Trump caves

[Mongo59]

The first sentence above is correct. The second one is just a warmed over open borders talking point, they've always been locked out. The captains of industry are interested in depressing wages for jobs anywhere below the boardroom level

Wow, you mean they didn't build the business just for me to have a livelihood? Next you are gonna start slandering Santa...

 

[jamil]

I didn't say "best"; just quickest.

But I agree that we need a lot more legal immigration.

I don’t have a problem with legal immigration, but possibly another solution would be organic growth. Heterosexual middle and working class citizens need marry and **** a lot more and have more babies. Some will grow up to be lawyers. Not much we can do to stop that (other than displace them with AI).

 

[CampingJosh]

I didn't want to respond to this on my phone, so I will apologize on how long it took for me to respond. UPS didn't arrive with my new laptop until 5:30, and then I was busy through the evening.

Let me break this down a bit more.

Let's be real. First, I said "not necessarily," I qualified my statement. If you don't want to qualify mine, do I get to take you at face value? So, according to you, if gasoline prices raise by $0.01 / gallon, demand will fall. Really? An increase in price does not necessarily cut demand. It can, but the simple reality is more complicated than you are grasping. If the lawyers in that firm raise their hourly rate from $300 / hour to $305 / hour do you think someone who is a client is going to run away? Again, really? Of course they're not. And it also will not stop a new client who is happy with the interaction they had with the attorney from hiring them. (Per Hough, the attorney must also agree to take the client. I'll remember to bring a large case of cash in $50 bills)

As I already stipulated in landscaping, yes, homeowners would be more likely to shop around and drop the landscaping company, but not all. Business owners would leave, potentially, if only a small few were raising their rates, while the rest of the unscrupulous landscapers continued to break the law and hire illegals that depressed the wages.

Gasoline has nearly the least elastic demand of any product. But even that, yes, a 1₵ price increase does lead to lower demand across the economy as a whole. On this very forum we see often someone is willing to drive further for a $15 gun transfer than for a $20 gun transfer. And a ~1% price increase (as in your lawyer example) won't cause every customer to use less of a service, but it does lead to lower overall demand. If it didn't, the lawyer would already raise their price.

(I'm going to need Hough, Guy, Kirk, Fargo, etc. to confirm this next sentence; I work from the assumption that lawyers are basically humans, but that might not be accurate.) If a lawyer could earn more money for doing the same amount of work--or earn the same amount of money for doing less work--they would structure their price that way. There are other considerations, sure, but every business tries to maximize their profit-to-work ratio.

Restaurateurs are limited by what the market will bear. There are many restaurants that charge well over $50 for burger. These are mostly what you would call a niche market. There is even one (1) that charges around $800 for a burger made from wagyu beef. They're not stupid. They're in business. But that is again a niche. Let's say Bernie Sanders got his way and across the nation raised the minimum wage to $15 / hour, prices on everything would go up. So would income. Things would initially take a hit. However, a new normal would come into play in a few years and sales would rebound.

Most of what a burger costs, on average, is guided by McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Rally's, etc etc etc. They create through their size and familiarity to consumers an expectation of cost. So it is difficult to radically exceed that cost and keep business flowing. But it does happen. Buy a burger at Applebee's, or any upper scale restaurant and the cost will be higher, along with the expectation of quality.

That was exactly my point. If the market will already bear a 15% price increase, then McDonald's, etc. would have already increased their price. If the restaurateurs could raise their price to increase their total profit, they would already have done so. Nobody wants sales volume for the sake of volume; it's for the sake of profit.

This is very misguided thinking. Spending what is necessary does NOT drive the economy. So to make the bare bones survival in a community costs $25,000 per year. A person bringing home $25,000 per year, including all tax refunds, etcetera spends their money on utilities, gas, food, and so on. This keeps some retail businesses operating, and the utility companies content. However, the retail market doesn't make much of its money on required spending. It makes it on what I mentioned before - disposable income. This means money left over after all of the necessities are met.

So if the person making $25k annually got a new job at $35k a lot would change. Some of that extra money would go into an IRA, or a 401k. This would actually fuel the market. They might buy a new plasma TV. The markup on which is much higher than potatoes at the food store. This is what fuels the growth and success of an economy. It isn't just spending, it is spending on things beyond the necessities.

We're just going to disagree here. I have a small farm, and so more people eating corn does help me. Every bit of spending helps somebody.

This is irrelevant. It isn't who is working or not, it is "can they survive on their incomes? What is pushing unemployment low isn't that jobs are plentiful, it is that people are working more than one (1) job just to make ends meet! They are working at Walmart and somewhere else to put food on their tables. They are working in a store and Ubering just to get by. One of the reasons, not the only one, but certainly a contributor is unfair competition from businesses using illegal labor that depresses wages.

The unemployment rate is not a measure of the number of jobs per the number of workers. It's a measure of the people without jobs, so people working twice doesn't affect the number.

Do you think that unskilled labor working less than 25% of the time (40 hours of a 168 hour week) should be able to afford everything they want? Minimum wage in the U.S. perhaps doesn't offer the standard of living that we would want. What it does offer, though, is a standard of living in the 70th percentile worldwide. Forgive me for not feeling much pity on someone in the top 1/3.

I once saw a Hispanic guy interviewed at an industrial meat processing plant. He said, "We're not stealing jobs. I've been here ten years and I've never seen a white person apply." This is probably true. I take him at his word. I presume him to be an honest man telling the truth. However, what he may not be aware of is what would happen if every single meat processing facility was guaranteed to be raided and have illegal immigrants removed. The entire industry would be forced to go out of business, or.... offer higher wages to bring other workers. If they offered $28 / hour you'd get folks lining up. But they don't. They don't for a variety of reasons, one of which is they don't need to because the illegals who work there are content with a steady, lower income compared to where they came from. ALL come from counties with standards of living which are lower than the USA's. ALL. No one has a significantly higher standard of living than we do, so what even a British citizen would be content with would make them happy in living in America (I fully concede there would be other things they would miss, but not the standard of living overall.)

If they offered $28 per hour, INGO's beloved bacon would be another 50 cents/pound or more, and we'd find a new equilibrium on the supply/demand curve. I wouldn't have any less bacon (because I prefer spice and therefore sausage as my breakfast meat), but most people would cut back in some way.

And my youngest brother is white and works in a meat processing plant. Not management.

I am willing to wager almost no work visa is necessary in the USA. We have the people and talent. What we also have are employers willing to cut the corners to increase profits by arguing otherwise to bring in cheap labor.

The beautiful thing with farming is that it is regional. What grows in one region won't necessarily grow in another. Rainfall that deviates by only a few inches per year can mean the difference between success and failure. So no, you can't just up and move farms like a mobile home.

There is definitely, undeniably a skills gap in the U.S. The American economy is booming. Further limiting immigration will significantly undercut that growth.

Mike Rowe, among others, talks about this a lot.

First, you are correct. These American employers should be slammed, and HARD. However, let's ask the LE on here, "When was the last time you went after a white collar crime other than something like embezzlement where the company itself was complaining, or practically handing internal audits to the prosecutor?" One company knows another company is using illegals, who do they go to that will act on it in a timely manner, and follow up to see that it doesn't happen again.

There have always been unscrupulous people, including business owners. There always will be. It isn't so much of a problem when one business in a hundred acts unethically, but when the numbers grow it forces ethical business owners to face a reality - act unethically or go out of business. This does contribute to the "everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't I" mentality.

Second. NO! That is why strict immigration should be enforced! I get angry when I see prosecutors or LE showing off what they arrested. I'm glad they did when a violent bad guy goes to prison, but what about the white collar criminals? How many times do we see a prosecutors office trying to make headlines there? Almost never. They don't want to. That takes real work. Significant time and resources. Perhaps a forensic accountant even. And then, they do, in their defense, need a person to complain. A restaurant hires three (3) illegal immigrant bus boys. Who complains? Not another restaurant, because they don't know. And even if they did, well, they've hired two (2) themselves.

Third. Water was a bad example, but not impossible. I'll concede that one. However, fire protection, LE protection, road repairs, etcetera are all paid out of taxes generated by multiple sources. So say an illegal person comes to stay with legal relatives. They still strain the system because they use resources, have issues, but don't pay for it.

I think we're close to the same position here, but we have different ideas about how to make it work. I think that it's absolutely ridiculous that we have millions of people not paying taxes and that so many businesses are taking advantage of that. But I think the solution is to have those people pay taxes, not to send them out of the country and have no one to do the jobs.

I'm good with slamming tax-evading employers very, very hard. And if it's a corporation, don't just make them pay a fine: put board members into prisons.This would solve a lot of tax issues quickly.

Still, I see getting all people working here to pay taxes as a better solution than deporting some of the people working here because they aren't currently paying taxes.

I am [good with just declaring amnesty]. ONCE! And it already happened. Back in 1986 by Pres Ronald Reagan. Since it has been done and only encouraged more, never again.

That's only half of the story. If it is unclear why someone did something, examining the outcomes is a good clue. Congress--including prominent members of the Republican Party--set up a system that encourages illegal immigration. They talk tough, but their actions speak louder than their words. They basically invited poor people from Latin America to ignore our immigration laws by making the rewards so much greater than the potential risks.

De jure? It's illegal immigration. De facto? The U.S. immigration system is designed to include a significant number of people who don't have visas. It sure looks to me like both major parties designed it this way. And so I have a hard time saying that we should punish the people who got caught in Congress's trap.

With the first part I partially agree. However, we're not talking about just careers, but entry level jobs. Let's say that a young person with some promise but from a poor family wants to go to college, or get a trade so they can improve themselves. They can qualify for some help, with the tuition or other things. However, they need to leave home and go somewhere else to live to get this training. While there they try to get an entry level job to help pay the way. With illegal immigration competing they may have it more difficult than what the normal, legal free market would allow. The free market should be free of unfair competition as well.

Developing a skill takes time and resources. The resource of money would be more abundant in some areas with fair competition.

I will partly concede this one. But I still think that the dichotomy between legal immigration and illegal immigration is a fiction with as much root in reality as an assault weapons ban. After all, what really makes a laborer with a green card different than one without a green card? It's kind of like a pistol grip, isn't it?

This is in no way using the government to limit competition for goodness sake. It is for enforcing an equal and fair playing field for all. Just like when we go to court certain rules apply to both parties, so too do rules need to apply to all people within the country.

Yes, telling a huge portion of the potential workforce (humans) that they may not compete for a job is limiting competition.

Am I the world's best at my job? No. Am I the person who is the best combination of competent, available, and willing? Yes. And I think that basically every job should be open to competition on those three factors (competence, availability, and willingness) to every person worldwide.

I don't like someone better based on the geographical location of their mother at the time of birth. It just seems so arbitrary.

Yes, I really do want to use that analogy.

They are NOT paying their own way! When one (1) group gets to operate outside of the law it creates, by its very existence, an unfair balance.

Actually, there are some breeder units I do wish we had a say in, but I am glad we do not.

I do not give a damn about race. Let's make it two (2) Honduran families instead, one legal, the other not. Those that are born here legally were supported by folks who followed the law, used their own social security number, and any burden they place upon the system is part of the social contract we accepted by also living here and being born here. We alone can change it.

In the end it comes down to one simple ideal: I believe in the rule of law! Period. I believe in people operating within the law. If the law is a law then change it! Make a new one. Fix a bad one. Break it and challenge it, but in doing so be prepared to face the consequences if you lose the challenge.

I would guess I am one of the more socially liberal folks on this board. Some are farther left, but not the majority. You want to advocate for simplifying immigration rules? I agree! You want to advocate for a path to citizenship for folks brought here as children and raised here (aka dreamers?) I agree.

But until those changes are made - enforce and obey the law.

Regards,

Doug

I agree, and that's part of why I engaged you on this topic: you will respond with thought and arguments rather than memes. I respect and appreciate you for that. I believe that you do genuinely hold the views that you've expressed, and I agree that everyone should be paying their own way.

I just see the immigration system in the U.S. as designed to achieve the results that we've been getting: massive immigration that is contrary to the text of the law. It's been too consistent across too many administrations for me to really believe that either major party wants something different.

Let me ask you this: if a speeding ticket was only $1, would you stick strictly to 55 MPH? I personally wouldn't, and I think that our immigration laws are designed like speed limits with $1 tickets.

[If some of this doesn't make sense, please accept my apologies. I'm very tired, and I'm headed to bed as soon as I post this.]

 

[jamil]

"I work from the assumption that lawyers are basically humans"

That's fake news.

 

[Libertarian01]

I didn't want to respond to this on my phone, so I will apologize on how long it took for me to respond. UPS didn't arrive with my new laptop until 5:30, and then I was busy through the evening.

"Gasoline has nearly the least elastic demand of any product. But even that, yes, a 1₵ price increase does lead to lower demand across the economy as a whole. On this very forum we see often someone is willing to drive further for a $15 gun transfer than for a $20 gun transfer. And a ~1% price increase (as in your lawyer example) won't cause every customer to use less of a service, but it does lead to lower overall demand. If it didn't, the lawyer would already raise their price.

(I'm going to need Hough, Guy, Kirk, Fargo, etc. to confirm this next sentence; I work from the assumption that lawyers are basically humans, but that might not be accurate.) If a lawyer could earn more money for doing the same amount of work--or earn the same amount of money for doing less work--they would structure their price that way. There are other considerations, sure, but every business tries to maximize their profit-to-work ratio."

No, it does not. I don't care about who drives how far for a gun transfer, as that is impacted by more than just price. It is impacted by who likes whom and how they are treated by one dealer over another. And even conceding that some are this dumb, to spend $15 extra in gas to save $5 on a transfer, that is the margins and not the normal. People stop for gas when they need gas, and if one happens to be a few cents lower than the next one, yes some will go there. But the fact is that if all increase by $0.01 they are not going to not stop.

"That was exactly my point. If the market will already bear a 15% price increase, then McDonald's, etc. would have already increased their price. If the restaurateurs could raise their price to increase their total profit, they would already have done so. Nobody wants sales volume for the sake of volume; it's for the sake of profit."

The point is that the market is guided by what the average is. If a lone, single fast food chain were the only ones to raise the average price to $X, then yes, they would suffer from it. However, if all were forced to do so by an increased labor cost then they would collectively change the market. Perhaps unwillingly, perhaps kicking & screaming, but if the average price of a fast food burger went from $3.00 to $4.00 the market would adjust. It might take a few monthes or a year, but it would adjust. The same with law firms, the same with landscapers, the same with everything.

"We're just going to disagree here. I have a small farm, and so more people eating corn does help me. Every bit of spending helps somebody."

Yes. People paying for basic things drives a section of the economy. I didn't say it doesn't. What I am saying is that it isn't the metric by which we measure a growing or shrinking economy. Folks who buy rice or corn or bread don't make us prosperous. The folks who buy steak and lobster and lamb chops do.

"The unemployment rate is not a measure of the number of jobs per the number of workers. It's a measure of the people without jobs, so people working twice doesn't affect the number.

Do you think that unskilled labor working less than 25% of the time (40 hours of a 168 hour week) should be able to afford everything they want? Minimum wage in the U.S. perhaps doesn't offer the standard of living that we would want. What it does offer, though, is a standard of living in the 70th percentile worldwide. Forgive me for not feeling much pity on someone in the top 1/3."

The unemployment rate is not a "true" unemployment rate. It depends upon what we measure. There are six (6) different unemployment rates, U1 - U6. The normal one used is U3. We have a low unemployment because many people are underemployed, not entirely unemployed. My point is that when our grandfathers worked at the factory or somewhere in the 1950's they were able to support their families on a single income and get buy. Today, the U3 is driven down because there are X lousy jobs out there and some people, not all but some, are forced to work two (2) lousy jobs, thus reducing the number of X jobs, not because they are working a good job.

No I do not think ALL unskilled laborers should be able to afford everything they want. However, when a job is necessary to do, and damn hard to do, that hard, unskilled work should be rewarded by higher pay! And as Mike Rowe has stated sometimes it is! Low skilled but very nasty jobs require a bigger incentive to do, except when someone comes in who has a lower standard of living and gives the unscrupulous employer the opportunity to pad their own pockets instead of paying what a true free market would bear.

"If they offered $28 per hour, INGO's beloved bacon would be another 50 cents/pound or more, and we'd find a new equilibrium on the supply/demand curve. I wouldn't have any less bacon (because I prefer spice and therefore sausage as my breakfast meat), but most people would cut back in some way.

And my youngest brother is white and works in a meat processing plant. Not management."

I have always conceded that if some costs would increase demand would drop - for a time! A short time. As the higher wages would give some folks increased discretionary spending power they would spend more and the market would adjust to a new normal. We are not talking about across the board increases as we would a national minimum wage hike, but rather in select industries. This would ameliorate the strain on the whole economy.

I note you didn't say how many of your brothers coworkers are white. The majority? And if so, is that the average in the industry OR an anomaly?

"There is definitely, undeniably a skills gap in the U.S. The American economy is booming. Further limiting immigration will significantly undercut that growth.

Mike Rowe, among others, talks about this a lot."

What Mike Rowe talks about is a bad part of the American culture that has been shunning certain jobs overall, like car mechanics or diesel mechanics or electricians or HVAC people. Folks with skills that should not just be entry level jobs but lifelong professions (I would also use the word "careers.") I have NEVER once talking about limiting immigration, only stopping illegal immigration! A legal immigrant cannot be taken advantage of the same way as an illegal. A legal immigrant isn't boxed in legally like in illegal immigrant. A legal immigrant is contributing once their foot hits the floor, not necessarily so for the illegal.

"I think we're close to the same position here, but we have different ideas about how to make it work. I think that it's absolutely ridiculous that we have millions of people not paying taxes and that so many businesses are taking advantage of that. But I think the solution is to have those people pay taxes, not to send them out of the country and have no one to do the jobs.

I'm good with slamming tax-evading employers very, very hard. And if it's a corporation, don't just make them pay a fine: put board members into prisons.This would solve a lot of tax issues quickly.

Still, I see getting all people working here to pay taxes as a better solution than deporting some of the people working here because they aren't currently paying taxes."

I see three (3) simple changes to deal with this issue: #1) Slam the holy hell out employers and those who subcontract to illegals, perhaps even prison time; #2) Simplification of and shortening of the legal immigration process; #3) purging those who have come here illegally without punishment, simply sending them back to where they started. They don't get to cut in line in front of others who are doing it legally.

"That's only half of the story. If it is unclear why someone did something, examining the outcomes is a good clue. Congress--including prominent members of the Republican Party--set up a system that encourages illegal immigration. They talk tough, but their actions speak louder than their words. They basically invited poor people from Latin America to ignore our immigration laws by making the rewards so much greater than the potential risks.

De jure? It's illegal immigration. De facto? The U.S. immigration system is designed to include a significant number of people who don't have visas. It sure looks to me like both major parties designed it this way. And so I have a hard time saying that we should punish the people who got caught in Congress's trap."

I do not believe our system of laws is designed to promote illegal immigration. I do believe that many in Congress are a bunch of partisan retards that couldn't pour p**s out of a boot with the directions written on the bottom. Basically, they are so ideological on this issue instead of pragmatic. In WWII there were two (2) competing tactics proposed by two (2) different German generals on how to stop the allies from invading from the west. Rommel wanted to put everything he could on the beach and stop us flat, boom! Right there. No foothold. Another general (I forget who, Von Keselring maybe?) wanted a massive defense in depth, to make every foot a living hell for invaders and give Germany a chance to counter without letting us get very far at all. Hitler stupidly chose to compromise between both and screwed both tactics up. Had Rommel been right and it worked Ike only had one (1) shot and it would have been blown! June 6th, 1944 would have gone down as the greatest defeat of American forces. Had the other general been correct we would have faced higher casualties and perhaps a greater willingness to come to terms. This is how I see Congress with immigration laws, they don't pick a tactic they mesh and compromise until the entire thing is, as George Carlin would put it, "A Mongolian cluster***k."

"I will partly concede this one. But I still think that the dichotomy between legal immigration and illegal immigration is a fiction with as much root in reality as an assault weapons ban. After all, what really makes a laborer with a green card different than one without a green card? It's kind of like a pistol grip, isn't it?"

I don't see it this way at all. I see it as a difference between homicide and a justifiable shoot. One is killing for no reason, the other self defense. Same trigger pull, vastly different reasons.

"Yes, telling a huge portion of the potential workforce (humans) that they may not compete for a job is limiting competition.

Am I the world's best at my job? No. Am I the person who is the best combination of competent, available, and willing? Yes. And I think that basically every job should be open to competition on those three factors (competence, availability, and willingness) to every person worldwide.

I don't like someone better based on the geographical location of their mother at the time of birth. It just seems so arbitrary."

Limiting competition isn't necessarily wrong if it is done for the right reasons. We don't allow snake oil salesmen to sell their products anymore. This doesn't mean we don't want new drugs and new cures, just that we want to know what's in it and the company has to prove it really works, at least to some degree. I am not saying you should like someone more or less based upon the location of their mother at the time of birth. I am saying that where mama gave birth dictates some of the laws that apply. If mama gave birth in Guatemala and junior wanted to go to Russia he couldn't get there without a passport, legally. No legal boat would take him without a passport, no plane would allow him to embark. No Russian border crossing would allow him entrance without his passport. Why should it be any different for America?

"I agree, and that's part of why I engaged you on this topic: you will respond with thought and arguments rather than memes. I respect and appreciate you for that. I believe that you do genuinely hold the views that you've expressed, and I agree that everyone should be paying their own way.

I just see the immigration system in the U.S. as designed to achieve the results that we've been getting: massive immigration that is contrary to the text of the law. It's been too consistent across too many administrations for me to really believe that either major party wants something different.

Let me ask you this: if a speeding ticket was only $1, would you stick strictly to 55 MPH? I personally wouldn't, and I think that our immigration laws are designed like speed limits with $1 tickets.

[If some of this doesn't make sense, please accept my apologies. I'm very tired, and I'm headed to bed as soon as I post this.]"

I agree, again, with you that we are experiencing the results of a broken system! The immigration system sucks! It is bad! It has been bad. It has sucked for years. I could say the same thing about criminalizing drugs or prostitution! I will argue for decriminalizing drug use and prostitution. What I will NOT argue for is going soft on pimps or drug dealers. I will not argue for giving prostitutes or drug users a free pass. If the law is bad, change it or repeal it. One way to change the law is to break it and fight it in court, as someone did with RU486. However, when you go that route you need to accept that you may lose and face the consequences for breaking that law.

If the speeding ticket were only $1 it wouldn't be enforced. But if it were I wouldn't care about getting pulled over.

--------------

But let us presume I am entirely wrong about every point I have made. If we get back to your original question about "what harm is really done" I don't think you would accept any answer.

I could bring up lower expectations for standard of living, and it wouldn't matter. I could bring up increased strain on health care system and it would be poo-poo'd. I could bring up increased burden on LE and it would be downplayed to a minor, insignificant hike. I could bring up a lack of understanding of our laws and cultural norms and I would be scoffed at. I could bring up cultural conflict and I would be xenophobic.

I honestly don't believe you want to see any bad from illegal immigration. You are looking at only the positives. I've never said there aren't positives, only that negatives DO exist. You seem to not want to see them. Even the fact that the positives may (which I don't concede) outweigh the negatives does not mean the negatives do not exist.

If I am married to an evil witch and decide to get a divorce there WILL be negatives along with the positives. The HUGE positive is that I am no longer married to, nor do I have to put up with, the witch. However, I will incur legal fees. I will probably lose my house. I may lose some retirement money. I may gain some of her debts. The fact that the witch is no longer in my life, a good thing, doesn't mean that there won't be bad things.

I believe legal immigration, for the most part, is ALL positive. I believe that illegal immigration, for the most part, is damaging to our nation on multiple levels. If nothing else legal immigrants are starting off by respecting our laws.

Regards,

Doug