're thinking of.

Illegal immigrants tend to gravitate toward low-skill, labor-intensive industries like vegetable-picking, housekeeping, and food service.
 
Back
Top Bottom