Ban
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:33:54 +0000
Kaltros
A hefty fine on employers that makes it prohibitively expensive to get caught with illegal workers would probably do the trick. Coupled with better enforcement of immigration law, among other things. Employers couldn't hire illegals if most of the illegals got deported.
See, that's the uncomfortable truth about migrant labor. A good portion of our agricultural sector is based on it. Americans don't want those jobs. They're hard, and they pay s**t in order for the people running the farms and produce stores and everything in between to be able to get a reasonable salary while not affecting consumer demand with high prices. You get rid of migrant labor, fruit either rots on the vine or you have to start paying citizens a large amount, with unions and so forth involved, and that means fewer jobs because there simply isn't enough consumer demand for American grown fruit. It'd be cheaper to import.
Kaltros
Then you could compare different subgroups as well if you like. Native-born whites, 3.8 percent become small business owners. Immigrant Latinos, 2.0 percent, immigrant blacks, 2.1 percent.
But, the fact is, Latinos are the ones that want to immigrate, and they do it in large enough numbers that they will likely continue to own a huge amount of businesses.
Kaltros
105,000 out of nearly 6 million. Which is about 1.75 percent of the total businesses. This despite there being around 50 million latinos in the country, or about 16 percent of the total population.
So, y'know, bad math.
Kaltros
Could you be more specific when you say "most economic studies"? That's too vague as is.
Illegal immigration actually is a better example of this, because illegals often aren't competing for American jobs at all, because the jobs they take would violate minimum wage or employment laws, and hence wouldn't be offered to Americans. But the fact that they take the jobs means that productive work is being done and that there is work elsewhere. Again, the migrant laborer picks fruit for a buck an hour, that means there's a job for the farmer who owns the fields, for the truck driver who transports the fruit, for the distribution guys who package and ship the stuff to stores, for the grocery clerk who works the produce section, and so forth.
Kaltros
You see that site's blatant partisanship and bias in implying that any anti-immigration statement couldn't possibly be factual? You need to find a less obviously biased source, Ban.
Kaltros
Weak in what way? They strongly correlate. Do you deny that immigration has increased significantly since 1965, or that, as the NYT article says, wages have stagnated or fallen since 1970? If you deny neither claim, you have to accept that they correlate with each other over the same time period. Correlation means that two or more things occur together.
To make an analogy:
Kaltros
The point is that in a given geographic area and over a given time period, jobs are not unlimited. Only a certain amount of jobs exist at a given time and/or place.
Kaltros
Labor supply is the most important factor when it comes to unemployment.
Kaltros
Perhaps you'd like to explain why a steady unemployment rate is even measured from month to month if it is so wildly fluctuating and uncertain like you suggest.
Kaltros
A new consumer means a new consumer, which may or may not result in new jobs. Companies in general try their hardest to maximize productivity without needing to hire more workers. Hiring more workers, in general, is a last resort. If a company can find a way to make a lot more money without hiring a single new worker, that company will pursue it. The prevalence of machine labor in some industries is an example of this. Because of the increase of productivity from machines, fewer workers can produce more. Which, for that particular industry, reduces the number of jobs.
Kaltros
On the contrary. Your argument is pretty thin so far, mostly a bunch of theoretical babbling that you haven't supported with evidence. If argument is contradicted by reality, the argument must give way.
So, yes, when reality contradicts, the principal must fall away. The problem is that you aren't living in reality.