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.
If you are only concerned about the narrow scope of yes/no then it is a solid NO on remittances. If you want reasons why then it falls out of scope, which is it?
I agree with much of what Malamute's post said, even though it concerns what is good for other countries and not whether remittances are harmful to the U.S. For example, I pretty much agree with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Those countries relying on remittances aren't doing much to build their own economies, improve their own infrastructures. Sending their youth and very fertile to the USA removes them as a problem but also as a solution, it doesn't solve a single problem in the sending country. It's all about cheap labor, unskilled labor. Instead of trying to improve a standard of living by improving the way people live, providing education - everything now is about remittances and that will lead to growing instability.
You don't solve someone else's problems by doing everything for them and allowing them to dump their problems on you. Trying to do everything for everybody is only going to bring down everyone ultimately. We would be better off if Mexico built itself up, if it's people stayed there and worked to improve Mexico, build a strong economy there instead of such a large chunk resorting to parasitism.
But, although I agree with this, what does it have to do with the effect of remittances to the U.S. economy?
As for your post, you say that remittances are bad ("then it is a solid NO on remittances"). Are you able to formulate any reasoning to support your opinion? Or should we just take your word on it because of your massive intellect. (In case you can't tell, this last sentence was pure sarcasm.)
I agree with much of what Malamute's post said, even though it concerns what is good for other countries and not whether remittances are harmful to the U.S. For example, I pretty much agree with this:
But, although I agree with this, what does it have to do with the effect of remittances to the U.S. economy?
As for your post, you say that remittances are bad ("then it is a solid NO on remittances"). Are you able to formulate any reasoning to support your opinion? Or should we just take your word on it because of your massive intellect. (In case you can't tell, this last sentence was pure sarcasm.)
They are harmful to the USA because they encourage the government to mint more dollars. If the remittances don't matter - then why can't illegals be paid in monopoly money? It too could be used as currency back in the other country and then we wouldn't have to worry about the inflation when it comes back.
Remittances encourage many people to come and break our laws, it's an invitation to those who have no respect for laws to come here. And because remittances ultimately bring instability to a neighboring nation, they are also very bad for us.
If remittances were good for us, we would have seen a decreasing problem with immigration but because the problems aren't addressed in the sending country, it takes ever - increasing numbers of illegals to pour over the border.
I know very well how remittances work. Often a parent decides the family should have more money. Often the father leaves the family and sends money back but the family structure in Mexico is usually that of an extended family living in one house. The grandparents benefit, the unemployed brothers and sisters of the illegal benefit -- $400 a month is more money than most could bring in from working hard all month so the work ethic dries up. It's easy enough to wait for the monthly remittance.
If "el burro se cansa" it means the magic big money may be coming to an end. The family member in the USA may have met up with some babe from a night club, wants to forget his family, or can't support the new car or truck and is tired of sleeping on a floor of some shack with 14 other men. He's moving on, so now another family member has to head over the border and send money back.
Or the illegal smuggles in his children, the cost of living in the USA is very high and he can no longer send the money back for the extended family to enjoy.
All too often the family member that decides to head on up is the mother of the children already abandoned by the father. Now she will send money back and the children have no parents. --- BUT they also have no job creation going on, so when they reach 16, 17, 18 years old, if the remittance money isn't good enough, they too have to head up over to the USA. These are the children who have grown up without parents in the home, and often they have problems that will get them into gangs. They also have grown up with the big remittance money and have little work ethic.
Far too many people in the other country are depending on the USA economy. Our economic problems lead to even bigger problems in that other country, and so a bigger than ever flood of people pouring over the border -- people without an education or job skills.
If our housing bubble bursts - that is a disaster for all those low-skilled construction teams of illegals brought in, now what do they do?
The only good thing about remittances is a very short term benefit which is holding inflation in line. Billions of dollars leaving our economy does help inflation - short term. Flooding the world with dollars that can never be paid up is bad.
Unemployment of our own people was also the short term problem of remittances - money that could have been paid to Americans (instead of unemployment checks and welfare handouts) left the economy and the government filled in the gap with other money. Billions are being doled out in unemployment compensation and welfare programs so the value of remittances on inflation is limited.
They are harmful to the USA because they encourage the government to mint more dollars. If the remittances don't matter - then why can't illegals be paid in monopoly money? It too could be used as currency back in the other country...
Sure, they could be paid in monopoly money—IF they respected monopoly money as a store of value. But they don’t. So employers will continue to pay them in greenbacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
and then we wouldn't have to worry about the inflation when it comes back.
This is true. As I mentioned in some posts above, the greatest harm that can come from remittances is that the money will someday return to the U.S. But this negative effect will be mitigated if the remittance money doesn’t return for many years, and is then severely deflated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Remittances encourage many people to come and break our laws, it's an invitation to those who have no respect for laws to come here. And because remittances ultimately bring instability to a neighboring nation, they are also very bad for us.
It sounds like you assume illegal immigrants are criminals and lawbreakers (aside from breaking immigration laws, that is). Most illegals come here to work in low paying difficult jobs. Other than breaking immigration laws they are generally law abiding people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
If remittances were good for us, we would have seen a decreasing problem with immigration but because the problems aren't addressed in the sending country, it takes ever - increasing numbers of illegals to pour over the border.
The fact that remittances are not harmful to the U.S. does not mean that they are good for the home country of the illegals. If the illegal's home country had a strong economy to begin with, we would have fewer illegal immigrants, and the ones that came here would send less back home in the way of remittances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
I know very well how remittances work. Often a parent decides the family should have more money. Often the father leaves the family and sends money back but the family structure in Mexico is usually that of an extended family living in one house. The grandparents benefit, the unemployed brothers and sisters of the illegal benefit -- $400 a month is more money than most could bring in from working hard all month so the work ethic dries up. It's easy enough to wait for the monthly remittance.
This is just a silly conclusion you have drawn. I am surprised to read this biased, generalizing tripe from you, in view of your other, seemingly intelligent, posts. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
If "el burro se cansa" it means the magic big money may be coming to an end. The family member in the USA may have met up with some babe from a night club, wants to forget his family, or can't support the new car or truck and is tired of sleeping on a floor of some shack with 14 other men. He's moving on, so now another family member has to head over the border and send money back.
Or the illegal smuggles in his children, the cost of living in the USA is very high and he can no longer send the money back for the extended family to enjoy.
And your point is??
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
All too often the family member that decides to head on up is the mother of the children already abandoned by the father. Now she will send money back and the children have no parents. --- BUT they also have no job creation going on, so when they reach 16, 17, 18 years old, if the remittance money isn't good enough, they too have to head up over to the USA. These are the children who have grown up without parents in the home, and often they have problems that will get them into gangs. They also have grown up with the big remittance money and have little work ethic.
Far too many people in the other country are depending on the USA economy. Our economic problems lead to even bigger problems in that other country, and so a bigger than ever flood of people pouring over the border -- people without an education or job skills.
I did not claim that remittances are good for the homeland of the illegals. They are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
If our housing bubble bursts - that is a disaster for all those low-skilled construction teams of illegals brought in, now what do they do?
IF our housing bubble bursts? IF?? I think that bubble already burst. At least a year or so ago.
As for your post, you say that remittances are bad ("then it is a solid NO on remittances"). Are you able to formulate any reasoning to support your opinion?
I already outlined that for you in a previous post, which you ignored and have yet to rebut.
Also, personally attacking someone's mental capacity will win you no friends. Childish grade-school antics...
I already outlined that for you in a previous post, which you ignored and have yet to rebut.
Also, personally attacking someone's mental capacity will win you no friends. Childish grade-school antics...
I'm done, if you disagree with this one you get back insullts instead of any logical response. Apparently the scope of this thread was to agree with the OP.
I already outlined that for you in a previous post, which you ignored and have yet to rebut.
Also, personally attacking someone's mental capacity will win you no friends. Childish grade-school antics...
Wait a second. Are you 1AngryTaxPayer or are you Fox Terrier? You quoted my response to 1AngryTaxPayer as if it was directed at you. Are you two intertwined or something? Do you finish each others' sentences too?
As for your previous post that I supposedly did not address, are you referring to your post #43? If so I would kindly direct you to read my response in post #45 where I poke holes in your leaky bucket metaphor. Or do you want me to explain mysef in simpler terms suitable for the shortbus crowd?
Last edited by monkey cabal; 10-25-2009 at 12:47 PM..
$40,749,600,548 wired to Mexico since 2006. $397,477,791,847 spent on social services in the last 10 to 12 years--All money out of the pocket of the American taxpayer.
If you had a clue about the workings of the economy (we're in a recession, remember?) you'd understand just how this is NOT good for America. It's become increasingly apparent with every post you make in this thread that you flunked Economics 101.
All of this money leaving the country (it's not little pieces of colored paper--it's currency. Try paying your bills with confetti and see how far it gets you) means that it is not entering the American economy. Corporate fiscal irresponsibility, blatant thievery from the American taxpayer, an oblivious, uncaring, and obtuse government, along with our deficits to other countries is what got us here to begin with.
The last thing we need is a bunch of illegal border crossers sending American dollars OUT of the country.
$40,749,600,548 wired to Mexico since 2006. $397,477,791,847 spent on social services in the last 10 to 12 years--All money out of the pocket of the American taxpayer.
These two things—$40 billion in remittances and $400 billion in social services—are two entirely different beasts. The social services expenditures are a serious drain on our economy. Remittances are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
If you had a clue about the workings of the economy (we're in a recession, remember?) you'd understand just how this is NOT good for America. It's become increasingly apparent with every post you make in this thread that you flunked Economics 101.
Ha ha! Sticks and stones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
All of this money leaving the country (it's not little pieces of colored paper--it's currency. Try paying your bills with confetti and see how far it gets you) means that it is not entering the American economy. Corporate fiscal irresponsibility, blatant thievery from the American taxpayer, an oblivious, uncaring, and obtuse government, along with our deficits to other countries is what got us here to begin with.
But that’s just it, remittances ARE just colored pieces of money leaving our borders. Currency is merely a store of value—a promise that if you take a $20 bill for an hour of your hard work you will be able to take it to the corner grocer and get $20 worth of chips and picante sauce. The bill itself is just a piece of paper. It happens to be used as a store of value. Why can’t you understand this? Once it is removed from our borders the $20 bill has no effect on our economy—that is, until it is returned to our borders. The only bad thing about remittances is that these pieces of paper may someday return.
Several posters have mentioned the $20 bill circulating around in various transactions as it is bought and sold for goods/services. Sure this happens. And when an illegal mails the $20 bill to his homeland it ceases to happen for that particular $20 bill. But so what? Do you think there is a shortage of $20 bills floating around? Have you looked at our inflation rates lately? Do you grasp the correlation between inflation and the money supply? Did you show up to the right classroom for Econ 101, or did you mistakenly go to the wrong room down the hall and listen to community college lectures on soap making instead? Your failure to grasp this concept is trying my patience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
The last thing we need is a bunch of illegal border crossers sending American dollars OUT of the country.
No. Remittances are good. Ignorance is America’s bane right now. But I am doing my best to set you straight.
Let me throw out a hypothetical to see if I can decrease the net level of ignorance which stubbornly persists among non-OP posters in this thread:
Monkey's Hypothetical:
Once upon a time a mythical country—let’s call it Wetbaxico—realizes that its currency is completely worthless. It takes a bushel of Wetbaxican piissyous to buy one lousy taco—a BEAN TACO no less! Wetbaxico approaches the U.S. gov’t for advice and help. Our crafty politicians tell them that we will mint a new currency for them called Juanopoly money. It will come in bright hues of gold, green, pink, etc. But we won’t sell the Juanopoly bills. Instead, they will have to work for it. We will charge them $20 in labor for each $20 Juanopoly bill. They can take all the Juanopoly bills down into Wetbaxico that they can earn picking grapes in Napa Valley, and use them as the default currency of Wetbaxico.
Our crafty politicians realize that the only downside to this scheme is if the Wetbaxicans someday return to the U.S. with Juanopoly money and want to trade it for U.S. currency. Or worse yet, they return and use Juanopoly money to buy our best U.S. stuff and take it back to Wetbaxico. But then it occurs to them that this will only happen if their own native currency, the Wetbaxican piisyous, suddenly becomes very strong. (Our crafty politicians snicker at this thought.) If this does happen we are boned anyway, and so we will probably just start a war of something.
Okay, you say, but in real life illegals are mailing REAL CURRENCY back home, not Juanopoly money. Who cares, I say? And besides, my hypothetical is not finished:
The Wetbaxican contingent agrees to this, but then our crafty politicians realize that it will cost 75 cents to print up each Juanopoly $20 bill (Union labor wage rates. Doh!). Heck, it only costs 40 cents to print up real U.S. $20 bills (I am making this up. I don’t really know what it costs to print a $20 bill). So the crafty politicians re-open negotiations with the Wetbaxicans and persuade them to take the ugly green paper instead of the brightly colored paper in hues of gold, green, pink, etc. The end.
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.
