unlawflcombatnt

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."

nezmot

The opposite of what you're talking about is commonly called inflation and that's not great either. As you rightly say, the key here is balance. I wouldn't know where to start on trying to decide where to draw the line on immigration - but I did read recently that an armistice on all current illegal workers in the UK, and the subsequent revenues raised on their incomes would create a net benefit of 6 billion pounds to the economy as opposed to cracking down and deporting them.

The other thing to point out about immigration (ignoring the legality of it for the moment) is that many of the jobs that immigrants take would simply not be filled by indigenous workers, normally because the pay would be too low, or the job itself deemed too menial.

On to some specific points of your post:
Only if you are only counting domestic demand. If you include exports, then reduced wages tends to increase (external) consumer demand, bringing money into the country (in general).

Again, this point considers the country as a closed system. The problem with that is that considering wages/production/taxes etc within a closed system becomes meaningless. If everyone in a country earns 1.4% more, for doing the same thing, the actual effect is to devalue the currency by 1.4%. It's like trying to climb a rope that you're holding above your own head.

I'm surprised to hear that you consider pro-immigration (if that's what you're arguing against) as a right-wing ideal - My stereotypical ideas about "right-wingers" was that they were against immigration on largely xenophobic (cultural) grounds.

Anyway, on the whole I'd suggest that it's probably better to err on the non-inflationary side of the economic fence, since this way you are assured of a stable (if slightly boring) economy with none of the socially damaging boom and bust episodes that we've seen ravage communities since economics was invented.

aceventura3

I am a "right-winger" and I argue that the wage suppression goes into the consumers pocket, or it generates more liesure time. The real question is what is the value of labor? If millions of "illegal immegrants" can do a job for less money than an American, what is wrong with that? Nothing.

If you need your car repaired a person A charges $500 and person B charges $250, all other things being equal, why would you pay $500? You wouldn't. With the money saved, you can invest it for your future or you can use it to buy other good and services. Free markets work. The only people who don't like free markets are the one's who want a "free ride", i.e. pay me $500 for $250 worth of work.
It did not hurt the economy when the South brought in millions of slaves. Did not hurt when millions of Europeans immigrated here. Currently, unemployment is at historic lows, anyone who wants a job can find one. Anyone who wants to improve their life has opportunity for education, vocational training or can start their own business. Home ownership is at an all time high, etc, etc. The economy is strong. In fact some could argue that without immigrant workers our economy would be weaker.

This stuff goes in cycles. At one point the labor to build a car was expensive because it required highly skilled people. Same with making watches, computers, homes, etc. As production techniques improved and processes standardized, etc, the cost of labor goes down. It has happened over and over in the past and will continue.

I think the real problem are with people who who take things for granted. If people want top dollar for their labor they have to continually improve their marketable skills. Thats the bottom line.

Anyone who is worried about an uneducated third world person taking their job has some really major problems. Perhaps its time for us to stop spending every free moment drinking beer and watching sports and learn some new skills.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Rodney

Actually, _educated_ third-world persons have been taking my jobs. High tech employers are outsourcing to China and India whenever possible. At first it was QA and legacy maintenance, now increasingly it's design and development.

I have no idea what I could reeducate myself to in the high-tech marketplace that couldn't be outsourced, and isn't being increasingly outsourced. Ultimately, I've read that 50 million American jobs are going to be "outsourceable." There's no way enough people could be retrained, even if there was something to retrain them to.

I am, by the way, on my third career in ten years. I'm dancing as fast as I can -- and I'm not getting ahead. And I'm not the only one. You can talk about personal virtue all that you want, but the point is that the deck has been stacked against the American worker, and the stacking keeps going on and getting worse. Eventually, the economy will collapse because nobody can afford to buy SUVs and lattes and investment homes and gourmet takeout, and all _those_ jobs will vanish, and we'll pick up the pieces.

host

I am astounded by the contradiction of beliefs of folks who support the "war on terror", and "buy" what I perceive is a "scenario of fear", contrived and nurtured by a federal executive administration that owes it's amazingly shrunken support numbers to......these same folks who exhibit contradictory beliefs.

The "fear factor", manufactured by the administration in the wake of 9/11, was meant to attract support from the 55 percent of potential voters who walked away sometime between the former TANG ace's May 2003 flight suit strut across the carrier deck.....and.....now.

The passage of time and the dwindling of support for the "War", lays bare the farcical "threat" to the nation's security, that couldn't even convince (scare?) the administration's core supporters to demand borders and ports secure enough to interfere with their drive to displace the native workforce (a demanding lot of malcontents who won't work for wages and benefits driven down by the trespassers who streamed in, uninterrupted, even by "the war").

Some of the 55 percent who no longer support the "War President". may have caught sight of the fact that the administration intentionally overlooked and underfunded border and port security because.....even in a time of contrived war, the agenda to continue the growth of a "parallel", lower wage, much more docile, easily cowed (they live in fear because of the deliberately orchestrated perception that, any minute, if they attract much attention, they will be exposed as illegals) labor pool of maids, gardeners, cooks, dishwashers, janitors, and crop tillers, TOOK PRIORITY OVER ANY REAL OFFICIAL EFFORTS to secure the borders and the ports, and interrupt the flow of illegal human traffic.

One of the visible failings of the "War on Terror" propaganda "Op", has been that there is no way to stop anyone who looks, from following the money, and the politcal powers, and seeing who it flows to.

The "war president" has, in the four years since 9/11, become THE LAW. The no bid contracts that "the war" spawned, went to the connected, and the low wage, foreign, parallel work force, continued to receive the needed flow of bodies that maintain and expand the pre-war profits of those who "employ" these lower paid and more easily controlled folks, because the entrances were never blocked, even in a contrived climate of "heightened" security.

Why is it difficult to imagine how much better off economically, everyone who is legally allowed to work in the U.S. would be, if there was only a negligible number of illegal workers available for hire? There would be a stronger middle class, a smaller number living at 130 percent of the poverty level....or less, and much less medicaid and public school expenditures.

But for a relatively few number of well heeled, politically connected folks who hire the illegals and benefit from the savings that result from these hirings, folks who've grown used to larger savings and profits, and a less challenging labor management climate that is a result of the artifical, parallel, discount pool of labor that their money and influence has facilitated and lured across our borders. the entire country could also benefit from a more affluent consumer base, and could extend work visas to more highly skilled potential immigrants from around the globe.

The Americans who refuse to work for the "parallel" work force's readily accepted, $5.15, the ones described above (and dismissed) as:
are not the greedy, war profiteering parasites who trade their own dependence on cheap, wage dampening illegal foreign workers for less secure borders and ports. The flow of profits and politcal power is certainly not falling into the hands of Americans who find themselves displaced by the illegal workers. These Americans aren't the ones luring the illegals into the U.S. Aren't the folks who have benefitted from the "war Op", and the parallel labor force, the ones who "take things for granted"?

Isn't the dismissal of the American workers, via condescending and repetitive talking points, part of the smokescreen that those who withdrew their support for the "war president", now more easily "see" through?

How are folks who don't directly benefit financially or through accumulation of increased personal politcal influence, still persuaded, after all this time, to repeat the American worker bashing phrases, and to support an administration and it's war.....and a set of "threats" that never became important enough to their own "authors", to interrupt their main priority of amassing wealth and power?.....They couldn't "let up" even long enough to produce a "pretense" of increased border and port security, or to postpone reflexive politcal "payback" by refraining from selectively "leaking" the war intelligence that they themselves classified to hide their hypocrisy and utter disregard for a policy of avoidance of aggressive war "of choice" and state sponsered torture.

The point is, the American people's government would get to select who is allowed to live and work here.....not, as now, just the few greedy and possibly clueless folks who've grown used to cheap, docile, domestic help, or high profit margin menial laborers to boost their business profits.

Either we really are "at war" and the folks who make money from the "open border and port" status quo, and the politicians who keep it that way for them, and now are pushing to legalize the large parallel work force that has intentionally been attracted and ushered into the country, are undermining our safety and security for the extra profit that their "set up" yields for them, or.....they've conned us out of 11,000 formerly able bodied, sincere and patriotic American troops, and hundreds of billions of dollars.

scout

No it won't hurt the top 20% of wage earners but the 80% that's left can kiss their lifestyle goodbye. All things aren't equal. The person that charges $500 to repair your car probably pays taxes, pays workman's compensation insurance for his employees and all the other overhead that goes along with being a prosperous, LEGAL businessman whereas the fella charging only $250 probably works out of his garage at his home, doesn't pay taxes, has no business overhead and basically flies under the government radar so he doesn't get caught and sends almost all his profits home to Mexico. Your providing a scenario that doesn't exist when talking about ILLEGAL immigration. It's impossible for all things to be equal.

I don't have a problem with immigration. If we need the workers then by all means let them in but let them enter the country LEGALLY and tax the businesses that need the immigrant workers to compensate the government for the extra paperwork that's involved.

aceventura3

Sure its possible. In many cases illegal immigrants provide employers with illegal documents to show they have a right to work here. In those situations the employer pays everything the same, taxes, insurance, payroll, equipment, etc. In that scenerio the legal worker's wage does get depressed because of the increase in the supply of workers for that job. Keep in mind anotheer possibility exits-if not for the depressed wage, it is possible the business goes under or all the jobs get moved to another country. We have to ask what is worse?

But you did not address my point - what is the real cost of labor? Let's look at factory work. In many cases a machine operator is paid for 8 hours to push a button and move material into and out of a machine. Is that job worth $80k/year? $40k/year? $20k/year? If the job is low skilled how is it harmfull to pay as little as possible for the work that billions of people can do? On the otherhand, if a job requires highly skilled labor, shouldn't that job command higher wages? American workers need to stop crying, and move into higher skilled jobs. The opportunity is available.

We mostly agree here. However I think most legitimate business who have illegals working for them are paying taxes as are the illegal workers. I support a guest worker program, a program that brings everything to the light of day. I don't agree that immigrants legal or not are hurting our economy on a net basis.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3

If you are in high tech, your challange is 10 times that of everyone else. I remember in college taking a course in FORTRAN. In the '80's the insructor told us the language was already obsolete. He didn't even understand why the course was required (I was an ECON/Bus major). In high tech if you rest for 6 months your competetive edge is gone. If you loose your edge who's fault is that?

I know many high tech people who adapted or made the money while they could and then simply did other things. Those still programming in FORTRAN are probably still in their mom's basement eating cheetos.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

host

Why is it necessary to facilitate the formation of an illegal or a guest worker, parallel labor pool, of foreign workers, in the U.S. Why can't American employers attract legal, American workers to whatever job needs to be filled, at whatever compensation level that it takes to fill the job with a willing and qualified candidate?

Any other scenario seems like a deliberate avoidance of dealing fairly with the labor pool, unionism, labor laws, and labor pool supply and demand equalibrium that would have existed if politicians were not incentivized by the small number of American employers who profit from the alternative, illegal low wage, docile, labor pool that they and their allied politicians brought into existance.

Just because a group of cynical, greedy, "connected", affluent elite have successfully created an illegal low wage parallel labor pool, why should they be rewarded by new laws that would legitimize their selfish, willful, undermining of the class structure that should legally and rightfully exist today in the U.S.....and that would cement their hold on the extraordinary inflation of their labor profit margins that has resulted from their manipulation of the status quo that the American worker paid for, in some cases, with their own blood, in the years before the Reagan "revolution"?

samcol

Illegal immigration really is the 'new' slavery, indentured servitude, feudalism, whatever you wish to call it. How anyone can view 30 million 2nd class citizens as a positive for America is beyond me. Nothing like having a mob of non english speaking slaves with no rights to do your bidding.

Just because we 'legalize' them doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal for a long time as well. Do we really want to go back to that?

aceventura3

The US is not an island economy. We compete on a global basis. We and you consume on a global basis. We have to be effecient and cost effective. I think we spend too much effort thinking about the "good ol days", rather than competing. Every nation on earth wants to eat our lunch. When did we actually become a nation of wimps, rather than a nation of fighters?

Also, I don't get the obsession with companies saving money on labor costs when there is an opportunity. If profits are so great and the companies so evil, why don't the "workers" take over the companies and run them - if they think they can do it better.

Instead of the UAW helping to lead GM into banruptcy why don't they pool their money and do a take over? They can immediatly close all overseas facilities, layoff all white collar workers, double wages, double vacation, and double pension benefits. Using a liberal argument, then all those workers would be able to buy GM vehicles and every body is happy - right? Why don't they do it? Because crying about how evil corporate execs are is easier. If there is a better answer, I would like to know.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Elphaba

Ace, did you see Wall Street's response to our "economic boom?" OMG! Workers might actually get a pay increase and surely inflation will follow! It took a dive. We are the worst kind of capitalism, and global "economics" simply makes it more profitable.

Rodney

No, my skills are fine. I've got the same edge I've ever had, and more. But employers are increasingly doing as much hiring as possible overseas. This is not an opinion, this is fact as observed by me personally, as told to me by hiring managers, by friends who tell me why there are no openings at their companies despite rising profits. Thing is, much of what is done overseas isn't done all that well. But it's done so cheaply that they can be made to rework it two, three times and still be cheaper.

Yes, they can be employed more cheaply. Why not? There's no social security to pay, no pollution controls or very few, few employee safety rules and regs -- all the props of a civilized society. Take those away, and you can get people very cheap indeed. And eventually, that's what we'll have here -- a society of people scrambling for whatever work they can, at whatever price, in a society where they are completely on their own. Might seem like paradise -- to those who've already got.

host

I can't fathom that describing/objecting to a conspiracy to avoid enforcing immigration laws and border and port security, that results in the amassing of a low wage alternate pool of undocumented, illegal resident U.S workers who now are "guessed" to number 11 milion, accompanied by an ongoing risk to "homeland" security that should be more of a concern to those who accept that a "war on terror" exists, and who support those who peddle that "line", would even be countered by someone self described as "right winger".

Wouldn't deliberately compromising border security and turning a blind eye to a steady influx of foreign trespassers; failing to vigorously enforce "homeland security" related laws, during "a time of war", be activities that you would energetically object to.....reverse government "regulation" that threatens the "heightened security" environment that you accept as legitimately existing, while I don't.

How could you support extra-constitutional authority for our president, yet seem so unconcerned about this security compromise of continuing illegal immigration?

aceventura3, follow the money....who benefits from the lax border and port security, and weak penalties levied against employers who hire illegal aliens, and/or who pay them in cash?

Your argument, above, does not respond to the fact of intentional "flooding" of the internal U.S. labor market with a "parllel", illegal, non-American, lower paid and easier to supervise, unaware of their rights and ineligible for labor law protections, labor pool.

If homebuilders, restaurantuers, landscapers, janitorial services, hotel chains, McDonald's, and individual wealthy householders were deprived of this "parallel" pool of workers, how would a shift to hiring the only alternative, labor....higher priced, rights aware, and harder to supervise, legal American
workers, impact negatively on anything of signifigance, other than on the "bottom line" of those who have taken advantage of the "parallel" labor pool, skirted the law, and experienced oversized labor profit margins or lower household service costs? These "parasites" (yeah...that is what they are....) would not be able to pass much of their increased costs onto the rest of us, in our competitive economic climate, and the "bar" would be raised, simultaneously and equally on the cost strutcture of all who have a need to buy these local wage earner's services.

Refrigerators and cars can be manufactured anywhere, but cooks, dishwashers, baby sitters, maids, and crop tillers have to be contracted and employed locally. The opportunists can lay off production workers on a whim, but their local "parallel" labor pool scam doesn't fit heightened security concerns, after the 9/11 hyped farce, "changed everything". Yet these neocon propagandists have been greedy and brazen enough to have it all....costitutional rights robbing "war powers", war profiteering, and continued unguarded ports and borders, and now the sham spectacle of immigration "reform" to cement their "parallel pool" more firmly in residence in "der Homeland".

Consider this unique survey that, since 1974, (2002 and 1999 select results displayed below) polled the opinions of nearly 400 U.S. elite and policy "leaders", and displayed the results along with public polling numbers, for camparison. The public clearly wanted immigration controls and job protection, much more than the "leaders". The public correctly viewed "world terrorism" as a much greater threat, and much sooner (in 1999) than the "leaders" did.

These survey results reinforce my point that the "leaders" serve only the priorities of themselves and of their wealthy sponsors with whom they share common interests, off in a class that is divorced from the priorities of the public that they pretend to work on behlaf of. This is first, a class issue. Control and gaming of the system for the benefit of an elite class, at the expense of everyone else......
2002 Excerpt (below) from results of survey described above:
Would the GM union workers have fared any better if they had "cooperated" with management via wage/benefit givebacks. Everything that management fed to U.S. workers over the last 20 years to persuade them to produce more and settle for lower compensation, was B.S. The workers saw their jobs move briefly, to Mexico first, and from there, to Asia. The greedy. former U.S. domeciled corporations, repatriated themselves to Bermuda corp. charters (as in, Tyco...), and left the U.S. with declining wages and a trade imbalance hemmorhage. Our "leaders" sided with the CEOs' greedy B.S.
<b>It wasn't the Florida legislators or the governor who represented the best interests of minimum wazge earners. It was the voters of Florida themselves, overwhelmingly, who changed the law, in spite of the oppositions from their elected officials...:</b>

aceventura3

What happens on Wall Street today is usually an indicator of what the economy will do in the future. Friday's action was profit taking after several good weeks of activity. Volume was low, which was actually a good sign on a down day.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3

Please take a broader view of this issue. For example, think about the garment industry. At one time in history almost all cloths purchased in this country were made in this country. Men, women and children were paid extreme low wages. Over time we adopted child labor laws because we felt it was wrong to abuse children in the work place and we felt it more important that children became educated. Also, changes occured for American men and women - they became moore productive - and their labor became more valuable - they got paid more - garment jobs got exported.

Now apply that trend to your industry. Programming billions of lines of code has become like making shirts, hasn't it? Isn't logical that those jobs go overseas to lower skilled, lower paid programmers?

If we used our logic with the garment industry - you would have protected all those jobs - right? So instead of men and women gaining new more valued skills, we would still be like in the early 1900's. Thanks but no thanks, I say we embrace change and keep moving forward. Ship the old jobs overseas, and give us the new ones.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3

I honestly don't know where to start when responding to the above. All I think I can say is that it is true that I do what is in my best interest, and so do corporations. I think most others do too. I don't have a problem with that. I can't think of who said it first but "greed is good". If you are altruistic, I am humbled by your goodness.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Nimetic

The logic doesn't necessarily apply in such a simple manner.

IT is not quite like sewing. Writing lines of code, well, requires somebody with strong analytic logic skills. Maths/scienc/eng types. Now within this group of people, we do not have interchangeable skills. A good programmer said to be ten times more productive than average programmer.

At the same time... the nature of programming is automation. Smart programmers automate the repetitive tasks (of programming) such that we become more and more productive... unless we work for a consulting company, in which case we simply charge until the client screams. There's other issues there. Point is, a clever programmer controls the robots, who controls the machines, that sew the cloth. Does that make sense? This gives us more chance to talk to the customer.

So yeah. Many modern (IT) technicians work fairly closely with business to evolve the systems that analyze and support our financial infrastructure.

But getting back to the outsourcing thing. Ok, lets say we outsource programming. No problems. What else can we outsource. Well engineering of course. Ok. What about finance. Sure. Economics. Sure, anybody can study that.

So cut to 2050. The sweatshops, the manufacturing, the textiles, the programming, the financiers, the engineers are in India and China.

And they have the majority of the world population, the potential consumers. Apart from tourism, the developed world as we know it would doing what exactly? Tourism? Farming?

One thing is for sure... we won't have any military advantage left. Who would program that stuff?

Nimetic

There are alternatives. You don't have to have a completely "open" economy.

There does seem to be a range of ways of doing things. Sure - under the current regime, employers outsource. It doesn't follow that this is the most profitable course of action under all regulatory and political environments.

xepherys

Incorrect. See, I'm all for the rights of businesses to do what they need to do. I think affirmative action type laws are ridiculous. I don't even really approve of minimum wage. HOWEVER, what is wrong with hiring illegal immigrants? Oh, that's right... it's ILLEGAL! That's what's wrong with it. On top of hiring undocumented workers being illegal, NOT paying taxes on behalf of those employees is illegal. The way I see it, there's much "wrong with that".

First, that's not a "free ride". Second, very rarely are all "other things ... equal" with a 100% price disparity. In fact, the cheap labor often comes with a usefulness price tag as well. My mother-in-law has a gardener that seems to be illegal (he comes through a crappy agency). The other landscaper-types that do work for her and the guys that mow and all do great work. This other guy, however, was "fired" by my M-I-L because he fucked up her roses, destroyed her trees with over pruning and other such issues. And he came at the price set by the agency. If a dealership charges $200 for something, and Jimmy Joe Bobs House of Auto Repair charges $100... I'll throw the extra $100 into going to the dealership to make sure my car works right.

Ah, such a great argument... except completley useless in this context. Things are significantly different now than they were then. You can even see that, at that point in time, the benefits of slave ownership were STILL slimmer than they were during, say, the Roman Empire era. Nowadays, in western culture and western business, slaves and illegals don't help things along. The added benefit of cheap labor does not benefit the common man at all and really doesn't help the "upper echelon" the way it used to. You can argue that businesses see benefits from this, but do they really? Surely they pay their employees less, but are they as up to par? Do they do as good of work? Maybe not always... that has to cost a client here and there. What about word of mouth, either from that client or from people who won't buy services from people who USE illegal workers. It's not always obvious, but sometimes it is. Realistically, most (not all) larger companies would never touch such workers... I wonder why that it?! Oh, because it's ILLEGAL and also bad for business.

No, there's nothing cyclic about it. The usefulness of this type of business practice, as I noted above, has been shrinking for some 500 years easily. The industrial era broke it down even more rapidly and the digital era has pretty much put it's usefulness out to the curb entirely.

I agree... people should ALWAYS be honing their skills. But sometimes there's more than JUST the basis of skills. Skill level being the same, there are other things I look at, and price isn't the ONLY one. Counter to my dealership example above, if I KNOW the work at Billy Joe John Cooter's shop is on par or better, AND they charged the SAME amount as the dealership, I may very well go to little gusys shop to help support local small businesses. It depends on a LOT of factors, but money is only one small facet of those.

Well, maybe it doesn't help that they get their education without paying the taxes for it. Maybe it doesn't help that we cater to them to give them special classes in their native tongue. We bend over backwards, in many cases, to put them on par with legal citizens. I'm not TERRIBLY worried about illegal mexican workers coming into the IT industry anytime soon, but it's not impossible. My skillset is good, and I personally don't spend every free moment drinking beer and watching sports. But you know what? Just because someone does doesn't mean their job should be undercut by someone who is BREAKING THE LAW by even being here. *boggle* That doesn't really sound like a healthy viewpoint.

flstf

I have worked in Mexico with some excellent programmers on industrial computer control systems. One of the best young men I worked with on my last job did not make enough to afford his own place so the compay allowed him to sleep on a cot in the office. I would troubleshoot the system with him during the day and he would work into the night and have the changes made by morning.

The U.S. company I worked for managed to get a green card for one of them and move him up north. I have nothing but admiration for these young Mexican technical workers and they are catching up fast. One would hope that they will eventually find opportunities in their own country.

ASU2003

If India, China and Russia can make great programmers, Mexico can create them as well. The problem is that it takes a lot of education and investment in technology to produce them. If there is money to be made and good jobs, people will go into the field.

Wage supression and keeping inflation in check helps the extremely rich people much more than the average guy. Outsourcing and hiring cheap labor are the easiest ways to do it. It is all about supply and demand. If you can flood the market with more people to work certain jobs, the salaries will come down.

aceventura3

Laws are laws - right? Wrong! I am not an anarchist and I obey laws, however, I try to understand the basis for our laws. If a law is flawed - I am vocal about changing it. I agree it is wrong to hire illegal immagrants - however I do support a guest worker program. As a business owner I should have the right to hire the labor I choose to hire.
Not sure how that contradict my point. Consumers need to be active participants in a free market. Perhaps your MIL should have checked references, visited some of the gardener's other worksites, or even given him some kind of test of hi knowledge.

It is true most people don't make their final decision based exclusively on price. Personally, I almost never buy the "cheapest" item.
You got me on the "things are significantly different now". I agree things are significantly different today. However, I will always be a student of history and its lessons. I like to think we can learn from the past - do you disagree with that?
Depends on your point of view doesn't it? It certainly benefits some, and costs others. Emperically I have to conclude the net is positive or the trend would be going away from using immigrant workers.
Or, a larger company can just open a factory in Mexico. But that's not hiring "illegals" is it? But if they bused those worker into the US every day, that would be "illegal". Oh-I get it- big companies can play by a different set of rules. They do what is in their best interest and let everyone else play word games - "illegal"/"undocumented"/"guest"/"green card"/"501 CPO R2D2 Visas"/etc/etc.
Assuming you are correct - for something to shrink for 500 years - there had to be a period of growth. If there is growth and shrikage- some (including me) would call that a cycle. what do you call it?
If you want to get paid - you have to have skills that are in demand and skills someone is willing to pay for. Certainly there are people who are getting exploited - but I guess exploitation avoidance is a skill too - one that is pretty valuable I might add.
American tax payers getting exploited. It is funny - but we think we are smarter than they are. Why we give them free anything is idiocy.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3

Please excuse me in advance - I think I am in a argumentative mood.

It is like sewing. Putting together a garment requires somebody with strong analytic logic skills. To take something from a concept and turn it into a real functioning product takes the skills you describe above. Also within the group of people who can sew, they don't all have interchangeable skills. A good tailor is said to be 100 times more productive than an average seemstress.

Have you ever seen them make one of those oriental rugs?

Good tailors also automate repeatative tasks and make themselves more productive. Point is - that a clever designer controls the robots, who control the machines, that sew the cloth. does that make sense? This give the designer more time to do whatever it is they do with super models.

Let's see - "financial infrastructure" - "super model" - I'm thinking a better career choice is to out source programming and learn to sew. Are you with me?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."