What Really Grinds My Gears
By Tom AdamsMy take on immigration:
We should not have immigration limits even for economic reasons. I believe that simply out of principle because that's how our great grandparents came over, and I don't want to send someone escaping their crappy or oppressive country (i.e. pregnant Chinese women) back to where they came from (which usually leads to them being punished for trying to escape their country). I don't believe that it would cause the negative effects of flooding the work force like in 1900 considering we already have protective measures already in place like the minimum wage and unions. Besides, if we did run out of "opportunity" here, how many more would actually immigrate over?
Now I DO believe that whatever background checks can be done should be done. If someone violated a law in their past country that our country agrees with (i.e. murder, NOT having a second child like in China), then we should deny them access and return them to their country of origin. This check I think would unfortunately have to be done in tax payer supported holding areas so that we would not lose track of them. This might of course lead not so much to limits on immigration as much as a slowing of the process. Someone would have to put some serious thought into how to make this efficient.
Should they sneak in, we kick out any illegal alien and punish monetarily all who profit from their presence here. Should they attempt to sneak in more than once (several times?), then we should jail them for life (execution is probably too harsh) to reduce the cost of trying to keep them out considering their own country won't do it for us.
I think it wouldn't be bad to grant dual citizenship to those who would normally get guest worker status, but you restrict their dual citizenship status to not voting or holding office so that you wouldn't worry about the conflict of interest that comes with dual citizenship. I think that would simplify the ridiculous nature of people's guest worker visas expiring. If they were cleared to get in the first time, why the hell would we kick them out simply cause they were here for too long? That is not a security risk. This also solves the issue of benefits without paying taxes etc considering they can be tracked just like any other citizen.
My rant does not imply a lack of national security. We should check any and every person that attempts to cross our border and restrict the number of access points across our border to simplify our security measures. This may mean a wall, not to keep people out but to channel people. I am the most ardent supporter of national security you might ever find. I spent plenty of time in Iraq with the Marines of Kilo 3/25 thinking about what security to this country means. I don't believe that any right to privacy (a right never actually mentioned anywhere in the constitution) trumps anything necessary to keep America safe. So does that mean invasive searches of every immigrant that comes over? Why not? You're not a citizen yet. Wire tapping all international calls? Wish we had those kinds of resources. Non-yet-Americans not yet on American soil (we'll call the holding tanks "international territory") are not granted US Constitutional rights until they achieve citizenship. We as a country decide when that is. If you don't like that, make a law against it, until then quit using the judiciary to make up "rights".
And for goodness sake, quit turning back those fleeing oppressive regimes because of some weird treaty or international law. Any Cuban refugee who manages to get off that gosh forsaken island should be HELPED by our Coast Guard, NOT returned!
Things that "my" party want that I think are stupid:
Immigrants should be forced to speak English - I don't think anyone in America should be forced to speak anything they don't want to! Now if they want tax payer funded services (i.e. public schools, welfare etc) they will need to learn English as I don't believe in bending over backwards at our expense to meet the needs of every yahoo that enters this country. It is beneficial to society that everyone communicates. So if Grandpa Enrique comes to America to retire in peace, I don't believe it’s necessary for him to learn English. It’s his right to not have to speak at all if he doesn't want to. But his granddaughter, Karina, if she goes to a public school should be taught in English and not Spanish as we are paying the system to teach ALL kids not any particular sect of kids, and these kids need to grow up communicating with each other. If they want Karina to grow up only speaking Spanish, they can pay to send her to a privately funded Spanish school. Not the tax payer’s burden. Why English? Is it because I'm a racist? No, it is because a nation should have a single unifying language for economic but especially for legal purposes. It is insane to think that some town in the south Texas could write a law in Spanish, and if you get arrested there, that your lawyer needs to learn Spanish or have a translator that he can trust to not miss any details help him. It’s just a legal nightmare to have laws written in different languages. Besides, the overwhelming majority of this country already speaks English. Why should we change? That and I am an evil white bigot.
Charitable organizations have to turn in illegal immigrants or face punishment - That sounds eerily close to punishing a priest for not testifying on what he heard in a confessional. If anyone honestly believes in separation of church and state in its true sense, they would understand that organizations like religious charities can not be forced to do background checks before they help the needy. There should never be a law preventing or hindering charitable acts regardless of the recipient.
If I'm not mistaken, it seems that both parties are fighting as hard as they can to get the Hispanic vote with the hopes that it will vote in solidarity like the Black vote. This is shameful trying to pander to those who want to disregard the rule of law in order to get their vote. This is also condescending to think that Hispanics are so foolish as to trivialize their individual votes by voting as a block the way Blacks do. Sorry to offend any blacks, but what in all reality has the Democratic Party whom 93% of you vote for actually done for you in the last 20 years? Lets face it, if you were really downtrodden or oppressed 20 years ago, how has your status changed under a Democrat Congress from prehistory-1994 and a democrat president 1992-2000? Seems like voting in a block only causes that party to trivialize you and expect you to do what your (bribed?) leaders tell you to do. Besides history books show that republicans fought for you during the civil war and the civil rights movement, NOT democrats.
So who am I voting for in November? I don’t know, but considering how much both sides are pandering for the illegal vote, I’ll probably have to choose my candidate based on other issues. (Probably the republican)
That's about all I got to say. In summary: immigrants are good and welcome. Breaking the law and security threats is bad. Oh yeah, and politicians suck.
Immigrants should be forced to speak English - I don't think anyone in America should be forced to speak anything they don't want to! Now if they want tax payer funded services (i.e. public schools, welfare etc) they will need to learn English as I don't believe in bending over backwards at our expense to meet the needs of every yahoo that enters this country. It is beneficial to society that everyone communicates. So if Grandpa Enrique comes to America to retire in peace, I don't believe it’s necessary for him to learn English. It’s his right to not have to speak at all if he doesn't want to. But his granddaughter, Karina, if she goes to a public school should be taught in English and not Spanish as we are paying the system to teach ALL kids not any particular sect of kids, and these kids need to grow up communicating with each other. If they want Karina to grow up only speaking Spanish, they can pay to send her to a privately funded Spanish school. Not the tax payer’s burden. Why English? Is it because I'm a racist? No, it is because a nation should have a single unifying language for economic but especially for legal purposes. It is insane to think that some town in the south Texas could write a law in Spanish, and if you get arrested there, that your lawyer needs to learn Spanish or have a translator that he can trust to not miss any details help him. It’s just a legal nightmare to have laws written in different languages. Besides, the overwhelming majority of this country already speaks English. Why should we change? That and I am an evil white bigot.
Charitable organizations have to turn in illegal immigrants or face punishment - That sounds eerily close to punishing a priest for not testifying on what he heard in a confessional. If anyone honestly believes in separation of church and state in its true sense, they would understand that organizations like religious charities can not be forced to do background checks before they help the needy. There should never be a law preventing or hindering charitable acts regardless of the recipient.
If I'm not mistaken, it seems that both parties are fighting as hard as they can to get the Hispanic vote with the hopes that it will vote in solidarity like the Black vote. This is shameful trying to pander to those who want to disregard the rule of law in order to get their vote. This is also condescending to think that Hispanics are so foolish as to trivialize their individual votes by voting as a block the way Blacks do. Sorry to offend any blacks, but what in all reality has the Democratic Party whom 93% of you vote for actually done for you in the last 20 years? Lets face it, if you were really downtrodden or oppressed 20 years ago, how has your status changed under a Democrat Congress from prehistory-1994 and a democrat president 1992-2000? Seems like voting in a block only causes that party to trivialize you and expect you to do what your (bribed?) leaders tell you to do. Besides history books show that republicans fought for you during the civil war and the civil rights movement, NOT democrats.
So who am I voting for in November? I don’t know, but considering how much both sides are pandering for the illegal vote, I’ll probably have to choose my candidate based on other issues. (Probably the republican)
That's about all I got to say. In summary: immigrants are good and welcome. Breaking the law and security threats is bad. Oh yeah, and politicians suck.
"We should not have immigration limits." This is obviously an ideal to be strived for, but one I am not convinced is practical at this time.
ReplyDeleteObviously, we have an obligation to help those who need our help, and I don't believe that the US should ever turn away a refugee from an oppressive country, such as China or Cuba. This is why I am happy to hear about cases such as the recent one where a judge granted amnesty to a few hundred Vietnamese refugees, even when some on the far right, who I often disagree with (such as Michael Savage) were angered by this decision. (Sorry, but I don't have any links or sources for that story.)
"I don't believe that it would cause the negative effects of flooding the work force." Hmm. I'm not convinced on this one. This brings us to the practical side of limited immigration. I believe we should let in as many people as we can take. How many can we take? Really, I have no clue. It could be everyone. It could be significantly less. But I can think of several problems with letting in too many, and affecting the workforce is only one of those problems. I live in an area heavily populated by immigrants, particularly Mexicans, and particularly illegal. Hugh Hewitt said on his show a few days ago something to the effect that Santa Ana has the highest concentration of Mexicans of any place outside of Mexico. So any large influx of people will most likely have a direct effect on me and others living in areas with large immigrant populations.
Right now, Southern California has grown a huge housing bubble. It's so bad that a 700 sq. ft. condo in a not particularly nice area can cost upwards of $350,000. A basic single-family dwelling will cost at least $500,000, and if it's in an area of any quality, can go for up to $1 million. This bubble is caused by many factors, not the least of which is simple supply and demand economics. There is more demand than supply, so prices go up. There is high demand because there are too many people living in the LA area. This basic fact can be seen in other areas of life, such as the morning commute. Studies have shown (again, no sources; too lazy) that the average commute time for Southern California residents has been steadily increasing for years, and is now somewhere around 45-50 minutes (I think; could be wrong). So if we were to adopt the ideal open border policy and, as I'd expect, a massive influx of Mexicans came across the border with it easy to get in, where would these people live? Where would they work? How would they support themselves?
The supply and demand economics doesn't stop at housing. The jobs market is also affected. California is well above the national average for unemployment rates. Whereas the national average is somewhere below the vaunted 5%, California's has only steadly been dropping towards 5%, but is still above it. With a massive influx of people, this rate could only rise. And if there are more people than jobs, it becomes and "employers market" in which salaries can take a dive, and not just those of recent immigrants.
This sort of thing has happened already. "We already have protective measures in place like the minimum wage." While this is a protective measure, it does not always work. Many small businesses employ immigrants specifically because they can get away with paying them beneath the minimum wage. The illegal immigrant workers are not the ones suffering from this, but instead it is the ones who are legally here. For instance, a native-born American of Hispanic descent can have a very difficult time getting basic jobs in Southern California. What's his competition? Illegal immigrants who will work for less than minimum wage. By removing the "illegal" part from the immigration, you may help this by making it harder to get away with paying less than minimum wage, but at the same time, you will also just increase the number of people lined up to get a job, and thus the number of people willing to work for less than minimum wage.
So while it would be nice to let everyone in. I don't know that this would be practical. While we should strive to help everyone who needs it, we can't simply focus on those outside our borders. By adopting such an idealistic policy, we may end up hurting those native-born in this country with low-paying jobs, no jobs, or (in an extreme worst case) homelessness and starvation. Our first duty is to make sure everyone here can take care of themselves. Once that is taken care of, we can turn our attention to others, provided we don't interfere with our first duty.
"Besides, if we did run out of 'opportunity' here, how many more would actually immigrate over?" PLEASE tell me you aren't completely serious on this one. Firstly, the economy could completely tank to levels not seen since the great depression, and there would still be more opportunity in my left sock than in the entire country of Mexico. As I said before, our first duty is to our own, and we can't allow our well-intentioned attempts at helping others ruin the opportunity for those who are already here.
On background checks, I agree completely. Whatever policy we adopt (ideally, it should make the process to come here a relatively easy one), MUST include background checks for things such as terrorist connections and more basic things such as murder, rape, and other things we find offensive.
Along these lines, one strategy we can use to face the problem of the 11 million illegals who are already here is say any illegal can immediately go to a local government office and apply for permanent resident status, which will be granted immediately upon completion of a background check. The 90-95% of people who are here and basically good people whose only fault was to jump the line to raise money for their families will immediately go for this and become documented. The only undocumented ones remaining will be those few who have something to hide and need to be tracked down and deported. This would remove any ambiguity as to whether an undocumented immigrant is a threat or not (any undocumented ones would obviously be a threat because the only reason they wouldn't be documented is because they couldn't pass a background check). And truthfully, why shouldn't those illegals who are here be granted some sort of amnesty in exchange for a background check? They're only fault is the misdemeanor offense of jumping the line. Their presence is obviously not causing the economy to collapse, so helping them by giving them opportunity is not failing our first duty of providing for the citizens of this country.
"Should they attempt to sneak in more than once (several times?), then we should jail them for life (execution is probably too harsh) to reduce the cost of trying to keep them out considering their own country won't do it for us." Again, this is a good idea that is marred by simple impracticality. Criminalizing repeat illegal border-crossings is actually a good idea, IMHO, and should be tried. But before this can be done several other things need to be done, namely, jails need to be built. I read an article recently about how in some parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, those arrested for non-violent crimes (anything aside from murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.) are simply booked and released because there is not enough jail room to hold them. In these same counties, even certain convicted violent felons are released after serving just a small fraction of their prison time, again, because there is no place to hold them. The statistic I seem to remember was that the average time served by a rapist was less than 5 years. So before we can start throwing illegal immigrants in prison, we need a prison to throw them in.
On the point about the immigrant's country not helping us stem illegal immigration, with the case of Mexico, this is because they don't want illegal immigration to the US to drop. I have heard statistics (again, no source) indicating that a full third of Mexico's income comes from Mexicans in the US sending money back home. This gives them very little reason to want to help us solve this problem, and also little incentive to fix their own economy.
"Any Cuban refugee who manages to get off that gosh forsaken island should be HELPED by our Coast Guard, NOT returned!" Yet another reason to dislike Bill Clinton and Janet Reno. Elian Gonzalez anyone? But that is a good point. The Coast Guard should probably be patrolling the waters just outside Cuba to find refugees to bring to the US.
"Immigrants should [not] be forced to speak English." You're probably right, but do you have any idea how annoying this is? I hate it when I walk into a Burger King and can't order a hamburger because I don't speak Spanish. But this is an issue with the private sector and the hiring practices of non-governmental agencies.
That said, speaking English should be highly, highly encouraged. Obviously all laws should be in English. Any sort of public (by which I mean Governmental) communication should be in English, such as DMV documents, public schooling, etc. so we don't run into the problem of society not functioning because one half can't understand the other. If you can do without all these things, then you'd theoretically have no reason to learn English, but there is a certain risk involved. For instance, with the example of Grandpa Enrique, who never leaves his house because he is enjoying a peaceful retirement, what if the house catches on fire and he is unable get the fire department's aid because he can't communicate with the 911 operator? He is taking a risk by not being able to interact with society, but in the end that's his own choice. I'm a big supporter of Rush Limbaugh's idea of a right to do stupid things (like smoking). Even if it's something you probably shouldn't do because you're endangering yourself, that doesn't mean government should stop you from doing it. If it endangers someone else, however....
Obviously, along these lines, citizenship and voting rights would be dependent on English literacy, because in order for you to interact with society, you will need to know English.
"Charitable organizations have to turn in illegal immigrants or face punishment." What an awful idea. For once, I like Cardinal Mahoney's response that he's not going to have his priests check greencards before giving out communion. A charitable organization's roll is to help people. Nothing more and nothing less. And as I've mentioned before, we should strive to help everyone, citizen or not. Now, if only Mahoney'd take such a stance on other important issues, ahem, ahem, like not giving communion to those who are creating scandal by public disobedience of Church Law, such as politicians who support Abortion.
In summary, immigration good; too much immigration bad; reality sucks.
Good response,Joe.
ReplyDeleteThis whole immigration thing reminds me of a historical parallel - the Visigoth "invasion" of Spain circa 300-400 AD. It wasn't so much an invasion as just moving in -- "Nice place; think we'll stay. Try to speak the language (Latin came out Spanish). Salute the Flag. Just don't ask us to pay taxes." Rome was on it's way out and in no position to effectively resist. Anyway, the Visigoths eventually built a great civilization; the only one to regain their nation from Islam ("La ReConquista"). Our hispanic immigrants are generally very hard working, and may do us a similar great favor some day...
- The resident historian.
At least we an both agree that the McCain/Kennedy bill sucks then. In fact anything that involves those two names automatically sucks.
ReplyDeleteSounds like we disagree on few of the principals of the argument. Instead let me propose some possible "practicalities".
"But before this can be done several other things need to be done, namely, jails need to be built" I can kill (literally) several birds with one stone on this one. We have a death penalty in the US. USE IT!!! Serious criminals should not be sitting on death row waiting 20 years for legal processes to finish. If you've committed a crime serious enough to warrant the death penalty, then by golly you have X number of appeals aloud (I think 2). If you are not successful within X years (I think 2) because your lawyers are simply buying time, then you’re done. This will cut down on so much clogging of the judicial system, wasting of tax payer money, hopefully reduce the average lawyer income, and most importantly reduce the number of prisoners well as actually add a possible disincentive to commit those kind of crimes. And we need to stop being merciful to the first time Rapist/Torturer/1st Degree Murderer. Its okay to execute them. You don't have to become a 2nd offender. Secondly for all those non-executable types, I suggest a possible solution much like Britain did with Australia. We designate a chunk of land that can not be escaped from (some island off of Alaska?) and we stick you there. Then we spend little in comparison to the cost of jailing you here to have the Coast Guard patrol the waters to blow up whatever little rafts they see floating away. Survival on this island is not our problem. You got yourself put there, you figure it out. You think I'm joking. I'm not. Summary: Death penalty should have an appeals limit, exile prisoners to reduce cost of supporting them.
"a full third of Mexico's income comes from Mexicans in the US sending money back home" This I know. No solution I know of.
Among the few principles I disagree with you on are as follows:
"'Besides, if we did run out of 'opportunity' here, how many more would actually immigrate over?" PLEASE tell me you aren't completely serious on this one." I don't buy the idea that we could run out of opportunity. It was a sarcastic comment aimed at what I think to be a fallacious argument. The idea that opportunity runs out is absurd to me since I believe that opportunity is created, it is not static, and its rate of growth increases with it population and buying market (which should be the same thing). An increase in immigrants will require an increase in housing beyond what our artificial housing bubble could withstand. If someone gets an ounce of intelligence, they will expand way out of cities, build other cities and just plain grow. The worrying here that life will be harder here with more immigrants assumes that the immigrants all move into the current state of things and nothing else changes. In fact I see that most worry when they see any change in the status quo without even considering that things can adapt an change for the better.
"As I said before, our first duty is to our own, and we can't allow our well-intentioned attempts at helping others ruin the opportunity for those who are already here." Yes, but you must be careful not to hold to this principle too much as some would argue that we shouldn't allow immigrants as long as there are American's unemployed. Well there will always be unemployment as some people are just plain lazy. And there will always be those who want too much for the work they do (see General Motors auto workers union). I think those entire unions could be replaced with immigrant workers and only then would balance be brought back to American auto manufacturing. People would buy cheaper American cars, immigrants would get paid better the more skilled they were, and more people would benefit from that the same way trickle down economics works. When it comes to our own too, people have forgotten that SKILLED labor is supposed to get paid well, and UNSKILLED labor should not be whining about not having healthcare. Look throughout history: smart guy designs pyramids (you'd think he'd have a little more creativity), gets slave girls. Uneducated guy enslaved to build them, gets bupkus. The fact that some unskilled schmo in Michigan wants $20p/hr and healthcare to do what a Mexican immigrant will do for minimum wage without benefits shows a huge problem with overpaid employees. The reason most of us buy from Wal-Mart is because their stuff is dirt cheap, is made in China probably by some Christian prisoners, and American workers charge too much. The American Dream is not to retire having done the least amount of work, its to succeed beyond others by working harder and smarter which is exactly what some of these immigrants are willing to do and some of our own aren't. I don't have that much pity for those that won't, I'd rather have the immigrant. Besides poverty in the US, should some union schmo be forced into it, now officially includes 2 TVs. Your great grandfather'd slap you for complaining.
Don't forget that states don't regulate that kind of thing. What if everyone in New York wanted to immigrate to New Jersey? Chaos. But is there a law against it? No. There shouldn't be, and its not necessary because as soon as 'opportunity' in New Jersey runs out, people go some where else. The only other thing that might hinder the process of people leaving is the welfare state. As you can see from some of the Katrina "victims", some cities in Texas don't want them there anymore because they are a drain on society. Perhaps the solution to overcrowding the workplace is simply to deny people things like welfare, give them a map and a bus ticket, and tell them "go where there is work". Immigrants have no problem going where there are job vacancies (see New Orleans). I doubt they will overcrowd the workplace. They'll move before that gets out of control.
Thaaaaaaat's Bupkus!
In no particular order, here are some of my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteImmigrants should be forced to speak English
Legally no. Practically, yes. And I think you agree.
organizations like religious charities can not be forced to do background checks before they help the needy.
I'll have to double check on this one, but I don't think the proposed bills involved this. Perhaps some congressmen did want to put this in, but I think that any possible ammendments like this would be defeated. I know Cardinal Mahoney spoke out about this, but I think he spoke before he knew what he was talking about. Not surprising, IMO.
We should not have immigration limits
Yes, we should, but they should be for practical reasons. If you're going to run background checks on everybody, then you can't do that without time. Therefore, your limit would be time. However, limits may be set aside for those seeking asylum.
I think it wouldn't be bad to grant dual citizenship to those who would normally get guest worker status.
I think that this is a good idea, but I don't see how it is at all practical given our current legal climate. I think these people would eventually be given all privledges that regular citizens enjoy by the judiciary. For this to work, I think we may need to ammend the constitution, and I don't think that will go very far.
If they were cleared to get in the first time, why the hell would we kick them out simply cause they were here for too long? That is not a security risk.
Good point.
I don't believe that it would cause the negative effects of flooding the work force like in 1900 considering we already have protective measures already in place like the minimum wage and unions. Besides, if we did run out of "opportunity" here, how many more would actually immigrate over?
You can't have a massive influx of labor (which will happen) and have wages remain the same. While we do have "protections" such as the minimum wage, this just means that you'll have more minimum wage jobs that were originally above minimum wage. If job supply shortages become bad enough, then you will also find people payed below the minimum wage, just as illegals are paid now.
I don't understand what you mean Tom (what exactly happened in the 1900s), because to say that we won't experience large changes in the labor force is grossly nieve.
If someone gets an ounce of intelligence, they will expand way out of cities, build other cities and just plain grow.
While I agree with you, thus far nobody has shown such "intelligence." Businesses plant themselves where they have the best resource of trained labor. This spot is typically not 50 miles outside the city. There is very little economic reason to move outside of city limits.
The other issue is that Americans will eventually need to adjust to a different living style. For instance, a home will no longer be an option for some people (and it isn't for some people), and we may see 3-4 people living in largish studio apartments.
Well there will always be unemployment as some people are just plain lazy.
Techinically, these people aren't counted as unemployed. They are not part of the labor force. They're just schmucks.
Besides poverty in the US, should some union schmo be forced into it, now officially includes 2 TVs.
Wow! That's more than I own!! (Unless my monitor counts.)
In general
We should consider why we let people in and why we should exclude people, and then make decisions based on those principles. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it a great detail. In general, though, topics must include security and opportunity. I still don't think that economics should play a major role in the decision.
The current limits on immigration (in terms of actual numbers) should be extended. It simply shouldn't be so difficult to become an American citizen. If you know anybody who has tried, then you know what I mean.
State's should not give out services to illegal immigrants. That's insane.
All in all, let immigrants come into our nation. Let it happen gradually. Let it happen legally. Above all, do not make it such a tremendous burden to enter our country.
"I don't understand what you mean Tom (what exactly happened in the 1900s), because to say that we won't experience large changes in the labor force is grossly nieve"
ReplyDeleteWhat happened around 1900 was the huge immigrant influx that reduced the cost of labor the same time the industrial revolution was taking off. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair gives an exaggerated description of what those abuses by employers and "the system" were at the time. Regardless of the accuracy of a piece of socialist propaganda like his, I don't think any one wants to revert back to 1900s work force conditions.
I have a hard time buying the notion that things will get horrible with a massive influx of labor. You (collectively) keep mentioning that higher paying jobs will drop to minimum wages and that people will work below minimum wage to get the jobs. I would point out that the minimum wage IS too costly to some employers and is bloated, so I have a hard time feeling bad when some people work for less than the minimum. How is it that a Mexican can work for $3.50, survive and still have money to send home to Mexico? Employers are being forced to pay too much by politicians who raise the minimum wage every time they think they can get votes that way.
We also have many other safety nets than just the minimum wages. No one seems to argue with me that unions would counter the drop in wages. Unions, which had no power or purpose prior to the 1900 labor influx, would most assuredly start growing and force employers to raise wages. You can't argue the CA would be better off if the union employees of the supermarkets were all fired and replaced by minimum wage working Mexicans (who magically spoke English). Prices would drop dramatically, and supermarkets would expand. Now when wages start dropping below minimum then that is the perfect time for a union to take control. Among our many other safety nets we have several employment laws including one that prevents the payment of wages in coupons to "company stores", the FTC, Better Business Bureau, Health Department, and politicians that would go so far as to legalize illegal immigrants if they thought it would buy them votes.
Could there be a possible negative effect on an influx of labor? Sure. Possibly a short term effect until injustices get ironed out of the system. By negative effects, I do not include people's current over inflated wages getting reduced. I'll be glad when that happens knowing that some poor guy immigrated here and worked harder than the guy we originally had doing the job. Would I be unhappy if some Indian guy immigrated here and took my job? Sure. But that's why I work my butt off every day trying to see to it that I am invaluable to my company and not just some guy that fills the position. It’s just a good work ethic. Now for those of us that don't want to work that hard but still want job and wage security, creating laws to keep out labor to artificially inflate wages seems wrong to me. That's just how I perceive the situation.
I like the Wal-Mart philosophy: nuts to the local businesses and workers, we're going to help the consumers. What's odd about it is much like trickle down economics it benefits more people especially the poor. For example, Wal-Mart sells a non-Schwinn bike $90 when most bike stores sell high end brands like Schwinn $250 ($1000+ if you are some kind of Lance Armstrong wannabe). Now some bike shop is going out of business, and some store owner is now going to make less than $100,000 a year. Everyone else though now owns a bike. So while the average incomes have dropped (some would say a gap closed slightly), the average quality of living has increased. How this applies to the immigrant situation: If immigrants take on all construction jobs, imagine how many more of us could afford an add-on to our house? How many more in CA will be able to afford more and better groceries in CA if we replaced all American workers there? A hard working (and I mean HARD working) American will be able to find work even if it is for less. We still need to take into account the quality of life increase. Just one last crazy analogy: If my income gets cut by $10,000 but the cost of a Ferrari drops by $20,000 then my quality of living has INCREASED! Making less doesn't give me right to complain unless the quality of living stays the same or goes up. We just got a 4% raise at my business as a cost of living increase raise. What no one wants to admit is that a business should have the right to reduce wages for the same reason too (or any reason they want!). I'd say that some American workers are long overdue for a wage decrease.
Part of the problem I think specifically with us arguing this is that most of us live in (artificially) expensive areas so we think that minimum wage is too little. How is it that I can buy canned pasta in Steubenville, OH for half the cost of it here in Clearwater? Steubenville isn’t taking a loss on the can, so unless shipping is the reason (which it isn’t) Clearwater must be overcharging. Cost of living and other artificial reasons inflate these costs. There is no reason a house in Clearwater should cost $500,000 when you could get a house of equal construction value in Steubenville for $30,000. Only because people are willing to pay it does it cost that much. Now if there were a significant number of people make significantly less than your average Clearwater local, construction on cheaper (in price and location, not quality) housing would spring up too thus driving down the pricing of all housing. Things like Wal-Mart and cheaper labor would correct this kind of thing and that would spread to everything.
Sure if all hell breaks loose (which it won't), I guess we could cut off immigration till things even out. Considering I don't believe the possibility of that though, I'd have to say let them flow in a max rate (only thing slowing them up is background checks).
The other thing that worries me about controlling immigration for anything other than criminal checks is it basically controls the population. It’s based on the notion that too many people cause everyone else to suffer somehow. You might want to make the claim that it is only controlling the incoming population, but what then if I make the claim that we should control births so that all our children are able to get jobs and they are all well paid. While denying immigration to someone may not necessarily result in their death, the logic leading to it is eerily close to population control.
Before you argue with my above mentioned points, please tell me how an influx in immigration would be any different than if every couple in America 20 years ago each had 15 kids. Once you explain that to me, feel free to rip me apart on my other stuff.
Hope this doesn't look bitter, angry, or backed into a corner. I still consider his an honest a hopefully well informed/intentioned argument. I just cna't rite good.
Anudder long one. Wow
Thanks for clarifications Tom.
ReplyDeleteA couple of follow-up comments. Your words in quotes & italics.
"I would point out that the minimum wage IS too costly to some employers and is bloated, so I have a hard time feeling bad when some people work for less than the minimum."
If you feel this way and also think that people will work for less than minimum wage, then I don't see how you can talk about the minimum wage as a safety net. If it's a safety net, then it seems to be a net with quite a few gaping wholes in it.
"How is it that a Mexican can work for $3.50, survive and still have money to send home to Mexico?"
For at least 3 reasons I can think of:
1.) They'll put 3+ families in a home that is typically meant for 1. In some places this is known as a fire or health hazard. In some instances it really is.
2.) They can still receive services given by the government.
3.) Those who do make $3.50 are unlikely to live in large metropolitan areas..., and they probably also work really long hours.
Granted, this outlook does not square with the prototypical always-hard-working-and-industrious Mexican immigrant. I'll grant that most of them are probably harder working than most Americans (especially those Federal employees!!), but a solely $3.50/hour wage earner in DC and LA equates to hungy, homeless, and toothless.
"No one seems to argue with me that unions would counter the drop in wages. Unions, which had no power or purpose prior to the 1900 labor influx, would most assuredly start growing and force employers to raise wages."
"How many more in CA will be able to afford more and better groceries in CA if we replaced all American workers there?"
If you make this latter argument, then I think you must also discount the effect of unions. Same goes for construction. Either wages increase, meaning the costs of items may also (and likely will) increase, or else many people are overpaid and salary cuts will coincide with cost cuts for purchases.
You seem to want it both ways, but I don't see you justifying it, and I can't think of any justification for it.
"Now some bike shop is going out of business, and some store owner is now going to make less than $100,000 a year."
I disagree with your assessment, but any comment on this topic will start another thread and detract from the main focus. Complaint officially registered. I'll now move on.
The rest of your recent post argues about the relevant trade-offs between decreased wages yet increasing standards of living. What type of trade-off is actually occurring? Is it a good trade-off when people can buy at $90 bike at Wal-Mart yet not have health insurance? Is it a good trade-off when I can buy a DVD player for $25 yet am unable to pay my monthly rent? Is it a good trade-off when you've spent $15,000 on a college education to become a computer programmer, yet somebody ships your job (and many other jobs) overseas?
An aside, before you might possibly consider discussing the US healthcare or education systems, problems with those systems are an aside, and will only detract form this post. It is sufficient to note that:
1.) Problems exist
2.) Greater minds than the collective geniuses that post at FU News have tried to resolve the issue sand been found wanting
AND
3.) Personal reliability is a factor
The fact of the matter is that those are some of the trade-offs that occur from lower wages and job losses. The trade-offs aren't simply positive.
The thrust of your remaining arguments also seem to center on your idea of "artificial". What do you mean by artificial? All that you've given are a couple of anecdotes--anecdotes that might make Mr. Sinclair and his socialist chaps proud.
Clearwater sells an "overpriced" can of pasta? If it is overpriced, then somebody is selling it you for more than it's worth. In which case somebody is cheating you. Should we therefore have price controls? I think I'm safe to assume that you'd say no.
And this leads us back to your notion of "artificial." I can think of many reasons why that can is more expensive in Clearwater, but I've prattled on long enough.
Somethings may be expensive, but they aren't necessarily artificially so. If you're going to claim that something is artificial, then you need to have stronger proof and stronger reasoning than a one-time anecdote.
"The other thing that worries me about controlling immigration for anything other than criminal checks is it basically controls the population."
As I mentioned in my original post, the other restraint is time. Time must restrict the number of immmigrants if you also insist on background checks.
Regarding your writing, Tom, maybe you should let that chimip Zimbo (your FU News editor at Steubenville) write for you again. :)
Thanks for dialogue!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou didn’t answer how an influx in immigration would be any different than if every couple in America 20 years ago each had 15 kids. It’s not rhetoric. It gets to the heart of the principles by Reductio ad absurdum. If we can agree that we can’t force population quota control in the name of better jobs and pay for our children via birth control, then on what grounds can we control our population via quotas on immigration? But enough about me, lets talk about you.
ReplyDeleteIf it's a safety net, then it seems to be a net with quite a few gaping wholes in it.
It IS all too much a safety net right now. It’s a bloated, overcompensating safety net right now. I would have no qualms with it if it dropped down to a reasonable rate (= one that when combined with other family member’s minimum wages could provide the bare necessities). It needs to be low enough that an employer can hire someone to do a less than necessary unskilled job, and yet large enough that when combined with a spouse’s minimum wage income won’t require them to go on government assistance. Any one else that can’t make ends meet (has other family members needing financial assistance, no other family income or whatever) goes on govt assistance. I am not advocating new welfare. On the contrary, welfare already goes to people making far more than what I suggested. I calculate two full time $5.15p/hr jobs totals $21,424 a year. In many areas of the country that is far more than the minimum amount necessary to get by. Simply because there is a minimum wage, employers will not always pay the minimum. They frequently pay competitive wages to get skilled workers or hard workers. What is certain by lowering the minimum wage is that more people will be hired as employers will be able to afford less necessary jobs. Some states increase the minimum wage above the federal and some states opt out. You’ll notice those that increase the minimum are usually much more liberal. So in summary, I don’t contradict myself: The minimum wage is a safety net, and the current minimum wage does cost employers too much.
a solely $3.50/hour wage earner in DC and LA equates to hungy, homeless, and toothless.
Two incomes of $3.50p/hr at 60 hours a week (I work closer to 80 now, granted its on my butt, but I still work it) totals $21,840. If we do cram 3 families together in our fire hazard of a house we get $65,520 worth of wage earners. No, I do not desire that everyone work this hard for this little, but the idea of forcing employers to do more than what is necessary disturbs me because I never know how far it will venture into socialism (like forcing employers to give out healthcare), and it always leads to less employment. Besides, it rarely works out to be that bad anyway. Most people bring those kinds of hardships on themselves by not doing any of the following: learning a needed skill, working hard or moving to where work is needed. Those whose hardship is not their own fault, I’d agree that govt assistance would be in order. I know you will disagree with me as so many people do when they talk about people like the poor Katrina victims that “had no way of leaving the city.” I only ask how could penniless Mexican immigrants (and illegals) transport themselves into New Orleans when work became available for the reconstruction? There is always a way in this country. No one but yourself is preventing you from making a living.
About the unions:
No I don’t contradict myself there either. The argument that labor unions would spring up and force employers to raise wages was made in response to the assertion that an influx of immigrants would drop wages way below livable standards. No one would oppose a union that demanded a livable wage. The wages demanded by the current CA Grocers employees union far exceeds what the company can even afford let alone a livable wage. It would be incredibly refreshing for a fresh union of equal labor size (and possibly strength if it should come to that) to move in and work for less. I do not detest the notion of unions. I detest the bloated creatures they become when they still exist in times of mass prosperity. They kill companies like GM and the grocery stores in CA by maintaining inflexible wage standards. Now if they could maintain a moral wage standard, then there would be little probability that people would group together in mass numbers to form a new union with lower wage standards. In summary: It’s as if job X currently pays $10, you say an immigrant might do it for $1, and I say all the safety nets will make sure it doesn’t drop below $5 which I believe is a livable wage.
Is it a good trade-off when people can buy at $90 bike at Wal-Mart yet not have health insurance...
I’m not going to argue this as you didn’t want to start a separate thread about it. But I’ll say, I don’t accept those premises.
The fact of the matter is that those are some of the trade-offs that occur from lower wages and job losses
But I still disagree with the “job losses” claim. I believe the net effect will be job increases. And I also believe that lower wages when applied evenly (or close to) and not simply to “the poor” will cause the cost of living to drop and thus the net is positive. It seems like you’re talking of particular individuals that will experience some things negative, and I say that more will experience positive and that those that experience negative have the opportunity in this country to bounce back.
If you're going to claim that something is artificial, then you need to have stronger proof and stronger reasoning than a one-time anecdote
Socialism is artificial price fixing. Middle men cause artificial price fixing. I pay too much for car insurance because everyone must by law buy some and cars cost insurance companies too much to repair or replace. Cars cost too much because of import tariffs or bloated unions demand too much like bloated retirement packages and health insurance. Healthcare costs too much because of government involvement and malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance costs too much because Oprah-fied juries grant ridiculous sums of cash and rule on emotion instead of evidence. I don’t need to give evidence of artificial overpricing because it’s everywhere. Google stocks soared way too high on opening day. Do people learn from things like the Dot Com Bubble Burst? Sometimes no. Sometimes people like in the Clearwater home market will sell something for way above cost because they know someone will be too desperate or too dumb to buy elsewhere. I don’t blame the seller, and I don’t like price fixing. But when something enters the economic system and causes the price to return to near cost, I love it as long as the seller is not coerced by laws.
Time must restrict the number of immigrants if you also insist on background checks
Still no argument here. I only argue about immigrant quotas.
Summary again: immigration quotas bad, security good
PS. Poor Zimbo died last summer while he was in Iraq. He died heroically from Motorcycle Propelled Equine Anal Asphyxiation while serving his country. His memory will live on with me, and every article I write is with him in mind. I'd appreciate it too if everyone would please stop bringing up Police Academy every time we talk about brave Zimbo.
too many typos
ReplyDeleteOooo! Looky what I found:
ReplyDeleteIf someone gets an ounce of intelligence, they will expand way out of cities, build other cities and just plain grow
As always, I'm way ahead of my time.
(Tried posting this last night but blogger was being stoopid.)
ReplyDeleteOo! Good discussion.
Anyways, time for me to contribute again.
Concerning "artificial prices", I don't think housing prices or soup prices are in any way artificial. The worth of an item is not necessarily related in any way to the cost of producing that item, but instead is entirely based on supply and demand. I think Miss Smyth (our high school history teacher) had the best example of how the worth of an item is determined.
Suppose we are all locked in a room with no way out. There is no food or supplies in this room, just us. I have a sandwich. Everyone else in the room has $1. What is the worth of the sandwich? "About $4," Miss Smyth would say. If you divide it up into anything smaller than quarters, it isn't very satisfying.
So, back to housing. You may argue that a house shouldn't be sold for anything more than the cost of the materials and labor of building the house, plus a small profit margin for the contracter. For instance, a house that's built with $25,000 of material and $25,000 of labor should only be sold for around $55,000 (allowing the contractor to make 10% profit). Anything higher than that would be "artificially high" prices. But what about the land the house is built on? It really doesn't cost anyone anything. No one produced it, no labor or materials were involved, so what is it's value? Well, the value is determined entirely by how much some one is willing to pay for it. In Ohio, you'll only pay maybe $10,000 (made that number up) for an acre of land, because not many people want that land, and there's a lot of it. Whereas in Florida, you might pay $100,000 for that same acre, because it's on the beach, there's a limited supply of land on the beach, and a lot of people want that land. So the worth of the house is very, very relative to things such as location, which influences supply and demand.
Ok, but surely the can of soup which costs twice as much in Florida is "artificially overpriced", right? I'm not convinced. Part of the cost of that can is how much the grocer has to pay the supplier for it (which presumably is the same in Florida as Ohio, assuming you're shipping the same distance), but the rest of the cost is divided up amongst the Grocer's operating costs (such as paying rent/mortgage on the property the grocery store is built on) and the Grocer's employee's wages (which again have to take into account that it costs an employee more to afford a home in Florida than in Ohio). So in the end, prices cannot be based solely on the production costs of an item, because in the end, all prices return, at least in part, to an item that wasn't produced and has no value associated with it other than the costs of supply and demand. So just because two things cost different amounts in different places does not mean that the price is artificially high in one place.
"Artificially high prices" is a term I would reserve for use in describing prices that are significantly higher than the "fair market value". For instance, if I'm charging $100 for an item that others sell for $10, and I could still make a profit by selling it for $10, that's an artificially high price. I'm sure I could come up with an exception to that, though, so don't take that as an absolute definition.
Um... so how did this relate to immigration again? Wages? Artificially high wages? something like that? Dunno.
Oh, too much immigration would lower wages, which is not necessarily a good thing because wages are not necessarily artificially high (but in many cases they are; such as when a forklift operator makes $110,000 a year; on an aside, that's a union that's got awesome bargaining skills).
< /thread hijack >
I call it artificially high prices when they are inflated for no other reason than that everyone is dumb enough to pay it. That's how we get things like economic bubbles. Internet Stocks in the late 90s to me were artificially high. It had nothing to do with real stock value just that someone thought someone else would pay more later. So people paid a lot for stocks that others would realize later were worthless since the company itself was worthless. The way I see it, those stocks themselves had no worth to begin with but people were willing to pay through the nose for them like pet rocks or bottled water “from the purest artesian springs.” Someday a lot of housing market bubbles are going to burst and people that invested in a $10,000 plot of land hoping to sell it for $2,000,000 are going to cry and complain when the price drops back down to $10,000. I’ll laugh.
ReplyDeleteArtificially high pricing in my mind includes raising the price of something to cover a cost that should not be my problem like expensive malpractice insurance. It is not my fault that dim bulbs out there want to blame all their problems on someone else (or outright lie), yet I help pick up the tab by paying extra for my doctor’s insurance every time I get appendectomy (about once month). Let’s pretend that someone in Washington magically got a conscience and passed medical liability legislation, the cost of malpractice insurance would (should) plummet. So now I pay less for my monthly appendectomy. Did the appendectomy’s worth somehow drop for me? No, I’m just paying closer to what the actual appendectomy was REALLY worth as opposed to paying what I’m WILLING to pay.
When people like George Soros mess with economies they artificially inflate or deflate the value of their investments depending on when they are buyingr selling.
What you are willing to pay and value are two separate things even though they are closely related. While I agree with your teacher’s assessment on the worth of the sandwich, the situation changes if some rich Chinese exchange student is in the room, doesn’t know the value of the dollar and offers $200 for the sandwich. Although that sandwich did sell for $200, it is still only worth $4 even though some dim bulb threw off the curve. Look at how tourists everywhere are treated. They get charged more for their meals, rooms and everything else. Do you think the value of a disposable camera in Las Vegas is $20? It’s sold at that price on the strip not for a “convenience fee” but because only the locals know that two blocks east or west you would have got it for $5. That does not raise the value of it, it just means that people are stupid.
As you say, the grocer must also raise the price of a can of soup if he is to pay a higher wage depending on where he operates. Now if the cost of the wage includes healthcare like some dim bulbs in CA like to think it does, then I’m paying for a can of soup and someone else’s healthcare, an extra cost I was not paying in OH. The price of a can of soup if artificially inflated to include that which I don’t want to pay for.
I have absolutely no problem with price fluctuations like the cost of gas at the pump. They have actually been really consistent considering the price of gas at the pump has changed almost identically as the price of oil changes. So I cannot complain to Exxon about the price of gas, but instead complain to OPEC (for no reason other than I just want to).
I can’t explain it any simpler than this. A one flat on the beach in Clearwater costs $3+ million while my house is 2.5 miles inland and has the same square footage but only costs $140,000. How can we both be in basically the same location but that house costs $3 million more than mine just because he can see the sunset on the gulf without leaving his house? I applaud all people that sell way, way high. I’m just not willing to pay that much, and I’ll move inland (out of the flood zone too) for a cheaper price. I’ll laugh at the goofball that does pay that messed up price (like children on eBay) and then gets hosed with a hurricane or a drop in the housing market.
< /sidethread>
< mainthread>
So a massive immigration influx would cause a lowering of wages in several fields just like it would if every couple in American 20 years ago had 10 kids. This in turn would cause artificially high priced items to drop in value, several economic bubble bursts, and a balance would be met. People would move out of expensive urban areas and move into cheaper outer suburbs and thus drop the cost of housing in urban areas as well. Basically, yes things would be thrown off, and some people would complain, but many more would benefit.
I sense that some have come to the conclusion that I don’t believe in capitalism and things like “fair market value”. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I do believe in it, and I accept the downsides as well as the good sides. When the value of things goes up, that’s great. But the higher and the faster it goes, the more you open yourself up to a massive loss. It’s all dependent on the buyer. The dumber the buyer is, the dumber the market will be (see VHS vs Beta). The market model itself is awesome like our governmental model of a democratic republic. But when dumb voters step in, you cannot help but have a dumb government. So while I love capitalism, I have little pity on those who invest foolishly in things like a $3+ million home worth $100,000 (if that) and lose all in some kind of bubble burst. I also have little pity on those who get replaced by harder workers for less money. That’s what it does, now adapt or request assistance if you can’t. That’s what welfare is for. This will benefit the majority. Capitalism isn’t capitalism if the workforce is artificially limited.
Okay, this topic's getting old, but I wanna make one last point.
ReplyDelete"An influx in immigration would be [no] different than if every couple in America 20 years ago each had 15 kids."
I think there is a difference, mainly in time. Suppose that Roe v. Wade never happened and that there were 40 million more Americans today. How would this be different from opening our borders and allowing 40 million immigrants into the country? The difference would be there'd have been 35 years to prepare for it.
If families in the US produce more children, this is something predictable. If this year every couple in the US gives birth (how many couples are there? For this example, we'll assume 40 million), there will be a sudden increase in the population of infants. However, we'll have time to prepare the infrastructure as this new population ages. We'd have 6 years to build more schools and hire more teachers, 16 years to ramp up production of cars, 18 years to increase college capacity, 21 years to increase the job market, and 25 years (estimate) to increase home development and housing. Essentially, there would be a gradual ramp-up in all areas of the infrastucture to accomodate these people we know are going to be needing services over the course of three decades.
If this year we opened the borders to 40 million immigrants, we would have no time for any of that. Suddenly, we'd have to cram 310 million people into a job market, housing market, and infrastructure that one year earlier had to service only 270 million people.
30 years later or so, there would be no difference, as the infrastructure would have had time to adjust. So a massive influx of immigration would not have long-term effects, but it would have significant short-term effects that would be different from a gradual ramp-up of population.
I agree. That is a good point: Time to adapt would be good.
ReplyDeleteI just think that there are so many things that can negativley affect our economy and cause "hardship" that this could just blend in as one of them. I don't look at this kind of influx as catastrophic, but more like a necessary pain to correct an imbalance like the pain of a shot at the doctors. Remember that people complain that GM car plants were moved to Mexico because of the cheap cost of labor. Well if we could import that cheap labor, those dollars wouldn't have left the US. We can complain about low wages all we want, but the more we prevent businesses from paying low wages without compensating them with harder workers, the more likely we are to lose those dollars all together. So by trying to prevent the pain or shock of allowing a quick influx of immigrants, we might be prolonging other economic ills. Which would truly be worse?
I also personally feel that the private sector does adapt fast enough to handle large movements like that. While the govt would be overwhelmed by demand like for public schools, low cost housing I think would grow like crazy.
(Dave points out that that is not always the case: Flu vaccines, oil supply. I'd point out, the less govt is involved, the more likey the private sector would work. That point I guess is a much larger argument in its own)