Paying a "living wage" for menial jobs

Jonman wrote:

IMore to the point, have you looked into what "CHOICE" the immigration system offers? The TL:DR version is "precious few", the largest of which is "sorry, back home you go." You conveniently sidestep reality by painting illegal immigrants as refusing to take a valid legal path when very often there is no such thing.

And we designed the law that way for a reason. We already take something like a million legal immigrants a year. Why should those who feel entitled to simply coming here illegally be allowed to do so?

runeba wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

...elegant?

That said, would still like a source on the whole idea that the nations are encouraging people to immigrate illegally. I'm curious to see if that is true.

Here's something. Mexico's foreign minister was recently quoted as saying this:

https://www.cis.org/kammer/castaneda...

t is very adverse for Mexico. ... All the Central Americans who come from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, fleeing from violence, pass through Mexico. If they're not able to cross the border, what are they going to do? Are they going to return to their countries. No. They're going to stay in Mexico, creating a burden for us that we have to carry. ... I think Mexico should raise its voice much more clearly and forcefully to say that if the United States wants a wall, it needs to have more doors in this wall, with more bells at these doors so that Mexicans and Central Americans can enter the United States with papers.

...and... you arrived at your stated opinion from that quote... how?

I see someone from Mexico's government basically saying, "Hey, we're sick of all these people coming through our country to get to America and then getting stuck here." They want looser immigration standards so they don't have their own country full of people from other countries who don't want to be there. They're as sick of illegal immigration as many people in the US are.

runeba wrote:
Jonman wrote:

IMore to the point, have you looked into what "CHOICE" the immigration system offers? The TL:DR version is "precious few", the largest of which is "sorry, back home you go." You conveniently sidestep reality by painting illegal immigrants as refusing to take a valid legal path when very often there is no such thing.

And we designed the law that way for a reason. We already take something like a million legal immigrants a year. Why should those who feel entitled to simply coming here illegally be allowed to do so?

So you're agree with me that there are no legal avenues for a lot of wannabe immigrants, right?

So you rescind your earlier statement about them hopping the metaphorical fence instead of choosing to avail themselves of legal avenues to immigrate?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm really looking forward to seeing the studies and citations that show undocumented workers have any effect at all on native impoverished, rather than just a heaping dish of red herring.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm really looking forward to seeing the studies and citations that show undocumented workers have any effect at all on native impoverished, rather than just a heaping dish of red herring.

Please argue with the reasoning. Don't demand I do scholarly research.

Fact: Most of the millions of people who will be granted amnesty and are flowing in through the southern border are unskilled.

Fact: This means an increase in the number of workers who will perform unskilled jobs.

Consequence: Employers will not have an incentive to increase the wages of those jobs due to the availability of illegals willing to accept pay lower than what Americans would accept. Therefore, the Americans who can really only perform such work (because they're uneducated or have low IQs) are screwed over.

runeba wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm really looking forward to seeing the studies and citations that show undocumented workers have any effect at all on native impoverished, rather than just a heaping dish of red herring.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm really looking forward to seeing the studies and citations that show undocumented workers have any effect at all on native impoverished, rather than just a heaping dish of red herring.

Please argue with the reasoning. Don't demand I do scholarly research.

Fact: Most of the millions of people who will be granted amnesty and are flowing in through the southern border are unskilled.

Fact: This means an increase in the number of workers who will perform unskilled jobs.

Consequence: Employers will not have an incentive to increase the wages of those jobs due to the availability of illegals willing to accept pay lower than what Americans would accept. Therefore, the Americans who can really only perform such work (because they're uneducated or have low IQs) are screwed over.

Anyone can argue with the reasoning and prove absolutely nothing. The discussion will go nowhere without data to back it up. Saying "argue with the reasoning," is a major cop-out.

NSMike wrote:

Anyone can argue with the reasoning and prove absolutely nothing. The discussion will go nowhere without data to back it up. Saying "argue with the reasoning," is a major cop-out.

"Your reasoning is based on incorrect assumptions that are unsupported by the data" *IS* arguing with the reasoning.

Jonman wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Anyone can argue with the reasoning and prove absolutely nothing. The discussion will go nowhere without data to back it up. Saying "argue with the reasoning," is a major cop-out.

"Your reasoning is based on incorrect assumptions that are unsupported by the data" *IS* arguing with the reasoning.

What I meant was, making unsubstantiated claims and saying, "Here. HERE. Argue with THESE only, and ignore the burden of proof," is not going to further the discussion at this point.

Fact: Most of the millions of people who will be granted amnesty and are flowing in through the southern border are unskilled.

...and traveling back into the land of things you probably shouldn't say...

Consequence: Employers will not have an incentive to increase the wages of those jobs due to the availability of illegals willing to accept pay lower than what Americans would accept.

That's a discussion of the enforcement of existing laws. Companies being unwilling to raise pay levels because they have illegal options to bypass that are generally not going to go well. I'm confused, is Cincinnati just a hotbed of OSHA activity and everywhere else, not so much? My father-in-law gets asked for his ID like every time some new OSHA guy comes in because he's a dark-skinned Italian who looks kind of Hispanic... his company wouldn't risk hiring illegal immigrants for anything.

So... you're (arguing against/saying that) pay raises for people so they make enough to live are not worth our time because illegal immigrants will just take those jobs for lower pay. Basically, you're arguing against a question of how much compensation is enough for living/should people expect to make that much money for a week's work with a discussion on immigration reform.

Jonman wrote:
runeba wrote:
Jonman wrote:

IMore to the point, have you looked into what "CHOICE" the immigration system offers? The TL:DR version is "precious few", the largest of which is "sorry, back home you go." You conveniently sidestep reality by painting illegal immigrants as refusing to take a valid legal path when very often there is no such thing.

And we designed the law that way for a reason. We already take something like a million legal immigrants a year. Why should those who feel entitled to simply coming here illegally be allowed to do so?

So you're agree with me that there are no legal avenues for a lot of wannabe immigrants, right?

So you rescind your earlier statement about them hopping the metaphorical fence instead of choosing to avail themselves of legal avenues to immigrate?

Yes, I agree that there are no legal avenues for a lot of wannabe immigrants, nor should there be, because an absurd number of people from all over the world would move here if they could do so legally and the very purpose of our immigration system is to prevent that and only let in people who are a net benefit to us in terms of skills/education. Indian doctor = good. Guatemalan maid = bad, because the latter will most likely in the long run consume more in welfare/services/social security than she will contribute in taxes, and that's why stopping immigration from the southern border is critical if you claim to care about America's poor and working class: because those immigrants will just compete with the poor who are already here for those welfare benefits.

You cannot talk about inequality in the United States without talking about immigration.

One hope I have is that all these immigrants from Latin countries eventually start voting hardcore and move the country towards unapologetic socialism and give those greedy corporatists who invited them their comeuppance.

And I understand, if you lead a middle or upper middle class lifestyle, immigration doesn't impact you in your bubble. It's easier for you to dismiss the anxieties the poor and the working class have about immigration as stemming from small-mindedness and racism.

Jonman wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Anyone can argue with the reasoning and prove absolutely nothing. The discussion will go nowhere without data to back it up. Saying "argue with the reasoning," is a major cop-out.

"Your reasoning is based on incorrect assumptions that are unsupported by the data" *IS* arguing with the reasoning.

Werd. Without any data supporting the claim that undocumented workers are having an effect, there is no other reasoning to argue with.

NSMike wrote:
Jonman wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Anyone can argue with the reasoning and prove absolutely nothing. The discussion will go nowhere without data to back it up. Saying "argue with the reasoning," is a major cop-out.

"Your reasoning is based on incorrect assumptions that are unsupported by the data" *IS* arguing with the reasoning.

What I meant was, making unsubstantiated claims and saying, "Here. HERE. Argue with THESE only, and ignore the burden of proof," is not going to further the discussion at this point.

I think you guys are kind of saying the same thing, now hug and make up. I don't like it when you fight.

Demosthenes wrote:
Fact: Most of the millions of people who will be granted amnesty and are flowing in through the southern border are unskilled.

...and traveling back into the land of things you probably shouldn't say...

Why not? They're not skilled. They're not accountants, lawyers, engineers, etc etc. Most of them don't speak english and are only qualified for low pay work. How is that not unskilled?

Demosthenes wrote:
Fact: Most of the millions of people who will be granted amnesty and are flowing in through the southern border are unskilled.

...and traveling back into the land of things you probably shouldn't say...

Consequence: Employers will not have an incentive to increase the wages of those jobs due to the availability of illegals willing to accept pay lower than what Americans would accept.

That's a discussion of the enforcement of existing laws. Companies being unwilling to raise pay levels because they have illegal options to bypass that are generally not going to go well. I'm confused, is Cincinnati just a hotbed of OSHA activity and everywhere else, not so much? My father-in-law gets asked for his ID like every time some new OSHA guy comes in because he's a dark-skinned Italian who looks kind of Hispanic... his company wouldn't risk hiring illegal immigrants for anything.

So... you're (arguing against/saying that) pay raises for people so they make enough to live are not worth our time because illegal immigrants will just take those jobs for lower pay. Basically, you're arguing against a question of how much compensation is enough for living/should people expect to make that much money for a week's work with a discussion on immigration reform.

Because the legalization of tens of millions of illegals will make the idea of raising the minimum wage to $15 seem all the more absurd, which is why the corporate elite is so supportive the immigration bill the senate just passed. I want a higher minimum wage. I want an American man or woman who works 40 hours a week to be able to afford living comfortably and raise a family without too much anxiety. However, that will simply not be possible if we insist on getting not serious about illegal immigration and these cycles of massive border hopping and eventual subsequent amnesty.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm really looking forward to seeing the studies and citations that show undocumented workers have any effect at all on native impoverished, rather than just a heaping dish of red herring.

Me, too.

Impact of immigration on African American men:

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborja...

Manual labor is still often a skilled job. We need a lot more than just accounts, lawyers, and engineers.

Increasing the Supply of Labor Through Immigration Measuring the Impact on Native-born Workers:

By George Borgas

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborja...

Findings:

• By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual
earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent.

• Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the
workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent.

• The 10 million native-born workers without a high school degree face the most competition from
immigrants, as do the eight million younger natives with only a high school education and 12 million
younger college graduates.

• The negative effect on native-born black and Hispanic workers is significantly larger than on whites
because a much larger share of minorities are in direct competition with immigrants.
• The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary.
It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status

runeba wrote:

The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary.
It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status

So why the focus on "illegals"? Why are we not concerned with overpopulation in general?

SixteenBlue wrote:

So why the focus on illegals? Why are we not concerned with overpopulation in general?

It's not about overpopulation but rather the ratio of lower-social strata people to available lower-strata jobs. Illegal immigration (and inevitable amnesty etc) increases the first factor in that ratio and therefore reduces the earnings of the people who work those type of jobs.

If only we could guarantee all workers could actually make a living wage, then we wouldn't have to worry about that....

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see what illegal immigration has to do with the discussion. I was under the impression that illegal immigrants couldn't work official jobs (and therefore don't pay income tax). This means that the issue of "living wages" wouldn't apply to illegal immigrants since there would be no way to enforce it.

To quickly enter into the terminology issue, I personally don't care one way or another (and I am also an immigrant but I don't see why that matters). If people have a huge problem with the term "illegals" can we just all agree to use the full term and move back to the original discussion?

Good article you posted, runaba.

It's conclusions do tend to imply that a minimal immigration policy (whether sanctioned or "illegal") is in the best interests of the nation's current inhabitants (at least in terms of employment). But equally, it makes as strong a case for putting more resources into education, does it not? If immigration puts significant stress on lower-wage jobs, you can tip that scale by increasing the skill-base of the workforce, resulting in fewer lower-wage jobseekers...

SixteenBlue wrote:

If only we could guarantee all workers could actually make a living wage, then we wouldn't have to worry about that....

But guaranteeing that would basically be a form of redistribution to the benefit of poorer folk, and I'm fine with that, I absolutely am. However, that would be at odds with massive low skilled immigration, because such benefits will only end up attracting more people from poorer countries, which would end up undermining the system and would require more strict enforcement of immigration laws, something which liberals seem to hate. At the end of the day the choice remains: Accept massive inequality in society with millions and millions of American's leading undignified lives of economic desperation...or make things easier for those Americans by protecting them from competition with low skilled immigrants. It's a case of liberal values clashing with liberal values, and many would just like to wish that a choice doesn't have to be made and hate to be reminded of it.

My final link in this thread. Article in the New Republic: "Why liberals should oppose the illegal immigration bill." By a liberal.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...

Jonman wrote:

Good article you posted, runaba.

It's conclusions do tend to imply that a minimal immigration policy (whether sanctioned or "illegal") is in the best interests of the nation's current inhabitants (at least in terms of employment). But equally, it makes as strong a case for putting more resources into education, does it not? If immigration puts significant stress on lower-wage jobs, you can tip that scale by increasing the skill-base of the workforce, resulting in fewer lower-wage jobseekers...

Agreed. Stopping immigration seems like the wrong solution to the problem. Isn't that kind of part of the American dream too? I work with my hands so my kids don't have to?

Jonman wrote:

Good article you posted, runaba.

It's conclusions do tend to imply that a minimal immigration policy (whether sanctioned or "illegal") is in the best interests of the nation's current inhabitants (at least in terms of employment). But equally, it makes as strong a case for putting more resources into education, does it not? If immigration puts significant stress on lower-wage jobs, you can tip that scale by increasing the skill-base of the workforce, resulting in fewer lower-wage jobseekers...

Jon, I'm going to express an ugly but no doubt true fact. The thing is, individual humans aren't equal. Some people are not that bright and can only do lower skill work. Education is not a panacea because not everyone is bright enough to take advantage of it. Basically we should really care about the interests of those Americans who are only bright enough to work as stocking clerks or burger flippers. There is such a thing as a genetic lottery, and some people lose out. Basically by and large this thread is discussing the interests of those Americans who aren't bright enough to complete a college education or even high school and can't learn to do very complicated things.

runeba wrote:

strict enforcement of immigration laws, something which liberals seem to hate.

This kinda smells like a right-wing talk-show soundbite, and I'm not convinced that it's true whatsoever.

runeba wrote:

Accept massive inequality in society with millions and millions of American's leading undignified lives of economic desperation

Yeah, welcome to America. Immigration or no, this country has one of the lowest rates of social mobility in the developed world. It's not much a problem of immigration as it is with every facet of the structure of how this country is run. If you start out poor, you're f***ed, regardless of which country you were born in. If you *really* want to help the poor, you invest sh*t-tons of money into education and the welfare system. And that's just plain un-American.

Rich people sometimes have not-so-bright kids too. They don't usually end up digging ditches, though. I don't think it's that straightforward.

I skimmed the hell out of this thread (sorry!), but I only have one thing to contribute anyway.

I live just south of Washington DC. I don't know what the actual statistic for the area is, but the cost of living here is absurd. $12 an hour isn't what I consider "high wages". I've lived on slightly less, but I had to forego things like... health insurance, and the ability to not rely on my parents to bail me out when my car exploded. I lived pretty lean, but $10 an hour doesn't get you far.

Not that $12 is nothing. Just... in context it may not be as much as you think.

The effects of the genetic lottery pale in comparison to the effects of the economic one.

What the genetic lottery you refer to determines is how much of a benefit education might bring, not whether it brings any at all. And again, the socio-economic lottery is more prevalent there too. Learning itself is an acquired skill, and if you don't have the opportunities to acquire that skill in early life, you're going to struggle to learn more in later life.

clover wrote:

Rich people sometimes have not-so-bright kids too. They don't usually end up digging ditches, though. I don't think it's that straightforward.

clover wrote:

Rich people sometimes have not-so-bright kids too. They don't usually end up digging ditches, though. I don't think it's that straightforward.

clover wrote:

Rich people sometimes have not-so-bright kids too. They don't usually end up digging ditches, though. I don't think it's that straightforward.

clover wrote:

Rich people sometimes have not-so-bright kids too. They don't usually end up digging ditches, though. I don't think it's that straightforward.

I agree. The rich and wealthy use their advantages to protect their not-so-bright offspring from the consequences of being average or below average. As it stands though we have to look at the pernicious aspects of this "meritocracy," because it often leads people who are close together in cognitive capability to mate with each other (college grads amongst themselves, Ph.Ds amongs themselves etc.) The consequence is that there is a good chance their kids stand close to inheriting some of the mental capabilities of their parents. Like, two Harvard grads siring kids who, while not exactly Harvard material themselves, are nonetheless in the upper 20% of the population in intelligence. Eventually we will have a "genetic elite" who find it easy to use their mental advantages to gain access through the doors of power and wealth.

Jonman wrote:

The effects of the genetic lottery pale in comparison to the effects of the economic one.

What the genetic lottery you refer to determines is how much of a benefit education might bring, not whether it brings any at all. And again, the socio-economic lottery is more prevalent there too. Learning itself is an acquired skill, and if you don't have the opportunities to acquire that skill in early life, you're going to struggle to learn more in later life.

Economic fate in a a meritocracy is often, but not always, a signal of cognitive capability.