Illegals: Should Assets and Profits Be Seized?
- Thread starter Unique 5.7
- Start date
shootinstudent
New member
Ahenry,
You just mentioned that we have restrictions for various reasons, and then claimed that illegal immigration is somehow itself a restriction. Is it a restriction on restrictions, or what?
You're claiming that allowing business more choice in who they will hire is an artificial restriction on the market. That is the fundamental problem. I have studied and do study economics. Please explain to me how in any possible sense of the term, it is a "restriction" to say "businesses can decide who they want to hire and what they will offer to pay, period"?
Allowing the market to choose from all available options is not "artificial", that's called the market. Using the law to exclude a form of labor supply favored by business is decidedly not a "market force." That's pretty basic economics. Or did you learn that "free market" means "a market is free only when the law regulates what can and cannot be bought and sold on the market"???
What I claimed, and what I wrote, is that a free market means "free". Not restricted. So ask yourself the question: Does barring a purchase based on which side of the border the product comes from restrict free choice?
Better or worse, as I explained above, is not the same as "free" or "restricted." So you don't like the free market system because you think the market price of labor is too low under it. Fine. Argue for government intervention. Pointing out the obvious, that you are arguing for restriction, and not free market principles, is all that I am doing here.
You just mentioned that we have restrictions for various reasons, and then claimed that illegal immigration is somehow itself a restriction. Is it a restriction on restrictions, or what?
You're claiming that allowing business more choice in who they will hire is an artificial restriction on the market. That is the fundamental problem. I have studied and do study economics. Please explain to me how in any possible sense of the term, it is a "restriction" to say "businesses can decide who they want to hire and what they will offer to pay, period"?
Allowing the market to choose from all available options is not "artificial", that's called the market. Using the law to exclude a form of labor supply favored by business is decidedly not a "market force." That's pretty basic economics. Or did you learn that "free market" means "a market is free only when the law regulates what can and cannot be bought and sold on the market"???
What I claimed, and what I wrote, is that a free market means "free". Not restricted. So ask yourself the question: Does barring a purchase based on which side of the border the product comes from restrict free choice?
Better or worse, as I explained above, is not the same as "free" or "restricted." So you don't like the free market system because you think the market price of labor is too low under it. Fine. Argue for government intervention. Pointing out the obvious, that you are arguing for restriction, and not free market principles, is all that I am doing here.
novus collectus
Moderator
You're right 9mmsnoopy. it has already happened someplaces. It happened to me when I tried to get a low paying job as a dishwasher at local restaurant chains a couple of years back and they were all already filled by hispanics.
(side note: I wasn't a teen at the time)
Ok, I lied, here I go explaining it all over again, however you have to actually do some of your own thinking for this discussion to actually work....
I’ve said we have restriction on foreign labor entering the market. There are restrictions to American labor (minimum wage, etc), but that’s another discussion. By foreign labor sidestepping the law and entering the market anyway, the normal progression of the cost of labor has been restricted. The restriction on the cost of labor is not the law limiting foreign labor, but the foreign labor entering the market outside the color of law.
I have never claimed that allowing business more choices is an artificial restriction on the market. Pay attention to what I say. To quote myself, “ there [are] restrictions on foreigners entering our labor market…By laborers entering the market outside of the law, they have kept the price of labor below what it would have risen to over time”. Keeping this price for labor below what it would have been had there been no illegal laborers has stifled the incentives to innovation. It has also created a shortage of labor and a black market for labor, those aren't the point of this discussion though.
The law is not excluding a form of labor supply. Literally hundreds of thousands of foreign laborers enter the American labor supply every single year. That labor supply has fluctuated as it should, rising and lowering in a manner that allows firms to choose their most correct action, to employ foreign workers or not. I have no problem with that, and would encourage it. The foreign labor that enters the American labor supply outside the constraints of the law (the illegal alien) is what has kept the cost of labor for certain markets from rising at the rate is should have; a rate that would have stimulated the market to innovate just as the market has innovated throughout our history.
It is not barred! If you waved your magic wand and suddenly made all illegal aliens legal, they would be subject to our labor laws and would go from a low cost labor supply to a cost identical or virtually identical to today’s legal laborer. The reason illegal aliens have capped the cost of labor for certain markets is because they are outside the law. I honestly cannot think of another way to explain this to you. Barring a diminished mental capacity on your part, your continued refusal to understand what I am saying causes me to think you are being intentionally obtuse. And you’re not doing your argument any favors by doing so.
shootinstudent
New member
ahenry,
I lost in that post where the fundamental explanation was as to how it's more "free market" to restrict business choice of employment, and how the "market" isn't what's creating the current labor price. If we did wipe away all immigration law, then the market would operate entirely without legal restriction, and you'd get a market price for labor that reflects what business and workers are actually willing to agree to. Since no one forces businesses to hire illegals (indeed, we discourage it), then the current price of labor is a MARKET price, not an "artificial" one. It reflects the free choice of businessmen to hire those workers at those wages. If you stop them from doing that, then you are creating an artificial restriction that does indeed bar businesses from doing what they otherwise would do.
If you pass laws that restrict whom businesses can or cannot hire, then you alter the market by law. That's not free market.
I lost in that post where the fundamental explanation was as to how it's more "free market" to restrict business choice of employment, and how the "market" isn't what's creating the current labor price. If we did wipe away all immigration law, then the market would operate entirely without legal restriction, and you'd get a market price for labor that reflects what business and workers are actually willing to agree to. Since no one forces businesses to hire illegals (indeed, we discourage it), then the current price of labor is a MARKET price, not an "artificial" one. It reflects the free choice of businessmen to hire those workers at those wages. If you stop them from doing that, then you are creating an artificial restriction that does indeed bar businesses from doing what they otherwise would do.
If you pass laws that restrict whom businesses can or cannot hire, then you alter the market by law. That's not free market.
If we did that then labor (both foreign and domestic) would be subject to the exact same labor laws, bringing the cost of today's illegal foreign laborer to essentially the exact same as today’s legal laborer. A cost that you contended would smash the US economy (post #81: “…US economy would be smashed.”). *
No, you are still missing what I am saying despite all the graphic emphasis I can supply. There are in essence two market prices for labor, a legal one and an illegal one. The legal market is at a certain amount and it is higher than the illegal one. The lower price for labor (in certain markets) is artificially kept low because it is operating outside of the law.
The restriction is that they cannot be in this country. By being in this country outside the law, an employer is able to force the laborer to accept lower wages, the fact that they are often amenable to this wage because it is still higher than they get in their country is besides the point. The point is that if you make them all legal laborers the employer would no longer be able to higher them at the lower wage. The only reason illegal immigrants take wages below what would be the true market price for their labor is because they have no legal recourse to demand anything other than what an employer is willing to offer. Remove that restriction by making them legal laborers and within an extremely short time their wage would be the same as all other legal employees.
*Actually the price for labor would most likely balance at some sort of mid point between the wage legal laborers are currently willing to take, and the wage illegal laborers are currently willing to take. My personal view is that that “mid point” would actually be very near the current cost for legal labor and even if it was a little lower at first it would quickly rise to the existing price for legal labor. This rise would happen far faster than the industries ability to create alternatives to this rapidly rising cost.
shootinstudent
New member
This is plainly false. Mexican workers can and do make more than minimum wage, because minimum wage law still applies. Most work with fake Social Security numbers, and the payrolls are subject to tax audits. If you are paying people less than minimum wage, that's actually pretty easy to detect. It doesn't happen much.
What allows business to pay the wages they do is that illegals will work for it. Legally, there aren't as many restrictions on labor for agriculture, and it's always been this way.
But the point stands...you're arguing for regulation and application of law, not for a market force.
It is still below the market price for labor.
That isn’t true. I’m arguing for eliminating theem operating outside the law. Because I believe we should control who enters our country and that we should not reward illegal activity, the only solution is to eliminate illegal immigration.
shootinstudent
New member
ahenry,
It is not below, it is the market price. Anyone can go work for that same wage. At the same time, you're not going to get a higher wage because you're American and you want to say, pick tomatoes.
Market price is what the market will pay overall. It's not "what the market would pay if we more stringently enforced a law that bans certain people from working in the market."
It is not below, it is the market price. Anyone can go work for that same wage. At the same time, you're not going to get a higher wage because you're American and you want to say, pick tomatoes.
Market price is what the market will pay overall. It's not "what the market would pay if we more stringently enforced a law that bans certain people from working in the market."
Fred Hansen
New member
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
shootinstudent
New member
wingman,
LOL, well, it's only a tangent to what I'm really trying to study....
Law.
LOL, well, it's only a tangent to what I'm really trying to study....
Law.
shootinstudent,
After all the long posts... the fact remains that our country has been invaded illegally, and you think it's perfectly fine because this illegal activity has (at least you believe) kept the price of products lower and affordable thence the cost of living down.
It's like killing your wife for insurance money. Yeah you committed a crime, but the benefit was sooo lucrative - it's worth it!!!
That rationale is retarded.
After all the long posts... the fact remains that our country has been invaded illegally, and you think it's perfectly fine because this illegal activity has (at least you believe) kept the price of products lower and affordable thence the cost of living down.
It's like killing your wife for insurance money. Yeah you committed a crime, but the benefit was sooo lucrative - it's worth it!!!
That rationale is retarded.
shootinstudent
New member
Trip20,
You're darned straight that I'm happy with cheaper products. And no, it's not even close...having someone cross the border illegaly to work is nowhere near the crime murder is. That's just plain silly. Look at it from this perspective: If someone lives in a bad neighborhood in los angeles and can't protect his family except by carrying a gun illegaly, would you say: "pfff, he's breaking the law....why not go around murdering people for money to feed his family too? After all, concealed carry without a permit in LA is a CRIME"?" Not all crimes are equal. Sure, it's still a crime...but that doesn't mean it's the same thing as murder.
And your wife doesn't benefit in the insurance example....whereas she would benefit staying alive and paying lower prices for the food you all eat.
Who doesn't benefit from lower prices? Yeah, there are other factors that offset the price...but those are debatable in scope and impact. Lower prices are a concrete way that immigrant labor has helped everybody.
You're darned straight that I'm happy with cheaper products. And no, it's not even close...having someone cross the border illegaly to work is nowhere near the crime murder is. That's just plain silly. Look at it from this perspective: If someone lives in a bad neighborhood in los angeles and can't protect his family except by carrying a gun illegaly, would you say: "pfff, he's breaking the law....why not go around murdering people for money to feed his family too? After all, concealed carry without a permit in LA is a CRIME"?" Not all crimes are equal. Sure, it's still a crime...but that doesn't mean it's the same thing as murder.
And your wife doesn't benefit in the insurance example....whereas she would benefit staying alive and paying lower prices for the food you all eat.
Who doesn't benefit from lower prices? Yeah, there are other factors that offset the price...but those are debatable in scope and impact. Lower prices are a concrete way that immigrant labor has helped everybody.
Another way immigrants have impacted society: You can have your but whipped by Mexican street gangs (most of which are illegals) who are enjoying the same lower prices as you. These gangs are suspected of being contacted by Al Quaeda (sp) for cooperation in getting them into the country.
I'd rather have the filth out, and pay 20 cents more per pound.
See, I can't over look all the BAD that's come because of the illegals. And the bad definitely over-shadows the good. For you its pocket change, for me it's the principal.
I'd rather have the filth out, and pay 20 cents more per pound.
See, I can't over look all the BAD that's come because of the illegals. And the bad definitely over-shadows the good. For you its pocket change, for me it's the principal.
shootinstudent
New member
Trip20,
That's fair enough. You see the harms differently than I do. But it's not "pocket change" versus principle only. I believe the law should be changed to invite more workers, which is why I support the Bush plan.
And, in my personal experience, the Mexican street gangs are almost entirely US born. This makes sense to me, because it's much better to be a criminal in Mexico (where law enforcement isn't a shadow of what it is in the US) than to come to the US where you could get life imprisonment (not allowed in Mexico) or the death penalty for gang crimes.
Edited to add:
Btw, for illegals who are gang members and criminals otherwise, I support prompt imprisonment and deportation. No argument there.
That's fair enough. You see the harms differently than I do. But it's not "pocket change" versus principle only. I believe the law should be changed to invite more workers, which is why I support the Bush plan.
And, in my personal experience, the Mexican street gangs are almost entirely US born. This makes sense to me, because it's much better to be a criminal in Mexico (where law enforcement isn't a shadow of what it is in the US) than to come to the US where you could get life imprisonment (not allowed in Mexico) or the death penalty for gang crimes.
Edited to add:
Btw, for illegals who are gang members and criminals otherwise, I support prompt imprisonment and deportation. No argument there.
novus collectus
Moderator
To answer the question, the out of work laboreres and their families or the workers who had to work for a pittance of what they did a few years ago. Lower labor cost only means lower prices at the market if the companies decide to pass it on to the consumer, if not then the only ones benefitting are the companies and their stockholders. Yes there is a middle ground where they are making more profits and passing on some of cost savings to the consumer, but the overall lowering of wages means that the produce is actually costing more for the legal workers because they are making less than the lower cost benefits of the produce would have made for them.
Bush's plan is very flawed, and one flaw I can point out is that is that he said the workers will get amnesty if their employer sponsors them. First of all, how many employers will admit they hired illegals without papers or admit that they really knew that the ones that had fake papers were illegal all the time and they knowingly broke the law? How many illegals would come forward and admit they committed fraud as well as illegally immigrated? How many employers would say "Hmmm.. should I sponsor this illegal and then have to pay him what the law requires, or should I just go ahead breaking a law that is never enforced?". Ronald Reagan's amnesty plan had a very poor response from the illegals and so would Bush's IMO.
It seems to me as if this part of his plan is an appeasement, or, just a trick to fool some of us into thinking it may work so that we would support his plan while the companies will still be employing illegals for cheap for years to come. I would support his plan only if it meant that they had to return to their country for a period of time and then come back through a similar proscess(sp?) that the legal immigrants from the rest of the Americas have done (Canadians too) and their was real enforcement of the laws already on the books that fined employers for breaking the law they are breaking by hiring the ones who don't fess up.
Shootinstudent,
). At this point I don’t care to expend any more energy trying to convince the unswayable. Before you dismiss everything I’ve said out of hand, consider that my educational background is in economics and I am currently exposed to immigration both legal and illegal on a fairly regular basis. I don’t say this to convince you of anything, just that you would be wise to consider what I’ve said. I would wager my experiences have given me a more accurate depiction of immigration and illegal immigration than you could possibly know. Do what you will with that.
You’re wrong. You’re stubborn. And I’m tired. All that adds up to the end of this discussion. I’ve presented my views as clearly as I can, either you are unwilling to be convinced or I have done a very poor job of explaining things (it’s just not possible that I am wrong
). At this point I don’t care to expend any more energy trying to convince the unswayable. Before you dismiss everything I’ve said out of hand, consider that my educational background is in economics and I am currently exposed to immigration both legal and illegal on a fairly regular basis. I don’t say this to convince you of anything, just that you would be wise to consider what I’ve said. I would wager my experiences have given me a more accurate depiction of immigration and illegal immigration than you could possibly know. Do what you will with that.shootinstudent
New member
ahenry,
I don't doubt your experience, and I do think you've done a very good job of making your point. I continue to disagree on the issue, but I do agree that it's been a pleasure discussing it with you and that we probably won't convince each other any time soon.
I don't doubt your experience, and I do think you've done a very good job of making your point. I continue to disagree on the issue, but I do agree that it's been a pleasure discussing it with you and that we probably won't convince each other any time soon
.