Economics, what's that?

[Neoteny]

You say "tofu-eating" like it's a bad thing.

Because it is. Soy products have a number of chemicals that are potentially not all that good fror males when taken in large quantities. Simply put for guys this stuff is almost as bad as beef!

And yes I do eat both beef and tofu but both in moderation.

As is the case with everything. I'm just saying, tofu gets such a bad rap, merely due to its "tofusity."

[PLAYER57832]

You cannot continually lay off folks, cut wages to appease stockholders... raise prices ... and still expect folks to have money to buy things.

In this recession and downturn and time of poor business... the divide between the wealthy and the not wealthy (I don't say poor ... we are not truly poor in the US, despite all) is the highest it has ever been.

And, the percetage taxes they pay has never been lower ... though you would never know that listening to most of the news. (the "a bit above middle class" group, to contrast pay a great deal ... the truly wealthy don't).

Err...yes, you really can. You see, you cut wages, appeasing stockholders, who have more money, and buy things. Meanwhile, if dissatisfied with their wages, the workers can go provide a service for which there is a higher demand, and hence receive a higher wage. This makes the economy more efficient. Yah?

Nah.
Tie to leave the theoretical world of "Reagonomics" and enter reality.

The REAL truth is that while a moderately rich person getting some extra dough may buy a beach house, they invest or otherwise "lock up" most of their income. The richer, the LESS likely they are to go out and buy more "things". For one thing, they tend to have it already.

By contrast, a poorer person spends most of what they have. If you have no hope of saving enough to make a differance in your retirement, why NOT splurge on a new bike for the kids?

The REAL truth is that the poorer you are, the more you have to spend just to get daily necessities. Did you know, for example, that the average homeless person in the US spends an average of $500 a month?

ADD to that, far from a bunch of "freeloaders" as you so blithely dismiss the poor, the largest numbers are WORKING poor. What that REALLY means is that their employers are not paying them enough, and expect the rest of us to support them. If you are talking about a "mom and pop" grocery where the owner barely clears the poverty line himself, that might be reasonable. BUT far too many of these low income folks work for large corporations. Walmart is among the worst. When you go to work for Walmart in many areas, they hand you a food stamp application along with your other paperwork when you are hired. This is COMPANY welfare of the worst kind.

Foodbanks across the nation are seeing increases like never before in the number of people asking for assistance. Again, the increases are largely WORKING people and the recently laid off... NOT "freeloaders" .. CITIZEN workers, at that!

I DO actually think we support some of the wrong people. I addressed this in another thread, but right now, it would pay for me to divorce my husband. I would get free child care, free health care (INCLUDING eye and dental), even(in our area) a free pool membership and scholarships for my oldet to go to camp.

Remember the rhetoric about this new tax windfall most americans are getting? Give us more so we can go out and spend ...? If you listened closely enough, you DID hear in amongst the arguments the very things I said above ... that it would actually have benefitted the economy more togive those payments to the poorer individuals.

[suggs]

Player, you made a good summary of the points I made a few pages back. Well done

[jonesthecurl]

Unemployment lower when all males forced to join the army for a term: imagine that.
(UK Conscription ended in 1960)

[suggs]

Cool, bring on permanent life long psychological scars as you force people to do what they dont want to do, whilst giving the economy bugger all, YAY for conscription.

[Napoleon Ier]

You cannot continually lay off folks, cut wages to appease stockholders... raise prices ... and still expect folks to have money to buy things.

In this recession and downturn and time of poor business... the divide between the wealthy and the not wealthy (I don't say poor ... we are not truly poor in the US, despite all) is the highest it has ever been.

And, the percetage taxes they pay has never been lower ... though you would never know that listening to most of the news. (the "a bit above middle class" group, to contrast pay a great deal ... the truly wealthy don't).

Err...yes, you really can. You see, you cut wages, appeasing stockholders, who have more money, and buy things. Meanwhile, if dissatisfied with their wages, the workers can go provide a service for which there is a higher demand, and hence receive a higher wage. This makes the economy more efficient. Yah?

Nah.
Tie to leave the theoretical world of "Reagonomics" and enter reality.

The REAL truth is that while a moderately rich person getting some extra dough may buy a beach house, they invest or otherwise "lock up" most of their income. The richer, the LESS likely they are to go out and buy more "things". For one thing, they tend to have it already.

By contrast, a poorer person spends most of what they have. If you have no hope of saving enough to make a differance in your retirement, why NOT splurge on a new bike for the kids?

The REAL truth is that the poorer you are, the more you have to spend just to get daily necessities. Did you know, for example, that the average homeless person in the US spends an average of $500 a month?

ADD to that, far from a bunch of "freeloaders" as you so blithely dismiss the poor, the largest numbers are WORKING poor. What that REALLY means is that their employers are not paying them enough, and expect the rest of us to support them. If you are talking about a "mom and pop" grocery where the owner barely clears the poverty line himself, that might be reasonable. BUT far too many of these low income folks work for large corporations. Walmart is among the worst. When you go to work for Walmart in many areas, they hand you a food stamp application along with your other paperwork when you are hired. This is COMPANY welfare of the worst kind.

Foodbanks across the nation are seeing increases like never before in the number of people asking for assistance. Again, the increases are largely WORKING people and the recently laid off... NOT "freeloaders" .. CITIZEN workers, at that!

I DO actually think we support some of the wrong people. I addressed this in another thread, but right now, it would pay for me to divorce my husband. I would get free child care, free health care (INCLUDING eye and dental), even(in our area) a free pool membership and scholarships for my oldet to go to camp.

Remember the rhetoric about this new tax windfall most americans are getting? Give us more so we can go out and spend ...? If you listened closely enough, you DID hear in amongst the arguments the very things I said above ... that it would actually have benefitted the economy more togive those payments to the poorer individuals.

Yes...the rich invest. And what happens when you invest, dya think? Business receives money, and invests in new infrastructure, and hence pays for labour, thereby making the poor richer. It's not all that complicated... Not many rich folks keep stuff under their mattress. It doesn't make economic sense now, yah?


Now you lay out solutions to poverty like "repeal NAFTA" because blue-collar workers are losing their jobs because of it (well, that's a theory which Lerner and Marshall discredited back in '36, but hey, I'm just advocating "voo-doo Reaganomics", aren't I?), and forcible wealth re-distribution (cos that's worked out brilliantly, historically, hasn't it?). You may again, find it beneficial just to think about you're saying before posting these cretineries.

[PLAYER57832]

You cannot continually lay off folks, cut wages to appease stockholders... raise prices ... and still expect folks to have money to buy things.

In this recession and downturn and time of poor business... the divide between the wealthy and the not wealthy (I don't say poor ... we are not truly poor in the US, despite all) is the highest it has ever been.

And, the percetage taxes they pay has never been lower ... though you would never know that listening to most of the news. (the "a bit above middle class" group, to contrast pay a great deal ... the truly wealthy don't).

I would like to look at the data supporting that idea. I'm a big believer in raising the minimum wage but the rest of that seems like back-handed socialism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I can't think of a time when we haven't heard this charge leveled during an election year.

The data is hard to find. For a lot of reasons.

First, unemployment data in the US is based upon unemployment claims, which usually run out after 6 months (a few exceptions). Even the job data is skewed, again, by largely dismissing volumes of people who have basically just given up looking for work.

I answered some of this in my response to Nappy. I won't reiterate here, but just say that welfare to employed people is really welfare to the employer as much as the employee. Can't afford to pay more? Then you cannot afford to do business. BUT, the reality is that so many of these companies that claim they "cannot" pay more, "cannot" pay medical insurance benefits, etc..... make their shareholders and execs huge profits.

Why was the chairman of GM allowed to take a hug bonus at the same time he claimed they could "no longer afford" to pay medical for the retired workers ... who had been promised they would get full coverage with retirement. Who, exactly do you think is supposed to pick up the tab? We, the taxpayers, of course. Adding insult to injury, GM has gotten tax break after tax break with the expectation that they would maintain and create jobs. GM is just one example.

As for the rest...

It is very easy to see the top side of economics, but real economics takes the full circle into account. Employer pays worker wage so worker can go out and buy product, so employer can sell product and have money to pay worker ... etc.

The chain can break at any point. Right now, the point of breaking is the worker buying stuff. The only reason more people are not doing completely without right now is credit. THAT , and rising medical care costs, are the reasons for the rise in indeptedness in the US. Certainly, there is a lot of wasteful spending out there (though I will note, that "wasteful spending is EXACTLY what has kept our economy rolling and growing). BUT, I have only to look at my family, my neighbors to see how that is not always the case. We got into huge debt when my husband's insurance changed overnight and the next month my newborn son had to first, have some tests and second, had to be hospitilized with RSV (a serious respiratory infection). He is OK, now. BUT, we owed over $4000 in just a few short months. On top of that we had car troubles, heater issues ... etc. Friends and neighbors share similar stories.

AS for my source, I listen to NPR, watch/read Sue Ormon, and even my old college ecnomics professor.

This is even without getting into the issue many folks talking the "business" end try to forget ... externalities. These are NOT "free costs"... but they often are things the companies can ignore. Pollution is the best example. Two blocks from my house is what was a nice little trout stream. My father-in-law talks of bringing stringers home to eat. They needed them ... his father had died, leaving their mother to support the young kids. Then this stream became the dumping ground for several factories for years. The damage was, relative to other streams/rivers in our area (northwestern PA), actually little. Still, the trout and invertebrate populations coud not survive. Even in this MINIMALLY damaged creek, trout have only recently returned. (within 8 years). I would most definitely NOT advise you to eat them.

Head up north and there is this nice -- oops, better make that abandoned.... little community right next to a (almost empty) shopping center. What was the name?" Oh yes, Love Canal ...

Lakes Erie, Ontario, etc. all used to support huge fisheries. Now you are advised not to eat more than 1 fish a month. Less for infants and pregnant women. The companies are, for the most part long since gone. Superfund ... established to help towns and cities clean up these messes after companies are gone ... is basically bankrupt and expensive to use, at any rate. Cleaning up these messes costs far, far, FAR more than preventing them in the first place. BUT, try to impose legislation and you are "getting in the way of business".... introducing "ridiculous science" to support your cause (catch any of my creationist arguments ... note that the Bush administration is filled with strict Creationists ... the same "logic" is applied to dismissing these "crazy" claims of dangerous environmental impacts).

Anyway, that's starting to get off track. BUT, I just mentioned 1 example of externality and the most blatant, well-known at that. There are, of course, many, many others.

Employment is actually a direct cost ..BUT, ONLY IF THE EMPLOYER PAYS THE WORKER ENOUGH TO SURVIVE. IF they don't, then they are expecting society to pick up the rest of the tab ... and that makes it an externality. It also makes it corporate welfare.

[Napoleon Ier]

Raise the minimum wage? What, and hence hit millions of poor Americans the hardest by making companies no longer able to pay for their labour costs, causing the companies to go bust, shareholders to stop investing etc etc ad economic collapse?

But on a more fundamental level: who in blazes are you to prohibit a capitalist act between consenting adults? If I want to work for x$ an hour and someone is willing to hire me for it, why aren't I allowed to? That, my dear, is what I call economic fascism.

Laws of supply and demand...the apply to the labour markt as well, you know.

[suggs]

Yes, but you are assuming that workers have perfect knowledge of the labour market, and that transport costs are 0, both of which are not true.

For instance, you might be a labourer in some godforsaken outback of the US, and since there are no other jobs around, you are willing to work for $1 an hour. The employer loves this, and takes you on.
What the labourer doesn't know, is that 50 miles up state , he could work for $3 dollars an hour. But he doesnt' know about it, and couldn't afford to travel there even if he did.
So the market is working imperfectly, in the employers favour, who can keep exploiting the worker for an unfairly low wage.

This is why you need a national minimum wage, to compensate for market failure.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes...the rich invest. And what happens when you invest, dya think?
Business receives money, and invests in new infrastructure, and hence pays for labour, thereby making the poor richer. It's not all that complicated... Not many rich folks keep stuff under their mattress. It doesn't make economic sense now, yah?


Now you lay out solutions to poverty like "repeal NAFTA" because blue-collar workers are losing their jobs because of it (well, that's a theory which Lerner and Marshall discredited back in '36, but hey, I'm just advocating "voo-doo Reaganomics", aren't I?), and forcible wealth re-distribution (cos that's worked out brilliantly, historically, hasn't it?). You may again, find it beneficial just to think about you're saying before posting these cretineries.

I never mentioned NAFTA. BUT, as for Lerner and Marshall ... Ironic you cite a 1936 study ... seems like a lot has changed since then.

As for Reagaonomics. Sorry, Nap, but I was alive and well AND a thinking adult back when Reagan came into power. What you are quoting is MISTAKEN Reaganomics. He did advocate a "trickle down" economics, but not unbridled. He also did dismiss a lot of heavy-handed environmentalism. BUT, a lot of that was about the timber industry, fisheries, and off-shore oil drilling ... something I could write volumes on, but this just isn't the place.

But, let's get to the meat. The short of it is that profit is fine, business is fine (necessary) AS LONG AS they actually pay for themselves... and that means paying workers enough so that those workers can have decent places to live, clothes, food, save for retirement and even a bit extra for themselves and their kids. Right now, that just ISN'T happening in too many areas. Mine is one. We have, in our country over 80% of people below the poverty line. That is largely WORKING people. Often, both parents in a family work. Go out to California or to any of the bigger cities and the story is often worse ... for those in the lower working levels. I don't care if your job is cleaning toilets. If it needs to be done, then the person doing it needs to be paid enough to eat!

I got into externalities above, so I will just summarize here. "Paying one's own business expenses" ALSO does mean controlling pollution... so that the population doesn't have to clean up YOUR mess later. My son loves to fish. But, we cannot eat a single fish he catches, from ANY of the streams or lakes near hear, due to pollution by arrogant companies. The story is much the same across the east.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes, but you are assuming that workers have perfect knowledge of the labour market, and that transport costs are 0, both of which are not true.

For instance, you might be a labourer in some godforsaken outback of the US, and since there are no other jobs around, you are willing to work for $1 an hour. The employer loves this, and takes you on.
What the labourer doesn't know, is that 50 miles up state , he could work for $3 dollars an hour. But he doesnt' know about it, and couldn't afford to travel there even if he did.
So the market is working imperfectly, in the employers favour, who can keep exploiting the worker for an unfairly low wage.

This is why you need a national minimum wage, to compensate for market failure.

I'm skeptical. A private system of enterprise will allow some entrepreneur to move in and offer a better deal for the labourer, or allow him to work in a different field if he thinks that the employer in his preffered field is extortionate. This willwork far better than a blanket Polituro diktat which won't pay attention to the case-by-case basis and just hack indiscrimantely through all the fine mechanisms of the economy. I suppose that's something which must be emprirically determined, but still, I doubt very much your rather rare and special scenario is common, and that it wouldpersist very long, especially in a modern age of telecoms etc...

Compensation for market failure still doesn't address the clear immorality of aminimu wage, either now, does it?

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, but you are assuming that workers have perfect knowledge of the labour market, and that transport costs are 0, both of which are not true.

For instance, you might be a labourer in some godforsaken outback of the US, and since there are no other jobs around, you are willing to work for $1 an hour. The employer loves this, and takes you on.
What the labourer doesn't know, is that 50 miles up state , he could work for $3 dollars an hour. But he doesnt' know about it, and couldn't afford to travel there even if he did.
So the market is working imperfectly, in the employers favour, who can keep exploiting the worker for an unfairly low wage.

This is why you need a national minimum wage, to compensate for market failure.

I'm skeptical. A private system of enterprise will allow some entrepreneur to move in and offer a better deal for the labourer, or allow him to work in a different field if he thinks that the employer in his preffered field is extortionate. This willwork far better than a blanket Polituro diktat which won't pay attention to the case-by-case basis and just hack indiscrimantely through all the fine mechanisms of the economy. I suppose that's something which must be emprirically determined, but still, I doubt very much your rather rare and special scenario is common, and that it wouldpersist very long, especially in a modern age of telecoms etc...

Compensation for market failure still doesn't address the clear immorality of aminimu wage, either now, does it?

More likely, they will just move overseas ... reducing the US tax base further. OR, they will hire illegal aliens.

Here is where the illegal immigrant "problem" REALLY comes into play. You see, when they get tired of paying the US workers those "exhorbitant" wages they want, that might actually give them enough to eat and buy a house... they can then just turn to the illegal immigrants.

I mentioned Reagan. Did you know that he did NOT impinge upon illegal workers much at all. Ever consider why? Just down from his ranch are some pretty big reasons...

Anway. This is where, historically, unions have come into play. Before unions, there was no such thing as a day off ... sometimes Sunday (Sat where that is the Sabbath), but never a full weekend. No overtime, no limit to hours worked. Injured on the job? Tough! Long term dangers from chemicals and such were not even a consideration. Just survving the day was.

Okay, so you are not advocating a return to those days. EXCEPT... if you are an illegal alien. THAT is why LEGALIZING worker immigration is so critical. That won't happen by putting up walls. THAT happens when there is more incentive for folks to come legally ...and the MEANS for them to do so.

It also mean placing real and serious penalties on the companies that hire illegal aliens, not just a slap for the employer and the stockade for the worker.

BUT, as for just moving to take a new job ... it is not just a matter of knowledge, but of ability. I could get a job, in my field, with a decent wage, in another area. BUT, my husband would have a harder time. Also, he has to care for his parents. His Dad is almost fully disabled now. AND, even if wages are higher elsewhere, costs often are. That is why a "living wage" concept is critical. You need to pay a worker what they need to live IN THAT AREA.

[Napoleon Ier]

You cannot continually lay off folks, cut wages to appease stockholders... raise prices ... and still expect folks to have money to buy things.

In this recession and downturn and time of poor business... the divide between the wealthy and the not wealthy (I don't say poor ... we are not truly poor in the US, despite all) is the highest it has ever been.

And, the percetage taxes they pay has never been lower ... though you would never know that listening to most of the news. (the "a bit above middle class" group, to contrast pay a great deal ... the truly wealthy don't).

I would like to look at the data supporting that idea. I'm a big believer in raising the minimum wage but the rest of that seems like back-handed socialism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I can't think of a time when we haven't heard this charge leveled during an election year.

The data is hard to find. For a lot of reasons.

First, unemployment data in the US is based upon unemployment claims, which usually run out after 6 months (a few exceptions). Even the job data is skewed, again, by largely dismissing volumes of people who have basically just given up looking for work.

I answered some of this in my response to Nappy. I won't reiterate here, but just say that welfare to employed people is really welfare to the employer as much as the employee. Can't afford to pay more? Then you cannot afford to do business. BUT, the reality is that so many of these companies that claim they "cannot" pay more, "cannot" pay medical insurance benefits, etc..... make their shareholders and execs huge profits.

Why was the chairman of GM allowed to take a hug bonus at the same time he claimed they could "no longer afford" to pay medical for the retired workers ... who had been promised they would get full coverage with retirement. Who, exactly do you think is supposed to pick up the tab? We, the taxpayers, of course. Adding insult to injury, GM has gotten tax break after tax break with the expectation that they would maintain and create jobs. GM is just one example.

As for the rest...

It is very easy to see the top side of economics, but real economics takes the full circle into account. Employer pays worker wage so worker can go out and buy product, so employer can sell product and have money to pay worker ... etc.

The chain can break at any point. Right now, the point of breaking is the worker buying stuff. The only reason more people are not doing completely without right now is credit. THAT , and rising medical care costs, are the reasons for the rise in indeptedness in the US. Certainly, there is a lot of wasteful spending out there (though I will note, that "wasteful spending is EXACTLY what has kept our economy rolling and growing). BUT, I have only to look at my family, my neighbors to see how that is not always the case. We got into huge debt when my husband's insurance changed overnight and the next month my newborn son had to first, have some tests and second, had to be hospitilized with RSV (a serious respiratory infection). He is OK, now. BUT, we owed over $4000 in just a few short months. On top of that we had car troubles, heater issues ... etc. Friends and neighbors share similar stories.

AS for my source, I listen to NPR, watch/read Sue Ormon, and even my old college ecnomics professor.

This is even without getting into the issue many folks talking the "business" end try to forget ... externalities. These are NOT "free costs"... but they often are things the companies can ignore. Pollution is the best example. Two blocks from my house is what was a nice little trout stream. My father-in-law talks of bringing stringers home to eat. They needed them ... his father had died, leaving their mother to support the young kids. Then this stream became the dumping ground for several factories for years. The damage was, relative to other streams/rivers in our area (northwestern PA), actually little. Still, the trout and invertebrate populations coud not survive. Even in this MINIMALLY damaged creek, trout have only recently returned. (within 8 years). I would most definitely NOT advise you to eat them.

Head up north and there is this nice -- oops, better make that abandoned.... little community right next to a (almost empty) shopping center. What was the name?" Oh yes, Love Canal ...

Lakes Erie, Ontario, etc. all used to support huge fisheries. Now you are advised not to eat more than 1 fish a month. Less for infants and pregnant women. The companies are, for the most part long since gone. Superfund ... established to help towns and cities clean up these messes after companies are gone ... is basically bankrupt and expensive to use, at any rate. Cleaning up these messes costs far, far, FAR more than preventing them in the first place. BUT, try to impose legislation and you are "getting in the way of business".... introducing "ridiculous science" to support your cause (catch any of my creationist arguments ... note that the Bush administration is filled with strict Creationists ... the same "logic" is applied to dismissing these "crazy" claims of dangerous environmental impacts).

Anyway, that's starting to get off track. BUT, I just mentioned 1 example of externality and the most blatant, well-known at that. There are, of course, many, many others.

Employment is actually a direct cost ..BUT, ONLY IF THE EMPLOYER PAYS THE WORKER ENOUGH TO SURVIVE. IF they don't, then they are expecting society to pick up the rest of the tab ... and that makes it an externality. It also makes it corporate welfare.

That's nice dear. Only I'm all in favor of negative externality tax, and believe that if GM had promised something in writing, it should have the contract enforced. Yes, that's compatible with libertarianism.

As for your illegal immigration spiel, I see no relevancy. The improved working conditions are all part of well-documented shifts in the production function in the US economy, leading to a wealth effect (more consumption for less work, yah?). If an immigrant can do work for less and more efficiently, I don't complain. I believe most of these leeches are lazy, filthy parasites. Certainly a large minority aren't, and I have no objection to 'em.

[suggs]

I hear what you are saying, and the reason I partly agree
is that, to put some annoyingly simplistic labels on the discussion, I am a capitalist rather than a Leninist.
Of course you are right in saying that employers and employees must have as much flexibility as possible - one of the great achievements of the Thatcher and Reagan governments was to vastly increase the efficiency of the labour markets, cutting controls and enabling workers to find jobs more easily. Of course you dont want some mandarin directing the whole of the economy from the top -as you rightly point out, that has been tried, and failed.

So why do we diverge? A lot of it rests on the evidence -what you called my unusual example was, in fact, pretty much the norm in early twentieth century capitalist countries. Workers earning wages which they could barely (and in fact, not always) survive on - and there comes a point where you have to adress the "body count" and say "Well, perhaps overall, this is slightly inefficient- perhaps a few employers in New York aren't earning as much as they could, but at least labourers aren't dying of starvation in Nebraska.

Its a balancing act - you want the market to be as free as possible, to ensure the satisfaction of everyones wants, but sometimes the market needs a guiding hand, as the invisible one just isn't enough.

[Napoleon Ier]

I never mentioned NAFTA. BUT, as for Lerner and Marshall ... Ironic you cite a 1936 study ... seems like a lot has changed since then.

Not a study, a symmetry theorem. Taxes on exports are equal to a tax on imports, assuming balance of trade. Not very complicated when you think about it...but gets up the craw of more than a few jumped up economic fascists, like err...let's find an example...oh hallo there Player! Speak of the devil...

Now, can I please have a serious rebuttal (not some rant about fishing and your son with low jibes at how you lived through the horror of the Reagan years whilst I'm too young so can't comment etc etc thrown in)--

a) A single economist who supports protectionism.

b) A response to what grounds you can possibly justify the prohibition of capitalist acts between consenting adults on.



b)

[PLAYER57832]

I never mentioned NAFTA. BUT, as for Lerner and Marshall ... Ironic you cite a 1936 study ... seems like a lot has changed since then.

Not a study, a symmetry theorem. Taxes on exports are equal to a tax on imports, assuming balance of trade. Not very complicated when you think about it...but gets up the craw of more than a few jumped up economic fascists, like err...let's find an example...oh hallo there Player! Speak of the devil...

Now, can I please have a serious rebuttal (not some rant about fishing and your son with low jibes at how you lived through the horror of the Reagan years whilst I'm too young so can't comment etc etc thrown in)--

a) A single economist who supports protectionism.

b) A response to what grounds you can possibly justify the prohibition of capitalist acts between consenting adults on.



b)

1. Reagan years were not horror years.

2. Most of what you attribute to him was not him.

3. I am NOT against employers hiring. I AM against them hiring someone who cannot go elsewhere to look for a job for so low a wage that they cannot buy a house, pay the gas and utility bills, support their kids. And, this IS the reality for the overwhelming majority of workers.

4. Illegal aliens are not the "lazy bums" ... and if you had ever been around an illegal workshop or out on farms (where, I believe I mentioned I grew up...), you would know this. The "lazy bums" are US citizens. CITIZENS who ARE eligible for Welfare, and such. Now, what I said in another thread does hold. It USED to be that the illegal aliens ONLY took the lowest paid and poorest condition jobs, that citizens mostly would not take., such as farm work. (and I am not speaking hypothetically. My Dad's boss, as an example would hire any citizen who came asking. the average stay? A day. My dad was an immigrant, though from Europe (not Mexico) and definitely legal. In the 1990's, that changed to SKILLED labor jobs. Construction, meat packing, etc. In some ways, I suppose it is better to have the Mexican workers here, rather than down in Mexico, even if they ARE illegal. But, the REAL answer is to increase by roughly 100 fold, the number of LEGAL work Visas.

Illegal aliens CAN, when legalized, get social security ... but ONLY IF they have paid into it for over 30 years, just like everyone else. In a few areas, private social service agencies will provide food and other assistance to workers awaiting work... mostly migrant farm workers. They often can send their kids to school, BUT a lot of those are actually legal citizens.

[Napoleon Ier]

Social Security should be destroyed. Illegals should be made to pick cotton on Southern plantations and periodically whipped to ensure productivity stays stable.

[PLAYER57832]

Social Security should be destroyed. Illegals should be made to pick cotton on Southern plantations and periodically whipped to ensure productivity stays stable.

Yes, a nice, "intelligent" response, as usual....

But, to get back to that "what do illegal aliens have to do with this?"

They do not just work "more efficiently". They reverse years of work by unions (gasp, yes ... the ones that gave us unions and 40 hour weeks ... at least until the 1990's). They will work under UNSAFE conditions for wages too low to support anyone wanting to buy a house, support a family in the US. They drive the citizen wages down.

That is why Reagan, by-the way, actually supported illegal immigration. (though, again, he gave some lip service to countering it).

I am not against profit. BUT, profit is only profit AFTER expenses. Ignoring real costs of doing business, like paying employees enough to live on, health care, etc. are part of those costs. Tehy don't just go away because you dislike them. Either the companies pay, we pay or we have huge numbers of people literally starving.

Did you know that hunger was essentially eradicated in the 1980's. It is back. AND, it is back for WORKING people. Homelessness used to be a problem of druggies and those with psycological problems. Now, it is a problem for people you would never recognize as homeless.

As for the "back-handed socialism" bit. Perhaps. Labels seem to change to suit the political times. I look at the reality. The reality is that medical care is NOT a "free market" system. It cannot be. Teh reality is that externalities MUST be controlled by the government because they are, by their very essence NOT part of the "cost/profit" of a company. The government's roll is to impose rules, penalties and such enough that the cost to society is not greater than the profit to society from that business. Ideally, they should not drive the business out. AND, on the international front, it is a legitimate use of tarriffs. (that and ensuring that a country has the minimum base of certain necessary industries).

BUT ... and here I WILL mention NAFTA, because the rules in other countries are not as advanced as ours. Because Mexico, for example doesn't protect its workers or control pollution the way they do here. Because even food regulation is not as strict down there... companies move, not because they can get stuff cheaper and more efficiently, but because they can avoid all those nasty externalities. Except ... they aren't really avoiding them. Pollution in Mexico doesn't stay in Mexico.

The equation/ principal you cited works ONLY for labor costs. It does not work for externalities. THAT is a roll of international trade agreements and tariffs.

[Twill]

Guys,

Let's keep the poorly veiled racism, trolling and threadjacking out of the discussion.

This topic started on shaky ground, lets not send it over the edge.

Twill

[Frigidus]

Guys,

Let's keep the poorly veiled racism, trolling and threadjacking out of the discussion.

This topic started on shaky ground, lets not send it over the edge.

Twill

By shaky ground do you mean the brink of greatness? I have to admit, it has withdrawn into what some might consider an actual discussion.

[tzor]

They do not just work "more efficiently". They reverse years of work by unions (gasp, yes ... the ones that gave us unions and 40 hour weeks ... at least until the 1990's). They will work under UNSAFE conditions for wages too low to support anyone wanting to buy a house, support a family in the US. They drive the citizen wages down.

I think you hit the nail on the head, but it might not be the nail you were aiming for. Illegal immigrants will work (and work hard) for unsafe conditions and low wages. If I recall from my quick glance at reading this thread there was a discussion on raising the minimum wage. Illegal immigrants are in effect a trap door to go below the minimum wage. Raising the wage only shifts labor focus from the legal to the illegal because the posible penalty of getting caught is lower than the savings (in more ways than one) of using workers who are disposable in more ways than one.

Unions have done great things. They have also done horrid things. The two being equally true they are no different from any other organization in our society. Unfortunately as the nature of the workforce evolved the unions never adapted to the new model. Had the unions adapted they would have found themselves to be indespensable. They didn't so they are for the most part not.

[Snorri1234]

I think you hit the nail on the head, but it might not be the nail you were aiming for. Illegal immigrants will work (and work hard) for unsafe conditions and low wages. If I recall from my quick glance at reading this thread there was a discussion on raising the minimum wage. Illegal immigrants are in effect a trap door to go below the minimum wage. Raising the wage only shifts labor focus from the legal to the illegal because the posible penalty of getting caught is lower than the savings (in more ways than one) of using workers who are disposable in more ways than one.

Word. But is this the fault of the immigrants or the fault of a badly functioning government?

[tzor]

But is this the fault of the immigrants or the fault of a badly functioning government?

The later. Note that it is possible for these people to be somewhat exploited and still with sub minimal wages still save enough to be able to send considerable sums of collective money to their families back in their homelands. And generally speaking compared to other areas of the world where such tactics might lead a peson into virtual slavery and perpetual debt the success rate of illegal immigrants in the United States is quite high.

[Napoleon Ier]

EVERYTHING is the fault of immigrants. Obv.

[Snorri1234]

But is this the fault of the immigrants or the fault of a badly functioning government?

The later. Note that it is possible for these people to be somewhat exploited and still with sub minimal wages still save enough to be able to send considerable sums of collective money to their families back in their homelands. And generally speaking compared to other areas of the world where such tactics might lead a peson into virtual slavery and perpetual debt the success rate of illegal immigrants in the United States is quite high.

Indeed. The United States has a very different immigrant problem from other developed countries, as they share a landborder (sea-borders are usually easier) with a very poor country and also continent. In Europe people have to basically take a plane or embark on a dangerous unsafe journey hidden on boats, so we deal with less illegal immigrants having families in their old country and sending money.

Instead, we deal with a bunch of jerkwads who import their families.