It&#39;s Only A Paper Rose

Well, the illegal immigrants are basically a form of slave labor.

So, the 1/5 versus 3/5 comparison could just be due to inflation.

From:

Actually, the 1/5 value is referring to letting an immigrant in legally and the impact s/he has on the wage market. So illegal immigrants are actually having stronger negative effects on the economy (in terms of lowering wages and working standards) - as well as not letting the market adjust for their inclusion in society, since they're, y'know, illegal.

From:

I see. That kinda ruins my cynical joke.

I think the main reason immigration is not fully open is because it's convenient to the corporatiosn to have a work force without a power base.

From:

Personally, I think the major reason immigration is such a big deal is just plain ol' xenophobia, slapped with different labels and slogans. People don't really change, after all - just find new ways to justify our same shortcomings.

From:

Xenophobia, yes, but it can't be coincidence that illegal immigrants are so darn useful to corporations.

From:

I'm not afraid of the people, I'm afraid of them having my job tomorrow morning.

From:

Are you really so ignorant of the basic principles of economics that you actually believe that line of BS?

But here, from the pen of an actual economist (rather than just a person who tries to think critically about half-baked commonly-accepted "truths"):

Right away, our calculation runs into a problem, because on balance immigrants don't harm Americans; virtually all economists agree that immigration makes us richer, not poorer. Every immigrant is a potential trading partner, a potential employee, and a potential customer. He bids down wages, but that's a two-edged sword: It's bad for his fellow workers, but it's good for employers and good for consumers.

In the very short run, most of the gains go to employers, and a substantial fraction of those gains probably go to people named Walton. In the somewhat longer run, all that excess profit gets competed away and shows up in the form of lower prices for consumer goods. At that point, even the workers who took pay cuts can come out ahead: If your wage falls by 10 percent while prices fall by 20 percent, you're a winner.

Immigrants come here looking for jobs, yes. They take some of the available jobs, yes. In a supply-and-demand economy, yes, that means they drive wages down.

However, lowered wages = businesses can afford more labor, = new businesses previously priced out of the market can start up and therefore eventually compete the wage drop out of the equation, either through offering higher wages or the lowered cost of production. Not to mention all the additional demand that these immigrants provide for goods and services with the money they're making; demand that creates more jobs and/or higher wages. The market always drives toward equilibrium, so assuming that adding in additional weight to one end = a permanent imbalance is fallacious.

Not to mention the points I brought up in my earlier post on the subject; i.e. that people born here have an inherent advantage when competing for higher-paying positions in the job market, since we're more familiar with the language and customs of job-hunting in this country. But then, Brian and I have often wondered why it is you seem to have this permanent self-image of being a blue-collar worker when you have the ability and intelligence necessary to do much higher-paying work.

From:

Personal attack on someone you don't agree with: brilliant way to open a reply. Next time please cut to the content.

Your attitude assumes a constantly expanding resource base. This is a solid fallacy - some things such as land are a finite resource and have solidified as such recently. More people = more workforce, driving wages down, but also driving prices up. Quality of living falls and unemployment rises. Yes, the market drives towards equilibrium - new businesses will open to employ the new arrivals, but you will likely see issues with wages and quality within the larger companies. Again, low wages and low quality of life, excaberated by cost-cut goods which while less expensive initially often have much lower time-to-failure and therefore require continual replenishment - but that gets into logistics and away from your focus on morality.

We're having this debate over MSN at the same time I'm writing the reply. Should drop one.

You're right that most of human society is based on a constantly-expanding resource base. Assuming a constantly expanding resource base, this works - witness America during the 1800s. Yes, you had massive conflicts within social groups that had not yet adjusted and were fighting over what resources they had acquired after arrival, but that was much more a carryover of Old World attitudes to the USA.

Based on what you perceive as societal values, your arguments are valid.

In my views, the societal values are what needs changing. We're running out of resources. Land is obviously there by causal observation and value/acre, and jobs best staffed by trained professionals have been and still are being moved overseas.

The root of the problem IS that they are different. Take for example a classic African tribal village-state: most of the population are farmers, they work their asses off and reproduce like crazy. Half your kids die before they're adults and assuming you make it to "retirement" age your kids are able to support you between the three or four survivors. Painful, but sustainable and even livable when taken pragmatically. Selectively introduce modern technology into this culture and you have a population boom similar to 1950s USA: benefits from sanitation, antibiotics, and better diet without the moderating force of security in your old age and stigma-less birth control. Sooner rather than later you see the population expanding far beyond what the area can support even with modern farming technology - and from there they emigrate. Many of those go to Europe, and many to the USA.

We have, in effect, become the world's largest orphanage.

You already know my views on orphaning or terminating a child to avoid personal responsibility or because you had children that you knew you would not be able to support.

Your statements that same society that opposes immigration sustains rapid local population growth through tax breaks. Baby machine = no need to work as long as you don't mind living on food stamps, supposedly. You need to clarify: the government supports under-waged childbearing people, supposedly as a humanitarian effort and in part to try to keep single parents from hitting bottom too hard. This same government is or at least was moving towards granting suddenly legal status to a huge mass of illegals and advocates a guest-labor force for jobs that "Americans won't do".

I've met plenty of people that would be happy shovelling out pastures for a half-decent wage. Americans have been doing those jobs for over 2 centuries.

Massive amounts of imported labor were crucial in the late 1800s - there was simply not the local population base for many grand infrastructure projects. That need has ceased to exist, plain and simple. Society is changing and I'm surprised that you are holding the old line against the change.

All other things being equal, economics move towards balance. Right now, we aren't at a balance - we're in a period of reckless expansion. If we don't brake the expansion before the bottom falls out you're going to see at the very least a brutal backswing to the other side of equilibrium before things even out - a period of isolationism and probably a good dose of blowing each other up to fuel home economic growth.

Not my idea of a grand future.

From:

It wasn't a personal attack. I was honestly flummoxed, given known quantities - i.e. your intelligence and familiarity with the subject of economics.

And I find it interesting that you're against "terminating a child" when your attitude is one of such scarcity. Certainly it would be a better option than allowing a drain on finite resources. Better still would be stigma-less birth control, as you put it.

From:

I actually prefer personal responsibility and foresight enough to not create the child in the first place.

From:

See above re: birth control. However, even the best birth control fails on occasion, at which point it would be wise to have the termination option available.

From:

I prefer taking responsibility for having gambled the odds and lost, even if the odds were stacked in your favor. :P

From:

Re: economic models, I do agree that we have finite resources. However, my argument still stands - the major reason most Americans are leery of immigrants is xenophobia, pure and simple. The hypocrisy of pulling out the "finite resources" argument here when we act like we have unlimited resources everywhere else in our country's policies is what really gets to me.

From:

By the way, have you read my LJ today?

From:

Just did. Very cute. Say hi to the zombies for me. =)

From:

I was thinking of hauling out my plasma cannon and doing just that.

"Say hello to my little friend!"

From:

Are you on MSN? I can't see you on there.

From:

I am. You have roseneko at hotmail added to your list?

From:

I added "roseneko@hotmail.com". is that wrong?

From:

No, that's correct. Dunno what the problem is, then...

From: