It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would kicking all illegal immagrants out = economic boom?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I'm as much of an immigrant as any other American. I wish people would remember their roots. But, it's not about immigration its about color




posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 





they keep emailing for me to either do sound or play guitar for free,
and i keep going out into the park, or to the shelter, and i play for free for the people who have no money
way more classy crowd



Dan, you continue to amaze me.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 

I agree but I wonder if there are enough to keep up with our agro industry and demands. I too worked on a farm and harvested wheat and corn, but it was mostly machinery. So many fruits and veggies require hand picking though and not just in summer, so I still suspect all the jobs would not be filled. I could be wrong, but in some states where the minimum wage is still 6-7 dollars an hour I do not think there would be enough people applying that could actually endure the work. Please do not perceive that my opinion is 'no one (legal) wants this kind of work', I just don't think there would be enough to fill the bill overall.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Personally, I think those jobs should be handed out to people who live on public assistance and are physically capable. Then we wouldn't have an obesity problem or a rash of jobs Americans won't do. You want your public assistance and aren't employed? Fine, here's someone with a position they can't fill in a picking field. If you want your assistance, you either show up and bust your butt at that -or- you join a program to enable you fill another position with better training.

But no more just handing people fish.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

NoRulesAllowed

Guess who is giving the jobs to the "illegals"?

Every one who is giving a low-paying job to an illegal has VERY WELL the option to give the same job to an US American.
Obviously, they don't. Why? Because it costs less to pay an illegal $2/hour than giving the same job to an American for $15 or $20.

So..instead of blaming the illegals blame THOSE who actually give those jobs.

Also..your proposal overall is absurd...so let's assume that all illegals would be "kicked out"...so now do you think that magically all those corporates and bosses would hire US Americans (or legal immigrants, whatever) paying them premium?

But again..key point stands...even if we assume that "millions of illegals got many low-paying jobs"...SOMEONE must've given the jobs to them. THIS is the issue here: "Free reign capitalism" where anyone can do ANYTHING they like as long it's good for their profit. And "hiring" a low-cost illegal is exactly that


Folks here love to mention history and economics, in regard to policies like this one being proposed, BUT history actually shows a different outcome when low-wage/low-skilled labor becomes scarce in the larger market.

First off, before 1990, 40% of teenagers had part-time jobs while in school. This is a relevant statistic because today only 20% of teenagers in school, have part-time jobs. Teens at one time, made up a sizable portion of the workforce and changes in employment practices favoring "low-skill/low-wage illegal immigrant labor" has decimated the "first job" prospects of America youth today. These currently jobless teens would fill a sizable portion of the initial loss of "low-skill/low-wage illegal immigrant labor" almost instantaneously. Now whether they do a good job or not, should not be a part of this debate. The fact is these teens are a huge source of untapped low-skill/low-wage labor in the USA.

Second, here is a modern example of a company with a big contract to fill and absolutely no "will" to increase wages to attract experience personnel, nor the desire to train inexperienced ones ON the job. Instead they put out a story on the web bellyaching:

bridgemi.com...

The reason this happens is because these "owners of capital" believe there is an endless supply of applicants willing to underbid their labor. To a certain extent this is true, currently, but this particular employer, noted in the article, has gone ABOVE & BEYOND what even the bottom of the employee market will accept per hour, but somehow despite "no takers" the employer/owner is still delusional about their "real" hiring options. And even worse, is that this company actually had a contract at the time that needed to be fulfilled, with revenue coming in to beef up staff, yet they still chose to drag their feet. Makes me wonder if they eventually lost the contract to non-performance?


peck420
Throwing away capital never predicates a boom...ever.

That applies to human capital as much as it applies to fiscal capital.


Now for a history lesson...

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then encouraging that same high school graduate to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone looking for and willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able went out to look for work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort to those “not seeking employment”, not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare then are acting in the same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum education levels for employment. Essentially to decrease the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time. This cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners and the disabled on government assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY as many “capitalists” suggest these days, we would all be making 0.25 cents a day.

Guess when the largest “recorded” wage increase happened in history for, non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency?

Any ideas?

I’ll tell you, it was after the black death pandemic in the 14th century.

How is that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post-black-death-pandemic still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people, so, in order for ANY work to get done they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables more, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect both long and short term welfare. The next obvious step for government to further reduce the number of people participating in the full-time labor market is to allow them easier access to welfare or as some have be recommending lately, a guaranteed minimum wage or allowance that everyone gets without having to provide labor to an employer first. I’m not going to go into any specific economic theory, but this above noted cohort of non-participants collecting a base amount of guaranteed welfare/allowance will likely keep wages stable for those whom are still working full-time. If all people capable of working full-time, entered the job market simultaneously, wages would crash and to a certain extent have, as of 2014.
edit on 11-3-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

ketsuko
Personally, I think those jobs should be handed out to people who live on public assistance and are physically capable. Then we wouldn't have an obesity problem or a rash of jobs Americans won't do. You want your public assistance and aren't employed? Fine, here's someone with a position they can't fill in a picking field. If you want your assistance, you either show up and bust your butt at that -or- you join a program to enable you fill another position with better training.

But no more just handing people fish.


There has ALWAYS been an economic system at work in the USA that limited the number of able bodied workers whom would be PAID and those who WOULD NOT be paid. The “owners of capital” learned their lesson about labor shortages POST the “Black Death” and figured out from that day forward how to keep wages down and potential available laborers numbers at maximum levels, while forcing them to compete for scarce available paid labor positions.

In the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay wages & profits to the “owners of capital”, they simply brought in more indentured servants, immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or used flat out slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The only difference between now and then is that “owners of capital” can’t LEGALLY have slaves or indentured servants anymore, BUT they have the same pressures as before, to keep their individual high wages & profit flowing, with laborers working for a little wages as they will accept for services rendered. The mechanisms today that replaces slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer than needed formal education for basic employment, off-shoring of labor, forced retirement, prisoners and welfare.

The only other choice when these conditions eventually arise to crisis levels will be the expansion of welfare because some rich kids will want to work for fun or enrichment, but there won’t be many job to go around anyway. So, someone has to go and it won’t be them at the end of the day. Another possible policy outcome to all the above is making the legal adult age 25, which could give the middle class time to recover decades of wage loses and lower the likelihood of people willy-nilly having a child that they know legally can live with them until 25. Baby making will drop off a cliff and daily wages will soar if such a law were created.

But as the OP stated, preventing illegal immigrants from gaining employment will absolutely increase wages. Because history has shown that the "owners of capital" will AWAY have work that needs to get done. But for US the peasants, labor shortages is one of the few ways to get the "owners of capital" to pay more for services rendered. Unions is the other, but Americans have already voted against their interests in that respect. All they have left now to negotiate with is making less babies and stopping both legal & illegal immigration.
edit on 11-3-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

boohoo
Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Or it could have a lot to do with a 'entry level job' requiring technical know-how not found in most 8th graders.



Guess when the largest “recorded” wage increase happened in history for, non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency?

Any ideas?


Well...since you asked. Possibly because there was no real wage increase after the plague? (May I suggest digging just a bit deeper the Wiki?)

Here is a lovely primer paper on the subject:
econpapers.repec.org...

Now, I have a question for you? Why do you use examples of wasted capital in an attempt to dissuade me from my position that throwing away capital is bad? All of your examples show exactly why throwing away capital, in any form, is bad.
edit on 11-3-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Oh, you silly double post.
edit on 11-3-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

peck420
Or it could have a lot to do with a 'entry level job' requiring technical know-how not found in most 8th graders.


I actually address this in detail in another post, feel free to read it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


peck420
Well...since you asked. Possibly because there was no real wage increase after the plague? (May I suggest digging just a bit deeper the Wiki?)

Here is a lovely primer paper on the subject:
econpapers.repec.org...


Glad you know how to research academic papers. The proceedings papers you posted, also cites peer reviewed papers where I drew my info from, NOT wiki, however this is only a working paper. There is even a documentary on the subject, but I haven't the ability to look it up right now. However, I have access to the full paper and many others, do you? My point still stands. There was wage increase post Black Death, which while not necessarily economic growth for the "owners of capital", resulted in a larger percentage of the "pie" than usual, essentially going to the bottom classes.

Here is a BETTER, peer reviewed article supporting my claim, if you don't have access to it, there isn't much for us to argue about:

ereh.oxfordjournals.org...


peck420
Now, I have a question for you? Why do you use examples of wasted capital in an attempt to dissuade me from my position that throwing away capital is bad? All of your examples show exactly why throwing away capital, in any form, is bad.


Make note, my concern is NOT economic growth for the "owners of capital" only increased wages for the rest. My point is that such a situation is only bad for the "owners of capital", not the laborers, in most cases. If labor does not have the bargaining chip of Union's, then all they have left is decreased population competing over scarce jobs in the larger market.
edit on 11-3-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

boohoo
I actually address this in detail in another post, feel free to read it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

After reading it, I can't help by wonder why you have done nothing to address the simple fact that a college graduate today has far more knowledge then a college graduate from 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc.



Glad you know how to research academic papers. That is one of papers where I drew my info from, NOT wiki. There is even a documentary on the subject. However, I have access to the full paper, do you?

Good, then you should be well aware that a 'wage increase' is only considered a 'real wage increase' if cost of living stays the same or decreases over the duration of the wage increase...which never occurred before, during, or after the plague.

* For anybody following along, please note that 'wage' and 'real wage' are two definitive terms in economics.


My point still stands

I'm sure it does...



Its only bad for the "owners of capital", not the laborers in most cases

Labourers are 'owners of capital'....



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   

peck420

After reading it, I can't help by wonder why you have done nothing to address the simple fact that a college graduate today has far more knowledge then a college graduate from 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc.


I did, but chose to formulate my argument around the idea that MORE education is needed, as we go forward with technological advancements and increased base job requirements. You are basically saying that I needed to explicitly state this, which is not the same as not me saying it at all. You are splitting hairs in a feeble attempt to try and discredit me.


peck420
Good, then you should be well aware that a 'wage increase' is only considered a 'real wage increase' if cost of living stays the same or decreases over the duration of the wage increase...which never occurred before, during, or after the plague.

* For anybody following along, please note that 'wage' and 'real wage' are two definitive terms in economics.


You're not addressing the theories of the paper I posted. All of which is covered, focusing specifically on the "real wage" increases in England post Black Death. If you don't have access to read it, just say so.

The Black Death and the origins of the ‘Great Divergence’ across Europe, 1300–1600 by Şevket Pamuk


peck420
Labourers are 'owners of capital'....


HA, HA, HA, according to what political windbag?
edit on 11-3-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 


NoRulesAllowed
Guess who is giving the jobs to the "illegals"?

Every one who is giving a low-paying job to an illegal has VERY WELL the option to give the same job to an US American.
Obviously, they don't. Why? Because it costs less to pay an illegal $2/hour than giving the same job to an American for $15 or $20.

So..instead of blaming the illegals blame THOSE who actually give those jobs.

Why not blame THOSE who are responsible for this unhealthy climate?
Why not blame THOSE who are causing macroeconomic stress by skimming vast amounts off of your countries real economic strength via compulsory levies?
Why not blame THOSE who created an unfair disadvantage for small and middle class businesses to the degree, that they simply cannot afford to employ/pay anyone real wages, nor offer goods for affordable prices, because they can no longer compete with the big corporations that have the pockets to bribe or "lobby the government"?

You're right in pointing out that it is not the illegals who are responsible... but why not think a step further and blame THOSE who are really responsible, instead of blaming "free reign capitalism", which doesn't even exist in the U.S.?
edit on 11-3-2014 by ColCurious because: typo



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ColCurious
 


I agree with everything you just said.

Very well put. Thanks for altering my perspective.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

onequestion
reply to post by ColCurious
 


I agree with everything you just said.

Very well put. Thanks for altering my perspective.

No, thank YOU for reading and having an open mind.

I tried to word it right the first time in my previous post, but the language barrier is tricky sometimes.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

rupertg
I'm as much of an immigrant as any other American. I wish people would remember their roots. But, it's not about immigration its about color


My "roots".. I was BORN in America, so was my parents, and their parents.

I nor my parents are imigrants!!


AND low paying jobs wouldn't be low paying if the immigrants were NOT HERE.


America NEVER would of had a middle class if immigrants had always flooded in. SCAB labor. that is the immigrant.

And it exacerbates the VAST imbalance in the distribution of wealth!! the rich get MUCH MORE RICH, when they can hire Scabs/Immigrants and therefore be the only people with disposable income with which to invest, buy houses, save money, etc.

I would rather live in a nation with NO immigrants. AND if All Americans were polled, the majority would agree that we do NOT need immigrants.

The multi national corps who dont care what America looks like or how low the quality of life goes are the ONLY ones benefitting.

Look at America from the 1950's-1980's. Way less Immigrants and WAY better quality of life VIA WAGES!!



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   

onequestion
Simple question, would kicking all illegals out of our country would that cause an economic boom?

Washington Post



“The more likely figure is 18-20 million and rising daily,” Zack Taylor, chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, Inc., said in an open letter dated Sunday. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Jobs in:

Construction
Landscaping
Production
Farming

All of these jobs were high paying jobs and enable the creation of small business's and competitive wages.

So, i ask again, would kicking illegals out cause an economic boom?

My reasoning is that those jobs are jobs that would go to people born in this country normally without a mass migration of tens of millions of people in short periods of time.

At what point do we need to put a stop to this?



My answer is yes.

Two things:

First when I was younger, teens used to work in the fields picking fruits and vegetables, as an intro job to the workforce like any fast food joint, so this "minimum wage part of the equation would be mute. Then you would have the added benefits of some of the younger generations saying hey I enjoy this and want my own farm/construction/landscaping business etc...

Secondly, you have to think of the effects of having these 11-20 million illegals out of the country would end over 80% of all welfare, school, medical bills, etc etc.. that alone would solve 90% of the states fiscal problems.

Grim



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

peck420
Good, then you should be well aware that a 'wage increase' is only considered a 'real wage increase' if cost of living stays the same or decreases over the duration of the wage increase...which never occurred before, during, or after the plague.

* For anybody following along, please note that 'wage' and 'real wage' are two definitive terms in economics.


If this were true the English parliament, post the Black-Death, under King Edward III wouldn't have needed to introduce the "Statute of Labourers 1351", which was used by the "Owners of Capital", as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants, despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages.

The Statute of Laborers; 1351 ("Statutes of the Realm," vol. i. p. 307.)

FYI, the Statute of Laborers 1351, caused the Peasants Revolt.
edit on 25-3-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Yes. What would happen is the supply of workers would drop and employers would have to offer higher wages in order to attract people to do those jobs. (supply and demand at work) That would put more money in consumers pockets instead of illegals sending it off to their home countries where it is lost.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Yes it would.

Remember about 10 years ago the reports on 'The day without a Mexican?' And notice that the illegal aliens have had one since because the people liked life without illegal aliens around to ...
It was like driving on a weekend no traffic.
The students said that they could concentrate on the lesson because there were less disruptions.
The stores said that losses from shoplifting was the lowest it had been in too long for them to remember.
You could go into a home depot without running a gauntlet of day laborers.

There were more benefits that day but I can't recall off the top of my head.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 

"Simple question, would kicking all illegals out of our country would that cause an economic boom?"
Absolutely not. In fact, it would be quite the opposite.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join