• 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!

From the Economist: "Needed by but not wanted"

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Link: Needed but not wanted.


Excerpt:
20161001_SRC556.png


Another concern among natives has been that immigrants put downward pressure on wages. In theory they should, but empirical studies come to different conclusions. On one side is George Borjas, of Harvard University, whose study in 2006 found that although immigration did not depress overall wages between 1980 and 2000, it did hold down the pay of the low-skilled by 5-10%. On the other side, David Card, of the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that there was no effect. His view was based on a study of the “Mariel boatlift”, an unexpected surge in Cuban migrants to Miami in 1980. Mr Card reckoned that Miami had become accustomed to handling large inflows of unskilled migrants. Mr Borjas has recently looked at Mr Card’s analysis again and claims that high-school dropouts, a subset of the low-skilled native workers in Mr Card’s study, did in fact suffer a material fall in wages.

Until quite recently the academic literature treated migrants as substitutes for native workers. But what if they were complements; if low-skilled migrants helped to boost the productivity of low-skilled natives? Gianmarco Ottaviano, of the University of Bologna, and Giovanni Peri, of the University of California, Davis, find that for workers with at least a high-school qualification, the wage effects of low-skill immigration are positive if you drop the assumption that workers of the same age and education are perfect substitutes and that workers of one skill level, say cooks, do not affect the productivity of workers at other skill levels, say waiters or restaurant managers. The effect on the wages of high-school dropouts is only mildly negative. A paper by Marco Manacorda, Alan Manning and Jonathan Wadsworth, of the London School of Economics, similarly concludes that immigrants to Britain are imperfect substitutes for native-born workers, so they have little impact on natives’ job prospects or wages. New immigrants tend to affect only the pay of recently arrived immigrants.

From these muddy waters, it is possible to draw two tentative conclusions about the broad impact of migration on wages. First, the effect on the bulk of low-skilled native workers has been fairly muted—perhaps because the way work is done changes in response to large-scale migration. However, the pay of some narrow categories of workers (say, farm labourers in Britain or high-school dropouts in America) may still be affected.

To deal with the tension between immigration and the welfare state, three rules suggest themselves. First, make benefits conditional on having paid into the system. Second, tie the funding of local public services to local tax revenues to ensure an automatic response to an influx of migrants. Third, restrict migration to prime-age, skilled workers who are more likely to get jobs and less likely to lose them in a recession.

Are we making "immigration" a mountain out of a mole hill ... ?
 
Lafayette, this was excerpted from the article you linked:
“University of California, Davis, find that for workers with at least a high-school qualification, the wage effects of low-skill immigration are positive if you drop the assumption that workers of the same age and education are perfect substitutes and that workers of one skill level, say cooks, do not affect the productivity of workers at other skill levels, say waiters or restaurant managers. The effect on the wages of high-school dropouts is only mildly negative”.

Lafayette, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate affects all other USA wage rates but its proportional effect is inversely related to job’s differing wage rates.
USA’s lowest paying jobs performed by the least desirable employees, (i.e. the working poor) are, (proportional to their wage rates), the greatest beneficiaries of the federal minimum wage rate. The federal minimum wage rate somewhat bolsters all USA wage rates.
this concept is much less applicable when there’s a shortage of available labor to do specific jobs.

Similarly, cooks wage rates do not affect bus-boy wages, but due to differentiation of wage rates, the minimum rate affects all other rates. Bus-boys’ rates do affect cooks’ wage rates which in turn effect restaurant managers wage rates.
Lower wage legal or illegal migrant labor certainly affects all other wage rates. The proportional extent of the effects on jobs’ wages are inversely related to the differences between the minimum rate job and the job in question.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Link: Needed but not wanted.


Excerpt:


Are we making "immigration" a mountain out of a mole hill ... ?

no not at all. When conditions are right another 30 million will flood over the border, take another 30 million jobs, and drive our wages down still further!!
 
Lafayette, this was excerpted from the article you linked:
“University of California, Davis, find that for workers with at least a high-school qualification, the wage effects of low-skill immigration are positive if you drop the assumption that workers of the same age and education are perfect substitutes and that workers of one skill level, say cooks, do not affect the productivity of workers at other skill levels, say waiters or restaurant managers. The effect on the wages of high-school dropouts is only mildly negative”.

Lafayette, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate affects all other USA wage rates but its proportional effect is inversely related to job’s differing wage rates.
USA’s lowest paying jobs performed by the least desirable employees, (i.e. the working poor) are, (proportional to their wage rates), the greatest beneficiaries of the federal minimum wage rate. The federal minimum wage rate somewhat bolsters all USA wage rates.
this concept is much less applicable when there’s a shortage of available labor to do specific jobs.

Similarly, cooks wage rates do not affect bus-boy wages, but due to differentiation of wage rates, the minimum rate affects all other rates. Bus-boys’ rates do affect cooks’ wage rates which in turn effect restaurant managers wage rates.
Lower wage legal or illegal migrant labor certainly affects all other wage rates. The proportional extent of the effects on jobs’ wages are inversely related to the differences between the minimum rate job and the job in question.

Respectfully, Supposn

Or, since most UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS (READ 70% OF IMMIGRANTS REPRESENTED IN A SEMI-IMMIGRATION COURT ARE GIVEN LEGAL STATUS, THE WHOLESALE LABELING OF IMMIGRANTS AS "ILLEGALS" IS DISHONEST RACIST REPUBLICAN CALUMNY) pay a discount to work in America you can see them as pegged, though with a reduced wage, to the minimum wage.

I.e Pedro works and pays taxes (threw the employer85% of UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, not illegals since the majority are legal when adequately represented) on 5$/hr when the MW is 7.25/hr. Now MW goes to 10$ and Pedro gets a pay bump to 7$, Arnold Whiteman get a bump to 10$ and his manager a bump to 15$.

First, for inflation to occur ALL SELLERS MUST BE WILLING TO PUSH THE WHOLE NEW COST TO BUYERS, IF EVEN ONE SELLER ACCEPTS THE WAGE DISTRIBUTION HAS SHIFTED AGAINST HIS FAVOR (I.e in effect absorbing the increased cost as a portion of his operating costs) that singular seller will be much more competitive and outsell the other sellers that do not accept the "New Normal"

Since we have Corporatism in america Walmart would likely just sell at a loss unless it's a conglomerate of sellers accepting the new normal.

This could not happen in Germany because selling at a loss is illegal (dumping).
 
Or, since most UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS (READ 70% OF IMMIGRANTS REPRESENTED IN A SEMI-IMMIGRATION COURT ARE GIVEN LEGAL STATUS, THE WHOLESALE LABELING OF IMMIGRANTS AS "ILLEGALS" IS DISHONEST RACIST REPUBLICAN CALUMNY) pay a discount to work in America you can see them as pegged, though with a reduced wage, to the minimum wage.

I.e Pedro works and pays taxes (threw the employer85% of UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, not illegals since the majority are legal when adequately represented) on 5$/hr when the MW is 7.25/hr. Now MW goes to 10$ and Pedro gets a pay bump to 7$, Arnold Whiteman get a bump to 10$ and his manager a bump to 15$.

First, for inflation to occur ALL SELLERS MUST BE WILLING TO PUSH THE WHOLE NEW COST TO BUYERS, IF EVEN ONE SELLER ACCEPTS THE WAGE DISTRIBUTION HAS SHIFTED AGAINST HIS FAVOR (I.e in effect absorbing the increased cost as a portion of his operating costs) that singular seller will be much more competitive and outsell the other sellers that do not accept the "New Normal"

Since we have Corporatism in america Walmart would likely just sell at a loss unless it's a conglomerate of sellers accepting the new normal.

This could not happen in Germany because selling at a loss is illegal (dumping).

I find your 8:08 PM, 25Feb2017 post difficult to follow. I don’t know if I’m correctly interpreting your meaning?

You’re contending that the USA has a legally defined segment of our population that are effectively “untermenschen”, or are you advocating we enact laws to legally establish a classification of USA residents that have less rights and can be treated with less consideration in most legal or commercial circumstances?

Chinandenga, I’m unaware of any enterprise that intends to sell their total goods and services at a net loss and expects to profit by that strategy.
[This is not the same concept as “loss-leaders”. Enterprises frequently sell some goods at very attractive sales prices to generate customer traffic. Loss leaders are intended to increase the enterprise’s total sales volumes from their entire inventory which well exceeds their stock of loss-leader items. Enterprise that use "loss-leaders" strategy intend to net profit from it.]

I understood little or nothing of the last three paragraphs of your post. Regarding your last one sentence paragraph, “This could not happen in Germany because selling at a loss is illegal (dumping)”, what could never happen and how does German law prevent enterprises within their jurisdiction from offering loss-leaders to their customers?

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
Link: Needed but not wanted.


Excerpt:


Are we making "immigration" a mountain out of a mole hill ... ?

Another example of why mark Twain's saying is so valid:

" There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics".

Notice that the chart only talks to Mexican illegal immigration. Does not include South and Central America, Asia or Africa.

Seeing that most of the 7 billion people on earth would be materially better off if they could get to American shores. Would you advocate that we send empty ships and planes over to lets say India and bring over 500 million of their poorest? How about most of the North Koreans that are literally starving or much of Africa where potable water is a challenge.

Sounds like you think about 1 or 2 billion unskilled workers is just what America needs.
 
, THE WHOLESALE LABELING OF IMMIGRANTS AS "ILLEGALS" IS DISHONEST RACIST REPUBLICAN
CALUMNY

wholesale?? If someone is here illegally they are illegal. They should be deported instantly to make room for law abiding people. Do you understand that law abiding people are better than criminal people? Hillary's liberal dream of "open borders" is treasonous like most liberal dreams.
 
Crossing the border without permission is illegal. This ey are an illegal immigrant as they have broken the law.
It has nothing to do with racism. The law says what they did was illegal. They do bring down wages. Also it is not racist. That just devalued your argument 10 fold.



They are paid under the table in most cases. They don't pay taxes in most cases. No they are illegal for the fact they crossed the border without permission. Here is no situation where anyone will get a raise if minimum wage goes up.
I know the last minimum wage increase I didn't get a 2 dollar increase. Yet I had all the price increases. My job and skills were devalued.



They don't have to push all the cost they just have to push some of the cost. Even if they are willing to eat 50% of the increase the other is inflation as prices will go up. If you think businesses will just eat employment coasts you don't follow them very well.



No walmart will raise prices accordingly to offset any cost of business. They will discount items not selling to get them off their shelf to bring in other merchandise.



Good for Germany who cares.

Like 43-47% of undocumented worker SO entered the country legally. There just overstaying visas, which is a civil action not criminal.

And you're A racist, most Undocumented workers wages are taxed.

So Walmart is the economy?

And "eating" the cost is good, that's the new normal. That's the ENTIRE POINT. A greater portion or percentage of revenues ends in the hands of workers, I.e consumers.
 
Or, since most UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS (READ 70% OF IMMIGRANTS REPRESENTED IN A SEMI-IMMIGRATION COURT ARE GIVEN LEGAL STATUS, THE WHOLESALE LABELING OF IMMIGRANTS AS "ILLEGALS" IS DISHONEST RACIST REPUBLICAN CALUMNY) pay a discount to work in America you can see them as pegged, though with a reduced wage, to the minimum wage.

Crossing the border without permission is illegal. This ey are an illegal immigrant as they have broken the law.
It has nothing to do with racism. The law says what they did was illegal. They do bring down wages. Also it is not racist. That just devalued your argument 10 fold.

I.e Pedro works and pays taxes (threw the employer85% of UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, not illegals since the majority are legal when adequately represented) on 5$/hr when the MW is 7.25/hr. Now MW goes to 10$ and Pedro gets a pay bump to 7$, Arnold Whiteman get a bump to 10$ and his manager a bump to 15$.

They are paid under the table in most cases. They don't pay taxes in most cases. No they are illegal for the fact they crossed the border without permission. Here is no situation where anyone will get a raise if minimum wage goes up.
I know the last minimum wage increase I didn't get a 2 dollar increase. Yet I had all the price increases. My job and skills were devalued.

First, for inflation to occur ALL SELLERS MUST BE WILLING TO PUSH THE WHOLE NEW COST TO BUYERS, IF EVEN ONE SELLER ACCEPTS THE WAGE DISTRIBUTION HAS SHIFTED AGAINST HIS FAVOR (I.e in effect absorbing the increased cost as a portion of his operating costs) that singular seller will be much more competitive and outsell the other sellers that do not accept the "New Normal"

They don't have to push all the cost they just have to push some of the cost. Even if they are willing to eat 50% of the increase the other is inflation as prices will go up. If you think businesses will just eat employment coasts you don't follow them very well.

Since we have Corporatism in america Walmart would likely just sell at a loss unless it's a conglomerate of sellers accepting the new normal.

No walmart will raise prices accordingly to offset any cost of business. They will discount items not selling to get them off their shelf to bring in other merchandise.

This could not happen in Germany because selling at a loss is illegal (dumping).

Good for Germany who cares.
 
Another example of why mark Twain's saying is so valid:" There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics".

Right on! Because Mark Twain was not a famous writer, but a famous statistician!

Today is Malarkey Day on this site! Any more to contribute ... ?
 
Like 43-47% of undocumented worker SO entered the country legally. There just overstaying visas, which is a civil action not criminal.

which is a crime lol. you can have your visa revoked and deported automatically for over staying your visa.

And you're A racist, most Undocumented workers wages are taxed.

You don't know what a racist is then. According to the SS office only about 3.1m illegals out of 11m "undocumented workers" paid SS tax of that amount
their employer paid half of it. so it isn't even most. it isn't even half.

So Walmart is the economy?

a non-response to the actual argument. try again.

And "eating" the cost is good, that's the new normal. That's the ENTIRE POINT. A greater portion or percentage of revenues ends in the hands of workers, I.e consumers.

no it isn't the new normal. someone will pay for the cost some way.
whether that is higher prices, fewer jobs, or lower pay, or less working hours.

one way or another someone not the business will pay for it.
 
Another example of why mark Twain's saying is so valid:

" There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics".

Notice that the chart only talks to Mexican illegal immigration. Does not include South and Central America, Asia or Africa.

Seeing that most of the 7 billion people on earth would be materially better off if they could get to American shores. Would you advocate that we send empty ships and planes over to lets say India and bring over 500 million of their poorest? How about most of the North Koreans that are literally starving or much of Africa where potable water is a challenge.

Sounds like you think about 1 or 2 billion unskilled workers is just what America needs.

your wasting your time he will never actually address the argument.

Few countries allow massive influx of unskilled labor.

in fact Mexico doesn't even allow for unskilled labor to enter their country.

Most people who move to the country for the weather, culture, or lower expenses are coming on a non-working visa, which means they must show the means to support themselves. For most retirees, that’s relatively straightforward. Technically the requirement is an income of $2,000 per month for one person or $2,500 for a couple. This normally equates to some kind of pension or IRA/401K regular withdrawal in addition to Social Security, but I’ve heard many cases where the income requirements were softened for retirees who could also show some assets in terms of savings or real estate.

For those who are not retired, requirements are the same on paper but consulate or embassy personnel seem to be requiring a higher income level. This often comes out to $2,500 per month for a single person, then $500 for each dependent. The local consulate or embassy apparently has the latitude to demand more, however, as the one where I started my process (in Orlando, Florida) wanted to see a bare minimum of $4,000 a month flowing through my checking account for myself, my wife, and my daughter and mentioned at one point that we were okay since my income was “more than $5,000 per month.”

liberals here would friggen just scream their head off to the point they would have a jet.com moment.
 
... Hillary's liberal dream of "open borders" is treasonous like most liberal dreams.

James972, I’m opposed to “open borders” by direct passage of federal law or by international treaty. This may or may not differ with the opinions of ex-U.S. Senator and ex-Secretary of the United States, Hillary Clinton. Labeling her opinion as treasonous is no more valid than so labeling your opinions.

I contend that your statement that I’m now responding to and many of those that I previously responded to, are foolish and/or illogical. but it would be foolish, illogical, and contrary to the essence of USA’s, (my nation’s) policies, to so describe you or those of your opinions as treasonous.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
Labeling her opinion as treasonous is no more valid than so labeling your opinions.

she dreams of open borders which would destroy America while I don't; thus she is in effect treasonous
 
she dreams of open borders which would destroy America while I don't; thus she is in effect treasonous

James972, you’re legally entitled to disagree with the first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America’s government, provided you do so in a peaceful manner not explicitly prohibited by any of our other laws.

Unlike myself, you possibly believe the first amendment should be repealed and replaced with regulations that place greater legal responsibilities upon speaker and writers? Your opinion of the amendment does not reduce Hillary Clinton’s legal right to express her opinion.
If you believe otherwise, you’re ignorant of our nation’s laws. Your assertion, “... Hillary's liberal dream of "open borders" is treasonous” is further exposure of your ignorance.

Supposn
 
James972, you’re legally entitled to disagree with the first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America’s government, provided you do so in a peaceful manner not explicitly prohibited by any of our other laws.

Unlike myself, you possibly believe the first amendment should be repealed and replaced with regulations that place greater legal responsibilities upon speaker and writers? Your opinion of the amendment does not reduce Hillary Clinton’s legal right to express her opinion.
If you believe otherwise, you’re ignorant of our nation’s laws. Your assertion, “... Hillary's liberal dream of "open borders" is treasonous” is further exposure of your ignorance.

Supposn

Hillary's treasonous dream of open borders is not illegal, neither is telling us about her dream. Anything else?
 
Hillary's treasonous dream of open borders is not illegal, neither is telling us about her dream. Anything else?

James972, how did you conclude Hillary Clinton’s dreams are treasonous? Do you think many Americans have treasonous dreams? We can’t stop people from dreaming and we shouldn’t try to prevent people from sleeping. Your world’s more complex than the world the remainder of us live in.

Supposn
 
James972, how did you conclude Hillary Clinton’s dreams are treasonous?

open borders would in effect destroy our country since 70% of the world's population would want to come here. Destroying our country is treasonous. Do you understand?
 
open borders would in effect destroy our country since 70% of the world's population would want to come here. Destroying our country is treasonous. Do you understand?

James972, you apparently use words without understanding their meaning. “Treasonous” is a serious word not casually tossed about by adults. You don’t seem to understand; but I suppose when you grow up you’ll know better.

Supposn
 
James972, you apparently use words without understanding their meaning. “Treasonous” is a serious word not casually tossed about by adults. You don’t seem to understand; but I suppose when you grow up you’ll know better.

Supposn

word, like most words, has many meanings. What not look it up before you comment on it??
 
word, like most words, has many meanings. What not look it up before you comment on it??

ttps://www.google.com/search?q=treasonous+definition&ie=&oe=

adjective: treasonous
1. involving or guilty of the crime of betraying one's country.
"a treasonous act against the State"
o involving or guilty of the betrayal of someone or something.
"he never paid for his treasonous act against Valerie"
 
No, we are not making a mountain out of a molehill.
The US remains one of the most popular countries for immigration. Any country would be wise to make the best of their situation. We can offer citizenship to top notch people who can add to our country. Like all those educated and ambitious immigrants of the past. That is what all countries do-they have requirements for entry and expect immigrants to improve the country, not break even or only lose a little.

Interesting chart. Don't really believe it. But that would include children born in the US, therefore US citizens, who leave to be with their parents when they leave. Family should stay together and obviously if the parents are not legal than the children should leave with them. And they can return when they are of a better age. Don't break up families.
 
ttps://www.google.com/search?q=treasonous+definition&ie=&oe=

adjective: treasonous
1. involving or guilty of the crime of betraying one's country.
"a treasonous act against the State"
o involving or guilty of the betrayal of someone or something.
"he never paid for his treasonous act against Valerie"

exactly; so when Hillary wants to destroy our country with open borders that is an act of betrayal or an act of treason. It is much like when the liberals spied for Stalin in hope of destroying our country.
 
needed by whom, exactly?

Those seeking surplus labor to drive the cost of said labor down...
 
Back
Top Bottom