I apologize to the original poster and those interested in the original topic for hijacking this thread. It was certainly not my intention to do so. I inadvertently posted comments in this thread that belonged in the other illegal immigration thread. Perhaps a moderator can fix my mistake?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
U.S. pays for care of illegal aliens
- Thread starter redhawk41
- Start date
Because, as I have said a jillion times, illegal immigration creates an artificial market and establishes a price ceiling on the cost of labor. Moreover, illegal immigration (not legal immigration) has provided a disincentive to innovate, which has been the hallmark of American productivity. It is in fact, illegal immigration which has kept certain markets in America behind the global market. Agriculturally speaking, the illegal immigrant has caused us to lag behind Europe in mechanizing certain industries. The price incentive to innovate is not there in America while it is in the global market.If that's true [that American labor has always been able to compete with anything thrown at it], why are you so worried about keeping the illegals out? Americans should be able to compete them right out of the labor market, right?
Kjm
We can be "global" in trade; the export of things we make that no one else can, what we make better than anyone else, what we make that is exclusive, and things like foodstuffs, and other resources in return for anything we need that we can not pump, mine or grow here.
For our wages to be "globally competitive"; the national average hourly wage in this country would drop from about $13/hr or more - to somewhere around just above our current minimum wage. There is no way we are going to maintain hourly paid jobs that currently pay $9, $10 ..... $15, $18, $25 per hour in this country if all our industry is going to be thrown open to "compete" with the workforce of China, the rest of Asia, Africa and Central and South America.
I can not understand why so many people still can not grasp that global economics and trade in the current [non]sense means a levelling of the playing field that is going to make our average standard of living take a crash dive. And equally ludicrous is the idea that we somehow "can't live without it". Well; on average, we were living very well indeed before, and there is no reason whatsoever (other than the interests of the current political status quo and agenda) that we can not return to it.
But putting a hole in the bottom of the bucket doesn't just allow the water on the bottom level to run out - it brings down the level of all the water in the bucket.
Our first concern always needs to be with us - the citizens of this country - and the domestic market. What we buy and use from ourselves. The rest of the world comes after that.It depends on if you view the American economy on a global scale or as an island. Depending on the jobs held, those illegals may be keeping a business tottering on leaving to more friendly environs (i.e.: India, Pakistan and other 3rd world countries) in the United States. I see us a having to be globally competitive. These people are keeping wages where we can be globally competitive. If American wages were doubled overnight, I believe things would bode ill for us on the global market unless we somehow managed to double our productivity too.
We can be "global" in trade; the export of things we make that no one else can, what we make better than anyone else, what we make that is exclusive, and things like foodstuffs, and other resources in return for anything we need that we can not pump, mine or grow here.
For our wages to be "globally competitive"; the national average hourly wage in this country would drop from about $13/hr or more - to somewhere around just above our current minimum wage. There is no way we are going to maintain hourly paid jobs that currently pay $9, $10 ..... $15, $18, $25 per hour in this country if all our industry is going to be thrown open to "compete" with the workforce of China, the rest of Asia, Africa and Central and South America.
I can not understand why so many people still can not grasp that global economics and trade in the current [non]sense means a levelling of the playing field that is going to make our average standard of living take a crash dive. And equally ludicrous is the idea that we somehow "can't live without it". Well; on average, we were living very well indeed before, and there is no reason whatsoever (other than the interests of the current political status quo and agenda) that we can not return to it.
No, wages are what an employer can afford and is willing to pay. It is up to the government to make sure that foreign cheap labor and competition does not undermine the general welfare of it's citizens; and our Constitution has a mandate that uses that precise term. The rest is like water - it finds it's own level.Wages are tied to productivity (or should be). Short of serious changes in the tax code to make us more productive, the illegal problem will continue to benefit our economy as a whole in small, unseen ways.
But putting a hole in the bottom of the bucket doesn't just allow the water on the bottom level to run out - it brings down the level of all the water in the bucket.
True but tough to convince some of that "common sense" idea.But putting a hole in the bottom of the bucket doesn't just allow the water on the bottom level to run out - it brings down the level of all the water in the bucket.
LAK
I think you forgot the other half of the equation. It is also what a worker is willing to accept in payment. As was said before when somebody agrees to do you $10.00 per hour job for $8, then it is no longer a $10.00 per hour job.
Tell that to GM after the loss in market share (domestically) to the Japanese who saw a weakness in our market and exploited it in the 1970's and 80's.
Remember global trade works both ways and foreign products are coming in more rapidly than ours are going out. Perhaps because the cheap foreign labor in foreign cities is producing cheaper products that we cannot compete with even in our own markets.
The problem with your assertion that we need to be an island first and then a global trader ignores that everything is linked to everything else. There are few if any islands in the economic world. When the cost of an American product goes up here- say automobiles, then Americans will simply quit buying American made automobiles in favor of the Japanese models that seem to last longer and used to be cheaper. So you can't have an island even here. Our main defense against this is to keep wages at a globally competitive rate, increase productivity or find some other way to keep our products priced competitively.
Everything is linked to everything else whether you like it or not.
As another economic example, we can use oil. When we poke holes in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, that oil may not even be used here. It doesn't matter if it were, it brings down the price of crude oil worldwide, so while that tanker is headed to Japan or China full of Alaskan Oil, another tanker may be steaming to the Port of Houston from Venezuela full of crude at that same worldwide price.
No, wages are what an employer can afford and is willing to pay.
I think you forgot the other half of the equation. It is also what a worker is willing to accept in payment. As was said before when somebody agrees to do you $10.00 per hour job for $8, then it is no longer a $10.00 per hour job.
Our first concern always needs to be with us - the citizens of this country - and the domestic market. What we buy and use from ourselves. The rest of the world comes after that.
Tell that to GM after the loss in market share (domestically) to the Japanese who saw a weakness in our market and exploited it in the 1970's and 80's.
Remember global trade works both ways and foreign products are coming in more rapidly than ours are going out. Perhaps because the cheap foreign labor in foreign cities is producing cheaper products that we cannot compete with even in our own markets.
The problem with your assertion that we need to be an island first and then a global trader ignores that everything is linked to everything else. There are few if any islands in the economic world. When the cost of an American product goes up here- say automobiles, then Americans will simply quit buying American made automobiles in favor of the Japanese models that seem to last longer and used to be cheaper. So you can't have an island even here. Our main defense against this is to keep wages at a globally competitive rate, increase productivity or find some other way to keep our products priced competitively.
Everything is linked to everything else whether you like it or not.
As another economic example, we can use oil. When we poke holes in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, that oil may not even be used here. It doesn't matter if it were, it brings down the price of crude oil worldwide, so while that tanker is headed to Japan or China full of Alaskan Oil, another tanker may be steaming to the Port of Houston from Venezuela full of crude at that same worldwide price.
Kjm
This is true only when there is not a huge artificially cheap labor pool that is willing to work for far less.I think you forgot the other half of the equation. It is also what a worker is willing to accept in payment. As was said before when somebody agrees to do you $10.00 per hour job for $8, then it is no longer a $10.00 per hour job.
Tell that to GM after the loss in market share (domestically) to the Japanese who saw a weakness in our market and exploited it in the 1970's and 80's.QUOTE]
The Japanese didn't just wake up one morning and decide to ship cars here; our government made the conscious decision to allow them to do so. What do you think will happen to Japanese automakers if our government decides to allow six thousand-dollar cars to be imported in from China?
We are an island - or more properly - a nation first. The nation existed and traded with foreign countries and prospered long before the concepts of global socialism and economics.The problem with your assertion that we need to be an island first and then a global trader ignores that everything is linked to everything else
Your view is based on the assumption that we as a nation have to go along with this; which is not so. This is like saying a family can not be located within a community, interact with families around it, and not maintain it's independence as a family. The idea that we can not interact and trade with other nations and not maintain practical independence is rubbish.There are few if any islands in the economic world. When the cost of an American product goes up here- say automobiles, then Americans will simply quit buying American made automobiles in favor of the Japanese models that seem to last longer and used to be cheaper. So you can't have an island even here.
This is absolute trollop - it will destroy what we have left of a middle class. What you are trying to do, in justifying this global nonsense, is in essence that we have no choice - even if it means turning the United States into a third world nation.Our main defense against this is to keep wages at a globally competitive rate, increase productivity or find some other way to keep our products priced competitively
No thanks, and no way.
Well, this is the sort of attitude the globalists project and the message they preach.Everything is linked to everything else whether you like it or not.
And the answer is still no, and the reason is quite simple; to continue on the present course will without a doubt turn the average standard of living in this country into that of a third world country.
Well, here again you imply that we no control over what we do and do not in this country. Which under the present party is very much the case, but another subject, so we will stick to the principle issue for now.As another economic example, we can use oil. When we poke holes in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, that oil may not even be used here.
This is assuming we continue with an artificially priced market. If I draw water from a well on my property - I can sell it by the gallon to my neighbor for whatever price I decide and that they are willing to pay. If they want twice as much water, I can say "I'll sell it cheaper the more you buy". Oil needs to be priced on a production cost, shipping and delivery per barrel basis - and not funneled and the money transferred through a cartel monopoly.It doesn't matter if it were, it brings down the price of crude oil worldwide, so while that tanker is headed to Japan or China full of Alaskan Oil, another tanker may be steaming to the Port of Houston from Venezuela full of crude at that same worldwide price.
You see, what you do not grasp is that the whole global economic system is not just corrupt - it is criminal. It is an international criminal cartel. GATT, WTO and all these global alphabet organizations and treaties are simply the economic and trade cartel wing of the United Nations, which is the political wing. And an international criminal organizations.
Getting the picture?
The answer is no - definately not. At any cost.
Fred Hansen
New member
I suppose that if a barrel of ANWR oil had six kids in school, a pregnant wife in the hospital, a cousin in federal prison for life, and countless other relatives on welfare, plus didn't make enough money to pay income taxes, your analogy might make some sense. The fact remains that no matter how good the quasi-slave labor is for any given business, in the long run it isn't any good for those of us who have to pay the real costs of keeping said illegals employed. If it did, we (the legally employed) wouldn't have to pay for their drag on society - which BTW was the whole point of this thread. The money that it takes to do so is not infinitely available. Never has been, never will be.As another economic example, we can use oil. When we poke holes in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, that oil may not even be used here. It doesn't matter if it were, it brings down the price of crude oil worldwide, so while that tanker is headed to Japan or China full of Alaskan Oil, another tanker may be steaming to the Port of Houston from Venezuela full of crude at that same worldwide price.
Thunder on the Border-- (Minuteman Project)
various FR links & stories | 04-08-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1380062/posts
various FR links & stories | 04-08-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1380062/posts