The Free Trade of Labor

[scott]

Since I'm in the office all night and not able to watch 5.5 hours of LOST, let’s talk Welfare Economics and International Trade for a moment. The bulk of this post will be comprised of textbook fundamental Economics. I will provide some of my own personal opinions highlighted in red.

Part One. Of The Impact on Total Social Welfare from Free Trade.

To start, some definitions to be used in the following paragraphs.

Total Social Welfare. The sum of all consumer surplus and producer surplus achieved at the market outcome.

Consumer Surplus. The sum of the difference between the price paid and the consumer's reservation price (the maximum they would be willing to pay, or the marginal benefit they receive from the good or service) for each consumer.

Producer Surplus. The sum of the difference between the price received and the producer/seller's reservation price (the minimum they would be willing to receive, or the marginal cost to supply that specific unit of a good or service) for each consumer.

Free Trade. A market structure that allows a market equilibrium to occur without the influence of import/export tariffs or quotas. All domestic and foreign suppliers and consumers are free to exchange in the trade of a good or service in a market.

A Graphical Representation of Total Social Welfare in an Economy Without Trade Operating at Full Economic Efficiency.
http://www.econ.rochester.edu/eco108/ch9/image9PR.JPG

The graph above illustrates an market (in this case, without trade) operating at full economic efficiency, at the market equilibrium. In this market, all buyers and all sellers are satisfied as the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost up to the final unit exchanged.

A Graphical Representation of Total Social Welfare in an Economy Without Trade When Quantity Exchange is Restricted Below Market Equilibrium
http://www.econ.rochester.edu/eco108/ch9/imageE92.JPG

The graph above illustrates a market where some force has restricted the quantity exchanged below the market equilibrium. This creates an inefficient market equilibrium where both potential buyers and sellers are harmed because they are shut out from engaging in a trade where the benefits would exceed their costs. This lost economic gain is highlighted by the pink triangle.

A Graphical Representation of Total Social Welfare in an Economy With Unrestricted Trade
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/475/486957/screencaps/28_01-05.gif

The above graph illustrates a market were the World Price of a good or service (that is, the price that prevails on the world market) is higher than the domestic equilibrium price for that good or service. In this case, a country would become a net exporter of the good, as domestic producers would sell their product to the buyer offering the highest prices. Domestic consumers are now forced to compete with other consumers from around the world, and must offer a higher price to obtain these goods and services. In this case, the domestic quantity demanded is reduced as does domestic consumer surplus; but the domestic quantity supplied increases in response to higher prices and domestic producer surplus is increased. In fact, the gain in domestic consumer surplus more than offsets the loss of domestic consumer surplus, and Total Social Welfare is increased. Total Social Welfare is maximized were the there are no restrictions to this free trade.

In the case where the domestic equilibrium price exceeds the world price, the domestic nation becomes a net importer where consumer surplus increases and producer surplus decreases, but we still see a net gain in Total Social Welfare.

A Graphical Representation of Total Social Welfare in an Economy with Restricted Trade
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/11/30/saupload_jv.jpg

In the above graph, a tariff has been placed on the good or service, in this case where the domestic nation was a net importer. The result is a reduction in consumer surplus, represented by the pink triangles. Total Social Welfare is greater than a case with no trade, but less than a case with unrestricted trade. Notice that producer surplus increases as domestic producer’s gain where imports are restricted. This gain is still less than the loss of consumer surplus. The same effect works in reverse in a case where the domestic nation is a net exporter.

While an import/export quota is different from a tariff in its mechanics (it does not tax an import/export, but it restricts the quantity or value), it works the same from the perspective of Total Social Welfare.

Conclusion. As seen, it is readily acknowledged and accepted that free trade maximizes Total Social Welfare (the measure of the sum of benefits obtained by everyone in an economy, minus the sum of all the costs incurred by everyone in an economy).

Part 2. Of the Restricting of the Legal Quantity of Labor Available to be Imported or Exported Into a Market.

Imagine you are a highly-skilled and well regarded German architect, and you have been offered a high paying job in Japan. You've received no similar offers from any other firms. Should you be allowed to accept this job?

I think most of us would answer yes. We should be allowed to pursue the opportunities that best suit our preferences and lifestyles. We would all also agree that you should be required to follow the rules and regulations that the nation of Japan places on foreign citizens living and working in their country. So long as all the proper rules are followed, *most* people would not have a problem with this situation. In this case, labor has been imported into Japan in the form of the German citizen who supplies his labor to the buyer who offered him/her the most attractive compensation. The German is the producer of the labor and his producer surplus increases (the value he receives for his labor versus his marginal cost to supply it). The Japanese firm is the consumer and their consumer surplus rises as a result. Total Social Welfare has increased as a result of this transaction.

You'll notice I said *most* people would not have a problem with this situation. The Japanese citizen, who got passed over for the job, may have a problem with it. From a Total Social Welfare perspective, however, the firm made the choice that maximized their efficiency. They must have offered the job to the German because of a perceived difference in skill level, thus they get greater benefits from the higher. However, the Japanese citizen may not be pleased.

This is the first case in which one may raise a protectionist argument against the Free Trade of Labor. However, why should Total Social Welfare be sacrificed in the name of Nationalism? Both the firm and Japan are better off by importing this labor, so should those gains be eliminated simply because someone was born somewhere. My opinion, as an economist, would be "no".

Now imagine a case where a quota - a legal limit to the number - is placed on legal immigrants. What are the market effects?

A quota limits the maximum benefits we can achieve by importing potentially superior labor, so we end up with gains in domestic producer surplus (those supplying the labor) that are more than offset by greater losses in consumer surplus (those "buying" the labor). To make matters worse, the quota system has no way of distinguishing the best labor from anyone else, so it's quite possible that the new residents provide very little marginal producer surplus.

One benefit that domestic workers will enjoy is that domestic wages will remain higher than they otherwise would because a portion of the otherwise prevailing competition is locked out of the market place. Those people now flood their home market with surplus labor driving down wages there. Here we have a situation that breeds incentive for illegal immigration. Foreign residents can't make any money where they live; they will be willing to pay high costs (including deportation or imprisonment) to achieve the benefits of higher wages.

Conclusion. You want to "fix" Illegal Immigration? The biggest problem inherent in it is the "Illegal" Part. The quotas placed on labor have created a market situation where there are distinct incentives for people to enter this country illegally. Unfortunately, increased Law Enforcement has proven to be only marginally effective and highly cost ineffective.

There is no denying that we must be conscious of the security of our nation and its borders. We must be able to know who is coming in, and who is going out. We must not allow a situation where criminals can freely enter our workforce and society.

With that said, the most cost-effective way to reduce the burden placed on this country by Illegal Aliens is to re-examine the existing quotas and the process by which legal status can be achieved. A streamlining of the process will eliminate some of the incentives for illegals to enter our country. The easier it is for them to gain legal status, the more they will. The more people who have legal status, the more people who legally pay taxes and the less people who illegally benefit from our social systems.

Face it, the number of people who enter this country isn't going to change dramatically, regardless of any increased Law Enforcement. What can change is the number of them who are legal, and the number of them who are illegal. Right now, the quotas are too low and the process is too cumbersome. If your response is "if you want to live here, you have to play by our rules", then you are missing the point. They are coming, no matter what.

[scott]

More opinion:

The more immigrants that are legal, the fewer of them that are legally able to be paid sub-minimum wages. This puts everyone back on a level playing field. An American citizen who previously could not compete for a certain job on price, now can. Many times, the American will be more qualified for the job. The incentive for many immigrants to come here (available jobs) disappears. Fewer of them come as the market adjusts to its equilibrium.

[jack sommerset]

Check this out.

Investigators: Edmonds rape suspect deported nine times

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Investigators-Edmonds-rape-suspect-deported-nine-times-94637479.html

[scott]

Check this out.

Investigators: Edmonds rape suspect deported nine times

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Investigators-Edmonds-rape-suspect-deported-nine-times-94637479.html

Just clear-cut evidence that the current system doesn't work. My opinion is that "beefing up" the current system won't help. From both an economic and practical sense, we need to reboot the whole thing.

[jack sommerset]

Throw some snipers along the border and this problem is fixed.

[Winehole23]

You missed the point Jack. The incentives are all screwed up. The reason immigrant labor chooses the path of illegality is that the rules are too onerous. If we make the legal pathway easier, more immigrants will play by the rules and pay into the system. As it stands, from the standpoint of self-interest and rational calculation, it makes little sense to follow the rules. that's why so many immigrants don't.

Free trade, if there is any such thing, relies on the free flow of goods and labor. In order to maximize the efficiencies legal hindrances to the free flow of labor need to be relaxed, not enhanced.

[Winehole23]

Our immigration policies can't be all stick and no carrot. Overemphasizing enforcement guarantees non-compliance with the rules.

[boutons_deux]

There's almost no convention between (eg, EU) countries, or even between US states, on professional certifications. So right there is a technical barrier to professional labor mobility.

Americans and American corps would bitch like hell about food prices if illegal ag workers were made legal and paid a pretend-living wage (eg, like Wal-mart "associates").

Remember the recent battle in FL between Burger King and (illegal) tomato pickers wanting ONE MORE FUCKING DOLLAR per day?

The illegal immigration problem hasn't been solved by either party because businesses don't want it solved.

[RandomGuy]

A Graphical Representation of Total Social Welfare in an Economy With Unrestricted Trade
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/475/486957/screencaps/28_01-05.gif

The above graph illustrates a market were the World Price of a good or service (that is, the price that prevails on the world market) is higher than the domestic equilibrium price for that good or service. In this case, a country would become a net exporter of the good, as domestic producers would sell their product to the buyer offering the highest prices. Domestic consumers are now forced to compete with other consumers from around the world, and must offer a higher price to obtain these goods and services. In this case, the domestic quantity demanded is reduced as does domestic consumer surplus; but the domestic quantity supplied increases in response to higher prices and domestic producer surplus is increased. In fact, the gain in domestic consumer surplus more than offsets the loss of domestic consumer surplus, and Total Social Welfare is increased. Total Social Welfare is maximized were the there are no restrictions to this free trade.

Shouldn't that read


In fact, the gain in domestic [producer] surplus more than offsets the loss of domestic consumer surplus, and Total Social Welfare is increased.

?? (want to make sure that is a typo)

[scott]

That's right RG, just a typo on my part.

[boutons_deux]

"reason immigrant labor chooses the path of ...

Immigration is that NAFTA has destroyed the livelihood of many subsistence farmers in, eg MX, who can't compete with heavily subsidized, industrial food-like substances and factory meat from USA. NAFTA has seriously worsened the poverty, and (drug) criminality, of poor Mexicans, pushing many into the incredibly arduous, and dangerous, path of heading for El Norte, and into the employ of the drug cartels.

Yes, America's NAFTA bullshit has increased American exports to Mexico, as is always the case when American military/commercial imperialism, destroying local productivity, and make the poor people dependent on American goods. And if America starts some more bullshit like (heavily subsidized) corn ethanol, the price of American corn in MX goes through the roof.

[Wild Cobra]

Our immigration policies can't be all stick and no carrot. Overemphasizing enforcement guarantees non-compliance with the rules.

So you favor opening the floodgates, that anyone who can make it here can stay?

Any idea the problems you are asking for? As it stands, it's not easy for them to get here. Make it easier, and the 20-30 million we have will fast become 100 million+

[scott]

So you favor opening the floodgates, that anyone who can make it here can stay?

Any idea the problems you are asking for? As it stands, it's not easy for them to get here. Make it easier, and the 20-30 million we have will fast become 100 million+

Do you have a problem with foreign people being here, or with foreign people being here illegally?

[ElNono]

The problem I see with the argument as presented in the OP is that in the particular case of skilled legal immigration there's really not much of a problem outside of the limits imposed by Congress. But I don't see that as the main factor driving illegal immigration. Most truly skilled foreign workers can still get a job in their native countries or even try the same luck on other first world nations around the globe. I mean, I speak from personal experience. I received a skilled worker visa from the US back in 1999, but if they would have decided not to grant it to me, I already had a job offer in the Netherlands to fall back to.

I think what we're seeing here is a huge influx of unskilled workers. They're used to living in poor conditions and so they manage to work for a lot cheaper and some are not looking to stay for life either. They want to collect US dollars for X amount of months/years and then go back home with the mini fortune they collected.

Some do stay, but because they lack the skills required to obtain citizenship, they can't get anywhere either.

So the question becomes how do you compete with these people that are willing to do more for much less without lowering your standard of living? How does the person that's working hard to save money to retire in this country with the cost of living we have here competes with the person that's saving to go away to some poor country to live in what we would consider sub-standard living?

[Winehole23]

So you favor opening the floodgates, that anyone who can make it here can stay?

Any idea the problems you are asking for? As it stands, it's not easy for them to get here. Make it easier, and the 20-30 million we have will fast become 100 million+ First of all, the labor market itself is a restriction on the volume of immigrants. If opportunity is lacking here, people will stop coming. The current recession is proof of that.

If we get more legal immigrants, we get more employees and employers playing by the rules, hence more people paying into the system, on top of the surplus value created by the work they do.

Also, did you see the Texas comptroller's report on the economic impact of illegal immigrants on Texas? Their contribution is not replaceable by other means, and their total absence would mean a 2%-2.5% loss to Texas GDP every year. Illegal immigrants help Texas's competitiveness. Why not give them more incentives to work legally? What's the drawback there?

[Winehole23]

How does the person that's working hard to save money to retire in this country with the cost of living we have here competes with the person that's saving to go away to some poor country to live in what we would consider sub-standard living?Americans don't save, they invest and overborrow. Current levels of interest punish savers.

That said, Carol Keeton Strayhorn has made a pretty good argument that the contribution of illegal immigration to the wealth and competitiveness of Texas is not replaceable. We might very well be worse off without it.

[ElNono]

So we're clear, I'm not arguing that they're replaceable or that they can somehow all be deported overnight and we wouldn't suffer dire economic consequences if that were ever to happen. However, I think the endgame to the current situation is a lowered standard of living for much of the general population.

[Winehole23]

So we're clear, I'm not arguing that they're replaceable or that they can somehow all be deported overnight and we wouldn't suffer dire economic consequences if that were ever to happen. However, I think the endgame to the current situation is a lowered standard of living for much of the general population.Quite possibly. US fiscal and monetary policy were already leading us in the same direction.

[boutons_deux]

"endgame to the current situation is a lowered standard of living for much of the general population"

11M illegals doing shitty work for shitty pay (and sometimes for no pay as they are underpaid and unpaid by their cheating employers) is a stable situation for the general population.

Many of them are paying Soc Sec that they will never see again.

Illegal ag workers are huge part of why fruit, veg, nuts are at their current prices. Those prices would all go up if the ag workers were paid all their living wages, and their employers paid all the employer overheads.

Those 11M illegal workers are paying rents, mortgages, buying food, clothes, consumer shit. Don't try to say they are all stealing, rather than buying, everything they need to live.

Illegals are WAY down the list of problems that are fucking up America.

On the top are the capitalists, corps, financial sector.

[RandomGuy]

"reason immigrant labor chooses the path of ...

Immigration is that NAFTA has destroyed the livelihood of many subsistence farmers in, eg MX, who can't compete with heavily subsidized, industrial food-like substances and factory meat from USA. NAFTA has seriously worsened the poverty, and (drug) criminality, of poor Mexicans, pushing many into the incredibly arduous, and dangerous, path of heading for El Norte, and into the employ of the drug cartels.

Yes, America's NAFTA bullshit has increased American exports to Mexico, as is always the case when American military/commercial imperialism, destroying local productivity, and make the poor people dependent on American goods. And if America starts some more bullshit like (heavily subsidized) corn ethanol, the price of American corn in MX goes through the roof.

What about the Mexican firms that sell stuff in the USA?

There are always two sides to trade relationships.

The reality is never quite so "imperialistic" as you imply.

[RandomGuy]

So we're clear, I'm not arguing that they're replaceable or that they can somehow all be deported overnight and we wouldn't suffer dire economic consequences if that were ever to happen. However, I think the endgame to the current situation is a lowered standard of living for much of the general population.

US standard of living will stagnate until much of the rest of the world catches up, in all liklihood.

The only way any given person will raise their standard of living all things held equal, is to save and invest. Live beneath your means and put your money to work for you.

Easier said than done, and that implies that you have some marginal income left over after living expenses.

[RandomGuy]

The illegal immigration problem hasn't been solved by either party because businesses don't want it solved.

More truth to that than many would admit to.

I agree with scott's conclusion on this.

Illegal immigration will happen no matter what we do.

If you are pissy about them not paying taxes, then get them legal status faster and easier, and force the "below board" payments that bypass our taxing system into the open.

My last take:

Meh. Given that many stay and eventually get assimilated, or their kids get assimilated, the best estimate as to what an illegal immigrant contributes to our economy is about $60,000 each factoring in a host of things like future earnings, what their children will contribute etc.

I think that if we don't allow immigration to some extent we will see our economy stagnate even more as the population overall ages and birth rates approach 2.1 (replacement level or below).

[boutons_deux]

"What about the Mexican firms that sell stuff in the USA?"

Is US-MX trade in balance?

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html#2009

I guarantee you, if American corps are pushing a policy like "globalization", they are only concerned about their own profits and benefits, not about US jobs, and not about impact on the foreign country. Any benefits accruing to anybody else are purely incidental.

eg, Jamaica is resisting being in servitude to GMO shit from Monsanto, Dupont, etc.

[RandomGuy]

Mexico's population

When the niños run out

Apr 22nd 2010 | MEXICO CITY | From The Economist print edition


FENCES, soldiers, infra-red cameras: the United States goes to great lengths to hold back the teeming masses across its southern border (see article). But the masses are teeming less. Mexico’s birth rate, once among the world’s highest, is in free-fall. In the 1960s Mexican mothers had nearly seven children each (whereas women in India then had fewer than six). The average now is just over two—almost the same as in the United States. The UN reckons that from 2040 the birth rate in Mexico will be the lower of the two.

The fall follows a government u-turn nearly 40 years ago, when a contraception campaign replaced the previous nation-building policy. Today, four out of ten married Mexican women are sterilised, a radical measure that partly reflects the continuing lack of other contraception in some areas as well as strict laws against abortion everywhere but the capital. Broader changes, such as more women in education and work, and pricier housing, have pushed down the size of families even more. (Brazil, where the government has promoted contraception less forcefully, has experienced a similar baby bust.)

The slowdown provides both relief and trouble for the state. In the 1970s each school year was 4% bigger than the last. But Carlos Welti, a demographer at Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM), points out that 2m new Mexicans are still minted each year—exactly the same number as during the 1970s. Some public services are more oversubscribed, not less: UNAM used to accept nearly all applicants but now turns away more than 90%. Mexico’s total population will not peak until 2043 (at 130m).

Nevertheless, Mexicans are rapidly ageing. This trend, which took a century in Europe, has happened in three decades, Mr Welti points out. In 1980 the average Mexican was 17 years old; he is now 28. At the moment, one in ten Mexicans is aged 60 or over; within three decades, the figure will be almost one in four. A health-care system geared towards women and children must be recalibrated to deal with geriatrics.

So too must social security. The poor who clean windscreens and sell pirate CDs in Mexico City include a growing number of elderly people. Only about one in five of the over-75s has a pension, and today’s smaller families will find it harder to care for elderly relatives. Two reforms are needed to defuse this social-security time-bomb, says Jorge Rodríguez of the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America. More of Mexico’s enormous black market must be brought into the formal economy, so as to get more companies to contribute to employees’ pensions. And a fund must be built up to help those without a contributory scheme. Other analysts, such as Santiago Levy, a former Mexican official now at the Inter-American Development Bank, point out that a fund of that kind might undermine the incentives for firms and workers to go legal.

All this could have a profound impact on the United States, which in recent years has absorbed about half of each new Mexican generation. By 2050 there will be 20% fewer Mexicans in their 20s. Farming, construction and health care in the southern states, which rely on migrant labour (documented or otherwise), will have a smaller pool from which to recruit.

Or will they? Mexicans are healthier than they were. Those prepared to make the arduous crossing are now drawn from a wider age-range; once there, they may stay up to a decade longer before heading home for their final years.

In addition, Mexicans in the United States are more fertile than their counterparts back home. “Mexico has impregnated the United States,” says Joel Kotkin, an urban historian at Chapman University in Los Angeles, who points out that Mexican genes will proliferate north of the border even if immigration falls. Higher wages mean that it is easier to afford a decent family home in Houston than in Mexico City.

History teaches caution in assessing the link between demography and migration. The Mexican baby boom of the 1950s coincided with lowish emigration, whereas the exodus to the United States kicked off in the 1980s, just as Mexico’s birth rate was plummeting. Today’s falling fertility rate will curb the flow. But the main motors of migration will still be economic boom or bust—on both sides of the border.

[RandomGuy]

"What about the Mexican firms that sell stuff in the USA?"

Is US-MX trade in balance?

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html#2009

I guarantee you, if American corps are pushing a policy like "globalization", they are only concerned about their own profits and benefits, not about US jobs, and not about impact on the foreign country. Any benefits accruing to anybody else are purely incidental.

eg, Jamaica is resisting being in servitude to GMO shit from Monsanto, Dupont, etc.

True trade balance is kind of meaningless. One would expect different countries to be better at some things than others, so there is always a basis for trading.

As for the corps, I would mostly agree about their motives.

BUT

There is some fair data to suggest that the US benefits a good deal from having its corporations go over seas to produce things, but leave administrative and HQ functions here.

Those factories that some see as "exploitative" can be that way but generally aren't regarded as such by the people who work there.

Yes, some factories devolve into little better than slave camps if the US corp isn't really paying attention, but many people with factory jobs in the developing world are quite happy to have those types of jobs, because it beats the tar out of nothing, which is literally often the case.

We do have to hold companies' feet to the fire to make sure the people they deal with aren't slave masters, but overall such trade is a net positive to both sides.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have a problem with foreign people being here, or with foreign people being here illegally?
Is that a serious question? Are you new to this section of the forum? My feelings about immigration have been clear.

I support legal immigration.

I have no problem with foreigners. My ex-wife is a legal immigrant.

Immigration is not something that we can allow people to clog up the welfare system with.

Socialism is not what this nation is meant to be. It is fine in limited cases, but what happens when the burden of socialism exceeded the ability of tax payers to support it? We have reached that point, and possibly now at the point of no return... where this nation is doomed.

We have a legal route to control immigration. We can absorb limited numbers without stress. we should also choose those who improve the national wealth rather than take from it.

So many other reasons for controlling immigration.

Bottom line anyway is... Illegal is illegal.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem I see with the argument as presented in the OP is that in the particular case of skilled legal immigration there's really not much of a problem outside of the limits imposed by Congress. But I don't see that as the main factor driving illegal immigration. Most truly skilled foreign workers can still get a job in their native countries or even try the same luck on other first world nations around the globe. I mean, I speak from personal experience. I received a skilled worker visa from the US back in 1999, but if they would have decided not to grant it to me, I already had a job offer in the Netherlands to fall back to.

I think what we're seeing here is a huge influx of unskilled workers. They're used to living in poor conditions and so they manage to work for a lot cheaper and some are not looking to stay for life either. They want to collect US dollars for X amount of months/years and then go back home with the mini fortune they collected.

Some do stay, but because they lack the skills required to obtain citizenship, they can't get anywhere either.

So the question becomes how do you compete with these people that are willing to do more for much less without lowering your standard of living? How does the person that's working hard to save money to retire in this country with the cost of living we have here competes with the person that's saving to go away to some poor country to live in what we would consider sub-standard living?
I think you have a good take on the situation. I wish others understood the supply and demand of low cost labor.

So many people talk about illegal immigrants doing the jobs Americans don't want. Well, in a supply and demand economy, this means that we are suppressing the wages by bringing in competing low skill labor. All we end up doing is lowering everyone's standard of living by increasing the need and usage of social programs.

[Wild Cobra]

Also, did you see the Texas comptroller's report on the economic impact of illegal immigrants on Texas?

Sorry, no. Is it partisan? Is it biased for the cause?


Their contribution is not replaceable by other means, and their total absence would mean a 2%-2.5% loss to Texas GDP every year.
Bullshit.

Maybe assuming like many do that things are static. It will simply force employers to pay enough to attract workers. An improvement on the economy by removing people from the welfare system to the workforce.

Illegal immigrants help Texas's competitiveness. Why not give them more incentives to work legally? What's the drawback there?

WTF? You really that ignorant to the greater harm it does? Competitive against what? Other businesses doing the same? Get everyone to stop and it levels that field. Competitive against foreign commerce? Level our tax system with other nations. use tariffs if necessary.

The limits and authority in the constitution was well thought out. I wish people like you would understand that, and stop trying to subvert it.

[RandomGuy]

[removing illegal immigrants from the workforce] will simply force employers to pay enough to attract workers. An improvement on the economy by removing people from the welfare system to the workforce.

Your underlying assumption is:

Illegal immigrants harm the economy because they are on "the welfare system", and this hurts the economy more than their presence adding to the flow of goods and services.

Can you show any data to support this assertion?

The best economic studies I have seen say that illegal immigrants use much less of the "welfare system" than natives of the same income, simply because they fear being deported.

This means that they, through their contribution to the economy tend to put more into the system than they take out.

I could, if asked probably find this study.

Can you find anything that supports your position?

[Winehole23]

Sorry, no. Is it partisan? Is it biased for the cause?Carole Keeton Rylander ran for and was elected as Texas comptroller, as a Republican. Is that disqualifying?


The limits and authority in the constitution was well thought out. I wish people like you would understand that, and stop trying to subvert it.Subvert what how, please?

[rjv]

First of all, the labor market itself is a restriction on the volume of immigrants. If opportunity is lacking here, people will stop coming. The current recession is proof of that.

If we get more legal immigrants, we get more employees and employers playing by the rules, hence more people paying into the system, on top of the surplus value created by the work they do.

Also, did you see the Texas comptroller's report on the economic impact of illegal immigrants on Texas? Their contribution is not replaceable by other means, and their total absence would mean a 2%-2.5% loss to Texas GDP every year. Illegal immigrants help Texas's competitiveness. Why not give them more incentives to work legally? What's the drawback there?

that makes sense only to opponents of illegal immigration who also happen to be in favor of immigration reform; not to the plethora of otherwise too- much-spare-time-on-their-hands brethren who flood these threads with falsehoods about illegal immigrant criminality as well as their individual fantasies about murdering illegals.

[ElNono]

I can't wait for the upcoming "your study is biased, mine isn't" showdown about to happen in this thread... :jack

[Winehole23]

I can't wait for the upcoming "your study is biased, mine isn't" showdown about to happen in this thread... :jackUntil other posters deign to give supporting information it isn't even a showdown.

[Winehole23]

LOL @ WC assuming partisan bias. Texas hasn't had a single statewide official from the Democratic party in about 15 years, and Carole Keeton Rylander (Strayhorn?) is nobody's lib.

[RandomGuy]

Well, here is a relevant study that holds little bias that I could find:

Mexico's population: When the niños run out, a falling birth rate, and what it means
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15959332


In the 1960s Mexican mothers had nearly seven children each (whereas women in India then had fewer than six). The average now is just over two—almost the same as in the United States. The UN reckons that from 2040 the birth rate in Mexico will be the lower of the two.
...
History teaches caution in assessing the link between demography and migration. The Mexican baby boom of the 1950s coincided with lowish emigration, whereas the exodus to the United States kicked off in the 1980s, just as Mexico’s birth rate was plummeting. Today’s falling fertility rate will curb the flow. But the main motors of migration will still be economic boom or bust—on both sides of the border.

FWIW.

[RandomGuy]

One might find bias in studies, but when considering any policy from a healthy and intellectually honest perspective, we have to consider both costs and benefits from any given policy, such as legalizing and fasttracking illegal immigrants into some sort of guest program.

Here is a fair article that outlines some of the issues:
Researchers disagree on illegal immigrant cost-benefit analysis (http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_268a3afe-0218-5c30-a7cf-c04037c6aac8.html)

Overall, I see a lot of "conservatives" always put out nothing but the costs and gloss over or ignore any potential benefits.
Here is a pretty representative conservative blogger post. (http://www.notoriouslyconservative.com/2010/05/several-reasons-for-our-countries-money.html) It shows nothing but what is spent and so forth, but doesn't put any balancing dollar value on any contributions.

An amnesty program would, undoubtfully, increase the number of people filing tax returns, and therefore paying into SS and Medicare. The amount of money flowing into the government would, by some accounts, outweigh any extra costs of increased welfare costs.

I think legalization here, much like legalization of marijuana, would force a lot of the "shadow" economy into the open, and reduce a lot of unnecessary costs while increasing overall benefits.

I know that is just a silly emotional "liberal" argument though. ;)

[RandomGuy]

Bump.

[boutons_deux]

"number of people filing tax returns, and therefore paying into SS and Medicare"

many illegals already pay income taxes (they don't need a Soc Sec #) and SS, with no chance of ever seeing it again as unemployment pay nor retirement.

Illegal immigration whining is a Repug/conservative racist rabble-rouser for getting votes.

Note that Repugs did nothing about illegal immigration for their 8 years in power, because their corporate/business campaign contributors who benefit from cheap labor didn't want them to.

[RandomGuy]

"number of people filing tax returns, and therefore paying into SS and Medicare"

many illegals already pay income taxes (they don't need a Soc Sec #) and SS, with no chance of ever seeing it again as unemployment pay nor retirement.

Illegal immigration whining is a Repug/conservative racist rabble-rouser for getting votes.

Note that Repugs did nothing about illegal immigration for their 8 years in power, because their corporate/business campaign contributors who benefit from cheap labor didn't want them to.

More true than many here would admit on all counts.

[TeyshaBlue]

More true than many here would admit on all counts.

Conversely, less true than many here would admit as well.

[Marius Titulescu]

Conversely, less true than many here would admit as well.
Sure, but we still need to discriminate between those who do pay their contributions and those who don't in terms of benefits and security.
_______________________________________
Marius from W2C (https://w2c.ca/en/blog/)

[RandomGuy]

Sure, but we still need to discriminate between those who do pay their contributions and those who don't in terms of benefits and security.
_______________________________________
Marius from W2C (https://w2c.ca/en/blog/)

Also consider the wider impacts each person has. They may never pay into taxes directly, but still pay rent, which pays property taxes, and buy things, which pay sales taxes.

Many jobs that a lot of people who are immigrants have at the outset tend not to pay well, so any income tax would be almost neglible if they were fully legal and compliant.

Quite frankly most opposition to "immigrants" stems from pure racism, conscious or unconscious. That is the one thing that rings crystal clear in these discussions.