Low-skilled immigrants: Economic burden or boon?

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

TWISM trying to shyt on Mexicans yet again......

Its way more complex than he is trying to make it... the article he linked even said so

 

[mbewane]

of course no pure free market exists, that is obvious, but there are levels of openness

i dont understand what you mean that sealing the borders would make the us market free

i agree the us can not decide what mexico can do, but the us, mexico and canada can sit down and negotiate a treaty to control labor, just like they sat down and negotiated NAFTA to control goods and increase the level of openness, im just saying that ultimately that there should be a free labor market in the americas and just like NAFTA required all three countries to change their laws, a negotiated labor agreement would require all three countries to change their laws to match more

the only point im making is that i support a free market, but illegal immigration from mexico is not an example of a free market at work, its a highly distorted market and granting amnesty or increasing immigration doesnt help that distortion unless the countries the immigrants are coming from also are opening up their labor markets and their economies



it brings it down because most people work for more than minimum wage

and its not just about a free market, there are negative social factors of having illegal immigrants working for less than minimum wage



everybody in every country complains about immigrants not just the us and europe

OK if you recognize that no market is ever "free" that's already waaaaaaaaaay better than some free marketeers on this forum.

What I mean is that the only the US could hope to have a more open internal market is by totally sealing Mexico off in order to be able to manage the US internal market as it so pleases. But that's physically and economically impossible, so you will always have externalities that you must manage. The US has been trying to chase down (with those milicias at the border) and seal off (with that goddamn wall) Mexicans for years now, and if this thread is being made I guess it didn't "work". So trying an alternative way of management is basically all you guys can do. A third alternative would be for US companies in Mexico to share more of their benefit with the local communities, but we all know that's never happening.

The question is then why did NAFTA not lead to free movement? I think we all know why: US (and to a lesser extent, Canada) wanted to be able to use cheap labor in Mexico to boost their revenue, while not having Mexicans move to those respective countries. Mexico accepted, because it needed that cash. Simple economics. Simple human behavior also explains why Mexicans are moving to the US, as well as economics: again, if they can work in the US, it's because someone is willing to employ them. So they might bring down the average wage, that's true. But again, this is what capitalism is all about: supply meeting demand. You won't hear industries, business owners and investors complain about immigrants, because it lowers their costs and boosts their profits. And then everybody celebrates the recovery.

I'll give you a totally different example: in Brussels we have the EU institutions. We also have free movement within the EU. That means that every EU citizen can apply in the EU institutions, and -more importantly- in all the NGOs gravitating around. A couple of years ago, it was relatively easy, for a Belgian, to find a decent job in that area. Now? Not so much, because you have all the well-off kids FROM ALL OVER EUROPE who apply for the same positions, and accept to work for a lesser wage -or even not to be paid at all. So you have all these young rich preppy Europeans bringing the average wages in that sector down (because they accept to work for nothing) and bring the rent up (because the parents can afford it). It sucks for those who live there and are just average joes, but again, supply and demand.

 

[theworldismine13]

OK if you recognize that no market is ever "free" that's already waaaaaaaaaay better than some free marketeers on this forum.

What I mean is that the only the US could hope to have a more open internal market is by totally sealing Mexico off in order to be able to manage the US internal market as it so pleases. But that's physically and economically impossible, so you will always have externalities that you must manage. The US has been trying to chase down (with those milicias at the border) and seal off (with that goddamn wall) Mexicans for years now, and if this thread is being made I guess it didn't "work". So trying an alternative way of management is basically all you guys can do. A third alternative would be for US companies in Mexico to share more of their benefit with the local communities, but we all know that's never happening.

i dont agree with that at all, the us already has an open internal market with its 50 states, i dont see how it can be anymore open, internal free market is not an issue, that issue was settled 200 years ago

the border is already under control relatively speaking, the mexican economy has been improved thanks to NAFTA, and the added border security and deportations and the us recession has apparently made net migration from mexico zero

and im not saying we shouldn't have immigration, immigration is a good thing, im just against illegal immigration and im against increasing the levels of legal immigration and im against amnesty for illegals

The question is then why did NAFTA not lead to free movement? I think we all know why: US (and to a lesser extent, Canada) wanted to be able to use cheap labor in Mexico to boost their revenue, while not having Mexicans move to those respective countries. Mexico accepted, because it needed that cash. Simple economics. Simple human behavior also explains why Mexicans are moving to the US, as well as economics: again, if they can work in the US, it's because someone is willing to employ them. So they might bring down the average wage, that's true. But again, this is what capitalism is all about: supply meeting demand. You won't hear industries, business owners and investors complain about immigrants, because it lowers their costs and boosts their profits. And then everybody celebrates the recovery.

im not sure what your point is, i agree that business owners and corporations want cheap labor, that is why corporations are backing the current bill that grants amnesty and brings in way more workers to the us

my position on immigration is opposite to that of corporate america, i think immigration should be kept at the same levels and no amnesty

the question yall should ask is why are people on the left and people that are anti corporate america getting into bed with them to pass an amnesty bill http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-usa-politics-immigration-insight-idUSBRE97N03J20130824

I'll give you a totally different example: in Brussels we have the EU institutions. We also have free movement within the EU. That means that every EU citizen can apply in the EU institutions, and -more importantly- in all the NGOs gravitating around. A couple of years ago, it was relatively easy, for a Belgian, to find a decent job in that area. Now? Not so much, because you have all the well-off kids FROM ALL OVER EUROPE who apply for the same positions, and accept to work for a lesser wage -or even not to be paid at all. So you have all these young rich preppy Europeans bringing the average wages in that sector down (because they accept to work for nothing) and bring the rent up (because the parents can afford it). It sucks for those who live there and are just average joes, but again, supply and demand.

im not sure what that example is suppose to prove, in the end if there is a free market in labor that is a good thing, but a free market is something that has to be negotiated between countries, its not just about one country opening up its borders

 

[mbewane]

i dont agree with that at all, the us already has an open internal market with its 50 states, i dont see how it can be anymore open, internal free market is not an issue, that issue was settled 200 years ago

the border is already under control relatively speaking, the mexican economy has been improved thanks to NAFTA, and the added border security and deportations and the us recession has apparently made net migration from mexico zero

and im not saying we shouldn't have immigration, immigration is a good thing, im just against illegal immigration and im against increasing the levels of legal immigration and im against amnesty for illegals



im not sure what your point is, i agree that business owners and corporations want cheap labor, that is why corporations are backing the current bill that grants amnesty and brings in way more workers to the us

my position on immigration is opposite to that of corporate america, i think immigration should be kept at the same levels and no amnesty

the question yall should ask is why are people on the left and people that are anti corporate america getting into bed with them to pass an amnesty bill http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-usa-politics-immigration-insight-idUSBRE97N03J20130824



im not sure what that example is suppose to prove, in the end if there is a free market in labor that is a good thing, but a free market is something that has to be negotiated between countries, its not just about one country opening up its borders

I know the internal US market is "free", I meant "freer". The very fact that you have different tax systems from one state to another shows that the market is divided and has some distortions for example. But my point was that any country evolves in a context (its neighbors) and while on the one hand US companies benefit from cheap labor in Mexico, it's only natural that at some point that cheap labor moves up to the source. Immigration is "illegal" because of politics basically, but the market (which is what ultimately is important in the US) dictates cheap labor to move to the US. In this story, the US gets the best of both worlds: the cheap labor it requires (otherwise those people would not stay: there are less illegal immigrants in Italy, for example, since the crisis has started. Immigrants are informed) while keeping them at arm's length socially and politically. And it's great for politicians who can accuse them of everything wrong (the bad economy, unemployment, criminality, blah blah blah).

It's no surprise the left is for an amnesty, hell it's obvious WHY they are: the left is almost always for integration, against boundaries, for tolerance, openness and acceptance. Those people already live there, and they're not going anywhere, might as well as treat them as our equals. Theirs is a moral/political reason. The right and corporations reach the same conclusion because they need to be sure that the cheap labor will still be there. Since they ALSO want more deportation and stronger border control, the logical step is to give documents to those who are already here.

The example I used was to show you how market dynamics will always cause difficulties in the country which is hosting more immigrants than others, whether there actually is free circulation (my example) or not (US-Mexico) because people who want/need to move are always the ones willing to sacrifice some (or all) of their pay, either because they have no choice (Mexicans) or the opposite, because they can afford to (well-off Europeans in Brussels).

Anyway, there will never be a free market between Mexico and the US, for obvious reasons. So all you can do is either continue repression against undocumented immigrants (which is hypocritical because the US market needs them, and not really working) or explore ways to integrate them better.

 

[theworldismine13]

I know the internal US market is "free", I meant "freer". The very fact that you have different tax systems from one state to another shows that the market is divided and has some distortions for example. But my point was that any country evolves in a context (its neighbors) and while on the one hand US companies benefit from cheap labor in Mexico, it's only natural that at some point that cheap labor moves up to the source. Immigration is "illegal" because of politics basically, but the market (which is what ultimately is important in the US) dictates cheap labor to move to the US. In this story, the US gets the best of both worlds: the cheap labor it requires (otherwise those people would not stay: there are less illegal immigrants in Italy, for example, since the crisis has started. Immigrants are informed) while keeping them at arm's length socially and politically. And it's great for politicians who can accuse them of everything wrong (the bad economy, unemployment, criminality, blah blah blah).

It's no surprise the left is for an amnesty, hell it's obvious WHY they are: the left is almost always for integration, against boundaries, for tolerance, openness and acceptance. Those people already live there, and they're not going anywhere, might as well as treat them as our equals. Theirs is a moral/political reason. The right and corporations reach the same conclusion because they need to be sure that the cheap labor will still be there. Since they ALSO want more deportation and stronger border control, the logical step is to give documents to those who are already here.

The example I used was to show you how market dynamics will always cause difficulties in the country which is hosting more immigrants than others, whether there actually is free circulation (my example) or not (US-Mexico) because people who want/need to move are always the ones willing to sacrifice some (or all) of their pay, either because they have no choice (Mexicans) or the opposite, because they can afford to (well-off Europeans in Brussels).

Anyway, there will never be a free market between Mexico and the US, for obvious reasons. So all you can do is either continue repression against undocumented immigrants (which is hypocritical because the US market needs them, and not really working) or explore ways to integrate them better.

i dont agree with either the left or the corporations, i think amnesty will increase illegal immigration not decrease it, and i think the demand for cheap labor is phony and can be ignored, corporations want cheap labor, they dont need cheap labor and the left is not completely altruistic they see immigrants as guaranteed votes

i wouldnt call it repression but i think the laws should be enforced, and enforcement should be increased

 

[mbewane]

i dont agree with either the left or the corporations, i think amnesty will increase illegal immigration not decrease it, and i think the demand for cheap labor is phony and can be ignored, corporations want cheap labor, they dont need cheap labor and the left is not completely altruistic they see immigrants as guaranteed votes

i wouldnt call it repression but i think the laws should be enforced, and enforcement should be increased

The effects of an amnesty are always hard to predict, especially since they usually come with reinforced border controls and stronger immigration laws. But the aim of an amnesty is not to reduce illegal immigration, it's to better integrate (politically and economically) undocumented immigrants who are ALREADY there. Reducing illegal immigration comes with the second aspect, harder border control.

There will ALWAYS be demand for cheap labor, any corporation/business will pay lower wages if possible, and will pay nothing if possible. That's not really in debate.

Anyway, again if this is even a discussion it's that whatever was done before didn't work. Those undocumented migrants are already in the US, and not going anywhere. It would be way too costly (economically and politically) to raid all their houses and do massive deportations, so the admin has to think of something else.

 

[theworldismine13]

The effects of an amnesty are always hard to predict, especially since they usually come with reinforced border controls and stronger immigration laws. But the aim of an amnesty is not to reduce illegal immigration, it's to better integrate (politically and economically) undocumented immigrants who are ALREADY there. Reducing illegal immigration comes with the second aspect, harder border control.

There will ALWAYS be demand for cheap labor, any corporation/business will pay lower wages if possible, and will pay nothing if possible. That's not really in debate.

Anyway, again if this is even a discussion it's that whatever was done before didn't work. Those undocumented migrants are already in the US, and not going anywhere. It would be way too costly (economically and politically) to raid all their houses and do massive deportations, so the admin has to think of something else.

amnesty creates an incentive for more illegal immigration first because it reduces the supply of cheap labor which means more demand for it and it perpetuates illegal immigration because it signals that if you immigrate illegally eventually you will be "integrated"

i agree that corporations will ALWAYS pay and demand the lowest wages possible that is why i think their demands can be ignored, they want cheap labor, they dont need it

i dont think you can eliminate illegal immigration, i think if you enforce the laws and get better laws you can reduce the number significantly to manageable numbers

 

[Dr Dre's ProductionSkills]

part of the reason why immigration from mexico has gone down is increased border enforcement and increased deportation, if you double the number of immgrants and loosen restrictions on visas there would be an invasion and not just from mexico

1) yeah that is where we disagree, to me "slightly" is enough to rethink immigration, at minimum at means we shouldn't increase the level of immigration

2) maybe highly skilled isnt the right word, but everybody agrees that the only people that suffer from increased immgration are low wage earners, other groups see increases or no impact so how would this not increase inequality

3) yeah so increased immigration means more revenues for employers and corporations, increased in wages for most groups and expanding economy and "slight decrease" for low wage earners, im just asking how will this not increase inequality since everybody is gaining except low wage workers

immigration from mexico has gone down cause of 2008 housing market crash... alot of jobs left... alot of those construction jobs left... ppl comming here cause 7 bucks an hour is way more than what you would get in mexico....

in mexico you sweep up dirt at a job for free and hope to make 10 bucks a day... in cali you can make 100 bucks for sweeping that same floor..

its a big myth regarding immigration from poorer countries commming here taking low skilled wages jobs ... thats never been the problem... when times were good we needed this type of workforce... but when times are bad we still need them to keep prices of our products low...

the real problem has alwasy been visa type legal immigration aka indians comming here on visas and taking middle to upper class jobs...cause they are asking for 35k when the job should pay 60k... and math and science the language barrier is null an void...

these were the jobs that are needed to strenghten a real middle class...

 

[theworldismine13]

immigration from mexico has gone down cause of 2008 housing market crash... alot of jobs left... alot of those construction jobs left... ppl comming here cause 7 bucks an hour is way more than what you would get in mexico....

in mexico you sweep up dirt at a job for free and hope to make 10 bucks a day... in cali you can make 100 bucks for sweeping that same floor..

its a big myth regarding immigration from poorer countries commming here taking low skilled wages jobs ... thats never been the problem... when times were good we needed this type of workforce... but when times are bad we still need them to keep prices of our products low...

the real problem has alwasy been visa type legal immigration aka indians comming here on visas and taking middle to upper class jobs...cause they are asking for 35k when the job should pay 60k... and math and science the language barrier is null an void...

these were the jobs that are needed to strenghten a real middle class...

i think we all understand why people immigrate, i dont agree that they dont take jobs away and i dont agree that keeping prices low is a justification for anything

i think the only real problem is the government doesnt enforce immigration laws and a lot of the immigration laws are outdated

 

[mbewane]

amnesty creates an incentive for more illegal immigration first because it reduces the supply of cheap labor which means more demand for it and it perpetuates illegal immigration because it signals that if you immigrate illegally eventually you will be "integrated"

i agree that corporations will ALWAYS pay and demand the lowest wages possible that is why i think their demands can be ignored, they want cheap labor, they dont need it

i dont think you can eliminate illegal immigration, i think if you enforce the laws and get better laws you can reduce the number significantly to manageable numbers

Breh I understand where you're coming from but it's hella naive to think that the government is going to "ignore" what the corporations want. How do you think the corporations got in the position they are in the first place? Gvt and corporations move hand in hand, always have and always will, don't let the "free market" bs fool you.

For the rest, as anything related to human behavior it's a combination of things, and immigration will continue regardless. It's just a question of knowing if you want to have a growing population of second-rate citizens in your country or not. Because they are not going anywhere.

 

[theworldismine13]

Breh I understand where you're coming from but it's hella naive to think that the government is going to "ignore" what the corporations want. How do you think the corporations got in the position they are in the first place? Gvt and corporations move hand in hand, always have and always will, don't let the "free market" bs fool you.

For the rest, as anything related to human behavior it's a combination of things, and immigration will continue regardless. It's just a question of knowing if you want to have a growing population of second-rate citizens in your country or not. Because they are not going anywhere.

im not naive about anything, im fully aware that the government and corporations are looking out for their own interests, but so are hispanic and asian groups, and so are democrats and republicans

im just speaking on what i think should happen and what i believe are in my interests and what is in the interest in of the low wage low education african american, to me if increasing immigration doesnt benefit me then im against it, corporations dont give a fuk and neither do hispanics and asians groups and i dont believe america being flooded with illegal immigrants or passing a law that will create a flood of immigrants is in african american interests

free market is not bs, ultimately there should be a free market in the americas of goods and labor

 

[mbewane]

im not naive about anything, im fully aware that the government and corporations are looking out for their own interests, but so are hispanic and asian groups, and so are democrats and republicans

im just speaking on what i think should happen and what i believe are in my interests and what is in the interest in of the low wage low education african american, to me if increasing immigration doesnt benefit me then im against it, corporations dont give a fuk and neither do hispanics and asians groups and i dont believe america being flooded with illegal immigrants or passing a law that will create a flood of immigrants is in african american interests

free market is not bs, ultimately there should be a free market in the americas of goods and labor

As long as you're aware of it, that's good, because it won't change. The next logical step to this sentence is, where are the Black American groups in the discussion?

What I'm worried about (and I'm sure it's already happening) is that you or other low education Black Americans will get "mad" at those immigrants as if they were the cause for your situation, when you'd probably be in the same exact position if they were not there. or complaining about doing shytty jobs.

Question: why don't you do the jobs those illegal immigrants are doing?

 

[theworldismine13]

As long as you're aware of it, that's good, because it won't change. The next logical step to this sentence is, where are the Black American groups in the discussion?

What I'm worried about (and I'm sure it's already happening) is that you or other low education Black Americans will get "mad" at those immigrants as if they were the cause for your situation, when you'd probably be in the same exact position if they were not there. or complaining about doing shytty jobs.

Question: why don't you do the jobs those illegal immigrants are doing?

most black people dont ccare or are just following liberals in the democratic party who want amnesty, im not a leftist so i dont give a fuk about what any democrat including obama is saying about immigration and since im not a leftist i have no problem saying black people are responsible for the situation that we are in

i dont blame immgrants for the situation we are in, i just dont think its in my interests as a black person for the us to be flooded by immigrants and i think the laws should be enforced better, and overall as a citizens i dont think its good for the US overall to INCREASE legal immigration, i think there are issues about culture, inequality and social cohesion that make increasing immigration detrimental

 

[mbewane]

most black people dont ccare or are just following liberals in the democratic party who want amnesty, im not a leftist so i dont give a fuk about what any democrat including obama is saying about immigration and since im not a leftist i have no problem saying black people are responsible for the situation that we are in

i dont blame immgrants for the situation we are in, i just dont think its in my interests as a black person for the us to be flooded by immigrants and i think the laws should be enforced better, and overall as a citizens i dont think its good for the US overall to INCREASE legal immigration, i think there are issues about culture, inequality and social cohesion that make increasing immigration detrimental

I understand all of that, but the fact remains: as you rightfully pointed out, there are other pressure groups who are well organized and who are logically defending their own interests. And those interests obviously contradict yours, and play into the hand of however is in charge/powerful enough. Situation won't change until Black Americans find a way to organize themselves.

To me, and I'm glad you said the bolded, I'm pretty sure that immigrants will be the new scapegoat for all struggling americans, including black americans. Never fails.

 

[theworldismine13]

I understand all of that, but the fact remains: as you rightfully pointed out, there are other pressure groups who are well organized and who are logically defending their own interests. And those interests obviously contradict yours, and play into the hand of however is in charge/powerful enough. Situation won't change until Black Americans find a way to organize themselves.

To me, and I'm glad you said the bolded, I'm pretty sure that immigrants will be the new scapegoat for all struggling americans, including black americans. Never fails.

on this issue the hispanic and asian groups, the corporations and the leftists are all on the same team, the only people standing up to this monstrosity is me and the tea party