Welcome to Gaia! ::

Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

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.
Sure they would. Because the alternative is hiring Americans who want more pay than is profitable at current prices, or oranges that cost ten dollars a pop.

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.
One might point out that these immigrants often come from developing areas and have a lower level of educational attainment. And yet native born whites have less than twice the rate of business ownership. Yet, the white immigrants have about 3 percentage points on native whites when you include the whites from developing countries. In developed countries comparable to the U.S., rates go up quite a lot, especially after they've had time to acclimate.

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.
Where are you getting 6 million? All the data in the source is a little out of date, but pegs the number at about 4.5 million small businesses. And we're talking immigrant owned businesses, not all Latinos. And also legal immigrants.

So, y'know, bad math.

Kaltros
Could you be more specific when you say "most economic studies"? That's too vague as is.
Most as in the majority? It's not a vague term. Immigration is not strongly correlated to unemployment. The argument that it is, well, that isn't based in data, but a zero-sum fallacy.

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.
That's because most anti-immigration aren't factual. But, beyond that, your argument is an argumentum ad hominem. You're not actually attacking any of the material provided.

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.
Weak in that you haven't controlled for variables.
To make an analogy:User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

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.
Yes, at any particular moment, at a certain point in space, there are only a certain number of jobs. That means absolutely nothing, because that number changes all the time, and there is a great amount of mobility in this country. While jobs are not unlimited, they are not a fixed value in any sense.

Kaltros
Labor supply is the most important factor when it comes to unemployment.
Not really. Demand for labor would be more important, since it's what determines whether labor supply is insufficient or abundant.

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.
Unemployment rate is merely a measure of the number of people seeking work. It's not a measure of jobs. That's why we can add several thousand workers to the market and tens of thousands of jobs and still maintain a stable unemployment rate. You're confusing an abstraction for the reality. The reality is that people lose their jobs every day and people get hired every day. There's constant churn.

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.
And in the case of those industries, the loss of work isn't due to immigrants, but mechanization. What are you, a Luddite and a Nativist? Way to hit all the high points of the 19th century.

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.
I've provided numerous sources demonstrating the economic value of immigration and arguments explaining them. You have continued to expound logical fallacies and bad math as counters, and no data of your own.

So, yes, when reality contradicts, the principal must fall away. The problem is that you aren't living in reality.
Ban
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.
Sure they would. Because the alternative is hiring Americans who want more pay than is profitable at current prices, or oranges that cost ten dollars a pop.

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.


Illegal immigrants are illegal. Basing an industry on illegal labor is a form of criminal activity, basically, and shouldn't be tolerated no matter how profitable it is. The rule of law has to come before profit.

If foreign labor is required, it would be better to have a temporary guest worker program like Canada's, in which foreign workers do the work and then, once that's done, return back home. No more of this amnesty nonsense.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170775228/the-mexico-canada-guest-worker-program-a-model-for-the-u-s


Quote:

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.
One might point out that these immigrants often come from developing areas and have a lower level of educational attainment. And yet native born whites have less than twice the rate of business ownership. Yet, the white immigrants have about 3 percentage points on native whites when you include the whites from developing countries. In developed countries comparable to the U.S., rates go up quite a lot, especially after they've had time to acclimate.


What's your source for the claim that their rates go up a lot in countries comparable to the U.S.? And how is that relevant? Do you have a source for a similar rise in rates over time here in the U.S.?


Quote:

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.
Where are you getting 6 million?


http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html

I got the numbers from the table for 2008. If you add up the number of firms that employ between 1 and 99 employees, you get 5,821,277. It's several years out of date because they don't collect the data for every year.

Quote:

And we're talking immigrant owned businesses, not all Latinos. And also legal immigrants.

So, y'know, bad math.


No, at worst bad starting assumptions. So what do you think would be an accurate number for the legal Mexican immigrants?



Quote:

Kaltros
Could you be more specific when you say "most economic studies"? That's too vague as is.
Most as in the majority? It's not a vague term. Immigration is not strongly correlated to unemployment. The argument that it is, well, that isn't based in data, but a zero-sum fallacy.


If the majority are as you claim, it shouldn't be too hard to track down several and link to them.
We can't both look over the same data if you don't provide links to specific sources.


Quote:

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.


Hmm, source for the idea that most or even just many illegals work agriculture for sub-minimum wages?


Quote:

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.
That's because most anti-immigration aren't factual. But, beyond that, your argument is an argumentum ad hominem. You're not actually attacking any of the material provided.


Provide proof of your claim that "most anti-immigration aren't factual". And, the ad hominem fallacy requires an actual argument to have any bearing. All you did was toss the site at me. If you want to pick a particular article, go ahead. I'm not going to address every single article at once.


Quote:

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.
Weak in that you haven't controlled for variables.
To make an analogy:User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


You don't have to control for variables when noting correlation. You'd do the variable control when you wanted to pin down more precisely cause and effect.


Quote:

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.
Yes, at any particular moment, at a certain point in space, there are only a certain number of jobs. That means absolutely nothing, because that number changes all the time, and there is a great amount of mobility in this country. While jobs are not unlimited, they are not a fixed value in any sense.


If jobs are not unlimited, doesn't it follow logically that past a certain number of people there wouldn't be enough jobs to employ everybody?


Quote:

Kaltros
Labor supply is the most important factor when it comes to unemployment.
Not really. Demand for labor would be more important, since it's what determines whether labor supply is insufficient or abundant.


Excess labor supply can meet rising demand, but rising demand cannot create more labor out of thin air, can it? Employers can't just snap their fingers and wish employees into existence.


Quote:

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.
And in the case of those industries, the loss of work isn't due to immigrants, but mechanization.


You were arguing that immigrants becoming consumers would necessarily lead to more jobs, which was the point I addressed.


Quote:

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.
I've provided numerous sources demonstrating the economic value of immigration and arguments explaining them.


No, you haven't. "Immigration" in the abstract is not supported at all by your own sources. You can't keep equating all immigrants as of the same value. Take the survey of immigrant founders in Fortune 500 companies. There was not a single black or Mexican immigrant founder among them. The 'latino' exceptions you tried to bring up, such as Jeff Bezos (Cuban by adoption I guess, since his mother was only married to his father a year before divorcing, and then remarried to a Cuban.), and the Behn brothers (born in the Danish West Indies, but of German/French descent), are irrelevant when considering the millions of Mexican immigrants. The Fiscal Policy Institute survey was much the same, and suggested blacks and latinos were much worse than whites and Asians at creating businesses.

I've provided data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the New York Times, among other places.

What data sources have you provided that didn't backfire on you?
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Kaltros
Illegal immigrants are illegal. Basing an industry on illegal labor is a form of criminal activity, basically, and shouldn't be tolerated no matter how profitable it is. The rule of law has to come before profit.
Not quite how it works. See, we often reconsider laws in the face of practical facts and notions of substantive justice. Since law can be changed, the question is if and how to do so going forward. Such as, say, whether to ease immigration restrictions, or create an amnesty program, or what have you.

Kaltros
If foreign labor is required, it would be better to have a temporary guest worker program like Canada's, in which foreign workers do the work and then, once that's done, return back home. No more of this amnesty nonsense.
Ah, so you do support changing the law? I thought you were all "rule of law" and so forth. Kind of seems like these paragraphs just contradict each other in tone.

Kaltros
What's your source for the claim that their rates go up a lot in countries comparable to the U.S.? And how is that relevant? Do you have a source for a similar rise in rates over time here in the U.S.?
I haven't said anything about countries comparable to the U.S. I'm talking about the U.S. Established immigrants have higher rates of business ownership according to the Fiscal Policy Source.

Kaltros
No, at worst bad starting assumptions. So what do you think would be an accurate number for the legal Mexican immigrants?
Well, since we're discussing the figures in the study, why not the ones given in said study? Page 16 lists 7,598,985 Mexican immigrants in the work force based on the ACS 2010 numbers, which is kind of the important number for small business ownership. Including children and such in those numbers would just be nutty. But, just taking a look at the Census Bureau summary of the ACS numbers, approximately 11.7 million altogether?

Kaltros
If the majority are as you claim, it shouldn't be too hard to track down several and link to them.
We can't both look over the same data if you don't provide links to specific sources.
I provided you with a site that had a lot of the information, but you dismissed it with a logically inept attempt to attack its political bent rather than the worth of the content. But, well, here's the one in '97 by the National Research Council, with a summary here, giving the basic spiel from page 222 on that there is no strong correlation after several studies. The strongest evidence actually suggested the only ones being hurt by immigration were other immigrants. There's also the Cato Institute's analysis, though they've put out a lot on this. There's the Rand study, which notes the effect on uneducated native born workers but points out the overall effect is very small.

Out of curiosity, do you have any evidence beyond your lump-of-labor fallacy for your position?

Kaltros
Hmm, source for the idea that most or even just many illegals work agriculture for sub-minimum wages?


Well, let's see. Here's a Reuters article discussing a large number of undocumented workers in agriculture work. Not sure how correct the numbers are, but there's also survey summary form the National Center for Farmworker Health stating the average pay for a farmworker being less than $15,000 a year. In any case, the vast majority of farm workers are foreign born and live below the poverty line.

Kaltros
Provide proof of your claim that "most anti-immigration aren't factual".
I've been providing proof by giving the facts that immigration, by and large, has no negative effects. You have to provide a single piece of evidence demonstrating any negative effect. How can there be a factual argument in something that has no facts to it?

Kaltros
And, the ad hominem fallacy requires an actual argument to have any bearing. All you did was toss the site at me. If you want to pick a particular article, go ahead. I'm not going to address every single article at once.
But you did address them all at once. And you dismissed them, said I needed a different source. You didn't ask for a specific article. You aren't interested in the arguments.


Kaltros
You don't have to control for variables when noting correlation. You'd do the variable control when you wanted to pin down more precisely cause and effect.
Yes, you do, because otherwise the correlation is meaningless, and you're engaging in a correlation/causation fallacy.

Kaltros
If jobs are not unlimited, doesn't it follow logically that past a certain number of people there wouldn't be enough jobs to employ everybody?
Are there an unlimited number of people? No? Then, no, it does not logically follow.

Kaltros
Excess labor supply can meet rising demand, but rising demand cannot create more labor out of thin air, can it? Employers can't just snap their fingers and wish employees into existence.
Well, one, it's not excess labor if it satisfies a demand. Two, nothing is created out of thin air, neither supply, nor demand. Demand for labor encourages aggressive recruiting and educational policy and retraining programs and so on. Three, none of that has anything to do with unemployment. You're talking about a situation where there's not enough employees to go around. That's the opposite of unemployment.

Kaltros
You were arguing that immigrants becoming consumers would necessarily lead to more jobs, which was the point I addressed.
Well, that's what aggregate demand means. There are plenty of jobs which can't or won't be eliminated or made more efficient.

The service industry comes to mind.

Kaltros
No, you haven't. "Immigration" in the abstract is not supported at all by your own sources. You can't keep equating all immigrants as of the same value.
No, they have different values, but none have been demonstrating to have any real detrimental effect.

Kaltros
I've provided data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the New York Times, among other places.
Are you referring to the articles which don't state your point at all? You haven't demonstrated any detrimental effect. I've given plenty of evidence of a beneficial effect.

Kaltros
What data sources have you provided that didn't backfire on you?
None of them have backfired. They all demonstrate my point, that immigrants create business, create jobs, do good things for the economy, and so forth. Your argument is solely based on they don't create enough jobs for your taste, which is kind of irrelevant. You haven't proven any detrimental effect. You've just stated your lump-of-labor fallacy over and over again.
Ban
Kaltros
Illegal immigrants are illegal. Basing an industry on illegal labor is a form of criminal activity, basically, and shouldn't be tolerated no matter how profitable it is. The rule of law has to come before profit.
Not quite how it works. See, we often reconsider laws in the face of practical facts and notions of substantive justice. Since law can be changed, the question is if and how to do so going forward. Such as, say, whether to ease immigration restrictions, or create an amnesty program, or what have you.


What does "notions of substantive justice" even mean? And until current law is changed through the proper means, it remains the law of the land. Including immigration law.


Quote:

Kaltros
What's your source for the claim that their rates go up a lot in countries comparable to the U.S.? And how is that relevant? Do you have a source for a similar rise in rates over time here in the U.S.?
I haven't said anything about countries comparable to the U.S. I'm talking about the U.S. Established immigrants have higher rates of business ownership according to the Fiscal Policy Source.


From your last post: ""In developed countries comparable to the U.S., rates go up quite a lot, especially after they've had time to acclimate."

Care to elaborate on that? And explain the relevance?


Quote:

Kaltros
No, at worst bad starting assumptions. So what do you think would be an accurate number for the legal Mexican immigrants?
Well, since we're discussing the figures in the study, why not the ones given in said study? Page 16 lists 7,598,985 Mexican immigrants in the work force based on the ACS 2010 numbers, which is kind of the important number for small business ownership. Including children and such in those numbers would just be nutty. But, just taking a look at the Census Bureau summary of the ACS numbers, approximately 11.7 million altogether?


Alright, so 7,598,985 Mexicans in the work force, with 105,000 of them approximately being business owners. That's a rate of around 1.3 percent. The other 7,493,985 Mexicans are competing for existing jobs.


Quote:

Kaltros
Hmm, source for the idea that most or even just many illegals work agriculture for sub-minimum wages?


Well, let's see. Here's a Reuters article discussing a large number of undocumented workers in agriculture work. Not sure how correct the numbers are, but there's also survey summary form the National Center for Farmworker Health stating the average pay for a farmworker being less than $15,000 a year. In any case, the vast majority of farm workers are foreign born and live below the poverty line.


From the Reuters article you provided:

Quote:

"Government surveys suggest that there are roughly 700,000 to 850,000 hired farm workers, on average, at any given point during the year in the United States. There are academic estimates that put the figures substantially higher at between 1 and 1.4 million," he told Reuters.

A recent National Agricultural Workers Study (NAWS) by the department of labor which surveys crop workers in the field found that 75 percent of hired hands in the sector were from Mexico and five percent were born in other foreign countries.

-snip-

McClung said that while some painted the industry as exploitative, the average wage for a field laborer was $9.50 an hour, not great for hard work, but higher than the minimum wage.


So, about 1.05 million Mexican farm workers, which means the rest (however many million there actually are) are doing some other kind of work.


Quote:

Kaltros
Provide proof of your claim that "most anti-immigration aren't factual".
I've been providing proof by giving the facts that immigration, by and large, has no negative effects. You have to provide a single piece of evidence demonstrating any negative effect. How can there be a factual argument in something that has no facts to it?


You've been providing studies based on mathematical models which project into the future based on a variety of punched in variables and assumptions, any one of which could be wrong and thus throw the results of the models. The haze of complex formulae with a tenuous connection to reality is strong, but actual hard data is a bit more scarce. Enough with the models, and give me data. Let's try looking at raw data for a change.

For example, let's take a look at some data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We can see from the data that the native born have lost around 2 million jobs since 2005, while the foreign born have gained nearly 2 million.

2005 - 2013, foreign employed: 21,022,000 to 23,089,000, or a gain of 2,067,000.

2005 - 2013, native employed: 120,708,000 to 118,524,000, or a loss of 2,184,000.

The numbers are very suggestive, as you can see. And that doesn't even factor in the 11 million or so native born who have dropped into the 'not in the labor force' category since 2005, which ought to be counted as lost employment but commonly isn't.

Immigration is benefiting foreigners at the expense of the native born.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm


quote]
Kaltros
If jobs are not unlimited, doesn't it follow logically that past a certain number of people there wouldn't be enough jobs to employ everybody?
Are there an unlimited number of people? No? Then, no, it does not logically follow.


Why not? Limited number of people, limited number of jobs. If one goes higher than the other, there'll be a shortage.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Kaltros
What does "notions of substantive justice" even mean? And until current law is changed through the proper means, it remains the law of the land. Including immigration law.
Well, as opposed to procedural justice, the idea that there should be unbiased and clear rules arbitrated by an impartial body, substantive justice addresses the meat of the rules and effects of the outcomes. A rule, impartially and equally administered, that leads to absurd consequences, cannot be just, or at least so many of us feel. For example, if a man sentenced to death row is later exonerated by new evidence, but the rules would not allow for that new evidence to be introduced because of some procedural issue, then a lot of people would feel the law is being unfair and essentially killing an innocent man, even though that man had been given the same procedure as everyone else. Substantive justice is about whether the rules and rulings themselves are truly fair, well thought out, moral, and good policy, or simply Piso's justice.


Kaltros
From your last post: ""In developed countries comparable to the U.S., rates go up quite a lot, especially after they've had time to acclimate."

Care to elaborate on that? And explain the relevance?
Sorry, might of mistyped. From developed countries. White immigrants from developed countries have high rates of small business ownership in comparison to whites from this country. And the relevance was simply that frankly, native born rates of small business ownership ain't all that hot either.

Kaltros
Alright, so 7,598,985 Mexicans in the work force, with 105,000 of them approximately being business owners. That's a rate of around 1.3 percent. The other 7,493,985 Mexicans are competing for existing jobs.
And? Competition is kind of the point of the whole system. The person most qualified gets the job.

Let me put it this way. There are approximately 12.5 million people unemployed people in the US right now. Do you honestly think that this number would drop down to 5 million if those damn Mexicans weren't here? Because, if that is what you are arguing, you are presenting a basic fallacy. That is simply not how the world works.

Kaltros
So, about 1.05 million Mexican farm workers, which means the rest (however many million there actually are) are doing some other kind of work.
Yeah, they're doing other things. Day labor or low skill factory work or house cleaning or working in a kitchen. Most people who have to jump fences to get work don't have college educations or the training for skilled labor or the sort of paperwork necessary to get a good union job. They slide by on fake social security numbers and lax hiring practices and a willingness to scrap for a living.

Kaltros
You've been providing studies based on mathematical models which project into the future based on a variety of punched in variables and assumptions, any one of which could be wrong and thus throw the results of the models. The haze of complex formulae with a tenuous connection to reality is strong, but actual hard data is a bit more scarce. Enough with the models, and give me data. Let's try looking at raw data for a change.

For example, let's take a look at some data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We can see from the data that the native born have lost around 2 million jobs since 2005, while the foreign born have gained nearly 2 million.

2005 - 2013, foreign employed: 21,022,000 to 23,089,000, or a gain of 2,067,000.

2005 - 2013, native employed: 120,708,000 to 118,524,000, or a loss of 2,184,000.

The numbers are very suggestive, as you can see. And that doesn't even factor in the 11 million or so native born who have dropped into the 'not in the labor force' category since 2005, which ought to be counted as lost employment but commonly isn't.
This is a measure of the amount of people employed, sixteen years and older. How many people retired in those eight years? What about the participation rate? How many of these people are in college? The unemployment rate appears steady for both. Moreover, why are you using non-seasonally adjusted numbers? You say the "raw data" is suggestive, but the problem with drawing inferences from raw data is that the data is raw, and you haven't accounted for any other factors. The reason that people use complex mathematics in statistics is because those bring us closer to seeing the actual truth, and help us analyze raw data

Kaltros
Immigration is benefiting foreigners at the expense of the native born.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm
Again, you have put two numbers together and made a logical leap without controlling for other factors. Correlation/causation fallacy.

Do you even know how logic works?

Kaltros
Why not? Limited number of people, limited number of jobs. If one goes higher than the other, there'll be a shortage.
I guess the answer would be no. You asked a specific question: does it logically follow that, given a non-infinite number of jobs (you can replace jobs with anything really), an arbitrarily high number of people who want jobs would mean there are not enough jobs for everyone. Given that, as stated earlier, the number of jobs is not fixed, it, too, could also be an arbitrarily high number. It could be the same arbitrarily high number as the number of people. It could be that number plus one. Because non-infinite does not mean small. Thus, your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. It is a non-sequitur

To put aside the fact that you're terrible at logic, the point of your argument, which appears to again be harping on the notion that jobs are somehow a fixed amount, is, again, a lump-of-labor fallacy. Would you kindly knock that s**t off?

Also, the racism. It's all kind of grating really.
Also, I have to ask. What's the justification behind the claim that American's deserve said jobs more so then others? Where is this line drawn? Is it because they live in America? Or because those companies are american, or operate in America? Maybe because they service American citizens? What is the reason? Those are the only ones I can think of right now.

Each of those reasons has significant problems however because these days the world is incredibly globalised. Not all companies that operate in America are American owned. Not all American companies operate in America. Not all companies that sell to American people are from or based in America.

And if your going to say that American's deserve jobs on the basis that they are born American, I'm going to pre-repetitively give you the big '******** you'.
AnarchoPhiliac
Disa Uniflora
AnarchoPhiliac
You say the things I want to so I don't have to say the things I want to heart

Can we now derail this thread into a Canadian circlejerk?

You're here, aintcha? cool


We can begin by mocking America's rate of death by violence per 100k people?

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CPOP/DBASSE_080393#violence


highest amounts of death. much of which is from gangs, what i call domestic terrorists. we need to kill them all.

so many deaths in america. it's funny that in the u.k., one is twice as likely to be stabbed than in america to be shot.

modern liberalism is pretty close to socialism. i've often considered the possibility that the government is using this as a ploy to stir up the country out of it's stupor. i read somebody also mention that early in the thread.
pockybot
I don't get my fellow liberals. They talk about violent crimes happening to women, yet seem to not be too keen on the right to own firearms. I was actually surprised to see Obama and Biden really run with proposed new gun bans in the works, or at least looking at it.
Shouldnt it be liberals who are for gun rights?

And then, forget the war on invisible phantom jihadists. Ranchers with cameras have shown video evidence of countless ak-47 armed drug smugglers flood into the border states, criss crossing back and forth hawking their poison. Why the heck wouldnt liberals support having an undeniably strong border? It's nigh time.

And then this virulent hatred of anyone who warns of communism/totalitarian socialism.
Im a lifelong liberal and I KNOW communism is bad. Even if its not mass murderers like Mao, Stalin, etc. its a total controlled nanny state that goes against the individual.

Liberals support Obama blowing up Muslims to smithereens with drones, which to me is not very liberal. But then they dont support things that just make sense.

not all liberals are the same indeed probably most aren't. far from it probably a far less homogenus group and the democratic party is hardly the ‘liberal party’, probably the greens or some such party is far more representative, the democratic party is closer to the new-labor type of party.
also, neither of us are likely to end up in totalitarian socialism in the foreseeable future even if we began digging in that direction yesterday.
Ban
Kaltros
What does "notions of substantive justice" even mean? And until current law is changed through the proper means, it remains the law of the land. Including immigration law.
Well, as opposed to procedural justice, the idea that there should be unbiased and clear rules arbitrated by an impartial body, substantive justice addresses the meat of the rules and effects of the outcomes. A rule, impartially and equally administered, that leads to absurd consequences, cannot be just, or at least so many of us feel. For example, if a man sentenced to death row is later exonerated by new evidence, but the rules would not allow for that new evidence to be introduced because of some procedural issue, then a lot of people would feel the law is being unfair and essentially killing an innocent man, even though that man had been given the same procedure as everyone else. Substantive justice is about whether the rules and rulings themselves are truly fair, well thought out, moral, and good policy, or simply Piso's justice.


Now what does all that have to do with immigration exactly?



Quote:

Kaltros
From your last post: ""In developed countries comparable to the U.S., rates go up quite a lot, especially after they've had time to acclimate."

Care to elaborate on that? And explain the relevance?
Sorry, might of mistyped. From developed countries. White immigrants from developed countries have high rates of small business ownership in comparison to whites from this country. And the relevance was simply that frankly, native born rates of small business ownership ain't all that hot either.


If the goal of pro-immigration policy is to create more small business owners, why would you support immigration from places where the immigrants are less educated and less likely to start their own businesses?


Quote:

Kaltros
Alright, so 7,598,985 Mexicans in the work force, with 105,000 of them approximately being business owners. That's a rate of around 1.3 percent. The other 7,493,985 Mexicans are competing for existing jobs.
And? Competition is kind of the point of the whole system. The person most qualified gets the job.


Except one qualification for people in the U.S., generally, is that they must be legal. There are legal restrictions for workers based on age, for example, to avoid child labor. If you think immigrants can disrespect immigration law and get jobs in the U.S. whether they legally can or not, why not also argue for a return of child labor? If we can disrespect one law restricting employment we should disrespect all of them. It's only consistent to do so.


Quote:

Let me put it this way. There are approximately 12.5 million people unemployed people in the US right now. Do you honestly think that this number would drop down to 5 million if those damn Mexicans weren't here? Because, if that is what you are arguing, you are presenting a basic fallacy. That is simply not how the world works.


You think not? The basic math is, again, very suggestive. Per the BLS numbers, there are around 23,089,000 foreign born people in the U.S. currently employed. It stands to reason that if those 23 million suddenly disappeared there'd be, oh, close to 23 million job openings overnight that could be filled, at least partly, by the ranks of the unemployed.

Where's the fallacy? Are you arguing that the 12.5 million or so unemployed couldn't possibly fill the jobs the foreign-born currently hold? Why can't your fabled job training and educational policy work as well for the native born as for foreigners?


Quote:

Kaltros
So, about 1.05 million Mexican farm workers, which means the rest (however many million there actually are) are doing some other kind of work.
Yeah, they're doing other things. Day labor or low skill factory work or house cleaning or working in a kitchen. Most people who have to jump fences to get work don't have college educations or the training for skilled labor or the sort of paperwork necessary to get a good union job. They slide by on fake social security numbers and lax hiring practices and a willingness to scrap for a living.


Hmm. So they get fake SS numbers, which is another form of criminal activity besides crossing the border illegally. Would you agree that crime is bad for the economy? If some of these illegals have too much trouble finding work they might even turn to drug dealing, sex trafficking, or other means of earning a living. They could also make use of government subsidies, which are a net drain on the economy when these illegals have trouble finding legal work.


Quote:

Kaltros
You've been providing studies based on mathematical models which project into the future based on a variety of punched in variables and assumptions, any one of which could be wrong and thus throw the results of the models. The haze of complex formulae with a tenuous connection to reality is strong, but actual hard data is a bit more scarce. Enough with the models, and give me data. Let's try looking at raw data for a change.

For example, let's take a look at some data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We can see from the data that the native born have lost around 2 million jobs since 2005, while the foreign born have gained nearly 2 million.

2005 - 2013, foreign employed: 21,022,000 to 23,089,000, or a gain of 2,067,000.

2005 - 2013, native employed: 120,708,000 to 118,524,000, or a loss of 2,184,000.

The numbers are very suggestive, as you can see. And that doesn't even factor in the 11 million or so native born who have dropped into the 'not in the labor force' category since 2005, which ought to be counted as lost employment but commonly isn't.
This is a measure of the amount of people employed, sixteen years and older. How many people retired in those eight years? What about the participation rate? How many of these people are in college? The unemployment rate appears steady for both. Moreover, why are you using non-seasonally adjusted numbers? You say the "raw data" is suggestive, but the problem with drawing inferences from raw data is that the data is raw, and you haven't accounted for any other factors. The reason that people use complex mathematics in statistics is because those bring us closer to seeing the actual truth, and help us analyze raw data


The ideal is to use complex mathematics to get closer to the truth, of course, but that doesn't seem to happen as much in practice. Complex mathematical models are not the most reliable things in the world:

Quote:

When it comes to assigning blame for the current economic doldrums, the quants who build the complicated mathematic financial risk models, and the traders who rely on them, deserve their share of the blame. [See “A Formula For Economic Calamity” in the November 2011 issue]. But what if there were a way to come up with simpler models that perfectly reflected reality? And what if we had perfect financial data to plug into them?

Incredibly, even under those utterly unrealizable conditions, we'd still get bad predictions from models.

The reason is that current methods used to “calibrate” models often render them inaccurate.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finance-why-economic-models-are-always-wrong

The use of mathematical models and complex formulae is overrated.


Quote:

Kaltros
Immigration is benefiting foreigners at the expense of the native born.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm
Again, you have put two numbers together and made a logical leap without controlling for other factors. Correlation/causation fallacy.


The numbers are what they are. What other factors do you think would explain the loss of around 2 million jobs for the native born and the gain of 2 million jobs for the foreign born in a way that proves immigrants ARE NOT eating into the job market of native born Americans?


Quote:

Kaltros
Why not? Limited number of people, limited number of jobs. If one goes higher than the other, there'll be a shortage.
I guess the answer would be no. You asked a specific question: does it logically follow that, given a non-infinite number of jobs (you can replace jobs with anything really), an arbitrarily high number of people who want jobs would mean there are not enough jobs for everyone. Given that, as stated earlier, the number of jobs is not fixed, it, too, could also be an arbitrarily high number. It could be the same arbitrarily high number as the number of people. It could be that number plus one. Because non-infinite does not mean small. Thus, your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. It is a non-sequitur


So change 'limited' to arbitrarily high number, which is still limited. Number of jobs equals Arbitrarily High Number. Number of job seekers equals Arbitrarily High Number Plus One. That means, in this case, there is one person without a job. If there is a bigger discrepancy between the number of jobs and the number of job seekers, even more will be without jobs. Limits are still limits even if they are arbitrarily high numbers. 1 million has a limit just like 1 thousand does. The logic hasn't changed. Limited people, limited jobs. If there are more people than jobs, there's a job shortage.


Quote:

To put aside the fact that you're terrible at logic, the point of your argument, which appears to again be harping on the notion that jobs are somehow a fixed amount, is, again, a lump-of-labor fallacy. Would you kindly knock that s**t off?


Nope, can't. It's not a fallacy just because some people claim it is. We have already agreed that jobs are limited in a given time and place, the time sometimes stretching for months or years, which is very signficiant to most employees. How many employees do you know that could get by just fine with no suffering during a months or year-long unemployment stretch? For the average worker that's a big deal.

You're also close to a red herring here, since the lump of labor fallacy is generally used against restricting the working hours of laborers.

Quote:

Also, the racism. It's all kind of grating really.


It's not my problem what you find grating. You don't have to read it.
N3bu
Also, I have to ask. What's the justification behind the claim that American's deserve said jobs more so then others? Where is this line drawn? Is it because they live in America? Or because those companies are american, or operate in America? Maybe because they service American citizens? What is the reason? Those are the only ones I can think of right now.

Each of those reasons has significant problems however because these days the world is incredibly globalised. Not all companies that operate in America are American owned. Not all American companies operate in America. Not all companies that sell to American people are from or based in America.

And if your going to say that American's deserve jobs on the basis that they are born American, I'm going to pre-repetitively give you the big '******** you'.


A country has a duty first to its citizens. If a country's citizens are struggling with unemployment, that country shouldn't encourage immigration, which just adds more people to an already struggling labor pool, increases welfare and infrastructure and other costs, and so on.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Kaltros
Now what does all that have to do with immigration exactly?
Are you implying that there are no unfair or ridiculous outcomes in our immigration system?

Kaltros
If the goal of pro-immigration policy is to create more small business owners, why would you support immigration from places where the immigrants are less educated and less likely to start their own businesses?
Well, that's not the goal. It's just a point that contributes to the overall fact that immigration is good for the economy. But, as far as that goes, because they still create small businesses at a rate higher than our own less educated populace. Which, y'know, can be good, for the same reason we try to promote minority ownership about native born citizens. Minority owned small businesses not only improve the economy because they create jobs which increases aggregate and they provide tax money and so on, but they tend to serve a more needy populace in economically depressed areas areas.

Kaltros
Except one qualification for people in the U.S., generally, is that they must be legal. There are legal restrictions for workers based on age, for example, to avoid child labor. If you think immigrants can disrespect immigration law and get jobs in the U.S. whether they legally can or not, why not also argue for a return of child labor? If we can disrespect one law restricting employment we should disrespect all of them. It's only consistent to do so.
The numbers I was quoting were for legal immigrants. And again, breaking one law is equal to breaking another. Child labor is an entirely different beast that migrant labor. So, no, it's not consistent. Not that this is surprising, since you tend to misunderstand the basic precepts of logic.


Kaltros
You think not? The basic math is, again, very suggestive. Per the BLS numbers, there are around 23,089,000 foreign born people in the U.S. currently employed. It stands to reason that if those 23 million suddenly disappeared there'd be, oh, close to 23 million job openings overnight that could be filled, at least partly, by the ranks of the unemployed.
A lot of those jobs would simply disappear, or other jobs would disappear, because you would have 23 million less people earning money and paying taxes and buying things and driving the economy.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this, but I'm going to repeat it, yet again: the number of jobs is not fixed. The number of participants in the marketplace has a direct effect of the number of jobs available. Removing people means fewer jobs.

Kaltros
Hmm. So they get fake SS numbers, which is another form of criminal activity besides crossing the border illegally. Would you agree that crime is bad for the economy?
Depends on your perspective really. We spend a lot of money fighting crime, trying to prevent it, and so forth, which, in a sense, is a form of government stimulus. There are roughly 800,000 law enforcement officials of various types, judges, lawyers, guards, and subsidiary businesses that cater to law enforcement, all of which means there are people who have jobs and pay taxes and so forth.

Kaltros
If some of these illegals have too much trouble finding work they might even turn to drug dealing, sex trafficking, or other means of earning a living.
Yes, that's true of pretty much everybody.

Kaltros
They could also make use of government subsidies, which are a net drain on the economy when these illegals have trouble finding legal work.
Mmm, more difficult, because gaining those subsidies generally requires more than a fake social security number. But, in any case, still true of pretty much anybody.

Really not sure what your point is here? Immigrants are just like regular Americans?

Kaltros
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finance-why-economic-models-are-always-wrong

The use of mathematical models and complex formulae is overrated.
This an article about stock trading and finance models. As far it relates to the point at hand, it makes the argument that calibration methods in statistical analysis create inaccurate models. But we're not talking about statistical modeling. We're talking about the sort of analysis that is necessary in order for the numbers to mean anything.

Kaltros
The numbers are what they are. What other factors do you think would explain the loss of around 2 million jobs for the native born and the gain of 2 million jobs for the foreign born in a way that proves immigrants ARE NOT eating into the job market of native born Americans?
Let's see, there are plenty of factors I can think, not the least of which is the fact that there's a huge financial crash in the middle of these numbers that you haven't made any mention. But, the fact is, I don't have to prove anything. Your argument is invalid. I'm not going to go around and disprove every paranoid, illogical conclusion you come to.

You're not a child and I'm not your mother and I'm not going to check under the bed for the big scary monster. So, grow the ******** up and come back with a real argument.

Kaltros
So change 'limited' to arbitrarily high number, which is still limited. Number of jobs equals Arbitrarily High Number. Number of job seekers equals Arbitrarily High Number Plus One. That means, in this case, there is one person without a job. If there is a bigger discrepancy between the number of jobs and the number of job seekers, even more will be without jobs. Limits are still limits even if they are arbitrarily high numbers. 1 million has a limit just like 1 thousand does. The logic hasn't changed. Limited people, limited jobs. If there are more people than jobs, there's a job shortage.
Yes, in the abstract, you have more people than jobs, there will be unemployment. But, that's not the logic you posed. And, again, the number of jobs is not fixed.

Kaltros
Nope, can't. It's not a fallacy just because some people claim it is.
No, it's a fallacy because it simply is not grounded in logic or fact.

Kaltros
We have already agreed that jobs are limited in a given time and place, the time sometimes stretching for months or years, which is very signficiant to most employees.
I never said anything about months or years. I believe I've stated the employment numbers change constantly. I agreed merely with the abstract idea and immediately noted JOBS ARE NOT A FIXED VALUE.

Frankly, I have no data, and you have provided none, demonstrating sticky job numbers in isolated areas lasting months or years. Your BLS data shows constant fluctuation from month to month on a nation wide scale, but you haven't provided anything for smaller localities. Again, your argument doesn't seem grounded in facts.

Kaltros
How many employees do you know that could get by just fine with no suffering during a months or year-long unemployment stretch? For the average worker that's a big deal.
Well, the average worker these days has unemployment insurance of up to a year, which, yes, involves a major downsizing in expenses.

Kaltros
You're also close to a red herring here, since the lump of labor fallacy is generally used against restricting the working hours of laborers.
No, historically it has been used for that. But the principle of whether labor is a zero-sum game applies equally to immigration, and has been used in that context by economists.
Kaltros
N3bu
Also, I have to ask. What's the justification behind the claim that American's deserve said jobs more so then others? Where is this line drawn? Is it because they live in America? Or because those companies are american, or operate in America? Maybe because they service American citizens? What is the reason? Those are the only ones I can think of right now.

Each of those reasons has significant problems however because these days the world is incredibly globalised. Not all companies that operate in America are American owned. Not all American companies operate in America. Not all companies that sell to American people are from or based in America.

And if your going to say that American's deserve jobs on the basis that they are born American, I'm going to pre-repetitively give you the big '******** you'.


A country has a duty first to its citizens. If a country's citizens are struggling with unemployment, that country shouldn't encourage immigration, which just adds more people to an already struggling labor pool, increases welfare and infrastructure and other costs, and so on.

Not how labour works, it certainly isn't how you mitigate unemployment. Jobs are mobile for any number of reasons and are not owed to any person other then the most qualified for the job. In addition it has to be recognised that at any single time the labour pool does not match jobs available. There could be 100 jobs and 100 citizens and there will still be unemployment and job shortages at the same time.

Now, you might have a point if immigrants were flooding industries that already have too many workers. If were talking about Mexicans this isn't the case normally because few Americans seek the kind of low paying work intensive labour close to the border. If we're talking about first world immigration, then that immigration only happens when jobs are available since this kind of immigration has the tools to find out where there are job openings in their professional fields.

Most American's are having problems, not because there are too many immigrants (which is a tired scape goat of an excuse that's been used for 100s of years), but instead because American consumers can no longer sustain the demand in which American jobs have relied upon, being a consumer economy.
Ban
Kaltros
Now what does all that have to do with immigration exactly?
Are you implying that there are no unfair or ridiculous outcomes in our immigration system?


No, I'm asking you what it has to do with immigration.

Quote:

Kaltros
If the goal of pro-immigration policy is to create more small business owners, why would you support immigration from places where the immigrants are less educated and less likely to start their own businesses?
Well, that's not the goal. It's just a point that contributes to the overall fact that immigration is good for the economy. But, as far as that goes, because they still create small businesses at a rate higher than our own less educated populace.


Do the foreign less educated and lower class immigrants create more businesses than the similar native demographic? Where are you getting that from?

Quote:

Which, y'know, can be good, for the same reason we try to promote minority ownership about native born citizens. Minority owned small businesses not only improve the economy because they create jobs which increases aggregate and they provide tax money and so on, but they tend to serve a more needy populace in economically depressed areas areas.


Instead of promoting small business growth through immigration, why not work to promote it among the native born first?

Quote:

Kaltros
Except one qualification for people in the U.S., generally, is that they must be legal. There are legal restrictions for workers based on age, for example, to avoid child labor. If you think immigrants can disrespect immigration law and get jobs in the U.S. whether they legally can or not, why not also argue for a return of child labor? If we can disrespect one law restricting employment we should disrespect all of them. It's only consistent to do so.
The numbers I was quoting were for legal immigrants. And again, breaking one law is equal to breaking another. Child labor is an entirely different beast that migrant labor. So, no, it's not consistent. Not that this is surprising, since you tend to misunderstand the basic precepts of logic.


You had an unconscious slip, there. Breaking one law IS equal to breaking another, in the sense that a law is being broken each time. Law is law. Law isn't divided into categories such as : "Do not break under any circumstances", "Do not break most of the time", "Break some of the time", "Break every other time", and so on.

Quote:

Kaltros
You think not? The basic math is, again, very suggestive. Per the BLS numbers, there are around 23,089,000 foreign born people in the U.S. currently employed. It stands to reason that if those 23 million suddenly disappeared there'd be, oh, close to 23 million job openings overnight that could be filled, at least partly, by the ranks of the unemployed.
A lot of those jobs would simply disappear, or other jobs would disappear, because you would have 23 million less people earning money and paying taxes and buying things and driving the economy.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this, but I'm going to repeat it, yet again: the number of jobs is not fixed. The number of participants in the marketplace has a direct effect of the number of jobs available. Removing people means fewer jobs.


Removing people means fewer jobs? Why? How many jobs would be created by adding ten thousand penniless beggars to the economy?

Quote:

Kaltros
Hmm. So they get fake SS numbers, which is another form of criminal activity besides crossing the border illegally. Would you agree that crime is bad for the economy?
Depends on your perspective really. We spend a lot of money fighting crime, trying to prevent it, and so forth, which, in a sense, is a form of government stimulus. There are roughly 800,000 law enforcement officials of various types, judges, lawyers, guards, and subsidiary businesses that cater to law enforcement, all of which means there are people who have jobs and pay taxes and so forth.


But those government jobs are paid through taxes, and taxes take away from the economy and lead to fewer jobs in the private sector. In that sense it's at least a wash, maybe a net loss for the economy. You'd also need to factor in the costs of the initial crimes. Firemen/policement/etc might get a salary which leads to economic stimulus later on, but the building the arsonist lit on fire is a huge cost to the economy. Touting crime as indirect economic stimulus is the broken window fallacy.

Quote:

Kaltros
If some of these illegals have too much trouble finding work they might even turn to drug dealing, sex trafficking, or other means of earning a living.
Yes, that's true of pretty much everybody.


Is it? Where are you getting the idea that most anyone, anywhere, no matter what, will always turn to crime when the economy gets bad?


Quote:

Kaltros
They could also make use of government subsidies, which are a net drain on the economy when these illegals have trouble finding legal work.
Mmm, more difficult, because gaining those subsidies generally requires more than a fake social security number. But, in any case, still true of pretty much anybody.


Not to the same degree. Lots of people use foodstamps, but it would be untrue to say pretty much everybody uses them. Same thing for low income housing subsidies, and etc.


Quote:

Kaltros
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finance-why-economic-models-are-always-wrong

The use of mathematical models and complex formulae is overrated.
This an article about stock trading and finance models. As far it relates to the point at hand, it makes the argument that calibration methods in statistical analysis create inaccurate models. But we're not talking about statistical modeling. We're talking about the sort of analysis that is necessary in order for the numbers to mean anything.


You seem to enjoy making obscure statements. The numbers have to mean something to begin with, otherwise your 'analysis' just adds in a meaning that wasn't there to begin with.


Quote:

Kaltros
The numbers are what they are. What other factors do you think would explain the loss of around 2 million jobs for the native born and the gain of 2 million jobs for the foreign born in a way that proves immigrants ARE NOT eating into the job market of native born Americans?
Let's see, there are plenty of factors I can think, not the least of which is the fact that there's a huge financial crash in the middle of these numbers that you haven't made any mention.


And how would that change the numbers? Whether from natural causes or financial disaster, there was a shift of around 2 million jobs, 2 million lost by natives and the same number gained by foreign born.

Quote:

But, the fact is, I don't have to prove anything. Your argument is invalid.


You haven't proven that yet. By your own admission a sentence earlier.


Quote:

I'm not going to go around and disprove every paranoid, illogical conclusion you come to.

You're not a child and I'm not your mother and I'm not going to check under the bed for the big scary monster. So, grow the ******** up and come back with a real argument.


I do have a real argument: That the foreign born are taking jobs at the expense of the native born. I've provided numbers from the BLS, a government agency, to back that up. You just don't like the argument, and thus resort to the ad hominem fallacy and blustering.

Quote:

Kaltros
We have already agreed that jobs are limited in a given time and place, the time sometimes stretching for months or years, which is very signficiant to most employees.
I never said anything about months or years. I believe I've stated the employment numbers change constantly. I agreed merely with the abstract idea and immediately noted JOBS ARE NOT A FIXED VALUE.

Frankly, I have no data, and you have provided none, demonstrating sticky job numbers in isolated areas lasting months or years. Your BLS data shows constant fluctuation from month to month on a nation wide scale, but you haven't provided anything for smaller localities. Again, your argument doesn't seem grounded in facts.


Jobs may not be a fixed value, but they don't fluctuate widely enough to employ everybody either. Which means that, even if jobs aren't fixed, they are limited.
N3bu
Kaltros
N3bu
Also, I have to ask. What's the justification behind the claim that American's deserve said jobs more so then others? Where is this line drawn? Is it because they live in America? Or because those companies are american, or operate in America? Maybe because they service American citizens? What is the reason? Those are the only ones I can think of right now.

Each of those reasons has significant problems however because these days the world is incredibly globalised. Not all companies that operate in America are American owned. Not all American companies operate in America. Not all companies that sell to American people are from or based in America.

And if your going to say that American's deserve jobs on the basis that they are born American, I'm going to pre-repetitively give you the big '******** you'.


A country has a duty first to its citizens. If a country's citizens are struggling with unemployment, that country shouldn't encourage immigration, which just adds more people to an already struggling labor pool, increases welfare and infrastructure and other costs, and so on.

Not how labour works, it certainly isn't how you mitigate unemployment. Jobs are mobile for any number of reasons and are not owed to any person other then the most qualified for the job. In addition it has to be recognised that at any single time the labour pool does not match jobs available. There could be 100 jobs and 100 citizens and there will still be unemployment and job shortages at the same time.


Not all jobs are mobile. I have yet to see the local restaurant owners try to outsource the duties of the waitresses / cooks / etc, to phone banks in India.

And why do you think limiting immigration and thus additions to the labor pool would have no effect on local unemployment?


Quote:

Now, you might have a point if immigrants were flooding industries that already have too many workers. If were talking about Mexicans this isn't the case normally because few Americans seek the kind of low paying work intensive labour close to the border. If we're talking about first world immigration, then that immigration only happens when jobs are available since this kind of immigration has the tools to find out where there are job openings in their professional fields.


Mexicans aren't just close to the southern border. There seems to be a growing community as far north as Washington state. Possibly because Washington state, for some dopey reason, gives Driver's Licenses to illegal immigrants.


Quote:

Most American's are having problems, not because there are too many immigrants (which is a tired scape goat of an excuse that's been used for 100s of years), but instead because American consumers can no longer sustain the demand in which American jobs have relied upon, being a consumer economy.


Immigrants are one factor. You could say that labor is one sort of good for sale. More immigrants, past a certain number, tend to flood the labor market. How would you explain the BLS data showing a loss of around 2 million jobs for the native born, and a 2 million gain for the foreign born?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games