All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
And what if that's cheaper than individually negotiating with a bunch of $8/hour earners whether they will get $8.05 or $8.10 next year?

Exactly.

I've seen a plausible suggestion that professional services firms moved to lockstop promotions after some suits over sex discrimination and compensation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And I'd say in response that we live in a capitalist society, and we will deal with globalization one way or another. best to take your lumps now and get it over with.

I fully realize this would by extension drive my taxes up and drive my wages down, but globalization has to happen.

Protectionism is a fool's solution. By design, its just deferring an adverse economic event. You're arguing to protect people now at greater cost to future generations. Kinda contrary to your views on global warming and fiscal responsibility isn't it? Are you on the left always the ones screaming "what about the children?" Well guess what pal... You push off the pain in the labor market with some dipshit democratic short term salve now and your kids will feel some serious motherfucking pain later.

Three points:

(1) You're changing the subject. Or just babbling. I'm not talking about protectionism, or globalization. I'm talking about the interplay between immigration and low-end wages. Letting in more immigrants depresses low-end wages.

(2) I'm asking whether the country's laws should be set to benefit humanity, or to benefit Americans. I'm not sure what the answer is (which is why I prefaced my comment above, "If I were poor"), but it's a fair question.

(3) If immigration benefits society as a whole, but worsens the lot of a large category of people, I think it's fair to propose that as part of a change to open up the borders, we also do x, y and z to ensure that no one is left worse off. In other words, use government to redistribute some of the gains that are created to those who would be harmed.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think any of what you say in the first paragraph is correct (well, maybe teh first sentence). Americans are comfortable with legal immigration only because it allows only certain favored nations' immigrants and educated people who can fill good jobs, and few of them. It has never been true, however, that americans favored legal immigration as a general matter. First it was italians and irish, then other europeans, and then other countries. If you wanted to say what they favor, it's wealthy, educated immigrants than aren't disfavored, not legal immigrants (I suspect many americans would vote, if put to them, to bar all mexican, central american, etc. immigration, and probably se asian too). I won't go so far as to say this is direct racism, althoug it may well be, but i'm pretty sure joe six pack, and maybe even jacques chablis, talks about "immigrants" in a condescending manner without regard to whether they have a green card or not.

Really? I don't get that impression.

As for Krugman's argument, I'm not sure it's right. He assumes that immigrants are competing for the same low-end jobs that americans are. From what I've seen, most of the jobs taken by illegal immigrants are ones that would not be filled by americans, which is precisely why there's demand for illegals to fill them. This could be because the job is nasty, or because it wouldnt' be a job at minimum wage, or some other reason. But I don't think that illegal immigrants are exactly displacing american labor at mcdonalds.

They wouldn't be filled by them because the wages are not high enough to make those jobs attractive, mostly because the employers need not pay real wages. Take away the illegals and someone is going to still have to do the job. Theoretically, that should cause wages to rise.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Let me say first that I don't remotely like the proposal to try and deport 12 million people.

But I don't buy this "taking jobs that americans don't want anyway" argument. If we stopped lettuce farmers in the Imperial Valley from hiring illegals to pick their lettuce crop, they will either have to increase wages (and, thus, prices) enough to attract legal residents to pick the lettuce, or they will have to let the crop rot. I suspect that most would choose the former. Nor do I think McDonald's franchises will shut down if they can't hire illegals. They may have to pay more, but tough shit.

Again, I see lots of reasons to hate at least the harsher proposal that's been floated recently, and possibly the other proposal (proposals??? I can't even keep track lately). But those reasons, in my view, have to do with cost and humaneness, not with making sure low-end jobs are filled.

2

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Byron York in the Corner commenting on this non-story.

In other words, Bush leaked classified national-security information for political purposes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The empirical evidence that I've seen suggests that the sorts of effects predicted by classical economics -- and you're going to have to take that class to find out what they are -- are not actually borne out. If they were, I would be more inclined to support repeal of minimum wage laws.



Surely demand for such labor falls as the price rises. But it doesn't fall off a cliff.

What those studies show is that small increases to the minimum wage do not have the predicted effect of reducing employment in the affected positions. But I'm not sure you can extrapolate those results to show that employers currently paying below minimum wage to illegal immigrants would employ the same number of legal employees at a much higher wage if forced to do so.

On the second point, it could at the point when employing anyone becomes economically inviable. Ask any former manager in Pittsburgh.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'll take that class if you agree to eliminate minimum wage laws that cause employers to be unable to pay the value offered by the employee.

Put differently, you're assuming that the jobs filled by many illegal immigrants would, absent that labor pool, be economically viable jobs from an employer perspective at the current minimum wage or market-clearing wage (if higher). I think neither is the case.

So what? If the product of a business enterprise is not sufficiently valuable that the owner can afford to pay people enough to create that product, then the business is not worth pursuing.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So what? If the product of a business enterprise is not sufficiently valuable that the owner can afford to pay people enough to create that product, then the business is not worth pursuing.

It seems like there could be a period of very, very painful adjustment. To wit: If we succeed in getting rid of illegal immigrants, I think we can assume that basic foodstuffs and housing will become more expensive (because of large immigrant presence in agriculture and construction). There may be shortages of some agricultural products as vendors have to search out alternative suppliers. The construction thing seems like there would be a longer term problem, since at least some training is necessary. To the extent people are locked into contracts whose pricing is based on an assumption of cheapass labor, businesses will be affected.

So, people will end up paying more for food. Food is something that both rich and poor pretty much *must* buy, so this increases the basic cost of living. Ditto with housing -- if it's already difficult for e.g. teachers to live in the SF area, how will it be when construction costs go up?

It just seems like poorer people will suffer more. But then, I guess they always do.

Mmmm, strawberries.

ETA I really don't get this logic. We're making it a felony to do X, but we really want most people who are doing X to continue doing it for a while, and kinda maybe taper off in an orderly manner. the article is on Yahoo! news. Yes, I know they are probably taking him a bit out of context, but unless he was playing opposite-land, it's just craziness.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., author of a get-tough immigration bill, said the government has no intention of trying to deport 12 million people.

"Nobody is seriously proposing that, because that will require a massive infiltration of law enforcement officials and will disrupt the economy," said Sensenbrenner told CBS' "Face the Nation" this week.

But his bill and several others would make living in the United States illegally a felony. And felons without legal immigration status are subject to deportation.

Maybe he just wants to make it so illegal immigrants definitely can't vote, and are criminals and therefore not entitled to various rights, but stay here and work for cheap?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What those studies show is that small increases to the minimum wage do not have the predicted effect of reducing employment in the affected positions. But I'm not sure you can extrapolate those results to show that employers currently paying below minimum wage to illegal immigrants would employ the same number of legal employees at a much higher wage if forced to do so.

I'm not sure you can either. For that point, I was relying on Krugman.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So what? If the product of a business enterprise is not sufficiently valuable that the owner can afford to pay people enough to create that product, then the business is not worth pursuing.

I don't disagree with that.

But if you introduce the minimum wage into the equation, then you invalidate your own hypothesis. I think what you're inclined to say is that "If the product of a business enterprise is not sufficiently valuable that the owner can afford to pay people the minimum wage to create that product . . . " Because, in so doing, you're ascribing a normative value to "enough". But, perhaps I'm assuming too much.

Ty: I was refering to Card and Krueger, whose study on this has been challenged on a host of grounds.

you can start here, wiki, if econ 1 leaves you wanting.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
In other words, Bush leaked classified national-security information for political purposes.

In other words, Bush fast-tracked the declassification of formerly classified evidence - that was going into the public record anyway - to refute much of the disinformation that was being spread by lefty icons like "Hack" Wilson.

And Miller thought so much of it that she didn't even run it.

Man, what a story!!!!!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In other words, Bush fast-tracked the declassification of formerly classified evidence - that was going into the public record anyway - to refute much of the disinformation that was being spread by lefty icons like "Hack" Wilson.

And Miller thought so much of it that she didn't even run it.

Man, what a story!!!!!

You consistently refer to Wilson as a liar, a hack, and probably a traitor and a criminal.

I have yet to understand why you have such a hard-on for him. Leaving aside, of course, your oft-stated view that he got this incredibly plum, lush assignment -- a trip to Niger -- thru "connections."

What is this horrible lie that Wilson told that disturbs you so much?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'll take that class if you agree to eliminate minimum wage laws that cause employers to be unable to pay the value offered by the employee.

Put differently, you're assuming that the jobs filled by many illegal immigrants would, absent that labor pool, be economically viable jobs from an employer perspective at the current minimum wage or market-clearing wage (if higher). I think neither is the case.

The jobs would be economically viable at a market-clearing wage or the businesses would shut down. What that means is that you would see less mom & pop taquerias and the McDonalds franchisees would have to buy a new Cadillac or Lexus every five years instead of every three years.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The jobs would be economically viable at a market-clearing wage or the businesses would shut down. What that means is that you would see less mom & pop taquerias and the McDonalds franchisees would have to buy a new Cadillac or Lexus every five years instead of every three years.

The unions also figured they could make a buck by restricting labor supply to increase wages. That worked.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In other words, Bush fast-tracked the declassification of formerly classified evidence - that was going into the public record anyway - to refute much of the disinformation that was being spread by lefty icons like "Hack" Wilson.

What I said.

He didn't "fast-track" anything, since what he did had nothing to do with usual procedures. And telling a single journalist is not usually the way things get into the "public record."

I notice that you don't even bother to dispute that Bush cherry-picked what he leaked. Information got declassified to support what the administration had already decided to do. You probably see nothing wrong with that.