Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

unlawflcombatnt · 04-05-2006, 02:20 PM

The biggest problem created by uncontrolled illegal immigration is wage suppression. According to economics professor George Borjas, immigration reduces the average annual earnings of U.S.-born men by an estimated $1,700, or roughly 4%. (See Yahoo News story: Illegal Workers Have Mixed Impact.) If that reduction is applied to the roughly 135 million employed Americans, that reduces aggregate annual worker income by $230 billion, or $0.23 trillion. That's roughly 2% of our $12 trillion GDP. That's a loss in consumer spending of $230 billion (less taxes). Given that our entire GDP growth in 2005 was $384 billion, this is a significant amount. Considering that consumer spending is approximately 70% of GDP, that makes the "growth" in consumer spending around $269 billion.

Again, the loss of that $230 billion is no small amount. And it is also $230 billion less money that could have been taxed, costing the Federal government anywhere between $36-55 billion per year. (Increasing the taxable income of a single taxpayer making $35,000/year by $1700 increases Federal income tax by $413. Increasing taxable income of a married taxpayer filing making $35,000/year by $1700 increases Federal income tax by $267. Multiplying these numbers by 135 million amounts to $55.7 billion and $36 billion, respectively.)

Right-wingers will argue that this wage suppression is offset by business profits, and that these profits fuel investment. But investment capital is OVER-abundant at present. Increasing this excess even further will not result in more capital investment. It will result in higher CEO salaries, further overinvestment in the stock market, and further investment in foreign production facilities, the latter of which puts even further downward pressure on American wages.

Furthermore, business profits don't fuel consumer spending. And consumer spending is the engine that drives our economy, not investment. Without consumer spending, there are no returns on investment. And if no returns are anticipated on investment, no investment takes place.

The immigration-fueled reduction in wages does NOT help our economy. It hurts it. It reduces aggregate consumer income and the consumer spending it finances. The reduction in consumer spending reduces consumer production demand, further reducing demand for the labor to provide that production. The reduction in labor demand drives down employment and wages. The resultant labor demand reduction further reduces aggregate consumer income and further reduces consumer purchasing power.

As consumer buying power declines, so do investment opportunities, since those opportunities are created by consumer demand for production. Thus the increased profits resulting from reduction in labor costs create even more excess capital, while reducing investment opportunities still further.

Does anyone really think that wage suppression is "good" for the economy? Doesn't someone have to purchase the goods produced for business to profit? Won't reducing consumer income also reduce consumer goods purchasing? Won't a decline in consumer goods purchasing reduce business revenues and reduce potential profits? Once again, is immigration-fueled reduction in worker/consumer income really "good" for the economy?

unlawflcombatnt

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment.

There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

04-05-2006, 02:20 PM	#1 (permalink)
unlawflcombatnt Upright Location: California	Immigration & Wage Suppression The biggest problem created by uncontrolled illegal immigration is wage suppression. According to economics professor George Borjas, immigration reduces the average annual earnings of U.S.-born men by an estimated $1,700, or roughly 4%. (See Yahoo News story: Illegal Workers Have Mixed Impact.) If that reduction is applied to the roughly 135 million employed Americans, that reduces aggregate annual worker income by $230 billion, or $0.23 trillion. That's roughly 2% of our $12 trillion GDP. That's a loss in consumer spending of $230 billion (less taxes). Given that our entire GDP growth in 2005 was $384 billion, this is a significant amount. Considering that consumer spending is approximately 70% of GDP, that makes the "growth" in consumer spending around $269 billion. Again, the loss of that $230 billion is no small amount. And it is also $230 billion less money that could have been taxed, costing the Federal government anywhere between $36-55 billion per year. (Increasing the taxable income of a single taxpayer making $35,000/year by $1700 increases Federal income tax by $413. Increasing taxable income of a married taxpayer filing making $35,000/year by $1700 increases Federal income tax by $267. Multiplying these numbers by 135 million amounts to $55.7 billion and $36 billion, respectively.) Right-wingers will argue that this wage suppression is offset by business profits, and that these profits fuel investment. But investment capital is OVER-abundant at present. Increasing this excess even further will not result in more capital investment. It will result in higher CEO salaries, further overinvestment in the stock market, and further investment in foreign production facilities, the latter of which puts even further downward pressure on American wages. Furthermore, business profits don't fuel consumer spending. And consumer spending is the engine that drives our economy, not investment. Without consumer spending, there are no returns on investment. And if no returns are anticipated on investment, no investment takes place. The immigration-fueled reduction in wages does NOT help our economy. It hurts it. It reduces aggregate consumer income and the consumer spending it finances. The reduction in consumer spending reduces consumer production demand, further reducing demand for the labor to provide that production. The reduction in labor demand drives down employment and wages. The resultant labor demand reduction further reduces aggregate consumer income and further reduces consumer purchasing power. As consumer buying power declines, so do investment opportunities, since those opportunities are created by consumer demand for production. Thus the increased profits resulting from reduction in labor costs create even more excess capital, while reducing investment opportunities still further. Does anyone really think that wage suppression is "good" for the economy? Doesn't someone have to purchase the goods produced for business to profit? Won't reducing consumer income also reduce consumer goods purchasing? Won't a decline in consumer goods purchasing reduce business revenues and reduce potential profits? Once again, is immigration-fueled reduction in worker/consumer income really "good" for the economy? unlawflcombatnt ______________________ Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment. There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."