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.
Well, it could be made in the USA, but at a higher cost.
The whole point of international trade is so both sides gets lower costs on their non-abundant (comparatively) goods.
Prices would skyrocket if the US flat-out canceled its trading relationship with Mexico. Also the US would be unable to sell its goods in Mexico. Remember that the US makes money selling its agricultural products to other countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikCortez
Anything that Mexico makes or grows CAN be replaced right here in the USA. An for a few things that CANT be done local; there other countrys. No: it would KILL Mexico if we cut em loose.
But an even more thoughtful response would be:
* "is it worth all the cheap, illegal labor to bankrupt our country and states" - Because of all the money illegals pour into the SSN, the feds make money off of illegals. Local governments get more costs related to education (while feds then pay money based on attendance). But then consumers get lower prices on goods. The question needs to be rephrased in a manner that takes into account the entire relationship between illegals and the US as a whole, not just one aspect (local governments having higher costs)
* "put more Americans in the unemployment line" - Which Americans?
** It might help to see the "economics" thread
* "add to our crime statistics" - Any studies demonstrating that there is a significant - One or two news stories of "police officer killed by X doesn't count" - unless the news stories explicitly name a wider trend
* "hospitals" - In terms of emergency care, not much can be done because hospitals are required to treat for emergency care. For non-emergency some hospital districts (Tarrant County) do put restrictions.
* "overcrowd our schools" in some parts of the country
And all of these questions could be tagged with "And is it worth it in light of lower consumer price goods"
Some posters on CD have a lackadaisical attitude towards the idea of higher prices. But it is a serious consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
A more thoughtful question would be is it worth all the cheap, illegal labor to bankrupt our country and states, put more Americans in the unemployment line, add to our crime statistics, uncontrolled population growth, depletion of our natural resources, overcrowd our schools, jails and hospitals, increase poverty in our country and to dilute our culture, language and identity as a nation?
Well, it could be made in the USA, but at a higher cost.
The whole point of international trade is so both sides gets lower costs on their non-abundant (comparatively) goods.
Prices would skyrocket if the US flat-out canceled its trading relationship with Mexico. Also the US would be unable to sell its goods in Mexico. Remember that the US makes money selling its agricultural products to other countries.
But an even more thoughtful response would be:
* "is it worth all the cheap, illegal labor to bankrupt our country and states" - Because of all the money illegals pour into the SSN, the feds make money off of illegals. Local governments get more costs related to education (while feds then pay money based on attendance). But then consumers get lower prices on goods. The question needs to be rephrased in a manner that takes into account the entire relationship between illegals and the US as a whole, not just one aspect (local governments having higher costs)
* "put more Americans in the unemployment line" - Which Americans?
** It might help to see the "economics" thread
* "add to our crime statistics" - Any studies demonstrating that there is a significant - One or two news stories of "police officer killed by X doesn't count" - unless the news stories explicitly name a wider trend
* "hospitals" - In terms of emergency care, not much can be done because hospitals are required to treat for emergency care. For non-emergency some hospital districts (Tarrant County) do put restrictions.
* "overcrowd our schools" in some parts of the country
And all of these questions could be tagged with "And is it worth it in light of lower consumer price goods"
Some posters on CD have a lackadaisical attitude towards the idea of higher prices. But it is a serious consideration.
If Americans were holding the jobs that illegals are wouldn't they in turn also be contributing to our tax coffers?
You have to seriously ask which Americans are losing jobs to illegal aliens? You've got to be kidding. How many times do these blue collared jobs have to be mentioned?
One or two newstories about crimes committed by illegal aliens? Again, you must be joking. One crime committed by an illegal alien is one crime too many anyway. They shouldn't even be in this country.
Where is your proof that the consumer gets lower prices on goods? Little if any profit from illegal alien labor is passed unto the consumer. The greedy employers pocket most of the profit. You need a reality check. What is passed on to us is their social costs.
Illegal aliens are bankrupting our hospitals with their ER care. We have enough of our own poor that can't pay their medical bills.
Illegals and their anchors are overcrowding our schools in many places not in just some places. Illegals are all over our country now.
No, we anti-illegals don't have a lackadaisal attitude towards higher prices because it simply isn't going to happen because it is only pro-illegal propaganda. When illegals were building homes the prices skyrocketed.
With that I bid you adieu. I have no further desire to listen to this anti-American propaganda.
Well, it could be made in the USA, but at a higher cost.
The whole point of international trade is so both sides gets lower costs on their non-abundant (comparatively) goods.
Prices would skyrocket if the US flat-out canceled its trading relationship with Mexico. Also the US would be unable to sell its goods in Mexico. Remember that the US makes money selling its agricultural products to other countries.
But an even more thoughtful response would be:
* "is it worth all the cheap, illegal labor to bankrupt our country and states" - Because of all the money illegals pour into the SSN, the feds make money off of illegals. Local governments get more costs related to education (while feds then pay money based on attendance). But then consumers get lower prices on goods. The question needs to be rephrased in a manner that takes into account the entire relationship between illegals and the US as a whole, not just one aspect (local governments having higher costs)
* "put more Americans in the unemployment line" - Which Americans?
** It might help to see the "economics" thread
* "add to our crime statistics" - Any studies demonstrating that there is a significant - One or two news stories of "police officer killed by X doesn't count" - unless the news stories explicitly name a wider trend
* "hospitals" - In terms of emergency care, not much can be done because hospitals are required to treat for emergency care. For non-emergency some hospital districts (Tarrant County) do put restrictions.
* "overcrowd our schools" in some parts of the country
And all of these questions could be tagged with "And is it worth it in light of lower consumer price goods"
Some posters on CD have a lackadaisical attitude towards the idea of higher prices. But it is a serious consideration.
Your makes it seems the U.S is not worth its own salt without them. That is hardly the case.
Illegals are a drag on the economy. period.
Immediately if an illegal has a child, that child is getting public benefits.
That child will require separate bilingual education.
Illegals push out the American worker.
They crowd our schools & cities.
The ruin the social structure of the country.
They provoke fights with American citizens.
They are very disrespectful
And all of these questions could be tagged with "And is it worth it in light of lower consumer price goods"
Some posters on CD have a lackadaisical attitude towards the idea of higher prices. But it is a serious consideration.
Please stop this nonsensical "higher price" BS. Contrary to pro-illegal doctrine, we won't pay $10 per head of lettuce if illegals leave. Furthermore, food prices continue to skyrocket, despite a glut of illegal workers. If illegals leave, there would be a negligible price increase, but the savings would be substantial. The "cheap" labor is hardly cheap given their astronomical costs to taxpayers. Heck, their K-12 costs alone are bankrupting states.
Quote:
You might assume that the plentiful supply of low-wage illegal workers would translate into significantly lower prices for the goods and services they produce. In fact, their impact on consumer prices — call it the "illegal-worker discount" — is surprisingly small.
The underlying reason, economists say, is that for most goods the labor — whether legal or illegal, native- or foreign-born — represents only a sliver of the retail price.
Consider those apples — Washington's signature contribution to the American food basket.
At a local QFC, Red Delicious apples go for about 99 cents a pound. Of that, only about 7 cents represents the cost of labor, said Tom Schotzko, a recently retired extension economist at Washington State University. The rest represents the grower's other expenses, warehousing and shipping fees, and the retailer's markup.
I don't know whether it would be $10, but the idea that Americans would not, or would be 100% A-OK with paying a significantly higher price sounds like wishful thinking. Price would rise significantly if illegals leave.
Do you read Jstor, Benicar? For fun I thought I would type in "illegal immigration" and.. lo and behold:
U.S.-Mexican Trade in Winter Vegetables and Illegal Immigration
S. J. Torok and W. E. Huffman
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Vol. 68, No. 2 (May, 1986), pp. 246-260
Okay, it's old (1986), so this is pre-NAFTA and outdated, but it's a journal article that states that illegal immigration is more or less a part of international trade between the US and Mexico. Mexico has the comparative advantage with cheap labor, so the US imports illegals. And it states that illegal immigration enforcement would act as a tariff.
It suggests that illegal immigration from Mexico to the US should be stopped by changing "U.S.-Mexican domestic economic, trade, and immigration policies" and "Mexico must consider increasing labor-intensive industrial and agricultural employment opportunities, U.S. Border Patrol apprehension effort must continue, and the United States should implement trade policies that encourage the importation of labor-intensive commodities from Mexico rather than labor itself."
I think this forum should be about offering solutions rather than complaining about problems. So if it was still 1986, a suggestion could be made that the US should have the poor people working in Mexico and import produce from Mexico, rather than have illegals in the US make cheap produce in the US. That way illegals stay out of the US, but we still have low prices.
Again, this is merely set up as an example, since the source document is outdated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
Please stop this nonsensical "higher price" BS. Contrary to pro-illegal doctrine, we won't pay $10 per head of lettuce if illegals leave. Furthermore, food prices continue to skyrocket, despite a glut of illegal workers. If illegals leave, there would be a negligible price increase, but the savings would be substantial. The "cheap" labor is hardly cheap given their astronomical costs to taxpayers. Heck, their K-12 costs alone are bankrupting states.
"Of course, the "illegal-immigrant discount" affects different layers of society differently.
The more often you eat out, stay in hotels or get your yard trimmed, the more you benefit from the illegal-immigrant discount.
And by increasing the supply of low-skilled labor relative to high-skilled labor, illegal immigration effectively boosts the purchasing power of the better-educated, more-skilled — and richer — portion of society.
The MIT study, by researcher Patricia Cortes, estimated that the low-skilled immigration wave of the 1990s — much of it outside the bounds of immigration law — raised the "real wages" of college graduates by 0.71 percent, and of high-school graduates and people with some college by 0.59 percent.
High-school dropouts? No discount for them: Cortes estimated that their real wages were cut by 2.66 percent. But since most adult Americans have at least a high-school diploma, Cortes concluded that most people benefited from low-skilled immigration — at least a little."
What matters in economics is the real wage and not necessarily the "dollars and cents" wage.
That last quote confirmed what I suspected all along. This is a class struggle.
On the surface the price %s are little, but wealthy white collar workers and poor seasonal farmworkers spend money and use services differently.
Different segments of the society win or lose based on illegal immigration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
Please stop this nonsensical "higher price" BS. Contrary to pro-illegal doctrine, we won't pay $10 per head of lettuce if illegals leave. Furthermore, food prices continue to skyrocket, despite a glut of illegal workers. If illegals leave, there would be a negligible price increase, but the savings would be substantial. The "cheap" labor is hardly cheap given their astronomical costs to taxpayers. Heck, their K-12 costs alone are bankrupting states.
Your argument is akin to those used by plantation owners opposing the abolition of slavery. And, we all know how wrong they were.
It's about society having a cheap source of labor. Every industrialized country relies on cheap labor.
As for slavery - Slavery is morally wrong, but it was also wrong economy wise and talent wise - southern society wasted a lot of talent using a caste system. Instead it should have had racially integrated tenant farming, with less skilled labor (of any race) being tenant farmers. Instead post-slavery southern society continued using a caste system.
Think of my posts as a "devil's advocate" post. If the costs of illegal immigration were really that straightforward and that obvious and a total net negative, wouldn't things have changed now?
I don't know whether it would be $10, but the idea that Americans would not, or would be 100% A-OK with paying a significantly higher price sounds like wishful thinking. Price would rise significantly if illegals leave.
Do you read Jstor, Benicar? For fun I thought I would type in "illegal immigration" and.. lo and behold:
U.S.-Mexican Trade in Winter Vegetables and Illegal Immigration
S. J. Torok and W. E. Huffman
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Vol. 68, No. 2 (May, 1986), pp. 246-260
Okay, it's old (1986), so this is pre-NAFTA and outdated, but it's a journal article that states that illegal immigration is more or less a part of international trade between the US and Mexico. Mexico has the comparative advantage with cheap labor, so the US imports illegals. And it states that illegal immigration enforcement would act as a tariff.
It suggests that illegal immigration from Mexico to the US should be stopped by changing "U.S.-Mexican domestic economic, trade, and immigration policies" and "Mexico must consider increasing labor-intensive industrial and agricultural employment opportunities, U.S. Border Patrol apprehension effort must continue, and the United States should implement trade policies that encourage the importation of labor-intensive commodities from Mexico rather than labor itself."
I think this forum should be about offering solutions rather than complaining about problems. So if it was still 1986, a suggestion could be made that the US should have the poor people working in Mexico and import produce from Mexico, rather than have illegals in the US make cheap produce in the US. That way illegals stay out of the US, but we still have low prices.
Again, this is merely set up as an example, since the source document is outdated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman
The last part of the article says:
What matters in economics is the real wage and not necessarily the "dollars and cents" wage.
Clearly, you have a compelling need to defend illegal immigration. . . . by any means necessary. Nothing anyone presents will change that. I can only surmise you have a very personal stake in this issue. Sorry, but you simply cannot defend the indefensible.
What do the word's "devil's advocate" mean, Benicar?
Benicar, if post #66 is a sign of "a compelling need to defend illegal immigration. . . . by any means necessary" then you should be asking for more. Seriously.
I'm helping you by showing you that it's not just 1% that is benefiting from illegal labor. It's college graduates. They have higher real wages.
And I'm also helping you by acknowledging that, yes, high school dropouts are losers. They have lower real wages AND (depending on the state) may have higher income taxes.
This is based on the sources you gave me.
For you to win, you have to convince college graduates who benefit from making real wage increases on why illegal immigration is wrong and overall bad for the country. You have to acknowledge that they benefit from it. You have to say "it's bad anyway because..."
And I am also helping you by pointing you to a place called "JSTOR."
You may say "but you are saying that not just the 1% benefit, so you are arguing in favor of illegal immigration"
I say "acknowledge the reality of the situation then you can truly make an effective stand on why illegal immigration must be stopped."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
Clearly, you have a compelling need to defend illegal immigration. . . . by any means necessary. Nothing anyone presents will change that. I can only surmise you have a very personal stake in this issue. Sorry, but you simply cannot defend the indefensible.
Last edited by Vicman; 10-24-2011 at 03:52 PM..
Reason: can't believe I misspelled it
Clearly, you have a compelling need to defend illegal immigration. . . . by any means necessary. Nothing anyone presents will change that. I can only surmise you have a very personal stake in this issue. Sorry, but you simply cannot defend the indefensible.
And we have offered several solutions to illegal immigration but the pro-illegals just don't like them. Anything that deters illegal immigration especially from south of our border is racist and xenophobic according to them.
Well, I can't say the solution in post #65 is better than anything that benicar posted, since the solution in #65 is outdated (pre-NAFTA). But I posted it as an example of something that can be found on Jstor.
Chicagonut: Since it's silly to ask me to search reams of threads for the economic solutions to illegal immigration, would you (or Benicar) care to point us (the forum readers) to the specific posts and threads where such solutions were posted by you or Benicar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
And we have offered several solutions to illegal immigration but the pro-illegals just don't like them. Anything that deters illegal immigration especially from south of our border is racist and xenophobic according to them.
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.
