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.
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!
I am originally from Michigan and that state has been economically depressed since the auto industry went down. Of course the rural areas away from Detroit have always had a shortage of jobs. I don't know why anyone from Ohio would move there unless they had qualifications for a job that a Michigander couldn't fill. No surprise that Michiganders are moving out. I know I did. It really is a beautiful state but brutal winters. You're right, the houses in the smaller cities and rural areas are dirt cheap.
Not sure what this topic has to do with illegal immigration though.
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!
It has nothing to do with illegal immigration. US citizens are permitted by the Constitution to live anywhere in the U.S. John Steinbeck wrote a classic novel about such internal migration, The Grapes of Wrath, about Oklahoma residents moving to California.
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.
Well there are several issues.
1. What is the actual tax burden of a poor person on a state level? Federal level? It's almost certain that if you limit welfare benefits, an increased numbers of workers is good for revenue.
2. What is the actual effect of lower wages? And this is actually what I would like to discuss. This is where we produced the "they just pocket the savings" meme, because when arguing this earlier, someone discussing "greedy employers" giving jobs to illegals for less said "and that extra money they save doesn't help the economy because they just pocket the savings."
Lower wages obviously benefits the employer. Literally everyone I've spoken to here has handwaved this away as just "greed," but it's basically the whole point of capitalism. With lower wages on the table, employers have options at their disposal: hiring more people, investing in their own company or elsewhere, buying a nice Mercedes for themselves, etc. These are not trivial gains. They are the harbingers of long term sustainable growth.
1. What is the actual tax burden of a poor person on a state level? Federal level? It's almost certain that if you limit welfare benefits, an increased numbers of workers is good for revenue.
2. What is the actual effect of lower wages? And this is actually what I would like to discuss. This is where we produced the "they just pocket the savings" meme, because when arguing this earlier, someone discussing "greedy employers" giving jobs to illegals for less said "and that extra money they save doesn't help the economy because they just pocket the savings."
Lower wages obviously benefits the employer. Literally everyone I've spoken to here has handwaved this away as just "greed," but it's basically the whole point of capitalism. With lower wages on the table, employers have options at their disposal: hiring more people, investing in their own company or elsewhere, buying a nice Mercedes for themselves, etc. These are not trivial gains. They are the harbingers of long term sustainable growth.
You have yet to have the State increase the number of jobs. More workers, by themselves does nothing other than a) lower wages across the jobs board, and/or b) redistributes the wealth from low-skilled workers to employers (capitalism). You're assuming that they (employers) will invest or purchase. In the past that may be true, in the present it has yet to be shown.
New low wage workers contribute to government coffers at the local, state, and federal levels by paying income, payroll, property, and sales taxes. They also increase government expenditure by using public services, including fire and police protection, public roads and bridges, publically funded emergency health care, and, most importantly, public education — though maybe not all at the same levels as the existing workers (they are new to the equation of the pre-existing).
Whether new workers cause the tax burdens on state residents to rise or fall depends on how much income new workers earn and the size and structure of their families.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 06-30-2011 at 08:48 AM..
You have yet to have the State increase the number of jobs. More workers, by themselves does nothing other than a) lower wages across the jobs board, and/or b) redistributes the wealth from low-skilled workers to employers (capitalism). You're assuming that they (employers) will invest or purchase. In the past that may be true, in the present it has yet to be shown.
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. How does that benefit the American worker?
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. How does that benefit the American worker?
This literally makes no sense.
If, say, the local hospital uses undocumented workers in their kitchen, housekeeping and maintenance departments, they save money. In saving money, they're able to hire more doctors, nurses, IT technicians, executives, etc - you know, American workers. They're also able to charge a lower price to their customers - you know, American workers (and also American children and retirees).
If, say, the local hospital uses undocumented workers in their kitchen, housekeeping and maintenance departments, they save money. In saving money, they're able to hire more doctors, nurses, IT technicians, executives, etc - you know, American workers. They're also able to charge a lower price to their customers - you know, American workers (and also American children and retirees).
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?
You have yet to have the State increase the number of jobs. More workers, by themselves does nothing other than a) lower wages across the jobs board, and/or b) redistributes the wealth from low-skilled workers to employers (capitalism). You're assuming that they (employers) will invest or purchase. In the past that may be true, in the present it has yet to be shown.
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.
If, say, the local hospital uses undocumented workers in their kitchen, housekeeping and maintenance departments, they save money. In saving money, they're able to hire more doctors, nurses, IT technicians, executives, etc - you know, American workers. They're also able to charge a lower price to their customers - you know, American workers (and also American children and retirees).
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?
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.
