[Rumor]

Health care proposal omits illegal immigrant adults

I'm all for a universal health care system here. While I currently make a decent sum for the area I live in and my age, I can't afford health insurance.

While Schwarzenegger's proposal would cover all children, regardless of immigration status, a close reading of the plan shows that it relies on counties to voluntarily set up a new system of care for the illegal immigrant adults that would be separate from other state-sponsored programs.
Some critics question whether counties would have the money -- or the political will -- to establish such programs for illegal immigrants and say he could be trying to sidestep a volatile political issue. "This is clearly not universal coverage," said Reshma Shamasunder, director of the California Immigrant Policy Center. "In order to have a well-rounded, workable and efficient health system for all Californians, we need to cover all Californians. Any system that leaves out or carves out a specific piece fails to close that loop."

This burns me. Do they not get the fact that they are here illegally. Really, we shouldn't even be covering thier children let alone them.

If we gave illegal immigrants and thier entire families free health coverage, then that is going to cause more border jumpers to invade California which in the end will cost the state and country governments more money. Many of the illegals don't pay taxes.

According to the plan, California has about 1 million uninsured adult residents who are not in the state legally. But the governor believes that 40,000 of them will get insurance through the employer mandate and another 160,000 earn enough to buy insurance themselves. The remaining 750,000 would become the responsibility of the counties and public hospitals.

I think that the money being used for these programs should be used to increase border security and funding for INS (or whatever they are called now).

[Macrobat]

Doesn't really matter, the court's finding that the Maryland law aimed at Wal-Mart is unconstitutional cuts the central pillar out from under the Gubernator's plan abirthing.

Bottom line - states are not allowed by law to force those types of things, they are reserved to the purview of the Federal government.

[HackManDan]

The problem is we are already paying for the health care of illegal immigrants through expensive ER services. If we took a more proactive approach, we could substantially lower costs, which is what matters.

As for the argument that universal health care will have a magnet effect, thats just a red herring. Illegals come here to work, not for health care services.

[Macrobat]

The only magnet effect universal health care would have is on the money in our pockets.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by HackManDan 

The problem is we are already paying for the health care of illegal immigrants through expensive ER services. If we took a more proactive approach, we could substantially lower costs, which is what matters.

As for the argument that universal health care will have a magnet effect, thats just a red herring. Illegals come here to work, not for health care services.

[Rumor]

Perhaps instead of finding ways to provide health coverage, we should invest more in sending them home and perhaps making the legal immegration process a little less difficult than it currently is.

[subego]

Originally Posted by HackManDan 

The problem is we are already paying for the health care of illegal immigrants through expensive ER services. If we took a more proactive approach, we could substantially lower costs, which is what matters.

You make that back in cheaper goods and services, no?

[The Godfather]

Blue Cross Blue Shield charges $60-$150 a month for major event coverage. I don't see why I couldn't pay the medical care for regular afflictions from my own pocket. Illegal immigrants definitely are willing to pay for this, but private health insurers close their doors to their noses

[Kerrigan]

Good

[macintologist]

Hey Rumor I have a proposal, what do you think?

We should let anybody who wants to come to America and work, come, legally, and everyone who is currently here "illegally" and has a job is henceforth now "legal".

What do you think?

[TheWOAT]

The County hospital here in Salinas is about 30 million dollars in the red,... which is caused by mismanagement and people with no health coverage or money to pay for procedures (probably half and half), but the point is, illegals do use services that they do not pay for, and I would bet that there are other hospitals facing the same problems throughout California. That said, I dont believe this plan will have a magnet affect. This plan of having counties pay is basically what is happening now, so my question is where will AhNold get the money to pay for this?

Macintologist, I like your idea, it basically makes illegals pay for the services they use (by putting them in the system),and gives the ability to demand for higher wages (no fear of deportation).

[HackManDan]

I believe Schwarzenegger plans to pay for the plan with fees levied on medical practices and hospitals, and a tax on businesses (only those with 10 or more employees, I think) that do not offer health insurance.

Additionally, his plan would force insurance companies to put back 80% (?) of premiums into patient care. The rest could be used for administrative costs, marketing, profits, etc. This hopefully will mean that more of the money being spent on health care, will actually be used for health care.

[Macrobat]

Doesn't matter. The Federal courts have held that this is the purview of the Federal government. Whatever the Gubernator has in mind is moot.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

Infidels, the governator's plan will only make you weaker. California's economy and quality of life is being steadily sapped by lecherous illegals. Your federal government does little, either, to stem the flood.

[HackManDan]

California's economy depends on illegals. Low cost labor keeps the state running, it really does. If you deported all illegal immigrants tomorrow, the agricultural, building, and service sectors would all come to a screeching halt.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it is what it is. Illegal immigration is the labor side of globalization

And if Californians plan to keep on benefiting from their labor, we better face the cold truth that they require human services just like anyone else.

Comprehensive health care reform has to deal with everyone, otherwise it is not comprehensive.

-HMD

[subego]

Originally Posted by HackManDan 

California's economy depends on illegals. Low cost labor keeps the state running, it really does. If you deported all illegal immigrants tomorrow, the agricultural, building, and service sectors would all come to a screeching halt.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it is what it is. Illegal immigration is the labor side of globalization

And if Californians plan to keep on benefiting from their labor, we better face the cold truth that they require human services just like anyone else.

Comprehensive health care reform has to deal with everyone, otherwise it is not comprehensive.

-HMD

Oh! I see what you are saying... cut costs by giving illegals legit heath care.



I had originally thought you were presenting the ER costs as a reason to stem the flow of illegals, which, as you point out, would destroy the state's economy.

[turtle777]

Can't the US just invade and annex Mexico ?

Oh, wait, nevermind, they don't have enough oil.

-t

[Zarqawi's Eye]

They have tons of oil. Sadly, the corrupt government wastes it all and manages no social progress for its citizens.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

You make that back in cheaper goods and services, no?

No.
But nice that you -along with millions of others who should know better- have bought that fairy tale from the cheaters POCKETING HIGHER PROFITS, not (for some nonsensical fantasy reason) giving you their profits in the form of cheaper goods or services.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by HackManDan 

California's economy depends on illegals. Low cost labor keeps the state running, it really does. If you deported all illegal immigrants tomorrow, the agricultural, building, and service sectors would all come to a screeching halt.

Now for some other lines of COMPLETE BULLSHIT floated in this manner in the past:

The South's economy depends on slaves. Free labor keeps the slave states running, it really does. If you ended slavery tomorrow, the agricultural, building, and service sectors would all come to a screeching halt.

The nation's economy depends on child labor. Low cost child labor keeps the nation running, it really does. If you made it illegal to exploit 10 and 12 year olds, the agricultural, manufacturing, and service sectors would all come to a screeching halt.

First of all, Boo friggen hoo.

Second of all, BULLSHIT.

But hey, every time industries have figured out ways to use illegal labor, I'm sure no one actually *GASP* PROFITED off of it? No way! They just gave everything away for nothing because of course the use of cheap labor -rather than having to pay legal, adult, CITIZENS a fair wage- is for some magical reason just to give consumers everything cheap, not to LINE PEOPLE'S FRIGGEN POCKETS with the money they save from having to compete FAIRLY and pay people what the jobs are actually worth! Of course not! No one would EVER do that!

Geeze it's amazing how the businesses pulling this crap of hiring illegal workforces for **** wages have pulled the wool over people's eyes.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Now for some other lines of COMPLETE BULLSHIT floated in this manner in the past:





First of all, Boo friggen hoo.

Second of all, BULLSHIT.

But hey, every time industries have figured out ways to use illegal labor, I'm sure no one actually *GASP* PROFITED off of it? No way! They just gave everything away for nothing because of course the use of cheap labor -rather than having to pay legal, adult, CITIZENS a fair wage- is for some magical reason just to give consumers everything cheap, not to LINE PEOPLE'S FRIGGEN POCKETS! Of course not! No one would EVER do that!

Geeze it's amazing how the businesses pulling this crap of hiring illegal workforces for **** wages have pulled the wool over people's eyes.

Is this, I think maybe, it just might be a smackdown! (sorry for not having a graphic)

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Geeze it's amazing how the businesses pulling this crap of hiring illegal workforces for **** wages have pulled the wool over people's eyes.

I think you've let your compassion get the best of you.

Exploitation of labor leads to cheaper goods and services. This is just a basic fact of economics. People line their pockets when they can, but this isn't a competitive tactic. Unless one is in an industry with collusion issues, someone who isn't lining their pockets will undercut them, and they'll be forced to change or go bust.

You need no further evidence of this other than the amount of goods for American consumption manufactured in China. Stuff from China is cheap. Why? Because of the ridiculously exploitative labor situation.

By extension, yes. Child labor and slavery means cheaper goods and services, just like illegal immigrant labor does. If your economy happens to have a large segment based in one of these practices, cracking-down on it will have massive negative effects on that economy.

The universe doesn't tend towards high morals. If you want high morals you have to make them, and it will cost you. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

If you think it's worth the cost (I do, I assume you do as well), great! Have at it. We can both have at it together. I'm hesitant though, because from your post it seems as if you think being nice to one's fellow is the natural order of things, only to be usurped by some fat cat capitalist. I assure you, it is the other way around. The fat cat capitalist is the natural order, and it's morality that usurps it.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the strong desire to invert them, but I think if you try and fix things from this inverted view, you end up causing more damage than you fix.

I know I'm rambling, but let me throw out one quick analogy that is (more or less) removed from politics: quitting smoking. Smoking is, of course, really bad. It's so bad that people don't like to talk about the benefits. Smoking has lots of benefits, otherwise people wouldn't do it. The problem that arises when one wants to quit is that it is so taboo to discuss the benefits of smoking, many people begin to think that beyond their desire for cigarettes, quitting won't leave this giant hole in their lives. How could it? It's bad. Well, it does, and it's a hole they must confront if they are to be successful.

[Snow-i]

bottom line.

They are here illegally. They need to go home. I don't want to pay taxes for illegal immigrents to come here and work. If they want to come, they need to come by the process we've setup for them to come.

There is no other alternative in my mind. Come here by our rules, or we send you home.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think you've let your compassion get the best of you.

Exploitation of labor leads to cheaper goods and services.

No, it doesn't. If you think a hotel room is less than it would otherwise be because a hotel chain shaves off costs by hiring illegals to clean the rooms, I've got a bridge to sell you. If you think you're getting served at any restaurant cheaper because the food is cooked or the dishes are washed by illegals, I've got a bridge to sell you. NO ONE is charging you less than the maximum they can for any service simply because its an illegal who parks the car, takes out the trash, mops up, delivers/builds/landscapes, etc. etc.

No industry is interested in giving you bargains out of the "goodness of their hearts"- business always looks to cut costs and maximize profits. If business A can cut corners (on the cost of labor, or anywhere else) and produce a product cheaper than business B, they realize the difference in PROFIT, not in just willy-nilly handing the cost savings over to you, the consumer. That's insanity to even think that would be the first motivation of any business.

The ONLY reason a business producing something cheaper than their competitors would sell something below what the market will bear, would be to use their unfair labor cost advantage to undercut honest businesses and force them either a: out of the market, or b: to cut their own labor costs as well, which means lower wages for guess who? That's right- American citizens. Either situation stinks, and people cheering for it are complete dipshits when they turn around and whine about low wages in the job market.

Also, once an industry has been gutted and legal workers driven out, the same businesses just up their rates again to. Market forces drive prices, not anyone's fantasy benevolence.

People line their pockets when they can, but this isn't a competitive tactic.

Newsflash: people go into business TO MAKE MONEY! It's the ONLY reason any company does business. No one is motivated by giving you some unheard of bargain just for shits and giggles. The goal is: produce whatever good or service you want at the LEAST possible cost, and sell at the HIGHEST possible profit!

If I can produce lettuce or sell hotel rooms or wash cars for less than what those things cost others to do who play by the rules- then I'm still selling my products for the GOING RATE, and POCKETING what I'm saving by cheating the labor cost! I could give a **** about giving you a friggen bargain. Or, I'd be using my unfair position to force the honest business out, or forcing them to slash their wages to compete with me.

Unless one is in an industry with collusion issues, someone who isn't lining their pockets will undercut them, and they'll be forced to change or go bust.

Now you seem to be talking about something completely different. This is "Building a better mouse trap" and running others out of business because you've legitimately found a cheaper way to produce something. That's a LEGIT business tactic. It's called INNOVATION, and more power to anyone who can figure out ways to do it.

But just cheating the system by using illegal workers and substandard wages isn't innovation. It's just cheating the system at everyone else's expense, pure and simple. It destroys sectors of industries that succumb to it, and overall it has a vast reaching negative effect on wages up the chain as legal workers forced out of one industry then crowd into other job markets. More people competing for the same, or lesser number of jobs= LOWER wages. This is to say nothing of what you cost the society in other ways (healthcare costs, taxes, services, etc) by the impact your illegal workforce has living illegally in the country. All the way around, it's simply screwing everyone else, so that some cheating industries can line their pockets.

You need no further evidence of this other than the amount of goods for American consumption manufactured in China. Stuff from China is cheap. Why? Because of the ridiculously exploitative labor situation.

We're not talking about China, we're talking about California, and the United States of Americaas a whole. Of course Chinese products are cheap- but only in as much as the undercut American businesses that would compete trying to make the same products, and only in as much as they're still sold based on what the American consumer is willing to pay- still plenty high to produce high profits compared to cost of manufacture. And its American companies profiting by using Chinese labor. The difference is, it's legal to take your manufacturing out of the country and exploit cheaper labor elsewhere.

What we're actually talking about, is how the same businesses that exploit conditions in China to produce things at lower cost would LOVE to bring the third world conditions there, HERE to the US, and how people excusing the importing of illegal workforces are basically helping them do it. If you're going to do business HERE, in the United States, then you need to hire American labor, at wages that Americans are willing to work for.

If the average American wants a work situation like China, then keep on giving businesses the go ahead to undercut the entire system with illegal workforces. Americans will find themselves switching places with China, if that's how it's going to be. In time, the Chinese middle class will be buying products from Americans who've traded their own middle class for sweatshops and **** wages. I've got news for people who think they're just "too damned good" for this to happen- only a TINY fraction of the total Chinese population has to reach middle class status to become the world's number one consumer base. The entire US population of 390 million is a drop in the bucket for China. Companies would simply LOVE to have MOST American workers slaving away to provide goods and services for say, 600, 700 million middle class Chinese, rather than the other way around. Do the friggen math. It's common sense really.

The universe doesn't tend towards high morals. If you want high morals you have to make them, and it will cost you. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

If you think it's worth the cost (I do, I assume you do as well), great! Have at it. We can both have at it together. I'm hesitant though, because from your post it seems as if you think being nice to one's fellow is the natural order of things, only to be usurped by some fat cat capitalist. I assure you, it is the other way around. The fat cat capitalist is the natural order, and it's morality that usurps it.

This is just bizarre, because it's you who seems to think this way. You actually seem to think that businesses are out to give you "low cost lettuce" and cheap goods and services, and that THAT was the reason they've sought out illegal, underpaid work forces! Talk about blind belief in "being nice to one's fellow man!"

Exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're talking about is the case. The REASON any business has gone to hiring illegal labor is to MAKE MORE FRIGGEN MONEY, not to give you a cheaper product or service. PERIOD.

My interest is in seeing to it that Americans stop being so friggen stupid, and stop selling themselves short before it's too late.

I don't care what business you're in, or what you do for a living, or how endlessly skilled or talented you may be, or think you are: ANY business or client, the one you work for, or the people you rely to hire you to do something, would be MORE THAN HAPPY to pay you DIRT, ****, NADA, ZIP, NOTHING, PIDDLY-F'ING DICK, if YOU don't know any better than to let them get away with it.

Any and every employer's worst nightmare is informed workers who actually realize what a given task is actually WORTH to perform for someone else. Yes, Virginia, that actually includes things like washing a dish, or cleaning a room, or taking care of someone's kid, or assembling a product, or building something, etc. etc.

Any employers GREATEST WET DREAM is larger and larger numbers of complete dumb****s who DON'T know what a given task is actually worth, and so will do it or advocate for someone else to do it for peanuts, thereby letting the employer POCKET the difference vs. what the task is actually worth. The freebee bonus is when they can even count on other numbskulls to label these tasks "Jobs Americans won't do", and even better, make the case that it's actually racist to stop them from exploiting people who don't know what tasks are worth. You could hardly dream up a better system for cheating assholes that get to screw everyone else than the one people are actively advocating for.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No, it doesn't...

Do you buy-in to Capitalism? It seems like you don't.

You bring up example after example of how there is nothing stopping someone from "lining their pockets" with money. How about competition? You say that no one will charge less than the market will bear, but you don't seem to acknowledge that what the market will bear changes based on price, supply and demand.

If you don't believe in Capitalism, that's fine, but I imagine it will lead us to use vastly different methods to address the issue of illegal labor. I'm going to want to fix things from within the system, you're going to want to change the system.

P.S. I thought asking the above question was the most constructive route from a debate perspective. You wrote a very detailed response, so I don't want you to think that I'm trying to dodge or give you the short shrift. I'll gladly address any particular point, or the whole post on a point by point basis.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Do you buy-in to Capitalism? It seems like you don't.

I'm all for Capitalism of course, just I recognize it relies on rule of law to keep it from devolving into its worse excesses that are part of human nature.

It sounds to me like you subscribe to some mix of anarcho-capitalism; somehow businesses can fail to obey laws as they see fit, (in this case the labor laws) and that competition will magically ride to the rescue every time. It doesn't really make much sense, as one definitely doesn't follow the other, but that seems to be what you're on about. Suffice it to say, I think anarcho-capitalism is a load of pure horseshit that's as much in denial about human nature as the worst ideas from Socialists and those at the opposite pole of the spectrum.

Of course I'm all about competition, it's what drives Capitalism, but the stipulation is FAIR competition. In that context, it means: obey the laws, ALL of the laws, of the nation you do business in. You can't sidestep the law and call it competing. Just because you can make a sleazy buck from ignoring labor laws (or because people in SERIOUS denial really believe you're benevolently giving them cheaper products because you do) doesn't qualify that as legitimate competition. As I said before, things like innovation are fair competition; coming up with a legal way of doing something better and cheaper than someone else. But that doesn't extend to gutting labor markets by cheating the system and calling that "innovation", or "competition", nor should anyone else have the burden of competing with lawlessness in addition to all the other pitfalls of running a business.

You bring up example after example of how there is nothing stopping someone from "lining their pockets" with money. How about competition?

Exactly what I'm talking about above. So, by your example, when we catch an Enron blatantly cheating everyone for fun and profit, we just throw up our hands and say "Let competition handle it! Don't punish the business for committing crimes, just make others compete against their crimes, or better yet, commit their own to keep up!"

You say that no one will charge less than the market will bear, but you don't seem to acknowledge that what the market will bear changes based on price, supply and demand.

You missed the point. Your side always argues that we're somehow seeing all these magical low prices due to illegal labor being used (a quick trip through the real world will dispell that notion pretty quickly) because by some magic, people are passing along their labor-cheating savings to we, the consumer.

I'm going to want to fix things from within the system, you're going to want to change the system.

The system itself says it's a CRIME. I don't have to change anything, merely insist that laws that are already in place be enforced. You're the one who doesn't seem to even understand that the system has the concept of what's legal and what isn't, and wants to change that to something along the lines of "let's all look the other way, because I've bought into the rubbish that I got this orange cheap!"

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm all for Capitalism of course...

This is exactly what I meant when I said you are letting your compassion getting the better of you.

About 90% of what you spit back at me is your own projection.

I made what is essentially a statement of fact: "exploitation of labor leads to cheaper goods and services".

I gave you no indication as to what my moral stance on this fact was. Well, that's not true, I told you specifically I believe it is worth the cost to correct this. I also compared hiring illegal labor to cigarettes, which, since they cause cancer, you should be able to see I am aware of the negatives.

You responded with a bunch of facacta about how because it's illegal it somehow doesn't follow the laws of economics. If it's illegal, the money must be going into the lawbreaker's pocket. You claimed exploitation of labor does not lower prices.

Bullshit.

I reply with the reasons that this particular brand of illegal behavior would lower prices, and you call me an anarcho-capitalist.

All because I present a fact that you don't morally like.

This is why I brought up the cigarette analogy. You are acting like one of those people who think cigarettes are so bad, that you can't talk about the benefits. You encourage someone to quit, but don't want to mention that cigarettes are stress reducers, or are a great thing to orally fixate on. (1)

When someone is trying to quit, you don't just say "good luck", you tell them to work-out to relieve stress, chew on a pen and then say "good luck".

That's all I'm saying. Exploitation of these workers should be stopped. You just don't stop it. You assess the impact, then you stop it.


Edit: (1) I would also like to add that the implication of this, whether you intend it or not, is that if I hear the good things about something bad, I'm going to be too stupid to weigh the pros and cons, and therefore shouldn't be presented the good side for my own "protection".

It's really frigging insulting.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is exactly what I meant when I said you are letting your compassion getting the better of you.

About 90% of what you spit back at me is your own projection.

I made what is essentially a statement of fact: "exploitation of labor leads to cheaper goods and services".

Which isn't true. Exploitation of labor leads to increased profits for those who resort to it, not cheaper goods and services. Cheaper goods wasn't the result of slavery, it wasn't the result of child labor, and it's not the overall result of illegal labor now, nor is it the motivation for those who engage in it. Profiteering is.

You're simply in denial about this. I've explained to you several times how initial reduced prices are merely a side effect of running legit businesses out, yet once an industry has been completely replaced by illegal labor, this no longer happens and prices shoot right back up to what the market will bear. The market always determines prices.

This is why I brought up the cigarette analogy.

Trying to make an analogy to this subject with cigarettes is useless. It has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Cigarettes aren't an illegal business practice. This just proves to me you're not actually grasping the subject, so I'll leave you to your analogies. I'm more concerned with businesses committing crimes at the expense of the American taxpayers and wage earners than I am with useless analogies.

[Snow-i]

The market always determines prices

He is completely right. Prices don't go down with costs. Profits go up. Take any low level accounting class and they will teach you how price is determined and how costs affect profits.

The bottom line is still that its illegal and is illegal for a very good reason. Since when do we just get to ignore the laws that some don't like?

If we need an influx of cheap labor. Set it up to allow easier LEGAL immegration to the states.

That way you don't get stuck in the logistical mess of
-taxes
-worker's comp
-social security
-welfare
-minimum wage
-hospital costs
-health insurance
-national security
-job security
-poverty

and less important (but still so)

-accurate census data
-better equipped schools (language barrier and such
-elections
-crime
-adequate services like police and fire departments


These are all factors affected by illegal immigration. Why would we just not do it the legal way if we need more cheap workers (which we don't)?

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're simply in denial about this. I've explained to you several times how initial reduced prices are merely a side effect of running legit businesses out, yet once an industry has been completely replaced by illegal labor, this no longer happens and prices shoot right back up to what the market will bear. The market always determines prices.

If I squint real hard at your random collection of phrases masquerading as a coherent argument, I can see that it looks as if you have mistaken the tactic of predatory pricing as a law of economics. For those keeping score at home, predatory pricing is when a company reduces its product's price (at a loss) in order to put its competition out of business. Once the competition is gone, the prices shoot up because the remaining company is a monopoly. The price goes above what the market will bear because the market isn't determining the price any more, the monopoly is.

With the case of illegal labor, initial reduced prices are not a a side effect of running legit businesses out. Reduced prices are a direct effect of the law of supply and demand.

Here's the basics so you don't make a fool of yourself at parties. Relevant quotes excerpted.

As resource prices fall, supply increases.

Labor is a resource. Illegal labor is a resource with a lower price. This increases supply.

All else constant, an increase in supply causes a decrease in equilibrium price.

Cheaper frigging labor means more frigging supply. More frigging supply means cheaper frigging prices.

Once an industry has been completely replaced by illegal labor, the price stays right where the **** it is, because if someone tries to profiteer by raising prices, all the competition has to do to win is not do that, which is what they are already ****ing doing.

In other words, what you've explained several times is the same bullshit. You know a few economics terms and put them together because they make pretty shapes. Considering this, I have no idea where you get off being so obnoxious.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Trying to make an analogy to this subject with cigarettes is useless.

I should note, since you bloody well haven't, the analogy is about your attitude.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Take any low level accounting class and they will teach you how price is determined and how costs affect profits.

Well, the class you took seemed to have ignored the whole part where accounting is not the same as economics.

[Snow-i]

Infact, I'm enrolled at one of the top 15 business schools in the nation.

I've taken courses on macro, micro, managerial accouting, and financial accounting...among other courses related to the matter.

It is in the accouting classes where you will find out how labor costs affect profits. Price determination is covered in both accounting and economics.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Reduced prices are a direct effect of the law of supply and demand.

You're grasping at everything you possibly can. First you were wanking on about competition, now you've moved on to supply and demand! Simply amazing.

If you'd bother to go outside whatever dark corner you're clearly stuck in, you'd realize that RIGHT NOW, in the REAL WORLD, the price of produce has gone way UP. Why? Because the supply was impacted greatly by cold weather. Exploiting all the illegal aliens in the world wouldn't change the fact that prices went up. Supply of labor and all the various factors that determine the supply of a product are not the automagically the same thing, as you're trying to float.

You're nuts if you think because a hotel chain uses illegals to clean the rooms that this automagically increases the supply of hotel rooms. It doesn't even make any sense. Because an illegal washes a dish doesn't increase the supply of restaurants. Because a person uses an illegal maid or nanny doesn't increase the supply of anything, it just sees to it that citizens can't get those jobs and expect any sort of livable salary. There are of course a gazillion examples I can provide, whereas your lame argument acts as if the cost of labor was the only force in the supply of goods and services.

Labor is a resource. Illegal labor is a resource with a lower price. This increases supply.

So everyone is just imagining higher produce prices right now, because *forehead slap* it's only the price of labor that determines supply!

In your crazy world view, I guess the Southern states of the slave era were the economic super powers of the nation, right? The South was wealthier than the North, right? The South had vast manufacturing resources, cheaper material goods for its citizens, and the better local economies, right? After all, the cost of slave labor was damned near free. And according to you, low cost labor means low, low prices for consumers, and *gasp* the main factor in determining supply! (Somehow you'll next cook up that it drives demand as well I take it!)

I guess southerners went to their local markets and everything was practically handed to them, while those silly Northerners who actually had to pay wage labor were all standing on bread lines.

The truth is, (which I'm sure you're completely unaware, like most of this entire subject) is that the North was the greater economic power, and its citizens were better off. All this without using slave labor. In fact, one of the key reasons northerners wanted to stop the spread of, and end to slavery, was generally not out of concern for human rights, and certainly not for any racial reason. It's because people knew that an economy based on slavery (cheap labor) did NOT bring about greater economic progress for anyone but a few fat-assed slave owners who (here's that reason again, that you just can't seem to grasp) were the ones PROFITING from it. NOT the average southern citizen, and not the south's economy as a whole.

Yet here we are, in 2007 with fools like you trying to argue that underpaid, illegal labor benefits everyone because you've bought into the notion that these businesses are giving you their profits for no reason. You're not alone in this ignorant belief, but it is just that- ignorant.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're grasping at everything you possibly can. First you were wanking on about competition, now you've moved on to supply and demand! Simply amazing.

You really are going to insist on schooling yourself in public, aren't you?

Since you obviously didn't read the little cheat sheet I gave you, maybe you didn't notice there was a connection between competition and supply and demand. Frankly, I didn't think I'd need to bring up supply and demand, but when we started debating I didn't realize I'd need to give you such a basic education.

First up, and apparently most important, is reading comprehension.

What the homework said: labor is A resource.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There are of course a gazillion examples I can provide, whereas your lame argument acts as if the cost of labor was the only force in the supply of goods and services.

So everyone is just imagining higher produce prices right now, because *forehead slap* it's only the price of labor that determines supply!

You get a big fat F here. The article "a" does not mean "the only". It wrecks your assignment from the get-go, because you spend so much time getting all frothy about things that were never said.

The lather carries right over to your history assignment...

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I guess the Southern states of the slave era were the economic super powers of the nation

Your panties are in such a wad that you can't apply the simple concept of cheaper labor means cheaper prices in the context of slavery.

For the South, the prices were cheaper than what the prices would have been if the South was paying more for the labor. This is what cheaper labor leads to cheaper prices means.

Considering how much credibility you've heaved into the woodchipper, I know you wish I was actually saying something more than that. It really is that simple. You pay more for labor, final product sells for more. You pay less, final product sells for less.

This leads us to your "evidence", though I hesitate to call it that so I put the little quotie things around it.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

RIGHT NOW, in the REAL WORLD, the price of produce has gone way UP. Why? Because the supply was impacted greatly by cold weather. Exploiting all the illegal aliens in the world wouldn't change the fact that prices went up.

So, tell me Mr. Friedman, if they had used no illegal labor, and hence had to pay all their workers more, would the price be the same it is now or would it be higher?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're nuts if you think because a hotel chain uses illegals to clean the rooms that this automagically increases the supply of hotel rooms. It doesn't even make any sense.

A hotel has what is known as a vertical supply curve, which follows different rules. This is pretty advanced stuff. Work on getting down the difference between "a" and "the only", and maybe I'll give you a lesson.

The rules I'm talking about however, do apply to the agricultural industry, and, say, the restaurant industry...

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Because an illegal washes a dish doesn't increase the supply of restaurants.

You're making this too easy. Where you live, what do restaurants supply? More restaurants?

The fact that you can't figure this out indicates a truly staggering level of confusion.

Hey there, Ace... restaurants supply food.

And before you embarrass yourself by snidely asking how illegal dishwashers increase the supply of food, I will clearly need to point out for you that they don't do so directly. The owner is using the money saved on labor most efficiently if they use it to buy more food, which if you haven't guessed is also known as an increase in supply. This is why the law of supply and demand can directly link lower labor costs to an increase in supply even though the dishwasher isn't the one directly producing food. Increasing supply when the cost of labor drops is the most efficient use of resources.

While there is nothing forcing anyone to increase their supply in this situation, the law of supply and demand assumes you aren't going to act like a ****ing moron, so it is safe in making that indirect link a direct one.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yet here we are, in 2007 with fools like you trying to argue that underpaid, illegal labor benefits everyone because you've bought into the notion that these businesses are giving you their profits for no reason. You're not alone in this ignorant belief, but it is just that- ignorant.

You are going to be so irritated with yourself when it finally penetrates that the reason businesses "give" you their profits in this situation is the fundamental underpinning of capitalism. You know, that thing you claim to believe in.

In the above example of the restaurant, the business "gives" you its profits (makes prices cheaper) because when they do, they SELL MORE FOOD. This makes them MORE money than if they had just kept the profits. As I said, THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL UNDERPINNING OF CAPITALISM.

What if they don't make as much money selling more food as they do keeping the profits? What's to make them lower the price then, you ask?

I'll tell you.

If they just keep the profits, someone else in the industry won't keep the profits. They may not make as much as the first business in the beginning, because they are not pocketing as much profits, but the market will begin to realize that the first business is overvaluing their product. This is what ultimately causes the profiteer to lose money. What do you imagine the demand is like for an overpriced product? Hint: it's lower.

This is obviously where you got things mixed up with predatory pricing. The second business is not being predatory, the second business is the one not cheating the customer. If the first business goes under, it's not because they were forced out of the market by unfair competition, it's because they were profiteering.

Once the first business is gone the prices do not go back up, because all along there have been a bunch of other businesses in the industry who are also not profiteering. If this isn't the case, the second business will continue to put the other businesses down, or, far more likely, the other businesses would decide it was more profitable to stop profiteering, rather than go out of business.

Now, for you I obviously need to add some qualifiers, or you'll just try and make up the most ridiculous interpretation you can. This is a general principle. There are exceptions, but you can apply the principle generally.

As for whether underpaid labor "benefits everyone", how many times do I have to repeat this? I said "exploitation of labor leads to cheaper goods and services". This is a statement of fact. There is no value judgment in it, either expressly or implied.

If what you get out of that is that it "benefits everyone", you sound like the anarcho-capitalist.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Infact, I'm enrolled at one of the top 15 business schools in the nation.

I've taken courses on macro, micro, managerial accouting, and financial accounting...among other courses related to the matter.

It is in the accouting classes where you will find out how labor costs affect profits. Price determination is covered in both accounting and economics.

Well if you have any evidence to support your claim that "prices don't go down with costs" buried under those credentials of yours, I'd be glad to hear it.

[Snow-i]

its quite simple really.

The price of a good or service will be determined by the current demand for said product in the market. Optimal volume/price of each unit will be determined to maximize profit

profit is the driving force of any business. profit

If costs go up....less profit. If costs go down more profit.
Price is not determined by costs. If costs get too high the effect will not be higher prices, because that would result in less volume. The effect will be lower profits or loss. Alternatively, if costs go down, prices will not go down because that will result in lower profits. The whole idea behind a business is to maximize profits.

The only thing that will change price is Demand (what people are willing to pay for said item/service)

Supply only affects price because it inversly (and directly) affects demand. Less of the item out there means it is harder to obtain and therefore people would pay more to get it.


Does that make any sense?
Demand affects price.
Costs affect business practice decisions and the decision to exit the market

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Supply only affects price because it inversly (and directly) affects demand. Less of the item out there means it is harder to obtain and therefore people would pay more to get it.

Just what do you think supply is?

One of the key determinants of supply is the cost of your necessary resources. If your resource costs go up, your supply decreases. If your resource costs go down, your supply increases.

Labor is a resource. Illegal labor is a resource with a lower cost. This increases supply.

An increase in supply means it is easier to obtain and therefore people pay less to get it.

Lower prices.

Why do I feel like I've already said this?

[olePigeon]

I guess it depends on where illegals are working. I can tell you that in agriculture (at least, in California) the migrant workers don't get payed "s**t wages" as CRASH likes to put it. They're payed $13 or $14 an hour. They also work for 10 to 12 hours, 6 days a week.

When you pay them that $175 at the end of the day, you won't see a happier person. They work that hard for that kind of money because they have to, they want to, and there was no other recourse for them.

We do need tougher immigration laws, but we also need to make the process for legal immigration more accessible to those who want it. However, I don't buy it about illegals taking our jerbs (sic.) Generally, it seems the people who complain about it are the same people not willing to make the same commitment as the immigrants.

If it's not the Irish, it's the Mexicans.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I guess it depends on where illegals are working. I can tell you that in agriculture (at least, in California) the migrant workers don't get payed "s**t wages" as CRASH likes to put it. They're payed $13 or $14 an hour. They also work for 10 to 12 hours, 6 days a week.

Wow. This was 10 years ago, but when I was working for a wage I was lucky if I got $150 for 12 hours, and this was skilled labor. I was a level above grunt too, so there were people getting paid less.

Admittedly, I was doing non-union work in a place where the industry was struggling.

However, if we didn't get good snacks, I was authorized to kill people, so it had it's benefits. I'm guessing migrant workers don't get snacks included.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego
For the South, the prices were cheaper than what the prices would have been if the South was paying more for the labor. This is what cheaper labor leads to cheaper prices means.

You're simply making this up, as the direct comparison EXISTS- the North. I don't have to make up the fact that the North was economically more powerful without slavery, than the South was with it. That's proven. You're simply making up something that's unprovable.

And actually, it isn't. The South has long become a far greater economic power since the end of slavery. The irony is, the ACTUAL costs of slavery -in terms of the social and economic destruction it wrought- are still being felt to this day, just as the ACTUAL costs of exploiting illegal labor costs us now, and will continue to cost us in the future.

Just as with slavery and child labor before it, only a FEW scumbags are benefiting through illicit profit, off of a GARGANTUAN social and economic disaster they are helping create due to costs yet to be realized from shipping in illegal labor.

So, tell me Mr. Friedman, if they had used no illegal labor, and hence had to pay all their workers more, would the price be the same it is now or would it be higher?

Who's "they"? If the model of farming were based (as it has been for centuries, and currently is in hundreds of nations around the globe- on legal labor- oh wait, you thought everyone relied on illegal labor worldwide), the price would be EXACTLY THE FREAKIN' SAME as it is now. Profits that are realized from illegal labor would be smaller for individual businesses paying legal labor what they're actually worth, but there would be more small farms producing products because farming would return to being a more stable enterprise to engage in. You've simply drank the cool-aid (as have millions of people) that tells you that farming is a **** profession to be tossed to the wayside, when traditionally it never was. You've fallen for the ruse that no American ever was or would farm, when not even all that long ago the MAJORITY of Americans worked in the agricultural profession!

A hotel has what is known as a vertical supply curve, which follows different rules. This is pretty advanced stuff.

In other words, you're wrong and have no answer for the example! Yes, Virginia, hotels don't lower their rates because they use illegal aliens, nor to 'increase supply'- they do it to INCREASE profits! Oh no, there's that concept again!

The fact that you can't figure this out indicates a truly staggering level of confusion.

Hey there, Ace... restaurants supply food.

This is too funny!
So you actually think that a resturant employing an illegal cook or dishwasher somehow magically increases the supply of food, and that this was the goal of employing said person!


You're like a lot of people on this subject, you draw conclusions based on having zero understanding of why businesses are in business, the conditions under which they operate, and what the motivations are.

You draw the 1+2=5 conclusion (and again, this isn't atypical) that because say, a resturant pockets more money from hiring an illegal than they would paying a citizen a decent wage, that they AUTOMATICALLY take that increase in money and just willy-nilly buy more food with it, for the express purpose of giving you a bargain. "Let's just keep buying food until we have so much of it we have to sell it to subego cheap!"

In reality, a restaurant buys food based on THE DEMAND for it! This is determined by a lot of things, primarily their location, and how popular the restaurant is. Eating at a restaurant is a form of entertainment for people- despite your severe lack of logic on the subject, restaurants know that people are willing to PAY for that entertainment, hence, DEMAND. Anyone with half a brain knows they can go buy food for themselves and prepare it for less cost than eating out, but you go to eat out for the entertainment value of it.

If you eat at a place in Beverly Hills, guess what Einstein? It'll COST YOU a hell of a lot more than eating at one in Compton.

No one in Beverly Hills is interested in having a completely unnecessary price war on the cost of a steak or a beer, so that you can feel you're getting a bargain on the price of the food. Demand is high, and will always be high to eat in a fashionable section of town. So why hire illegals to park your car, bus your table, wash a dish? To shave off on the price of the $45 steak because someone's affraid you'll go across the street to Trader Vic's and only pay the low, low cost of $42? Are you friggen nuts? Is it to automagically "increase the supply of steak" so that they have so much of it they have to sell it at a bargain price? Yeah, right.

No, it's TO MAKE MORE FRIGGEN MONEY in profits! 'Magine that! I know it's hard for you to grasp that this is the reason people go into business in the first place, but I assure you, it is.

And before you embarrass yourself by snidely asking how illegal dishwashers increase the supply of food

Talk about an embarrassment- it's embarrassing that you even conceived of such an ignorant assertion! The notion is pretty funny though.

In the above example of the restaurant, the business "gives" you its profits (makes prices cheaper) because when they do, they SELL MORE FOOD.

*forehead slap* Wow, it's really so simple is it? LOL! So restaurants that fail (as they do more often than virtually any other business!) need only hire enough illegals to automagically "increase their supply of food", and despite weather or not anyone even SHOWS UP AT THE FRIGGEN PLACE to create a DEMAND for more friggen food in the first place- they can just lower their prices! That's simply BRILLIANT! Why didn't all those tens of thousands of people failing at the restaurant business simply hire you to tell them that revelation? Location? Screw that! Demand? What? Profit? Say what? Market Forces? Huh? Just hire illegal labor, increase supply and lower prices ...automagically!

I know the restaurant example is only one business model, but you're so far off base about what forces actually drive that business, that I can't take you seriously in understanding the models that other industries operate under as well. Suffice it to say, we'll just have to agree to disagree about this subject, and move on.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Just what do you think supply is?

One of the key determinants of supply is the cost of your necessary resources. If your resource costs go up, your supply decreases. If your resource costs go down, your supply increases.

Labor is a resource. Illegal labor is a resource with a lower cost. This increases supply.

An increase in supply means it is easier to obtain and therefore people pay less to get it.

Lower prices.

Why do I feel like I've already said this?

1) Supply does not determine prices. Demand does. You can affect demand with supply, however you would only want to do so to (try to) get the proper economy of scale for your particular price/volume combination.

2) Companies don't sell labor. They sell goods and services. Fudging with labor costs will only change your profits, not your prices.

More labor (ie cheaper) does not always (and usually doesn't) directly correlate to higher supply of a company's good or service. Maybe this is where you are confused. hotels are a prime example.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Suffice it to say, we'll just have to agree to disagree about this subject, and move on.

Look, you've been a realllly good sport. As I have noted earlier in the argument, it's clear that whoever is right or wrong, it is compassion behind your arguments. This is something I admire. I've been rough with you because you were behaving like you needed to be taken down a few pegs, but whatever I said in doing so, the truth is that you are clearly not stupid, and are not uneducated.

That was the buttery wind-up, now here's the mediciney pitch.

I can build a pretty good case you haven't taken an economics course, or forgot it, or some variation thereof.

Economics is common sense stuff, and you can learn a lot about it by just being smart and paying attention, but that you (even rhetorically) ask "how does x increase supply?" or tell me "Y means more profit not cheaper prices" with no explanation other than the "profit motive" indicates you are missing some of the academic fundamentals. You haven't responded to any of my arguments, which are all based on economic theory, from a theoretical standpoint (like Snow-i).

Every single argument you have given tries to demonstrate a causal link through observation. Every single argument I have given tries to demonstrate a causal link through the laws of economics.

Economics is based on abstractions. Economics isn't the real world, it's an abstraction of the real world. You don't act as if you are comfortable with these abstractions. Half the time you don't even realize I'm referring to an abstraction.

Take the North/South example. I'm comparing the South to itself with only one condition changed, the price of labor. This is an abstraction. That this abstraction is allowable is in the definition of the relevant laws. Explicitly.

Whether I'm right or wrong, your counter is a fallacy. You say prices were cheaper in the North despite labor costs being higher. This is correlation implies causation. That we observe this to be true does not demonstrate a causal link. This isn't even economics anymore, it's basic critical thinking. There are too many factors that differ between the North and the South (land area, population, labor models, level of industrialization, natural resources, etc.) for you to say that the connection you observe is causal.

If I'm wrong, it's because I misapplied the laws. The laws still exist, and it's the laws that determine whether I am right or wrong. I find it unlikely that given the choice, you would rather attempt to show I am wrong with a demonstrable fallacy based on observation instead of an argument explaining how I misapplied the law. The best case scenario here is that we are both wrong.

Beyond this, it is also clear you are working with the "common sense" definitions of the terms I am using. These terms don't mean what common sense says in this context. Economics is an academic discipline. These terms have specific academic meanings.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that when I say "increase in supply" what you think that means is actually the definition of "increase in the quantity supplied". You probably think I'm trying to pull a fast-one, but these terms have completely different meanings. Look it up in the glossary of any economics textbook.

You strike me as the type who realizes that academics isn't about common sense, it's about mystification and jargon.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

1) Supply does not determine prices. Demand does. You can affect demand with supply, however you would only want to do so to (try to) get the proper economy of scale for your particular price/volume combination.

2) Companies don't sell labor. They sell goods and services. Fudging with labor costs will only change your profits, not your prices.

More labor (ie cheaper) does not always (and usually doesn't) directly correlate to higher supply of a company's good or service. Maybe this is where you are confused. hotels are a prime example.

Is this what you mean when you say that the discipline that needs to be brought to bear is accounting and not economics? I'm still baffled by your choice. You seem to be looking at the inside-out rather than the outside-in. We're talking about the entire economy.

The economy doesn't have a vertical supply curve, so I don't know why you think I'm confused for not finding a hotel (or a hotel-like business) to be a good representative of the entire economy.

I don't know why you are talking about a firm trying to affect demand to fix their own economy of scale, to quote Yakov Smirnoff: "in free market you not affect demand, demand affect you."

That's what we are talking about, how a change in labor prices effects the economy as a whole. Not only do your examples seem to focus on an individual business, they seem to be obsessed with no change in the quantity demanded and a constant volume.

Those aren't the variables I'm locking down, so I don't know how you can lock down different variables than I am and then present the example as comparable.

I'm not saying you are factually incorrect, I'm just saying I'm baffled at your choice of facts considering they don't seem to apply directly to the issue at hand.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is this what you mean when you say that the discipline that needs to be brought to bear is accounting and not economics? I'm still baffled by your choice. You seem to be looking at the inside-out rather than the outside-in. We're talking about the entire economy.

The economy doesn't have a vertical supply curve, so I don't know why you think I'm confused for not finding a hotel (or a hotel-like business) to be a good representative of the entire economy.

I don't know why you are talking about a firm trying to affect demand to fix their own economy of scale, to quote Yakov Smirnoff: "in free market you not affect demand, demand affect you."

That's what we are talking about, how a change in labor prices effects the economy as a whole. Not only do your examples seem to focus on an individual business, they seem to be obsessed with no change in the quantity demanded and a constant volume.

Those aren't the variables I'm locking down, so I don't know how you can lock down different variables than I am and then present the example as comparable.

I'm not saying you are factually incorrect, I'm just saying I'm baffled at your choice of facts considering they don't seem to apply directly to the issue at hand.

Right, but you also fail to look at the economy as a whole.

Who pays for health care for these people? Who pays for the extra police/fire/medical facilities needed as our overall population increases (without an increase in tax-payers)? Who pays for schooling the children that immigrate here?

Any (negligable at best) economic benefits the taxpaying legal citizens gain in consumer pricing would be largely offset by an increase in taxes to sustain the illegal population.

Then you also have to consider things like security and costs to maintain that as hundreds of thousands of undocumented people come into the country unchecked. Thats a large cost just in manpower.

Disease control, how about that? As illegals enter the school system who will pay for their vaccinations and the extra teachers, facilities, medical staff, and buses to account for these people? It certainly won't be the illegals, they won't be paying taxes on income and won't earn enough income to nearly cover those costs.

Surely negligably lower prices will be such a boost to the economy that none of these things matter? Or of course we can consider the alternative....and thats to just not provide for them....but then 20 years down the road we have hundreds of thousands of uneducated people living below the poverty line making less than minimum wage trying to live a decent life.

Where's the bleeding heart for these people? Where's the liberal left saying that this would be an unacceptable travesty to human rights? Nope....sorry, my toilet paper will cost 12 cents less so **** the taxpayers supporting these illegals and **** the illegals themselves.

I don't buy it.

[Snow-i]

Also, what if prices don't lower? How do we undo the damage that's been done?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Right,

Holy freakin' Moses. That was a quick reversal.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

but you also fail to look at the economy as a whole.

Absolutely not.

You came into this conversation half way. The reason we are even talking about cheaper labor leading to cheaper prices is because of the people denying it was true.

Further, I have never, not once, said this is a justification for exploitation of labor. The point is, if you want to address the issue of exploited labor but are in denial about it's effects, when you attempt to address it, you break the ****.

As to the overall situation that you bring up (health care, etc.), I think a bunch of your conclusions are off, but that doesn't really matter. As you finish the post you correctly point out that this his is a moral issue, and one I have stated that I think it is worth the cost to address.

[Snow-i]

excuse my ignorance. I thought you were advocating opening our borders.

Could you also please explain why you think my conclusions are off? Not just in the next 5-10 years, but in the next 4 to 5 decades.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

excuse my ignorance. I thought you were advocating opening our borders.

Could you also please explain why you think my conclusions are off? Not just in the next 5-10 years, but in the next 4 to 5 decades.

Well, that's a huge question. I'll take a stab at the thing overall.

Firstly, separate from the moral issue, this is a cost/benefit analysis. I think you are way lowballing the benefit angle.

I'm not so sure the affect on prices is as minimal as you seem to think, I mean, two posts ago, you wouldn't even admit it existed. In addition, you have the concept of complimentary labor. Most illegals don't know english, and hence are limited to the low end of the job market. The people they are competing with for jobs are native born high-school dropouts. In our country, there aren't enough native high-school dropouts to fill the demand (this is a good thing BTW), therefore, if you eliminate the non-english speakers, you eliminate a good portion of your complementary labor. This sucks money out of the economy by either forcing someone who is overqualified to contribute less to the economy than they would if they had a job commensurate with their skills, or you force the business owner to not produce like they would otherwise since they cannot meet their labor requirements. I have a lowball statistic that says complementary labor adds at least $10 billion to the economy. Note that that figure comes from a source I respect (Foreign Affairs), but I am under no illusions that it is definitive (as is the case with most statistics).

This brings us to your determination of costs. From the same Foreign Affairs article as the $10 Billion, it quotes the average tax burden for someone in CA (where the situation is worst), at about $1,500. This pays for all that stuff you are worried about. Health care, education, etc. This is nothing to sneeze at, but nor is it an unconscionable crushing burden.

Again, I am willing to accept that any statistic presented by either of us will be open to debate.

So, the situation as it stands now, I see as a wash for us, and a benefit to the illegals. This is a net gain in the compassion department.

But my compassion doesn't stop there. I rectally bleed the stuff. I think the current minimum wage is a crime. olePigeon's example notwithstanding, I think the allure of illegal labor is that you can pay them below minimum wage, not pay taxes, and there's nothing they can do about it. In thinking about this situation, especially during the slavery talk with Crash (1), I came to the horrible conclusion that in our economy a slave would probably be more expensive and better taken care of than an illegal (at least the men, who are less likely to be used as rape-toys). You can be damn sure they'd have health care, they'd be too valuable not to have it.

So, at a minimum, I think everyone should get at least the new minimum wage (which will likely pass), regardless of status. This is going to increase prices and put people out of jobs, doubly so for illegals and products that depend on them. You can fix this by an arbitrary amount (all the way up to completely) through tax credits and incentives, the costs of which get redistributed higher up the tax food chain.

How much you want to fix it is, of course, the 64 billion dollar question. As much as I want to fix it all, I can't be in denial that the government really ****s up redistribution of wealth.

That's the theoretical stuff. On a more grounded level, the Bush immigration plan is one of the few policies of his that has some merit. I think a guest worker plan is mandatory. I think we need to have some path towards citizenship for illegals. The law they are breaking, "don't come here and try to have a better life", is such an artificial concept I can't judge these people harshly for breaking it. We have to do this realistically. These will be nothing but empty gestures unless they are competitive with the benefits of faking citizenship. A program that gets you deported if you look at some bureaucrat the wrong way won't help anyone.

On the other hand, you can't just open the borders willy-nilly either. Like all things in life you need a balance. I'm all for making it more difficult to illegally cross the border. I think people who say a fence won't do anything unless you cover the entire border are apparently unaware of the concept of the path of least resistance.

We also need to be realistic about what is coming across the border. These aren't invaders, they're people literally begging to be exploited by the harsh mistress of capitalism. If you throw them back, it's not like it's because they tried to bite you.


(1) I also have to give credit to a documentary about two guys who were spoofing the WTO. They did a talk in Finland where they demonstrated that considering the costs of a flat in Helsinki, outsourcing to the third world is actually better than slavery, because in addition to being cheaper, outsourced labor doesn't get "homesick".

It was devastatingly hilarious.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Can't the US just invade and annex Mexico ?

Oh, wait, nevermind, they don't have enough oil.

-t

AHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAAH OH THAT WAS A GOOD ONE TURTLE!1

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, that's a huge question. I'll take a stab at the thing overall.

Firstly, separate from the moral issue, this is a cost/benefit analysis. I think you are way lowballing the benefit angle.

I'm not so sure the affect on prices is as minimal as you seem to think, I mean, two posts ago, you wouldn't even admit it existed. In addition, you have the concept of complimentary labor. Most illegals don't know english, and hence are limited to the low end of the job market. The people they are competing with for jobs are native born high-school dropouts. In our country, there aren't enough native high-school dropouts to fill the demand (this is a good thing BTW), therefore, if you eliminate the non-english speakers, you eliminate a good portion of your complementary labor. This sucks money out of the economy by either forcing someone who is overqualified to contribute less to the economy than they would if they had a job commensurate with their skills, or you force the business owner to not produce like they would otherwise since they cannot meet their labor requirements. I have a lowball statistic that says complementary labor adds at least $10 billion to the economy. Note that that figure comes from a source I respect (Foreign Affairs), but I am under no illusions that it is definitive (as is the case with most statistics).

This brings us to your determination of costs. From the same Foreign Affairs article as the $10 Billion, it quotes the average tax burden for someone in CA (where the situation is worst), at about $1,500. This pays for all that stuff you are worried about. Health care, education, etc. This is nothing to sneeze at, but nor is it an unconscionable crushing burden.

Again, I am willing to accept that any statistic presented by either of us will be open to debate.

So, the situation as it stands now, I see as a wash for us, and a benefit to the illegals. This is a net gain in the compassion department.

But my compassion doesn't stop there. I rectally bleed the stuff. I think the current minimum wage is a crime. olePigeon's example notwithstanding, I think the allure of illegal labor is that you can pay them below minimum wage, not pay taxes, and there's nothing they can do about it. In thinking about this situation, especially during the slavery talk with Crash (1), I came to the horrible conclusion that in our economy a slave would probably be more expensive and better taken care of than an illegal (at least the men, who are less likely to be used as rape-toys). You can be damn sure they'd have health care, they'd be too valuable not to have it.

So, at a minimum, I think everyone should get at least the new minimum wage (which will likely pass), regardless of status. This is going to increase prices and put people out of jobs, doubly so for illegals and products that depend on them. You can fix this by an arbitrary amount (all the way up to completely) through tax credits and incentives, the costs of which get redistributed higher up the tax food chain.

How much you want to fix it is, of course, the 64 billion dollar question. As much as I want to fix it all, I can't be in denial that the government really ****s up redistribution of wealth.

That's the theoretical stuff. On a more grounded level, the Bush immigration plan is one of the few policies of his that has some merit. I think a guest worker plan is mandatory. I think we need to have some path towards citizenship for illegals. The law they are breaking, "don't come here and try to have a better life", is such an artificial concept I can't judge these people harshly for breaking it. We have to do this realistically. These will be nothing but empty gestures unless they are competitive with the benefits of faking citizenship. A program that gets you deported if you look at some bureaucrat the wrong way won't help anyone.

On the other hand, you can't just open the borders willy-nilly either. Like all things in life you need a balance. I'm all for making it more difficult to illegally cross the border. I think people who say a fence won't do anything unless you cover the entire border are apparently unaware of the concept of the path of least resistance.

We also need to be realistic about what is coming across the border. These aren't invaders, they're people literally begging to be exploited by the harsh mistress of capitalism. If you throw them back, it's not like it's because they tried to bite you.


(1) I also have to give credit to a documentary about two guys who were spoofing the WTO. They did a talk in Finland where they demonstrated that considering the costs of a flat in Helsinki, outsourcing to the third world is actually better than slavery, because in addition to being cheaper, outsourced labor doesn't get "homesick".

It was devastatingly hilarious.

No, these aren't invaders. But its certainly a way for those wanting to inflict harm to enter the country.

-----

I've stated before that its one thing to make the process of legalization easier, and that could have some merit. But as it stands, there is no way to enforce tax collection and minimum wage and all the basic things needed to sustain the standard of living for illegals without actually making them citizens.


Easier immigration != letting an influx of illegals. Like you said, we need to make the path of least resistance legal entry to the country, then contemplate and set that level of resistance.

I still maintain that A) the (negligable) economic benefits would not be seen (or would be offset) unless the illegals were made taxpaying citizens and B) it cannot be undone with any measure of ease, so we must be EXTREMELY careful in the cause/effect of our immigration policies.

I also largely agree with the rest of what you have to say.