America is the WORST freakin country in the world to be born into.

Wow...i came into this one late, but it has been heated...


The real question is simply, should programs be availible to some people and not others based on background? In this case it is a non-english speaking background. Now I admit, i havent read the flyer, but I think anything that excludes people in a discriminatory way is wrong.

I think Xeric is venting because he see oppurtunity open to others and not him.

There sometimes SEEMS to be this stance from some who support affermative action and other programs that help minorities as a sort of "payback". I know this isnt the case alot, but I have seen it, and have personally hear fellow black coworkers say "if it helps another brother get ahead i dont care what his skills are...". I was floored, but its what was said.

I hold firm to the "hire the best" and you'll get diversity through sheer statistics. My college experience proved that to me.I know women are misrepresented in college now at 54% to 46% guys, and our big state schools student body does not reflect the number of minorities in the state either being bias on the side of "diversity".

As for the black female and white male. There is no probable way they were exactly the same. Everyone brings different things to the table, and unless your at the top and can see the whole picture thats a hard call. Heck, just having a Union involved could increase the complication of an issue like that. Ever consider the kept her because of the union? Damned if you do and damned if you dont, huh?


You know race is a real touchy and nasty issue. People stay on the sensitve tilt and assume it because of race that a decision is made. I think most, if not nearlly all, people want to be judged on their merits and accomplishments. If you want special treatment because of your race then you are racist, period. We either are all equal or we are not, but I think if we all stand on our own merits then we wont have anything to prove to each other and wont expect anything in return. If you have emotional reactions, like i think Xeric may have had, you sometimes generalize things into groups that are not fair, but seem valid in the face of anger and frustration.

 

I'm very sorry, Inductor, but there was nothing racist about Xarick's remarks.

There is something, however, particularly asinine about calling anyone who disagrees with a particular policy that inherently favors one particular race or nationality "racist".

That's you, Inductor. The asinine one. And that you will be until you can explain exactly what Xarick said that was racist.

And have a nice day.

 

Nothing racist, really, it was more like xenophobic .......

I hope someone gives Xarick a 6 week ESL training so justice be served.

 

Now xenophobia is a possibility here, but not proven on the basis of nothing more than Xarick's irritation at an apparent absurdity in our system. But at least it's a justifiable perspective, so I commend you, JLV.

But that fellow who shouted "racist" on the basis of nothing more than Xarick's rant--I'm sick of people who don't even understand the meaning of terms throwing the racist label in peoples' faces. I suppose they'd call me a racist for saying that the immigration protestors are a bunch of presumptuous asses for daring to protest a nation that even considers a crack down on illegalimmigration. If I had illegally crossed a nation's border and was currently living and working as an outlaw, paying no income tax, flouting the rules, I'd hang my head in shame rather that strutting around with a placard and shouting at the state capitol.

Why ion the world doesn't GWB just call out the national guard, march to the demonstrations, and make them, one by one, prove their citizenship status? I'd say probable cause or at least a reasonable suspicion by legal standards would exist for checking their paperwork, IDs, etc. Why not do it? That would be perfectly within the rights of any free nation.

When will our leaders grow a spine? When will GWB realize that if millions can very publically flout the laws, that the law ceases to have any effect, and we are left with anarchy?

 

Tell that to Chirac If he read your words probably he´d feel very identified.... It is unbelievable the influence that demostrations, strikes, and civil disobedience have on politicians. But this specific case has nothing to do with immigration policies or revolts or illegal aliens. This has to do with whining. To you it may look an absurdity, but that program that Xarick mentioned aims to integrate immigrant people in the system so they can accept entry level positions that most Americans wouldn´t even be willing to consider. The training is directed to persons who enjoy a valid working permit. You are an intelligent man, tell me, please, what are the chances that any of those immigrants will ever "steal" real job opportunities from American people?

 

I don't know if I'm an intelligent man. But thanks for the compliment!

As for stealing jobs, I wasn't even addressing that issue with any of my posts.

But I'll address it now. There are, of course, millions of Americans working in unskilled jobs or lower-skilled jobs such as the ones that were the subject of this debate. This includes construction jobs, agricultural jobs, etc.

Whether jobs are being "stolen" or not is irrelevant. It's undoubtedly true that the more workers you have flooding into a market, the lower will be the wages for the class of jobs that they occupy. This is a matter of supply and demand and is irrefutable. This is old news, dating back at least to Adam Smith's treatise in 1776, and probably millenia earlier. So the wages for unskilled labor in this economy are certainly lower as a consequence of illegal immigration. And these people seldom--if ever--pay income taxes and often, so I read, send their wages back to their homeland. That is a net loss to our economy.

One thing no one has addressed, so far as I've heard, is whether or not the reason that the vast majority of Americans are not having their jobs "stolen" by illegals is due to the fact that illegal labor has so killed the market for those unskilled jobs that no American will work them. You just can't throw five or ten million people willing to work for substandard wages into an economy and not see an effect. Any argument to the contrary ignores the laws of economics and is pure sophistry.

 

While I am not a fan of illegal anything...a study HAS been done (Economist) that found that the net effect of illegal unskilled workers in a US labor metro market was 3%.

 

3% of what?

If you mean 3% of our labor force, then that just about lines up with my numbers that I pulled off the top of my head.

 

3% hourly wage impact

 

What is relevant then? What does it bother people then? That a poor sob get a ridiculous subsidy to study English? Or the fierce competition she poses?

That reasoning is just incorrect. Certainly, an excess in the offer of workers decreases it value, but that would be an insignificant secondary effect (as Jim pointed out) compared to all the advantages it brings to an economy. Are you familiar with the work of David Ricardo, the British economist? A country’s economy greatly profits when a good that can be produced cheaply abroad is imported rather than made at home. This is basic microeconomy, and it is accepted by all economists as a fact, but I can demonstrate it if you don’t believe me. It is comparative advantage’s theory. So by having labor "imported" your economy grows bigger, not to speak of other secondary benefits like a better controlled inflation, the benefits the additional consumers bring, etc... The same phenomenon occurs with outsourcing. A person may lose his or her job to outsourcing, but the economy of the US as a whole benefits from that. The second part of your argument is equally wrong, IMHO. If those immigrants send dollars away, which is true they do, those dollars can only be used sooner or later to buy American products or services (instead of japanese, European, etc,..), which in turn allows American firms and workers to profit from it. Don’t you see it only brings benefits?

No offense intended, but given the current context (the knowledge and information society and economy), if you are an American and have to compete with illegal immigrants for work, you must have done something really bad with your life. This is true not only in the US, but anywhere really. These are tough times. Decades ago if you were born in the US or in Western Europe, your future was pretty much safe and certain. Nowadays the competition is brutal, and you have got to fight constantly, by improving yourself, to be competitive. Whining, complaining, blaming it on the immigrants won’t help you. It is that simple. That won’t help at all to alleviate your situation. You’re a lawyer, but still feel the need to improve yourself by acquiring an MBA. That is what I mean. That’s the right attitude. That’s what others here should try to understand, that being born here or there doesn´t constitute an advantege anymore.

Regards.

 

Just as a PS.

I don’t even suggesting that illegal immigration should be tolerated. Immigration should be controlled, and local population educated to assume and to understand that it is necessary. That’s not what we discuss here, but I want to make that clear. I also want to explain that as long as these gigantic economic differences between the US and its southern neighbors persist, emigrants would keep on coming. It doesn’t matter if you build a wall, if you put crocodriles in Rio Grande, or if you shot them, or if you criminalize them; they will keep on coming as long as there is nothing there to dissuade them from coming, and as long as there is demand for them in post industrialized societies.

 

1. What is relevant is that some are getting a subsidy while others are not. Further, what is also relevant is the competition that those given the subsidy will pose to those not given the subsidy. Perhaps you would know and feel this more keenly if people were lined up outside the company gates looking to take pyour job.

2. For starters, whatever basic macroeconomics says, Joe Off The Street could care less what benefits the American economy or the global economy; Joe Off The Street cares that Joe Off The Street and his family have a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, clothes on their backs, enough money to keep one step ahead of the bill collectors, and hopefully a bit of spending money. I don't know what JLV does for a living, but I can tell you this: if JLV's job provides a product or service that I would tend to buy regularly, JLV and his family would not likely be too happy for me if I could buy this product more cheaply because JLV was put out of a job to less expensive foreign labor. You are also wrong that dollars sent home by foreigners working in America can only be used to buy American goods; they can and will be used to buy whatever nationality of goods is available back home.

3. That is just the point. People now living have memories of those who came into the real world when their country was quite dominant, a time when a college degree actually meant something in the labor market, and those who didn't like school or didn't have the money to go to college could always walk on down at the friendly neighborhood local factory at good wages with a good union to protect you. And the loss of that special protected status that stemmed from being darn near the only national economy still left standing after World War II does tend to provoke a certain reaction in those who feel that loss of status most keenly.

 

1. In most countries, some pay higher taxes percentages than others. That is also unfair because it differentiates among equal people, but citizens generally accept it as just. Here is the same. A poor immigrant having no resources, nor access to higher education gets a free English training course, and gas to get there. Life is soooo unfair to some people who don’t get such subsidies. My eyes are flooded with tears before such an injustice!! Many people are trying to get my job, and many would like to get yours. The reason they don´t have them is because both you and I protect it by being competent and productive. If it stops being worthy for me to work for this or that employer, I change jobs.

2. Ricardian theory is taught in microeconomics courses. I agree that for a person is not nice to see his or her job outsourced or his salary decreased due to immigrants. That’s why I said earlier that an intelligent individual must be continually re-educating him or herself at all times to be competitive. Old assumptions don’t mean nothing in this current context. Either one adapts or dies.

And, in any case, for the national economy, it is clearly beneficial to purchase cheaper services and goods abroad as the theory predicts. It was in fact Little Fauss who invoked Adam Smith, and brought up macroeconomic aspects to the discussion. I imagine it is a tragedy at the individual level, but it is still beneficial for the country. As a consolation, in a stronger economy it is easier to find alternative jobs.

Regarding the currency issue, and with all due respect, I think you don’t fully understand what having all transactions done in US currency means for America. If that money leaves the country, it EVENTUALLY will be used to buy American products or services. Nor German, nor French, nor Japanese. Whatever path the currency follows doesn’t make any difference. It eventually be used to purchase an American good. That is the only purpose of using US dollars as an international currency. Look how pissed was Condoleeza Rice, for instance, when Iran announced it may consider requiring euros to buy Iranian oil.....

An example Ted. Let’s suppose you have done a service for me in my bookstore, and let’s suppose we agree that I pay you with a gift certificate from my shop worth X value. You can use that gift certificate to pay for other goods and services from other people, and they can do it too or especulate with it (waiting and seeing if they can acquire more with the same certificate), but, eventually, someone will have to come to me with MY certificate and use it in MY shop to buy only MY products. It might be used (or not) to purchase this or that item from this or that store, in this or that country. But one thing we know for sure. It will eventually come to me. With US dollars a similar (but much more complex) process takes place.

3. The world has changed irreversibly, and government protection is not enough anymore to survive. Again it was Little Fauss who mentioned liberal principles by Adam Smith which are definitely against protectionism. Besides, those unionized jobs will soon leave developed nations. We’ll see what happens to those people that now compete with illegal immigrants. They have a tough future if they don’t wake up, and stop whining.

 

Illegal immigrants and English

In the fierce debate over illegal immigration, the particular terms used by those who argue our porous borders are not a serious problem can tell us a lot.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0604140298apr14,1,654031.story

 

Jim, we are not discussing here illegal immigration which I am against without a doubt. Furthermore, I didn´t use any euphemism to refer to it, and there are not open borders advocates. Forgive me, but unless I am missing something, that article you brought up is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. Xarick´s colleague is a legal resident, and has a working permit. Earlier I defended controlled immigration as a source of richness ofr all parties, even though I am aware of how difficult it could be.

 

That's interesting, I never thought that USD, once printed, can only--sooner or later--be used to but US goods. Is that what you mean? So long as the value in our economy is there to substantiate it and we're not talking about just printing presses and green paper a la Germany during the Weimar Republic, then I suppose you're right. But I want you to demonstrate this to me, because it may be rudimentary to you, but it's interesting to me.

I am familiar--in a Wikipedia sort of manner--with David Ricardo. But as my Economics education runs to but one year of undergrad and a single class in law school, I'll defer to your expertise.

One factor that must also be considered is the cost of illegal immigration to social programs, incarceration, education, law enforcement, INS, etc. Is this really where we want our resources directed? Is that the most efficient use thereof? That, coupled with the decrease in wages for a given type of occupation, must be set on the minus side of the equation. I don't think Ricardo said anything about that, given that he could not have known about the extent of our modern welfare state.

I defer to your superior knowledge of economics, but I am not convinced that the flood of illegal immigration has had a net positive effect on much of anything in our economy. That issue is still hanging in the air.

This is not necessarily the case. There are millions of Americans who happen to work in construction or semi-skilled occupations. They have not necessarily done anything terrible with their lives, they just may not have 130+ IQs like yourself and the wherewithal to read Ricardo. But they are experiencing pain as their industries are flooded with low-paying labor. Realize that I live in a small midwestern town. The great majority of people who work here build things or fix things or fabricate them, including those in my own family. These are the people who are affected. You can make abstract macroeconomics arguments all day long to them, but if by increasing the whole--which I still contend is a very debatable topic--you have harmed those on the bottom, it's a flippant answer to just tell them to get more education or try their hands at a different career. This is not a matter of the market shifting and buggy whips no longer being neccessary, it's a matter of certain individuals flouting the law and others paying a price for it. I'll throw an economic term at you now: externalities.

(and yes, I'm aware that you do not favor illegal immigration)

Regards and thanks for your kind and reasoned response.

LF

 

Hi Little Fauss, thank you very much for your kind words, but they are clearly undeserved. I am a completely average person, with an average IQ, and having nothing really especial to offer. I enjoy economics, but just as an amateur. I took several economics courses as an undergraduate and later on as a post graduate student, and by no means am I a specialist.

Regarding this issue, there is no question immigration is beneficial for a country’s economy. I think I read a few days ago that 10% of current American residents are immigrants. Of those 30 million immigrants, 12 million (if I remember correctly) are illegal. In spite of those worrisome figures, the unemployment in the US is still around 5%, and the economy keeps on growing. All the economic indicators pose no concern to authorities. Take a look at Germany or France, to name countries with gigantic structural flaws, and specially their unemployment figures and the stagnation of their economies. The US can accept those immigrants, and its economy becomes stronger. There is of course a limit as to how much labor a country can import. Open borders is a political collective suicide. Immigration should be controlled, and one should not feel guilty about it. And yes, you’re right, there is a social price to pay that cannot be measured in terms of economic performance. Those Americans that traditionally accepted those unskilled jobs have to train themselves or be a victim of globalization. America offers a lot to its citizens to progress. Yeah, not everyone could become a rocket scientist but nevertheless in the knowledge economy one cannot afford to be unskilled, and must use every single opportunity to become trained. This is the price of globalization that affects many people in the world, also in the US. There are also cultural problems regarding immigrations, but those could be overcome. It could be much worse. Look, for instance, at the typical immigrant in America and compare it to the typical immigrant in Europe….

The US dollar thing looks strange, but it makes sense. When one prints his own notes, his own money, one has a lot of power. And many organizations know it. Imagine that you get paid for your services with “Delta Airlines Frequent Miles” checks. You could, of course, use it to buy groceries, clothes, etc. The retailers could use it too, but eventually someone would go to Delta (and not to Northwest, or Air France, or British Airways) to “cash” in. Americans are delighted that oil can only be purchased with USD for identical reasons. So it is not a concern that immigrants send money back home because they also help the national economy of their countries with those economic injections which in the long term it means less immigration. Everyone benefits. Truly a pleasure talking to you, Little Fauss. You´re a gentleman. Have a nice weekend.

 

That's interesting to me, I never thought of it. You're too kind, I'm not that much of a gentleman, I thought I was still being a little hard-edged with my last post. And surely you've read some of my other posts elsewhere, I can be pretty blunt--some might say an a__hole--somtetimes.

Anyhow, thanks for another lesson. I've learned a lot here, and heard a lot of things that got me started on other amateur research. They should give credit for this!

 

I hereby bestow the title of "The Big brain Crew" to JLV and Little Fauss.

BTW, out here in California, there are kids who put "Big Belly Crew" stickers on their fixed up trucks. Doesn't "Big Brain Crew" just sound better?


Abner

Take care gentleman!