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 not then just keep making snide remarks and using emoticons. Oh, and don’t forget to mention my lack of education—something that you seem to have latched on to. I find your remarks quite humorous. Annoying, but humorous.
I'm flattered!
You can thank me for the education any time you wish.
The questions above lead me to believe that some are still having difficulties grasping the concept. Let me see if I can simplify this explanation even further.
Immigrants—both legal and illegal—work in the U.S. earning several trillion dollars each year.
Immigrants send $300 billion in paper currency back to their respective homelands.
The $300 billion paper currency does not return to the U.S. But the value of the labor remains here. (This is key. Read these two sentences several times.)
Our federal reserve system then replenishes the $300 billion in paper currency through various processes and money supply controls, including a process called open market operations.
Summary: We’ve lost $300 billion in paper currency (sent to homelands). We’ve gained $300 billion in paper currency (the Fed expanded our money supply). We’ve kept the $300 billion labor value of the immigrants—the time they worked to earn the money they sent to their homelands. The $300 billion labor value of the immigrants was paid for by the Fed expanding our money supply to fit the hole left by remittances.
Even Simpler Summary: We break even on the currency: $300 billion gets mailed to Mexico, India, China, etc. and the Fed introduces a new $300 billion to replace it. All the work done by immigrants—picking fruit and hanging drywall—is a “gain” for our economy.
Summary for the Simpleminded: Remittances = good.
It makes perfect sense monkey cabal. We do gain much more from the cheap labor. Our fruits and vegetables would be much more expensive if they were outsourced. This way, we still get them at a decent price. Immigrants do send paper to their countries...However, in your earlier posts you mentioned that the US gains nothing from the money immigrants send home. I disagree with that. I think that a great amount of that money does return back to our economy. How many Walmarts, Mcdonalds and other businesses make lots of money in foreign countries? Many...way too many. I dont know if you have heard foreigners in their countries talk about what they consider good quality. Many will say...American made products or American brands. Many like to buy American made trucks. I think that money in many ways comes back to us. It's a cycle. Immigrants work here, get paid low wages, are part of two economies (spend money on both countries), send some money home, their families buy American goods and we still get the money back in our economy. Talk about exploitation! Yet we still complain about illegal immigrants.
I agree with what you say above. But one minor clarification about the gain from remittances.
We don’t necessarily gain only because the labor is “cheap.” Although the benefit from our remittances does increase as labor rates go down. Let me explain.
Let’s say a fruit picker makes $6 per hour, and in an hour he picks eight bushels of pears. If he sends $12 to his family in Veracruz then the U.S. “gains” the value of 2 of his hours of labor (NOT the value of the pears, but his labor value in picking them). Another more generous farmer down the road may pay $12 per hour to his pear picker. If that person sent $12 home then the U.S. would only gain the value of one of his hours of labor, even though the is sending the same $12 amount home as the $6/hour picker.
The U.S. gains from the labor value that goes into earning the remittance money sent out of our borders. That is, assuming the Fed increases our money supply to replenish this exported currency, and also assuming the exported dollars don’t make their way back into the U.S. until they are somewhat deflated.
I agree with what you say above. But one minor clarification about the gain from remittances.
We don’t necessarily gain only because the labor is “cheap.” Although the benefit from our remittances does increase as labor rates go down. Let me explain.
Let’s say a fruit picker makes $6 per hour, and in an hour he picks eight bushels of pears. If he sends $12 to his family in Veracruz then the U.S. “gains” the value of 2 of his hours of labor (NOT the value of the pears, but his labor value in picking them). Another more generous farmer down the road may pay $12 per hour to his pear picker. If that person sent $12 home then the U.S. would only gain the value of one of his hours of labor, even though the is sending the same $12 amount home as the $6/hour picker.
The U.S. gains from the labor value that goes into earning the remittance money sent out of our borders. That is, assuming the Fed increases our money supply to replenish this exported currency, and also assuming the exported dollars don’t make their way back into the U.S. until they are somewhat deflated.
It's always going to be 2 sided. You cannot look at one without the other. In your case which you are trying to make about remittances you fail to address the other, or others, which is the HUGE expense that same illegal labor is costing US tax payers vs the small benefit this illegal labor is for the criminals employing them.
It's always going to be 2 sided. You cannot look at one without the other. In your case which you are trying to make about remittances you fail to address the other, or others, which is the HUGE expense that same illegal labor is costing US tax payers vs the small benefit this illegal labor is for the criminals employing them.
What you say is true. But there are 100 other threads discussing all aspects of illegal immigration. This thread is about remittances, and why they are not necessarily bad for our economy. It is relevant to this forum because illegal aliens send many billions of dollars home in remittance money.
If remittances are so great and don't harm the USA, then why not print up trillions of dollars and send everyone in the whole world a $500 monthly check? Or how about we make it $2000 in dollars for everyone in the world? No one will have to work, remittances are good you know. Let's not even require they come here to lower wages or put Americans out of work or take food stamps, free education and free health care to supplement the low wages they would accept -- just send them the remittance.
In reality remittances become nothing more than a welfare check that help people from working to build their own economy and makes them lazy. Remittances obviously do not benefit the USA because the money either leaves the USA economy -- or can be cashed in. They are a big reason for the current economic mess.
What you say is true. But there are 100 other threads discussing all aspects of illegal immigration. This thread is about remittances, and why they are not necessarily bad for our economy. It is relevant to this forum because illegal aliens send many billions of dollars home in remittance money.
Then you have invalidated your entire thread. They have to earn the money which is work, unrelated to remittances which is simply wiring money, money that could be from selling something they brought with them before a visa overstay. It could even be a double wire from an existing account unrelated to work, possibly an inheritance. So my point stands, remittances are a money wire, you have to look at everything.
If your topic is simply money leaving the US forever than that is extremely bad for the US economy.
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.