Immigration reform ideas.

[Mandalore]

Now, while I think Dreadnaught is [female dog] of an idiot in other spectrums of policy. Mainly all the others, really. However, on this subject we're in almost complete agreement. We've already seen what harsher enforcement of immigration laws does. Here's an article I found after literally five seconds of searching. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... backfires/

Essentially, the labor market was 40% short of its needs due to a lack of immigrants because natural born Americans just don't want to do this [poo].

Also, as for his general comments on the economy...if you seriously look at the numbers that have came after the 08-09 meltdown...they are scary [poo]. Look at how much the stock market has risen in comparison with every. single. other. indicator. If that doesn't have you bent over a couch with lube screaming "BLACK SWANNNNN, BLACKKKK SWANNNNNNN" I don't know what will. Just as a short summary, the stock market has more than doubled from its lowest point in 09 which was roughly 6600 points and today it closed roughly around 16600. (http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/). This dramatic rise however, has not been seen literally in any other sector. The housing market for example of which there's a graphic here : http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/temp ... ices-2.gif while there has been a significant rise, it has not been nearly any where what the stock market has achieved. Our growth as a whole has been rather stagnant, but frankly our economy has reached full maturity and we weren't going to see dynamic growth after such an extensive meltdown in the way that emerging markets did.

[CommanderOtto]

Now, while I think Dreadnaught is [female dog] of an idiot in other spectrums of policy. Mainly all the others, really. However, on this subject we're in almost complete agreement. We've already seen what harsher enforcement of immigration laws does. Here's an article I found after literally five seconds of searching. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... backfires/

Essentially, the labor market was 40% short of its needs due to a lack of immigrants because natural born Americans just don't want to do this [poo].

I know, but dread is saying something in the order of bringing many more in a similar style of the gilded age... That's why I said immigration has to be carefully planned. Just ignoring illegal immigrants is going to cause problems in areas of agriculture as you said... but that does not mean that everyone can just come here. In this case people are right that too much illegal immigration does depress salaries. The problem is that they are illegal and not much information can be collected to adequately make a study on it. In economic journals there are a few professors that can make wild claims as well... and I can only wonder how someone could make a study on depression of salaries on information that does not exist because these people are illegal (no documentation). The basic mechanisms of the market are there ... and they will work as I just said. How much will it depress salaries? I don't know, it could be a lot, it could be a little... and I don't think any economist can actually do that safely with little information (no taxes, no work records, nothing). But if you completely open borders so that employers can hire anyone from abroad, like dread said, it would be disaster. I am pretty sure the world price of labor is way below than that in the u.s.

that reminds me... a farmer that hires illegal immigrants is cheating and making everything harder on honest farmers. Either farmers pay more for legal workers like everyone else, or the u.s government increases immigration just enough to cover that demand. Besides I don't agree with Forbes because they think that bringing more immigrants will magically free up americans to go study in the university and do higher skilled work after that.

[Darth Crater]

Also, as for his general comments on the economy...if you seriously look at the numbers that have came after the 08-09 meltdown...they are scary [poo]. Look at how much the stock market has risen in comparison with every. single. other. indicator. If that doesn't have you bent over a couch with lube screaming "BLACK SWANNNNN, BLACKKKK SWANNNNNNN" I don't know what will. Just as a short summary, the stock market has more than doubled from its lowest point in 09 which was roughly 6600 points and today it closed roughly around 16600. (http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/). This dramatic rise however, has not been seen literally in any other sector. The housing market for example of which there's a graphic here : http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/temp ... ices-2.gif while there has been a significant rise, it has not been nearly any where what the stock market has achieved. Our growth as a whole has been rather stagnant, but frankly our economy has reached full maturity and we weren't going to see dynamic growth after such an extensive meltdown in the way that emerging markets did.

What information does the stock market actually give us? Not an economist myself obviously. Is it just an indicator of investors' confidence in the economy? What does it typically correlate with or predict, that it isn't now?

[Mandalore]

Immigration in this sense, is to me like gun control. It is so impractical to curb in a restrictive manner that it makes no sense to go about it that way, but instead to loosen restrictions but increase registration and other steps in order to alleviate the problems that the initial issue causes.

In my opinion, the problem that large loads of immigrants cause in this country is parallel to the issue of education. Economic and social mobility in the United States is no where as ideal as it's spouted as. But this entire topic degenerates into a "lol america is a roman/british/every other declining empire still trying to power project on a massive (unheard of in US's case) scale in regions where we will soon no longer be the major tipping point when we have descended into having a second world country infrastructure, education, and health system." Coupled into this seems to be a very legitimate fear of intellectualism in our country, which to me is completely baffling.

In my view, the reactions to this seem to be the reverse of what they should be as well. Federalism was a system that was conceived when communication took hours for every mile. In our time we can communicate with the exact opposite end of the world in three seconds. The argument that cultural differences create a need for this system is vastly over stated...let's be honest, there are very small cultural differences between north and south in comparison to countries with real cultural differences. (Source: Northerner with southern family) Frankly, it's just more efficient to have a highly centralized government in some regards. While I don't think the state and municipal levels should be broken down completely, they could more than likely be integrated to have less. But on our end, we've seen far more movement for gaining more states' rights which is frankly a little bit silly. We already had that civil war guys, come on. Not to mention just less efficient from a monetary view.

This is exactly the issue, Crater. The stock market was originally supposed to be an evaluation of value that a company has. Now it has become far more moved by mass psychology. However, this institution is still linked monetarily to many things and can cause losses of billions in real dollars outside of its own made up valuations. The discrepancy between the market and the rest of the economy is the problem. To clarify, it's not really an indicator of much other than what people think the economy is valued at. However, even though it's essentially just a bunch of arbitrary values decided by mass psychology aided by actual fundamentals (aka, what used to be the end all be all) it can still cause incredible damage when it fluctuates. At the moment it is in another bubble imo. Bubbles pop.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Now, while I think Dreadnaught is [female dog] of an idiot in other spectrums of policy. Mainly all the others, really. However, on this subject we're in almost complete agreement. We've already seen what harsher enforcement of immigration laws does. Here's an article I found after literally five seconds of searching. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... backfires/

Essentially, the labor market was 40% short of its needs due to a lack of immigrants because natural born Americans just don't want to do this [poo].

I know, but dread is saying something in the order of bringing many more in a similar style of the gilded age... That's why I said immigration has to be carefully planned. Just ignoring illegal immigrants is going to cause problems in areas of agriculture as you said... but that does not mean that everyone can just come here. In this case people are right that too much illegal immigration does depress salaries. The problem is that they are illegal and not much information can be collected to adequately make a study on it. In economic journals there are a few professors that can make wild claims as well... and I can only wonder how someone could make a study on depression of salaries on information that does not exist because these people are illegal (no documentation). The basic mechanisms of the market are there ... and they will work as I just said. How much will it depress salaries? I don't know, it could be a lot, it could be a little... and I don't think any economist can actually do that safely with little information (no taxes, no work records, nothing). But if you completely open borders so that employers can hire anyone from abroad, like dread said, it would be disaster. I am pretty sure the world price of labor is way below than that in the u.s.

that reminds me... a farmer that hires illegal immigrants is cheating and making everything harder on honest farmers. Either farmers pay more for legal workers like everyone else, or the u.s government increases immigration just enough to cover that demand. Besides I don't agree with Forbes because they think that bringing more immigrants will magically free up americans to go study in the university and do higher skilled work after that.

Wow!

You really showed me.

I mean, you've mastered the 5th grade explanation of supply and demand. From Wikipedia no less. You must have an ADVANCED public school education. You must have VAST experience in real world finance, global economics and international trade. I'm certain that your certifications and qualifications in academia and real world experience dwarf and eclipse any I may have amassed through the years. I'll not spend paragraphs detailing my bonafides in this forum, but I'll simply say I don't THINK I'm smart...I AM smart. And I don't use "fancy" words...I use words. If you think they're "fancy" you should work on your vocabulary. Suffice it to say I have enough calligraphy on the wall and enough scars on my heart, hyde and soul to paint your face, dress you in motley and confidently declare you the master of merriment, follies and japes. That you would apply supply and demand principles in such a myopic way shows me your comedy can well be described as Magoo.

The both of you cant see the forest for the trees and hence can't understand what I'm getting on about. Let me try it this way. Simple. Un-nuanced.
It is better to spend U.S. capital and currency on domestic goods and services than foreign ones.
Currently there is an excess amount of currency exported to purchase imported goods. The majority of U.S. corporate capital spending is in foreign interests and economies.
These facts have HUGE implications on our economy including employment, wages, inflation and the gap between rich and poor.
The biggest reason these two factors exist is because other nations can use cheap labor to meet the demand for consumer goods at the current inflation rate. Americans can make the same products in the absence of foreign competition, but because of labor costs alone the affect on inflation would be astronomical and unacceptable. For the American economy to restore the capacity to meet these consumer demands the middle class must collapse and all but disappear (currently happening). A lifestyle with cheap affordable consumer products would disappear and only the rich could afford the semblance of a lifestyle enjoyed by the majority of Americans today. The ripple effect of these issues could quite literally destroy our country. All it would take to trigger such a calamity is a trade war with one or more of 3 major trading partners, but most notably China.

In order to avoid such collapse and to strengthen our own economy to a return to world power status our domestic economy needs to have competitively paid unskilled laborers so American companies can manufacture the goods in high demand in CONUS. Having spent most of my life in Michigan I've seen the manufacturing jobs go. I know the folks who still have what are left and I've been to China and have seen where they went. Only a whiny, liberal, academia [female dog] could decry the lifestyle of the unskilled laborer of the "gilded age" in America when comparing the lifestyle of the foreign peasant worker of today. And today's unskilled laborer in America (legal or illegal) has it a hundred times better in comparison.

The United States has a total population of approx. 314 million. Of that we have 155 million "work force capable". China has 798 million and a poverty estimate (living on less than $1/day($229/year)) of 100 million. India is worse with between 150 and 300 million (varying data). Those people would KILL for a $4/hour job of ANY sort. Currently, we can't compete with that. But we can if we let them immigrate.

Using a controlled system like what is currently in place (Green Card) but with a nearly non-existent quota system, we could swell our low skilled workforce to a level that, if exempted from minimum wage laws, could take back the industry we've lost. This would increase the number of middle and upper income opportunities as well. We would reduce our trade deficits and possibly increase exports. Tax revenue will increase with organic growth rather than hikes.

BTW, the stock market bubble Mandalore is talking about isn't as mysterious as he thinks. The market is working. The value of the companies whose stock is trading is truly going up. Investment dollars is being spent on capital improvement and expansion. The reason it doesn't show up in other indicators in our economy is because all that capital is going overseas. Improving the economic indicators of foreign holdings. The reason the rich are getting richer is because they invest. Their investments are paying off. They are just not in this country. A low cost labor pool would allow for successful capital investment and smart legislation providing carrot and stick could aid in creating the industry to keep these immigrants working and create new opportunities for current and future Americans to enjoy.

Otto, read this Washington post Article. It does a good job of discussing your fears about immigrant labor displacing and depressing American low-skilled jobs and wages. I hope after reading it you too will come to the conclusion that my method of increased immigration to create a low cost labor pool would not cause significantly more harm than is caused today by illegal labor and that the increased opportunities will only help in both the short term and long term future.

Henry Ford created America's middle class by taking a low skilled/paid labor force and having them build things they could afford to buy. Our economist have forgotten that definition of middle class. Let's teach it to them again.

[Darth Crater]

I'll not spend paragraphs detailing my bonafides in this forum, but I'll simply say I don't THINK I'm smart...I AM smart.

I'm sorry, but personally I see a fundamental contradiction between this assertion and your previous post saying that "anyone with a lick of sense" should "change greenbacks for gold."

It is better to spend U.S. capital and currency on domestic goods and services than foreign ones.

This appears to be the basis for your argument. Would you mind explaining why it is true, and whether it's true for all foreign trade or just some?

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

I'll not spend paragraphs detailing my bonafides in this forum, but I'll simply say I don't THINK I'm smart...I AM smart.

I'm sorry, but personally I see a fundamental contradiction between this assertion and your previous post saying that "anyone with a lick of sense" should "change greenbacks for gold."

Have you noticed the increase in the price of Gold in the last 15 years? Do you think we are just running out? There is a rush by those with means to secure hard currency and assets as a hedge against financial trouble. Based on this assertion, the upper limit of precious metal commodities is tied to the collapse of benchmark currencies.

It is better to spend U.S. capital and currency on domestic goods and services than foreign ones.

This appears to be the basis for your argument. Would you mind explaining why it is true, and whether it's true for all foreign trade or just some?

If you are asking if my statement is an absolute, the answer is no, but as I pointed out, my post was meant to be simply understood, with little nuance. For the purposes of the discussion and the topic at hand, yes, it is better to spend domestically then to import so many foreign goods. Suffice it to say, the dangers I've outlined with our exposure to imbalanced trade practices and possible repercussions from a potential trade war on top of the potential benefits to GDP and tax revenue prove the postulate.

[Darth Crater]

Have you noticed the increase in the price of Gold in the last 15 years? Do you think we are just running out? There is a rush by those with means to secure hard currency and assets as a hedge against financial trouble. Based on this assertion, the upper limit of precious metal commodities is tied to the collapse of benchmark currencies.

Well, from looking at some charts, gold actually seems to be coming down from a peak at the moment. If you're right that supply remains steady, it's possible the entire thing is just a bubble. It reminds me of Bitcoin's jump to $1000+ last winter, and that certainly wasn't a good time to invest.

Further, by your own logic, buying gold would be bad if you're not convinced that "collapse of benchmark currencies" is currently happening. I am not convinced, and I don't think you've made a case for it yet.

If you are asking if my statement is an absolute, the answer is no, but as I pointed out, my post was meant to be simply understood, with little nuance. For the purposes of the discussion and the topic at hand, yes, it is better to spend domestically then to import so many foreign goods. Suffice it to say, the dangers I've outlined with our exposure to imbalanced trade practices and possible repercussions from a potential trade war on top of the potential benefits to GDP and tax revenue prove the postulate.

Alright, I will accept that "usually" is implied in your argument, thank you. I was trying to say that I felt you had argued from the idea "spending on domestic goods is (usually) better" without providing evidence for that idea. If you don't want to go into more detail on that, can you recommend some related reading?

[CommanderOtto]

Now, while I think Dreadnaught is [female dog] of an idiot in other spectrums of policy. Mainly all the others, really. However, on this subject we're in almost complete agreement. We've already seen what harsher enforcement of immigration laws does. Here's an article I found after literally five seconds of searching. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... backfires/

Essentially, the labor market was 40% short of its needs due to a lack of immigrants because natural born Americans just don't want to do this [poo].

I know, but dread is saying something in the order of bringing many more in a similar style of the gilded age... That's why I said immigration has to be carefully planned. Just ignoring illegal immigrants is going to cause problems in areas of agriculture as you said... but that does not mean that everyone can just come here. In this case people are right that too much illegal immigration does depress salaries. The problem is that they are illegal and not much information can be collected to adequately make a study on it. In economic journals there are a few professors that can make wild claims as well... and I can only wonder how someone could make a study on depression of salaries on information that does not exist because these people are illegal (no documentation). The basic mechanisms of the market are there ... and they will work as I just said. How much will it depress salaries? I don't know, it could be a lot, it could be a little... and I don't think any economist can actually do that safely with little information (no taxes, no work records, nothing). But if you completely open borders so that employers can hire anyone from abroad, like dread said, it would be disaster. I am pretty sure the world price of labor is way below than that in the u.s.

that reminds me... a farmer that hires illegal immigrants is cheating and making everything harder on honest farmers. Either farmers pay more for legal workers like everyone else, or the u.s government increases immigration just enough to cover that demand. Besides I don't agree with Forbes because they think that bringing more immigrants will magically free up americans to go study in the university and do higher skilled work after that.

Wow!

You really showed me.

I mean, you've mastered the 5th grade explanation of supply and demand. From Wikipedia no less. You must have an ADVANCED public school education. You must have VAST experience in real world finance, global economics and international trade. I'm certain that your certifications and qualifications in academia and real world experience dwarf and eclipse any I may have amassed through the years. I'll not spend paragraphs detailing my bonafides in this forum, but I'll simply say I don't THINK I'm smart...I AM smart. And I don't use "fancy" words...I use words. If you think they're "fancy" you should work on your vocabulary. Suffice it to say I have enough calligraphy on the wall and enough scars on my heart, hyde and soul to paint your face, dress you in motley and confidently declare you the master of merriment, follies and japes. That you would apply supply and demand principles in such a myopic way shows me your comedy can well be described as Magoo.

The both of you cant see the forest for the trees and hence can't understand what I'm getting on about. Let me try it this way. Simple. Un-nuanced.
It is better to spend U.S. capital and currency on domestic goods and services than foreign ones.
Currently there is an excess amount of currency exported to purchase imported goods. The majority of U.S. corporate capital spending is in foreign interests and economies.
These facts have HUGE implications on our economy including employment, wages, inflation and the gap between rich and poor.
The biggest reason these two factors exist is because other nations can use cheap labor to meet the demand for consumer goods at the current inflation rate. Americans can make the same products in the absence of foreign competition, but because of labor costs alone the affect on inflation would be astronomical and unacceptable. For the American economy to restore the capacity to meet these consumer demands the middle class must collapse and all but disappear (currently happening). A lifestyle with cheap affordable consumer products would disappear and only the rich could afford the semblance of a lifestyle enjoyed by the majority of Americans today. The ripple effect of these issues could quite literally destroy our country. All it would take to trigger such a calamity is a trade war with one or more of 3 major trading partners, but most notably China.

In order to avoid such collapse and to strengthen our own economy to a return to world power status our domestic economy needs to have competitively paid unskilled laborers so American companies can manufacture the goods in high demand in CONUS. Having spent most of my life in Michigan I've seen the manufacturing jobs go. I know the folks who still have what are left and I've been to China and have seen where they went. Only a whiny, liberal, academia [female dog] could decry the lifestyle of the unskilled laborer of the "gilded age" in America when comparing the lifestyle of the foreign peasant worker of today. And today's unskilled laborer in America (legal or illegal) has it a hundred times better in comparison.

The United States has a total population of approx. 314 million. Of that we have 155 million "work force capable". China has 798 million and a poverty estimate (living on less than $1/day($229/year)) of 100 million. India is worse with between 150 and 300 million (varying data). Those people would KILL for a $4/hour job of ANY sort. Currently, we can't compete with that. But we can if we let them immigrate.

Using a controlled system like what is currently in place (Green Card) but with a nearly non-existent quota system, we could swell our low skilled workforce to a level that, if exempted from minimum wage laws, could take back the industry we've lost. This would increase the number of middle and upper income opportunities as well. We would reduce our trade deficits and possibly increase exports. Tax revenue will increase with organic growth rather than hikes.

BTW, the stock market bubble Mandalore is talking about isn't as mysterious as he thinks. The market is working. The value of the companies whose stock is trading is truly going up. Investment dollars is being spent on capital improvement and expansion. The reason it doesn't show up in other indicators in our economy is because all that capital is going overseas. Improving the economic indicators of foreign holdings. The reason the rich are getting richer is because they invest. Their investments are paying off. They are just not in this country. A low cost labor pool would allow for successful capital investment and smart legislation providing carrot and stick could aid in creating the industry to keep these immigrants working and create new opportunities for current and future Americans to enjoy.

Otto, read this Washington post Article. It does a good job of discussing your fears about immigrant labor displacing and depressing American low-skilled jobs and wages. I hope after reading it you too will come to the conclusion that my method of increased immigration to create a low cost labor pool would not cause significantly more harm than is caused today by illegal labor and that the increased opportunities will only help in both the short term and long term future.

Henry Ford created America's middle class by taking a low skilled/paid labor force and having them build things they could afford to buy. Our economist have forgotten that definition of middle class. Let's teach it to them again.

I am not a democrat or a republican.. and my explanations of supply and demand are mine. I copied a picture of supply and demand from wikipedia because I know economics and I can determine if it is correct or not.

and let me ask you? Are you an economist? Did you even pay attention to what I said? You can't go around the laws of supply and demand just because you said so. You have no idea what development economics is either. You don't have any knowledge of labor economics. You have not lived in any of the BRIC nations like I have either... I mean really.

and of course, if you bring the whole third world into the united states, of course that would create GDP growth... but then wages will DROP. Can't you get it through your thick head? It's not an opinion, it's undeniable. Keep lecturing me on your dogma while you have facts thrown right in your face. And it's funny because, I can only imagine what a simple person of small town america would say if you explained them that you thought bringing more unskilled workforce would save american jobs lol. Besides, economic growth needs a lot more than cheap labor. The U.S is already passed that stage and requires a different approach rather than just reducing the cost of labor. Besides, IT IS FUNNY how you are against free trade but you keep saying we should import labor, which is considered a product just like everything else.

Using a controlled system like what is currently in place (Green Card) but with a nearly non-existent quota system, we could swell our low skilled workforce to a level that, if exempted from minimum wage laws, could take back the industry we've lost.

oh man... never heard such ridiculous crap in my life. Look back at supply and demand laws and read about consumer and producer surplus. This would literally mean RUIN for the united states. This is why the majority of people think they know ECON because they read the washington post, but are totally misled by opinions of "journalists" and politicians who have never studied anything in the area. And again, this is regardless of my opinion. It is simply against the laws I explained to you. If you knew these "5th grade economics" as you called it, then you wouldn't be saying such absurdities. Besides, if you really knew what you were talking about you would have taken my post with graphs and told me why it is "wrong" (good luck with that).

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Wouldn't a large influx of low-skilled labourers combined with the elimination (or reduction) of the minimum wage result in the same class tensions and social divisiveness that we see in the countries you referenced Dread? The middle class would essentially collapse, standard of living would plummet, and millions would starve in what would inevitably be a continuously compounding cycle of poverty. What you would see is dramatic re-industrialization and societal change on an unprecedented level. The government would still, I assume, be obligated to subsidize impoverished families, and though (if I'm not mistaken) you believe there would be accompanying deflation, the temporary fiscal burden would drain the countries' resources. 66% of our budget is already dedicated to uncontrollable expenditures; I don't see how we can expect to accommodate a wave of immigrants without damaging the federal government's ability to coordinate policy, without affecting foreign output and purchasing power, which would then affect domestic output and purchasing power, etc.