Does it benefit Michigan to ban low-skill workers from Ohio? (health care, illegal)
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.
Each State has "Residency" requirements before one (moving workers) can avail themselves of the States welfare benefits. They would still be able to draw welfare from the state they left for a period of time. So now, your hypothetical becomes nothing more then an abundance of low wage workers competing for jobs. I would question as to why they are moving to an area with a high unemployment rate to begin with, as employers in most professions must have a reason to release a worker to replace with another worker. Your hypo is really unrealistic, both in analogy and in claiming there are Constitutional issues when there really are none. Each State can mandate residency requirements before becoming a resident of said State.
The new law would be good for Michigan based on the simple fact that they are not paying out the welfare benefits for a set amount of time (they could also put into this law that one must have a prior job in Michigan in order to obtain welfare benefits once said residency requirements are met), Ohio would be the loser as they are paying benefits to people living in another state.
First, thanks for at least taking a half swing at this.
But lol "your hypo is unrealistic."
Yeah it's almost as if it's a construct designed to isolate certain issues and ignore others.
In the hypo, they are utilizing Michigan's welfare system. It's a hypothetical. You state that you don't understand why they'd do somewhere with high unemployment. It's clearly happening with immigrants both legal and illegal today, so I'm sure you can sort that out. But it's implied in the hypo that the situation in Ohio is worse.
And re: Constitutionality, there is a massive Dormant Commerce Clause issue as well as a P&I issue, at the very least. But again, to be ignored.
BI know you are fully capable of responding without fighting the hypo. After you answer I plan on modifying it slightly such that welfare is much less of an issue, FWIW, and seeing what you would think.
First, thanks for at least taking a half swing at this.
But lol "your hypo is unrealistic."
Yeah it's almost as if it's a construct designed to isolate certain issues and ignore others.
In the hypo, they are utilizing Michigan's welfare system. It's a hypothetical. You state that you don't understand why they'd do somewhere with high unemployment. It's clearly happening with immigrants both legal and illegal today, so I'm sure you can sort that out. But it's implied in the hypo that the situation in Ohio is worse.
And re: Constitutionality, there is a massive Dormant Commerce Clause issue as well as a P&I issue, at the very least. But again, to be ignored.
BI know you are fully capable of responding without fighting the hypo. After you answer I plan on modifying it slightly such that welfare is much less of an issue, FWIW, and seeing what you would think.
Then simply based on your analogy it would be bad for Michigan due to the fact of paying out welfare to these new arrivals who haven't paid into the Michigan welfare system. Lower wages will also lower payroll taxes collected. More children enrolled in local schools. Further lowering the states ability to pay these welfare payments. The state would then have to limit or lessen the time a person would be on said welfare. Eventually it could bankrupt the State. Michigan's Act of 2011 could get passed and attempt to mitigate the economic loss they are about to endure.
Then simply based on your analogy it would be bad for Michigan due to the fact of paying out welfare to these new arrivals who haven't paid into the Michigan welfare system. Lower wages will also lower payroll taxes collected. More children enrolled in local schools. Further lowering the states ability to pay these welfare payments. The state would then have to limit or lessen the time a person would be on said welfare. Eventually it could bankrupt the State. Michigan's Act of 2011 could get passed and attempt to mitigate the economic loss they are about to endure.
Lower wages do not necessarily mean lower taxes collected overall. Some of the savings employers have will be re-fed into the economy in various ways. It could mean another worker, it could mean a new purchase or other investment, etc.
But further:
OK, so eliminate welfare. Does this become a bad law for Michigan?
Lower wages do not necessarily mean lower taxes collected overall. Some of the savings employers have will be re-fed into the economy in various ways. It could mean another worker, it could mean a new purchase or other investment, etc.
But further:
OK, so eliminate welfare. Does this become a bad law for Michigan?
The further investment or another worker would take time, if you release one worker paying him $10 per hour for one to pay $8 per hour, that $2.35 or so savings would require that atleast 4 - 5 employees be swapped out to simply increase your employees by one over what was there to begin with. How many hours would it take to save enough money to purchase new equipment or to invest enough to make things better?
By eliminating welfare it is still bad for Michigan, not as bad. All other costs are still there.
The further investment or another worker would take time, if you release one worker paying him $10 per hour for one to pay $8 per hour, that $2.35 or so savings would require that atleast 4 - 5 employees be swapped out to simply increase your employees by one over what was there to begin with. How many hours would it take to save enough money to purchase new equipment or to invest enough to make things better?
By eliminating welfare it is still bad for Michigan, not as bad. All other costs are still there.
OK. So if Constitutional barriers and such were to be eliminated, do you think that it would benefit the nation overall if EVERY state passed such a law, preventing out of state workers from easily moving to their state to work? Or is that a total wash?
OK. So if Constitutional barriers and such were to be eliminated, do you think that it would benefit the nation overall if EVERY state passed such a law, preventing out of state workers from easily moving to their state to work? Or is that a total wash?
The issue I think you are attempting to get at is if the State is already doing poorly, does it behoove the state to try to keep low wage workers from further costing the state. I say it does. Your argument seems to be more population more taxes generated, which is only half the equation.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 06-29-2011 at 04:31 PM..
So to put aside the debate of rule of law (which I plan to create a separate thread on if this one isn't a disaster), I think there is a fundamental disagreement in play about the economic efficiency of mobile labor.
Several times here I have accused a few posters of simply not knowing much at all about economics. In response I've generally been told I lack "common sense" or something similar. So to clarify what I believe to be the most brutal misunderstanding frequently displayed here, I offer the following hypothetical, with randomly selected states:
Michigan, with large unemployment rates, notices that a lot of low-income workers from Ohio are moving up to Michigan, where their prospects for work are better. The workers start to offer low wages (above minimum wage for the most part), and begin to avail themselves of state welfare programs.
Michigan, with its longtime residents complaining about the newfound competition, decides to make a strong move and put massive restrictions on Ohioans who are trying to move into their state via a new law - the Protecting Michigan's Jobs Act of 2011.
Ignoring constitutional issues (Michigan would not have the authority to do this), and ignoring the specific features of each state (these are randomly chosen, so it could be any two states), is this new law good for Michigan, or bad?
I think the analogy is obvious, so if we could avoid immediately talking about the differences between this and Mexico/America I think it would be more productive.
No. The analogy isn't there.
Americans moving to other states to find jobs are here legally.
Illegals coming to the USA to take jobs Americans have is illegal.
If any state moves to ban someone from Ohio applying for a job in Michigan it will be a violation of federal equal employment opportunity laws. And Americans are protected by that. ILLEGALS ARE NOT because they are not in the USA legally and cannot work here.
Those laws are already in place as each State has a Residency requirement.
The issue I think you are attempting to get at is if the State is already doing poorly, does it behoove the state to try to keep low wage workers from further costing the state. I say it does. Your argument seems to be more population more taxes generated, which is only half the equation.
What residency requirement?
You apply for a job in Oregon and you're in California, you get the job, you start working as soon as you get there.
What residency requirement are you talking about?
There are NO RESIDENCY requirements to work across state lines in the USA.
Is a truck driver hauling a load from Nevada to Nebraska working?
Does a truck driver need some kind of residency requirement to enter every state he passes through because he's WORKING BY DRIVING THROUGH THOSE STATES?
No, you need a valid IDENTIFICATION, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. That's all that's required to work in the United States in ANY STATE in the nation.
That's why there's all the identity fraud in the illegal alien community, you get that identification card and the social security number YOU CAN WORK ANYWHERE IN THE USA WITH NO RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
You apply for a job in Oregon and you're in California, you get the job, you start working as soon as you get there.
What residency requirement are you talking about?
There are NO RESIDENCY requirements to work across state lines in the USA.
Is a truck driver hauling a load from Nevada to Nebraska working?
Does a truck driver need some kind of residency requirement to enter every state he passes through because he's WORKING BY DRIVING THROUGH THOSE STATES?
No, you need a valid IDENTIFICATION, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. That's all that's required to work in the United States in ANY STATE in the nation.
That's why there's all the identity fraud in the illegal alien community, you get that identification card and the social security number YOU CAN WORK ANYWHERE IN THE USA WITH NO RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
PERIOD.
You're right, working in other states does not require residency. I kept reverting back to the welfare scenario/hypo with it.
Last time I checked Ohio had an unemployment rate of 8.6%, Michigan 10.3%. Why would workers from Ohio move to Michigan? In fact Michigan was the only State to lose population in the last census.
Of course retirees might move there to take advantage of dirt cheap housing!
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.
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.
