- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:33:54 +0000
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 All the data in the source is a little out of date, but pegs the number at about 4.5 million small businesses.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Weak in that you haven't controlled for variables.
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:
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.
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.
Not really. Demand for labor would be more important, since it's what determines whether labor supply is insufficient or abundant.
Labor supply is the most important factor when it comes to unemployment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.