U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:06 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,006,183 times
Reputation: 111

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
So by hiring a few illegal workers, saving merely a dollar or 2 from hiring a legal workers, that's enough of a savings to hire more doctors, nurses, IT technicians, executives, etc? That must be one hell of a large savings in order to even hire one doctor (starting salary in CA $180K) or nurse (starting salary just in CA of $70K). It tech starting salary $70K, an Executive millions. Now how can they charge a lower price if they simply spent the money saved to hire one nurse or it tech?
I mean, the short answer is yes - savings do pile up and allow for new hires. Sure, you probably won't be able to afford to hire an experienced doctor because your labor got a bit cheaper, but we're talking about the aggregation of many many many scenarios like this one playing out across a country. So yes, as research has fleshed out many many many times, wages do affect employment levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:10 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,800 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
Yet to be shown, really?

The wealth is not "redistributed" from low-skilled workers to employers. Unemployed workers don't have income from labor. Employers offer it, but at a lesser price than they might be offering if the job pool was not so competitive.

It seems as if you may be conflating two different situations:

1. The economy tanks. Employers have less money to spend on labor, and so they either cut jobs, cut wages, or both.

2. There is a new-found surplus of workers. Employers have just as much capital as before, but now they have options. When there is such a market and every single workers is demanding the same wage as before, employers have to just suck it up and pay that or find some workaround re: labor. But of course, the more workers there are the more that some will be willing to work for less. Employers can leverage this a little and allow the workers to compete for lower wages. This isn't some kind of horrific phenomenon, it's how literally every job market in the world works.


When the first situation happens, it sucks for everyone. Employers have less money, workers have less money. No one's having any fun.

When the second situation happens, it's a little more complicated. Employers have a lot of options with what to do with the capital they are saving, and they are very, very often going to turn it into more competitive pricing. If you're in a competitive market and get the opportunity to maintain the same amount of workers while selling more of your product, you're probably going to do it. The lower wages translate directly in this case to lower prices for consumer. They can also translate into more available jobs, as I've stated. This isn't ALWAYS going to compensate for the lower wages. There are various situations where it doesn't, but they are far outnumbered by the situations where it does.

If you doubt this, you are literally doubting the fundamental tenet of any even remotely free economy.

Now, my first question was loaded in the sense that once the Ohioans cross that border, they are basically Michiganites (wtf do people from Michigan call themselves?). So the question of what's "helping" Michigan is a little blurry. The only fundamental difference between a situation like that and a situation like the U.S./Mexico border is that most people here view the employment of an American as inherently more valuable than the employment of a non-American.
You've changed the dynamic, in the beginning it was only a higher unemployment rate, now it is the economy tanked. We're arguing two sides of the same coin, you for employers looking for labor, which usually means a strong economy and low unemployment rate, but I do understand your claim of releasing employees to save a company and re-hiring lower paid workers (tanked economy), me for employees already employed (high unemployment rate). Your scenario falls short though as by saving the company by releasing workers the employer will have enough money to invest in the short run. The investment would be far out if at all. The cost savings to consumers are at this point mute, as the employer has to stabilize the business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:15 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,006,183 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
You've changed the dynamic, in the beginning it was only a higher unemployment rate, now it is the economy tanked. We're arguing two sides of the same coin, you for employers looking for labor (tanked economy), me for employees already employed (high unemployment rate).
No. I was saying that I felt that you were conflating the economics of those two situations whereas I am only talking about the second.

In either economy, employers are looking for labor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: East Coast US
37 posts, read 22,996 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
It is against the law though. Is that of no importance to you? Those working in the kitchen, housekeeping and maintenance have stolen a job from an American. What part of that aren't you getting?

Americans can't afford the so-called lower prices (but they are not) if they themselves don't have a job. What part of that aren't you getting?
I wasn't disagreeing that they were illegal. I was disagreeing with your assertion that "Employers who would use their ill gotten profits from cheap, illegal labor would not create jobs for Americans anyway as most sane people would know. Any job creations would just go to hiring more cheap, illegal labor" which is just demonstrably wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
So by hiring a few illegal workers, saving merely a dollar or 2 from hiring a legal workers, that's enough of a savings to hire more doctors, nurses, IT technicians, executives, etc? That must be one hell of a large savings in order to even hire one doctor (starting salary in CA $180K) or nurse (starting salary just in CA of $70K). It tech starting salary $70K, an Executive millions. Now how can they charge a lower price if they simply spent the money saved to hire one nurse or it tech?
Hospital executive salaries don't start in the millions.

More to the point, however, I never said said "a few." Large corporations have hire many, many people. For example, if hiring one worker saves a dollar or two an hour (let's split the difference and call it $1.50/hr) and I hire one-thousand of those people for full time work across my organization, I've saved three million dollars. So, yes, I can hire more of anything I choose, and still lower prices, depending upon how I decide to divvy up those savings.

And that's before any multiplier effects, in that hiring more nurses or physicians allows me to see more patients, which in turn brings in even more revenue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:18 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,006,183 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Your scenario falls short though as by saving the company by releasing workers the employer will have enough money to invest in the short run. The investment would be far out if at all. The cost savings to consumers are at this point mute, as the employer has to stabilize the business.
Long-term investment, while good for the economy overall, obviously has a lesser short-term impact. But most investments are short-term (most companies don't have the resources to play serious longball).

Sure, IF all the saved capital goes to long-term investments and never to new hires, never to innovation, never to make pricing more competitive, never to buying a new car or two for the owner's wife, then yes, the benefits of lowered wages are going to be dismal in the short term compared to the costs. But that is an unlikely scenario.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:28 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,800 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickDros View Post
Hospital executive salaries don't start in the millions.

More to the point, however, I never said said "a few." Large corporations have hire many, many people. For example, if hiring one worker saves a dollar or two an hour (let's split the difference and call it $1.50/hr) and I hire one-thousand of those people for full time work across my organization, I've saved three million dollars. So, yes, I can hire more of anything I choose, and still lower prices, depending upon how I decide to divvy up those savings.

And that's before any multiplier effects, in that hiring more nurses or physicians allows me to see more patients, which in turn brings in even more revenue.
What of the employees you released to hire those 1,000 or so workers (you need to work in the costs of the employee even after he leaves with retirement packages, etc.)? or is your scenario as a Hospital just starting out? Chain-hospitalization? Your claims are unrealistic @1,000 low wage employees in a hospital. As for hospital Execs yea, they make a $1M Not Running a Hospital: Do I get paid too much?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:32 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,800 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
Long-term investment, while good for the economy overall, obviously has a lesser short-term impact. But most investments are short-term (most companies don't have the resources to play serious longball).

Sure, IF all the saved capital goes to long-term investments and never to new hires, never to innovation, never to make pricing more competitive, never to buying a new car or two for the owner's wife, then yes, the benefits of lowered wages are going to be dismal in the short term compared to the costs. But that is an unlikely scenario.
The short term savings would be needed to stave off losing the farm, isn't that why they would need to release and re-hire cheaper? Don't forget competition from other local farms, and farms from other nations as cheaper produced competition is imported. Fluctuations in the market due to storms and weather conditions, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:33 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,006,183 times
Reputation: 111
When you say "what about the employees you laid off?" you are sort of missing the point.

If I currently have 1k employees at $10/hr, are you going to step in and say "what about the 833 employees you COULD have hired at $12/hr?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:35 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,006,183 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
The short term savings would be needed to stave off losing the farm, isn't that why they would need to release and re-hire cheaper? Don't forget competition from other local farms, and farms from other nations as cheaper produced competition is imported. Fluctuations in the market due to storms and weather conditions, etc.
Not sure what you're saying. Yes, they need to compete, hence using the savings to drive down prices, directly benefiting consumers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 09:35 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,800 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
When you say "what about the employees you laid off?" you are sort of missing the point.

If I currently have 1k employees at $10/hr, are you going to step in and say "what about the 833 employees you COULD have hired at $12/hr?"
Again, same coin, different sides. Your scenario is great for a business just starting, but what for a business that is already established? What of the benefits owed to the employees you are releasing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top