Political Roundtable Part XXIV

[stilldropin20]

coincidence between what? are you assuming that bc Trump is tweeting about immigrants that there's been substantive changes in immigration?

and what exactly do you think happened in 2008? what part of recovering from a recession can't you understand?

ok. simple question. do you or do you not believe in the time tested laws of supply and demand?

this is just more vague-posting and tweet-spamming, and continues to sidestep the issue (if there ever was one).

your original post was about jobs growth, and wanting to talk about jobs growth.

i asked what you wanted to say re: jobs

your replied with a post saying that immigration needs to be checked so as to protect jobs

i assumed then you wanted to talk about immigration, asked for you to clarify what your original post had to do with immigration

you then posted a vague screed about how immigrants are taking people's jobs, with irrelevant hypos and vague allusions to wage growth sprinkled in.

i then corrected your erroneous assertions re: the immigration process and asked you to clarify your point yet again

you came back with an insinuation that some time in the last 3 quarters, immigration policy has changed somehow to limit the supply of workers, and that is the reason for wage growth.

I replied that you're ignoring the fact that there's been steady wage growth since 2009, and no substantive changes to the number of border detentions or deportations - just an increase in emphasis by the president as a scare tactic. also that you don't seem to be focusing on the actual drivers of the american economy and instead fixating on the labor market, which was never in crisis.

and now you're pivoting to more vague posting about supply and demand, so I ask again - what is your point? the point that more people is bad? that less people is good? maybe. in a superficial, introductory level, yeah. but it took like 7-8 posts to pin you down and extract it from you, and that's only to get your assertion. you have no substance behind your stance - facts figures re: immigrant population changes, etc.

all you have is a basic premise that immigrants take american jobs, which is, again, a 5th grader's understanding of the issues - essentially parroting a South Park in saying DEY TOOK ERRRR JERBSSSS.


so yes. supply and demand curve, i'm familiar. decrease labor supply, increase employment demand. there is an equilibrium point where supply and demand is optimal. it's not at 0% employment. i've said that economists agree that the optimal unemployment rate is around 4%, which we are now. we are living in that world, and with respect to immigration policy, it does not require a wall, and it does not require detention of children or migrants.

but i don't really expect, or really want an answer from you. i just want you to realize just how exhausting it is to engage you in this thread. i want to convey to you how pointless your contributions are.

we've been averaging about 2% on wage growth over the past year. 3.1% in the past month.

I'm open to data points to show otherwise but with inflation tends to be around 4% annually. Ideally you want to see wage growth at least at keep up with that, right?...well it has NOT for the last 25 years. In fact unskilled and low skilled wages have been stagnant for over 25 years. This is widely known. I posted charts earlier in the thread on this topic to demonstrate stagnant wages for the bottom 90% of the population with an uptick over the past 6 months.

Real wage growth is important to you, i hope?

And you would want that wage growth to keep up with or even outpace inflation, i hope?

And perhaps most importantly we want to see wages of the bottom 90% increase...<--aren't these the most important wages since it represent our poorest and largest group of people at the same time? Thats who we really want to help, right?

So lumping the poor together with the elites to conjure up a generic "wage growth is kind of meaningless if the people at the top get all the raises and the people at the bottom get nothing, right?

So our best indicators of the economy are indeed unemployment and wage growth of the bottom 90-95% , correct?

I mean i really hope we are in about 100% agreement on this?

Where we may differ is how to get there? how do you propose to increase wages? Just give it away? minimum wage law? perhaps...and ive said so many times throughout all of these threads.

But...I prefer to...follow me here...wait for it....here it comes....decrease the supply side of labor...specifically unskilled labor. Even more specifically immigrant unskilled labor. They are hungrier and will work harder for lower wages than comfortable americans. We know this. its proven throughout time...and good on immigrants...nearly all of us or are families came here as poor immigrants and good on those immigrants for coming here and being hungry. Nothing wrong with being hungry and working hard! I'm all for it!

In decades past (up until 1980), we had a need as we had tons of manufacturing here. Immigrants and manufacturing created a massive middle class. But now those jobs have been becoming both automated and have moved overseas as well as competition in central and south america and canada. In the late 70's, massive financial investment into china began a cosmic shift of manufacturing from the US and into China.

Which has left a lot of american families on the sidelines for a few decades. Americans are left unmotivated to work for $7.25 per hour. Or even $11-15 per hour. Its a low wage and not really livable in any city. So american have elected for a life style of entitlements instead which (sadly) pay more money. Section 8 housing and money and food stamps for a fmaily of 4 pays about $40,000 per year (tax free). Thats a $30 per hour job to take home $40k!

So why are you struggling to take the leap that over saturation(aka over supply) of any given labor market suppresses wages in that labor market??? That's really odd. I guess the part you refuse to accept is that immigrants are saturating are already saturated unskilled labor labor market?? I'm not really seeing why you want to perform all of these mental gymnastics to come to understand something you already understand but refuse to concede: that any given labor market is subject to the laws of supply and demand just like anything else.

See...if only 15 people on the entire planet can make up an NBA roster at any given point then those wages will naturally rise and in fact rise so high that ownership will need to artificially suppress the amount that they can pay both rookies and free agents with specific wage guidelines. <--you can follow that part right? Conversely if nearly all 280 Million US citizens can (sweep up a floor) then those wages will be lower because anyone can do it...even 16 year old kids and immigrants who can and will work for much less than a father with 3 children.


So what if we needed 400 million street sweepers though? and we only had 280 million available. Wages would rise, correct? As corporation compete for the labor? Wages would naturally rise as various employers fight over street sweepers...not unlike the NBA free agency where we see GM's outbid each other. and often.


So the fact remains that the best way to get wages to rise....especially for the working poor...is to maximize employment to the max(low UE numbers) plus jobs growth!! Right!!?? We end up with virtual unemployment, right! and that what everything under 4% is right? and we've been under 4% for almost 1 year right? and during that years wage growth has spiked the highest in 22 years, right? (it has) pull the charts!

Wow!! its amazing right? its almost as if the laws of supply and demand still apply...even after 2000 years!!

And during the entire trump admin he has been curtailing immigration in respect to jobs demand...True...Trump is lewtting is more immigrants than obama....but trump has way lower UE rates and way more total existing jobs plus new jobs.<--thats why UE is so low!! Historically low!! when you look at available jobs vs. immigration...you will find that ratio at its highest in decades.

Trump could, instead...open the flood gates and allow massive immigration right now...in fact he could even promote it! We could spend money to bring in more and more caravans!! And in fact...GDP would grow even more than it is now...because right now we have more jobs available than qualified US citizens to perform those jobs.

But....BUT!!!! Would this help our working poor? Would this help existing poor american in the unskilled labor markets...more specifically would it help their wage growth??? No...in fact it would not...because there would not be a shortage of the supply of labor and instead an excess (or over supply) of labor. get it? There it is again! supply and demand!

And frankly this entire exercise of mental gymanstics is quite intuitive using very basic logic that simply follows the very basic laws of (again) supply and demand that we've known and understand for thousands of years...ever since the market was first cornered on the shekel a couple thousand years ago and modern banking as we know it was created.

Failing to see this logic is quite odd. Weird even. So odd and weird that you must be purposefully be "playing dense" to not see it. Or even more sinister...you do see it and you just dont care about existing working poor american wages. Which means you dont care about african americans because proportionately they make up the largest portion of poor and working poor people in the united states and by large margin. But I'm guessing that that is not your target. Or if it is you wont admit it. You target instead is what you think is trumps "hillbilly" base of unskilled labor that now has his approval rating at 50% according to rasmussen a couple days ago. But here's the question...daoneandonly, Nate33, indu, GOC, myself and maybe a couple other poster are the indentified trump supporters in this thread...do you think any of us are broke dick unskilled hillbillys? Or even working poor? Fact is trump's base is much smarter than you and most give credit for and understand these simple concepts quite well. They have been working as both skilled and unskilled labor on conctruciton sites for decades...and in kitchens around town...and in hotels...and in steel plants. they recall, 30 years ago...being paid $22 per hour starting wage for these jobs...that now have starting wages at 12-15 per hour and hire immigrants. Its real simple to them: get rid of the immigrants and the employer will be forced to pay them $25 per hour and up!

And i understand that you may not think it is that simple. Let me assure...as a builder...it is that simple...and i think i'm not only the only doctor in this thread? that employs a ton of female unskilled, slightly skilled and highly skilled labor? And I'm also the only builder/developer house flipper beside indu? So let me tell you what happens when the economy tanks. the credit markets close and builders with out cash stop building...and all the contractors get laid off. That's when i build...because i can get them to stay on my jobs and at a fair wage...But, when the economy picks back up...they get much higher wages elsewhere. why? supply and demand.

[pancakes3]

i don't know how many other ways i can say "yes, supply and demand holds, but the evidence does not bear out that immigration provides enough people to move the needle re: wages"

for instance, immigration is not wiping out coal jobs, a changing energy industry is wiping out coal jobs.

if immigration levels rise to the level where there is an influx of 400 million street sweepers, ok, let's talk. but it isn't. so you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. building the wall is fearmongering. it's not protecting jobs.

[Sedale Threatt]

The Mueller Investigation Nears The Worst-Case Scenario

WE ARE DEEP into the worst case scenarios. But as new sentencing memos for Trump associates Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen make all too clear, the only remaining question is how bad does the actual worst case scenario get?

The potential innocent explanations for Donald Trump’s behavior over the last two years have been steadily stripped away, piece by piece. Special counsel Robert Mueller and investigative reporters have uncovered and assembled a picture of a presidential campaign and transition seemingly infected by unprecedented deceit and criminality, and in regular — almost obsequious — contact with America’s leading foreign adversary.

A year ago, Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes and Quinta Jurecic outlined seven possible scenarios about Trump and Russia, arranged from most innocent to most guilty. Fifth on that list was “Russian Intelligence Actively Penetrated the Trump Campaign — And Trump Knew or Should Have Known,” escalating from there to #6 “Kompromat,” and topping out at the once unimaginable #7, “The President of the United States is a Russian Agent.”

After the latest disclosures, we’re steadily into Scenario #5, and can easily imagine #6.

The Cohen and Manafort court documents all provide new details, revelations, and hints of more to come. They’re a reminder, also, that Mueller’s investigation continues alongside an investigation by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York that clearly alleges that Donald Trump participated in a felony, directing Cohen to violate campaign finance laws to cover up extramarital affairs.

Through his previous indictments against Russian military intelligence and the Russian Internet Research Agency, Mueller has laid out a criminal conspiracy and espionage campaign approved, according to US intelligence, by Vladimir Putin himself. More recently, Mueller has begun to hint at the long arm of that intelligence operation, and how it connects to the core of the Trump campaign itself.

https://www.wired.com/story/manafort-cohen-sentencing-trump-mueller-investigation-worst-case-scenario/

[Sedale Threatt]

i don't know how many other ways i can say "yes, supply and demand holds, but the evidence does not bear out that immigration provides enough people to move the needle re: wages"

for instance, immigration is not wiping out coal jobs, a changing energy industry is wiping out coal jobs.

if immigration levels rise to the level where there is an influx of 400 million street sweepers, ok, let's talk. but it isn't. so you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. building the wall is fearmongering. it's not protecting jobs.

Illegal immigration is cheap fear-mongering, nothing more. The GOP has been pushing this button for decades. The only thing that changes is the target -- blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, whatever.

This wasn't even a Top 10 issue for conservatives in the 2012 election, after which the numbers continued to decline.

What changed? Trump started pushing that button from his very first campaign declaration, and idiots have been responding to it ever since. Frankly, it's pretty much all he's got.

[stilldropin20]

i don't know how many other ways i can say "yes, supply and demand holds, but the evidence does not bear out that immigration provides enough people to move the needle re: wages"

for instance, immigration is not wiping out coal jobs, a changing energy industry is wiping out coal jobs.

if immigration levels rise to the level where there is an influx of 400 million street sweepers, ok, let's talk. but it isn't. so you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. building the wall is fearmongering. it's not protecting jobs.

Illegal immigration is cheap fear-mongering, nothing more. The GOP has been pushing this button for decades. The only thing that changes is the target -- blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, whatever.

This wasn't even a Top 10 issue for conservatives in the 2012 election, after which the numbers continued to decline.

What changed? Trump started pushing that button from his very first campaign declaration, and idiots have been responding to it ever since. Frankly, it's pretty much all he's got.

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

i don't know how many other ways i can say "yes, supply and demand holds, but the evidence does not bear out that immigration provides enough people to move the needle re: wages"

for instance, immigration is not wiping out coal jobs, a changing energy industry is wiping out coal jobs.

if immigration levels rise to the level where there is an influx of 400 million street sweepers, ok, let's talk. but it isn't. so you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. building the wall is fearmongering. it's not protecting jobs.

Illegal immigration is cheap fear-mongering, nothing more. The GOP has been pushing this button for decades. The only thing that changes is the target -- blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, whatever.

This wasn't even a Top 10 issue for conservatives in the 2012 election, after which the numbers continued to decline.

What changed? Trump started pushing that button from his very first campaign declaration, and idiots have been responding to it ever since. Frankly, it's pretty much all he's got.

Actually, there are real issues. And yes, Trump has brought those issues to the front by using fear tactics. Leave it to Trump to identify an issue and then provide no meaningful way of addressing the issue.

The issues:

1) We have a demographic time bomb and our labor participation rates are down (figure to follow)
2) We were intentionally ignoring the rule of law, we don't have an answer for birthright citizenship
3) We need skilled and unskilled labor (just in different ratios than previously.

The demographic time bomb that has started due to low birthrates will affect GDP and social services in time unless we have a solid immigration policy that prioritizes immigrants with skills, are the right age and other factors that favor the US. We actually need a much higher rate of immigration than we have now.

And then there were those that said that if you came into the country illegally, you should be granted citizenship. The problem with this policy is that it becomes a false hope magnet for those that want to come to the US. We can't possibly take all those that would like to come here. And that is a cognitive dissonance issue (there are more that want to come here than we can handle). This is also a blatant violation of the rule of law (even though morally right). And regardless of the back and forth, it has and does tax our social service programs.

There is a compromise here - but one that both sides don't want. A one time grant of citizenship for the dreamers and agreement that birthright citizenship is just for citizens (with a definition that one of the parents must be a citizen) and familial immigration will be tied to a weighting system (described below).

As a note: Remember who initially pushed to have illegal immigration? Those were the farmers (mostly Rs) that needed cheap labor to pick their crops and other businesses that needed cheap labor for factory and building jobs. Businesses have run out of H1B visas as well. Well, those businesses still need that labor. But we have a whole group of other businesses that have labor shortages as well.

The answer, have a meaningful immigration target and have a weighting system that gets you to the right ratio of skilled to unskilled labor (which could be humanitarian based).

[dckingsfan]

Labor participation rate

[pancakes3]

1) We have a demographic time bomb and our labor participation rates are down (figure to follow)
2) We were intentionally ignoring the rule of law, we don't have an answer for birthright citizenship
3) We need skilled and unskilled labor (just in different ratios than previously.

1) Are you asserting that immigration is depressing labor force participation?
2) Illegal immigrants can't use birthright to get citizenship. Their "anchor babies" can, but that baby needs to be 18 before it can sponsor their illegal parents. It's really not much of an incentive for immigration.
3) Policy change, specifically re: quotas really won't affect the number of illegal immigrants. Even deterrence and punishment policies will only have a marginal effect in dampening illegal entry because the real incentive of economic gain is a more powerful driver for immigration.

From a free market argument, immigration is just the invisible hand correcting labor shortages. If there aren't enough jobs in America, then immigration will slow, stop, or even reverse.

[dckingsfan]

1) We have a demographic time bomb and our labor participation rates are down (figure to follow)
2) We were intentionally ignoring the rule of law, we don't have an answer for birthright citizenship
3) We need skilled and unskilled labor (just in different ratios than previously.

1) Are you asserting that immigration is depressing labor force participation?
2) Illegal immigrants can't use birthright to get citizenship. Their "anchor babies" can, but that baby needs to be 18 before it can sponsor their illegal parents. It's really not much of an incentive for immigration.
3) Policy change, specifically re: quotas really won't affect the number of illegal immigrants. Even deterrence and punishment policies will only have a marginal effect in dampening illegal entry because the real incentive of economic gain is a more powerful driver for immigration.

From a free market argument, immigration is just the invisible hand correcting labor shortages. If there aren't enough jobs in America, then immigration will slow, stop, or even reverse.

1) No, I am saying that our labor force is shrinking and we need more immigrants of the right type.
2) I am saying that "anchor babies" shouldn't be given automatic citizenship. And I am saying if a parent is deported, the child should go with them without citizenship.
3) False, if we target companies, if we make it clear that you will never be a citizen, if we keep deporting illegal aliens and if we have a proper process to boost our legal immigration you can substantially eliminate illegal immigration. This has been done in many other countries and it has worked.

And no, it isn't a free market argument. There are literally a billion individuals that would happily and immediately migrate to the US even if there are no jobs. They would do so because of the repressive or lawless countries they live in. It is a what is best for the US - and that would be to take in immigrants that meet our need.

Things have changed in terms of social services, transportation, demographics, etc.. Our immigration policies need to shift as well.

[pancakes3]

1) We have a demographic time bomb and our labor participation rates are down (figure to follow)
2) We were intentionally ignoring the rule of law, we don't have an answer for birthright citizenship
3) We need skilled and unskilled labor (just in different ratios than previously.

1) Are you asserting that immigration is depressing labor force participation?
2) Illegal immigrants can't use birthright to get citizenship. Their "anchor babies" can, but that baby needs to be 18 before it can sponsor their illegal parents. It's really not much of an incentive for immigration.
3) Policy change, specifically re: quotas really won't affect the number of illegal immigrants. Even deterrence and punishment policies will only have a marginal effect in dampening illegal entry because the real incentive of economic gain is a more powerful driver for immigration.

From a free market argument, immigration is just the invisible hand correcting labor shortages. If there aren't enough jobs in America, then immigration will slow, stop, or even reverse.

1) No, I am saying that our labor force is shrinking and we need more immigrants of the right type.
2) I am saying that "anchor babies" shouldn't be given automatic citizenship. And I am saying if a parent is deported, the child should go with them without citizenship.
3) False, if we target companies, if we make it clear that you will never be a citizen, if we keep deporting illegal aliens and if we have a proper process to boost our legal immigration you can substantially eliminate illegal immigration. This has been done in many other countries and it has worked.

And no, it isn't a free market argument. There are literally a billion individuals that would happily and immediately migrate to the US even if there are no jobs. They would do so because of the repressive or lawless countries they live in. It is a what is best for the US - and that would be to take in immigrants that meet our need.

Things have changed in terms of social services, transportation, demographics, etc.. Our immigration policies need to shift as well.

so why shouldn't there be birthright citizenship?
and what's stopping the billion individuals from immediately migrating to the U.S. right now?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[stilldropin20]

1) Are you asserting that immigration is depressing labor force participation?
2) Illegal immigrants can't use birthright to get citizenship. Their "anchor babies" can, but that baby needs to be 18 before it can sponsor their illegal parents. It's really not much of an incentive for immigration.
3) Policy change, specifically re: quotas really won't affect the number of illegal immigrants. Even deterrence and punishment policies will only have a marginal effect in dampening illegal entry because the real incentive of economic gain is a more powerful driver for immigration.

From a free market argument, immigration is just the invisible hand correcting labor shortages. If there aren't enough jobs in America, then immigration will slow, stop, or even reverse.

1) No, I am saying that our labor force is shrinking and we need more immigrants of the right type.
2) I am saying that "anchor babies" shouldn't be given automatic citizenship. And I am saying if a parent is deported, the child should go with them without citizenship.
3) False, if we target companies, if we make it clear that you will never be a citizen, if we keep deporting illegal aliens and if we have a proper process to boost our legal immigration you can substantially eliminate illegal immigration. This has been done in many other countries and it has worked.

And no, it isn't a free market argument. There are literally a billion individuals that would happily and immediately migrate to the US even if there are no jobs. They would do so because of the repressive or lawless countries they live in. It is a what is best for the US - and that would be to take in immigrants that meet our need.

Things have changed in terms of social services, transportation, demographics, etc.. Our immigration policies need to shift as well.

so why shouldn't there be birthright citizenship?
and what's stopping the billion individuals from immediately migrating to the U.S. right now?

pancakes, you are over thinking this.

I forget if you are a lawyer or accountant...or econ guy...but how would you feel if we only allowed people unto the country that are qualified to do your job? Over supplied you labor market with immigrants? Would you like that?

And more importantly would it be fair to you?

because that is what we have been doing to the unskilled labor market for 120 years.

But it is compounded now because we have:

1. lost jobs overseas
2. unskilled jobs have become automated.

It's simply not fair to the unskilled laborers to keep allowing so much unskilled labor into the country.

Please Dont forget that since 2000, on average over 1,000,000 people apply for asylum or otherwise seek citizenship to become legal immigrants in our country for work every single year!! 18 million in 18 years!!! Most enter illegally and apply for change of status once they are here.

Thats over 100,000 per month!! Do you really think we have that many jobs available?? And most of it is unskilled labor.

Do you really think these volumes of immigration is insignificant?? That this type of volume wont affect the supply side of labor?? You cant be serious. I cant take that serious. We only have 125 Million full time employed people in the US...

Especially when we consider the overwhelming majority of those immigrants are classified as unskilled labor.

Unskilled labor is taking the hit. here. not the doctors. not the lawyers. not the CPA's. Not the teachers. Not anyone except unskilled labor. and per capita, black and brown folks make up significantly larger proportions of unskilled labor.

So what we are really talking about here is an over supply of immigrants over saturating the unskilled labor market and suppressing wages for existing black and brown folks!! Is that cool? Is that fair?

Now I ask, what is more "racist" policy? Overstaurating the unskilled labor markets with immigrants? Or decreasing immigrants that are classified as unskilled labor?


^^^This is the entire basis of the GOP immigration policy^^^

And democrats dont care about reality. Instead they want to charge up their base and make this an emotional issue where "brown people" are being stopped at the border." Or worse "locked up in cages."

thats why GOP wants a wall. so you cant get even get in to claim asylum.

Remove the emotional aspect at vet people properly at the border for drugs, violence, sex trafficking and to NOT OVER SATURATE any given labor market with too many immigrants which will unfairly suppress wages in that sector.

Democrats obfuscate the real issues DCKings and I have outlined in detail to make it a stupid emotional decision all because they simply want the votes. Democrats are willing to open our borders and let everyone in who wants to come in and give them entitlements so that they stay here so long as dems think that they will vote for democrats. Thats their plan! And liberal voters support just because they want Dems back in power or to remain in power.

And the GOP sees right through it. Our logic is sound. Dem logic is very very weak and in fact nothing more than emotional fodder filled with lies and smoke and mirrors to motivate their base.

over saturation of any given jobs market is a REAL ISSUE.

and over immigration is a real issue as well...we simply just cant let everyone in. We are forced to pick and choose...and we SHOULD pick the best people that fits our needs the best, right? So as to help everyone? So everyone wins, right? We should all win here...especially poor and working poor americans!! <-- they need the "win" the most...and reducing their competition for jobs gives them the clear win.

[pancakes3]

pancakes, you are over thinking this.

...

Please Dont forget that since 2000, on average over 1,000,000 people apply for asylum or otherwise seek citizenship to become legal immigrants in our country for work every single year!! 18 million in 18 years!!! Most enter illegally and apply for change of status once they are here.

Thats over 100,000 per month!! Do you really think we have that many jobs available?? And most of it is unskilled labor.

...

And democrats dont care about reality. Instead they want to charge up their base and make this an emotional issue where "brown people" are being stopped at the border." Or worse "locked up in cages."

thats why GOP wants a wall. so you cant get even get in to claim asylum.

...

Democrats obfuscate the real issues DCKings and I have outlined in detail to make it a stupid emotional decision all because they simply want the votes.

...

And the GOP sees right through it. Our logic is sound. Dem logic is very very weak and in fact nothing more than emotional fodder filled with lies and smoke and mirrors to motivate their base.

over saturation of any given jobs market is a REAL ISSUE.

- you're underthinking it.
- the actual numbers of asylum/refugee combined is less than 100k a year, and since 2000 the number is at about 1 million over 18 years
- scaring ppl with false numbers is not reality, nor is it grounded in logic.
- scaring ppl with false numbers is exactly the plea to emotions, lying with smoke and mirrors that you're railing against. not to mention your pathetic attempt to draw out my emotional support with your "scary" hypo that foreign lawyers are here to take my job*
- it is not a real issue.

so please, inform yourself instead of grabbing and spreading unsourced, untrue information upon which to build and reinforce your faulty world view. it doesn't cost any less than a quick trip to even wikipedia.

and that's just with respect to you underthinking your own premise that immigration is affecting the economy. we're not even discussing the fact that in addition to the labor market, there are other markets that play a role in the overall economy. immigration is not a panacea. it's not even a significant factor.

your hypothesis is that there is that but for the wall, immigrants will pour into this country and force unemployment when we have decades of data bearing out that immigration does not affect unemployment. larger macroeconomic factors at play - which you yourself even acknowledge, factors such as automation is an actual influence on employment.

there are so many more fallacies to attack. for instance, the faulty premise that unskilled labor is somehow desirable. why can't the solution to the loss of unskilled jobs be that we create skilled jobs to replace those losses?

put it this way, McDonalds has put int self-order kiosks in an effort to eliminate the low-skill job of cashier. however, it has created a high skill job in the manufacturing, coding, and maintenance of those kiosks in doing so. that job going away has nothing to do with low-skilled workers flooding the labor market, it has to do with technological advances and the obsolescence of the cashier position. these are the superseding economic factors that are "destroying" jobs such as manufacturing and certain low-skill service jobs.

and the solution isn't to bring those jobs back, but to retrain the workforce to take on new jobs.

all of this has been a talking point for 200 years - ever since the industrial revolution. it's pretty basic, and i feel silly explaining it.

*which is it, SD? are immigrants coming to take American jobs, or is unemployment increasing and decreasing with no causation, or even correlation tied to the number of immigrants coming into this country? i've already conceded that if indeed a billion people, or even 400 million, are knocking down the door, and unemployment is sky high, then there would be a discussion here. but none of those things are happening, and to act as if it is, well that's pretty much textbook fearmongering.

[dobrojim]

I’m surprised that no one has posted the news from the Cohen filings. Your President is a criminal and the only thing keeping him from being charged is the fact that he’s President.

This is now the 2nd time this has happened. In a world where all congresscritters held true to
their oath of office instead of their first allegiance being to their political party,
impeachment hearings in the house judiciary committee would have already started.

[stilldropin20]

pancakes, you are over thinking this.

...

Please Dont forget that since 2000, on average over 1,000,000 people apply for asylum or otherwise seek citizenship to become legal immigrants in our country for work every single year!! 18 million in 18 years!!! Most enter illegally and apply for change of status once they are here.

Thats over 100,000 per month!! Do you really think we have that many jobs available?? And most of it is unskilled labor.

...

And democrats dont care about reality. Instead they want to charge up their base and make this an emotional issue where "brown people" are being stopped at the border." Or worse "locked up in cages."

thats why GOP wants a wall. so you cant get even get in to claim asylum.

...

Democrats obfuscate the real issues DCKings and I have outlined in detail to make it a stupid emotional decision all because they simply want the votes.

...

And the GOP sees right through it. Our logic is sound. Dem logic is very very weak and in fact nothing more than emotional fodder filled with lies and smoke and mirrors to motivate their base.

over saturation of any given jobs market is a REAL ISSUE.

- you're underthinking it.
- the actual numbers of asylum/refugee combined is less than 100k a year, and since 2000 the number is at about 1 million over 18 years
- scaring ppl with false numbers is not reality, nor is it grounded in logic.
- scaring ppl with false numbers is exactly the plea to emotions, lying with smoke and mirrors that you're railing against. not to mention your pathetic attempt to draw out my emotional support with your "scary" hypo that foreign lawyers are here to take my job*
- it is not a real issue.

so please, inform yourself instead of grabbing and spreading unsourced, untrue information upon which to build and reinforce your faulty world view. it doesn't cost any less than a quick trip to even wikipedia.

and that's just with respect to you underthinking your own premise that immigration is affecting the economy. we're not even discussing the fact that in addition to the labor market, there are other markets that play a role in the overall economy. immigration is not a panacea. it's not even a significant factor.

your hypothesis is that there is that but for the wall, immigrants will pour into this country and force unemployment when we have decades of data bearing out that immigration does not affect unemployment. larger macroeconomic factors at play - which you yourself even acknowledge, factors such as automation is an actual influence on employment.

there are so many more fallacies to attack. for instance, the faulty premise that unskilled labor is somehow desirable. why can't the solution to the loss of unskilled jobs be that we create skilled jobs to replace those losses?

put it this way, McDonalds has put int self-order kiosks in an effort to eliminate the low-skill job of cashier. however, it has created a high skill job in the manufacturing, coding, and maintenance of those kiosks in doing so. that job going away has nothing to do with low-skilled workers flooding the labor market, it has to do with technological advances and the obsolescence of the cashier position. these are the superseding economic factors that are "destroying" jobs such as manufacturing and certain low-skill service jobs.

and the solution isn't to bring those jobs back, but to retrain the workforce to take on new jobs.

all of this has been a talking point for 200 years - ever since the industrial revolution. it's pretty basic, and i feel silly explaining it.

*which is it, SD? are immigrants coming to take American jobs, or is unemployment increasing and decreasing with no causation, or even correlation tied to the number of immigrants coming into this country? i've already conceded that if indeed a billion people, or even 400 million, are knocking down the door, and unemployment is sky high, then there would be a discussion here. but none of those things are happening, and to act as if it is, well that's pretty much textbook fearmongering.

you make some good points of which i agree and you also make some faulty assumptions.

I believe there is a middle ground between your arguments and my arguments.

you also claim i'm fear mongering which i am not. there is also nothing false in my statements.

half of the country want to limit immigration and understands this is an issue that needs fixing.

We do have 12-18 millions dreamers here. perhaps more. thats not an issue?

employment "off the books" is not an issue?

immigrants come here and use more entitlements than existing americans, thats not an issue?

because half of america (or more thinks these are issues).

I agree with you that need immigration...it will help GDP.

I agree we need unskilled labor.

i agree automation will continue to take jobs away and create other skilled jobs.

I agree we need to educate existing american more so they can take skilled jobs.

But can you at least agree that we can NOT allow everyone into the country? There must be limits? There must be intelligent controls to immigration? Or is this just a bad faith argument of your going nowhere operating under the assumptions that any type of immigration control is just a liberal talking point?

[dckingsfan]

1) Are you asserting that immigration is depressing labor force participation?
2) Illegal immigrants can't use birthright to get citizenship. Their "anchor babies" can, but that baby needs to be 18 before it can sponsor their illegal parents. It's really not much of an incentive for immigration.
3) Policy change, specifically re: quotas really won't affect the number of illegal immigrants. Even deterrence and punishment policies will only have a marginal effect in dampening illegal entry because the real incentive of economic gain is a more powerful driver for immigration.

From a free market argument, immigration is just the invisible hand correcting labor shortages. If there aren't enough jobs in America, then immigration will slow, stop, or even reverse.

1) No, I am saying that our labor force is shrinking and we need more immigrants of the right type.
2) I am saying that "anchor babies" shouldn't be given automatic citizenship. And I am saying if a parent is deported, the child should go with them without citizenship.
3) False, if we target companies, if we make it clear that you will never be a citizen, if we keep deporting illegal aliens and if we have a proper process to boost our legal immigration you can substantially eliminate illegal immigration. This has been done in many other countries and it has worked.

And no, it isn't a free market argument. There are literally a billion individuals that would happily and immediately migrate to the US even if there are no jobs. They would do so because of the repressive or lawless countries they live in. It is a what is best for the US - and that would be to take in immigrants that meet our need.

Things have changed in terms of social services, transportation, demographics, etc.. Our immigration policies need to shift as well.

so why shouldn't there be birthright citizenship?
and what's stopping the billion individuals from immediately migrating to the U.S. right now?

Birthright citizenship incents individuals to come into the country illegally to have kids (don't get me wrong - it isn't like millions are coming into the country each year to do this... it just doesn't align with creating a well formed policy.

Our border controls effectively stop individuals many from coming into the country. But I guess you know that isn't the point. We don't want to create a situation where individuals are paying coyotes to move them into the country. The notion is we want to stop that behavior, right?

The notion is we want a policy that works for the immigrants AND for the US citizens, right?

We don't have that right now.

[bsilver]

Labor participation rate

This seems to be a solvable problem if one analyzes the causes and possible solutions.
Causes:
Wage growth for low income jobs has not kept up with inflation. As the buying power of wages decreases, so does the incentive to work.
With the big increases in the cost of daycare, a 2 wage lower income family, find it more beneficial for a parent to stay home.
As low income family income increases, there is eventual loss of medicaid and chip benefits, making it more beneficial to keep benefits below the eligibility threshold by not having all work.
There are jobs, but they have moved to different areas than the non workers. And the wages are not high enough to provide incentive to move given high cost of living driven by factors such as unavailability of affordable housing.
There are jobs, but the non workers are not qualified due to lack of education or training.
Loss of benefits for single people if they work. eg, a hard working friend of mine has expensive medical needs. In CT, the income threshold for a single person is 16K for medicaid eligibility. So he works, but only off the books.

Possible solutions ( not saying it's easy, but for sake of discussion )
Increase wages, such as increasing the minimum wage.
Provide affordable housing.
Provide lower cost day care options.
Provide training.
Provide less expensive education.
Provide relocation assistance.
Have a medical system so everyone has access to medical care regardless of income.
Do not have benefit eligibility thresholds which de-incentivize people to work.

[montestewart]

Spoiler:

i don't know how many other ways i can say "yes, supply and demand holds, but the evidence does not bear out that immigration provides enough people to move the needle re: wages"

for instance, immigration is not wiping out coal jobs, a changing energy industry is wiping out coal jobs.

if immigration levels rise to the level where there is an influx of 400 million street sweepers, ok, let's talk. but it isn't. so you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. building the wall is fearmongering. it's not protecting jobs.

Illegal immigration is cheap fear-mongering, nothing more. The GOP has been pushing this button for decades. The only thing that changes is the target -- blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, whatever.

This wasn't even a Top 10 issue for conservatives in the 2012 election, after which the numbers continued to decline.

What changed? Trump started pushing that button from his very first campaign declaration, and idiots have been responding to it ever since. Frankly, it's pretty much all he's got.

Read on Twitter

All these rockers are the same height. Except one. Once you see that one, they will stop rockin' and become NBA players.

[stilldropin20]

Labor participation rate

This seems to be a solvable problem if one analyzes the causes and possible solutions.
Causes:
Wage growth for low income jobs has not kept up with inflation. As the buying power of wages decreases, so does the incentive to work.
With the big increases in the cost of daycare, a 2 wage lower income family, find it more beneficial for a parent to stay home.
As low income family income increases, there is eventual loss of medicaid and chip benefits, making it more beneficial to keep benefits below the eligibility threshold by not having all work.
There are jobs, but they have moved to different areas than the non workers. And the wages are not high enough to provide incentive to move given high cost of living driven by factors such as unavailability of affordable housing.
There are jobs, but the non workers are not qualified due to lack of education or training.
Loss of benefits for single people if they work. eg, a hard working friend of mine has expensive medical needs. In CT, the income threshold for a single person is 16K for medicaid eligibility. So he works, but only off the books.

Possible solutions ( not saying it's easy, but for sake of discussion )
Increase wages, such as increasing the minimum wage.
Provide affordable housing.
Provide lower cost day care options.
Provide training.
Provide less expensive education.
Provide relocation assistance.
Have a medical system so everyone has access to medical care regardless of income.
Do not have benefit eligibility thresholds which de-incentivize people to work.

^^^not bad. there is more to it than this. and all of your proposed solutions seems to place the burden directly on tax payers.

but sticking to the theme central your ideas...how about:

1. you "must work" in order to receive such benefits you describe?
2. or your parents "must work" for children to receieve such benefits? For Parents that refuse to work, DCFS get involved?
3. and corporations "must pay" to relocate employees?
4. corporations "must pay" to train the underskilled?
5. large Corporations "must provide" (on site) day care?

^^^These are simple laws!!! 65% of US citizens would be behind such legislation. However, when it become a (direct) tax to the US government that is very wasteful, is when the majority of US citzens do NOT support it.

You get the same solutions. and costs go up as corps will charge more for their goods but you DONT have to buy the goods!! Hidden tax (like tariffs) is always better than direct tax.

Basically...force our corporations to pay for this stuff!!??

They profit from selling goods and services to the american people...why not force them to "pay more?" We know they will become more efficient at training, relocating, and educating people than the federal government.

taking it a step further...and even more radically...lets force people to work if they have children???

YOU (the parent) must provide for them...if you dont, your children will be removed from you and you will be arrested for child abuse...and more importantly you will serve time in a forced labor camp...working on roads and bridges or cleaning up neighborhoods, etc. Your pay will be docked to pay for the needs of your child. You will be given time to apply for jobs while in labor camp...you dont get out until you find gainful employment elsewhere.

This forces our american workforce that is on the sideline to work. And it forces corporations to pay out more in benefits. I am fine with raising federal min wage (for american US citizens) so long as those increased wages are paid to US citizens.

Here's another "solve" for immigration. Raise federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. Non citizens are paid the full amounts by corporations...BUT!!! Taxed at 70%!! 70% of their wages go to the federal givernment for entitlements to US citizens!! NON citzens are not eligibel for entitlements besides "emergency" and "vaccine level" medical?

Why not?? If you truly want to come here to the US then "do your time" at a 70% taxation rate for at least 5 years...after which you are granted immediate citizenship given you have not committed any violent or major crimes.

How about that??? Win-win! for everyone!! All sides win!!

[stilldropin20]

Spoiler:

Illegal immigration is cheap fear-mongering, nothing more. The GOP has been pushing this button for decades. The only thing that changes is the target -- blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, whatever.

This wasn't even a Top 10 issue for conservatives in the 2012 election, after which the numbers continued to decline.

What changed? Trump started pushing that button from his very first campaign declaration, and idiots have been responding to it ever since. Frankly, it's pretty much all he's got.

Read on Twitter

All these rockers are the same height. Except one. Once you see that one, they will stop rockin' and become NBA players.

"status quo"... "on the level" amazeballz cover!!

but my god their music is terrible...awful. everyone, do yourself a favor do not go and look them up on youtube. They are the worst!