Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who was worse? Adolf Hitler or George S. Patton

Messenger said:
Please explain how exploitative low-costs give workers with higher-paying jobs more time to be productive. I'm dying to hear it.
Click to expand...
This one is simple. If I can afford to pay someone to clean my house, I can put in more time at the office. Another example: low-cost child care enables mothers to work outside the home.
 
Messenger said:
Show me.


Please explain how exploitative low-costs give workers with higher-paying jobs more time to be productive. I'm dying to hear it.


They aren't suggestions; the costs are huge and include numerous economic consequences. Your point about providing countering the value of costs vs. benefits is apt.

You're basically trying to wash away costs by citing that without data re: benefits, it's impossible to know net gains or losses. It makes sense, except I don't see the point in whining about it for as long as you have. If you lean on them so, then please provide some figures.

SEE, MOST DISCUSSIONS GO LIKE: POINT/COUNTERPOINT, instead of dissecting "Intellectual honesty" endlessly, which is apparently more fascinating a topic than the discussion itself.

Please outline how money saved from employing aliens at lower costs services ultimately outweighs the enormous cost increase in social services and infrastructure.
Click to expand...
So, finally, you admit that it's necessary to know what the net cost-benefit equation works out to when determining whether the illegal immigration issue is or is not beneficial to society. The answer is that no one really knows yet.

Sure, it's easy (not to mention politically effective) to attribute large social costs to illegals. But that's a small piece of the puzzle, and bleating about it obscures the larger question of what's good for our economy as a whole. Intuitively appealing arguments like "Illegals cost us X amount!!!!!1111 OMG!!!!111" work for politicians, but they're either ignorant or dishonest, and are detrimental to public discourse.
 
El Rod d'Irico said:
So, finally, you admit that it's necessary to know what the net cost-benefit equation works out to when determining whether the illegal immigration issue is or is not beneficial to society. The answer is that no one really knows yet.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, grasshopper.

"I defy you to balance that paltry $23 billion against the cost savings to consumers the cheap labor has provided."

Then you proceed to whine about intellectual honesty. Hypocrite, much?

Sure, it's easy (not to mention politically effective) to attribute large social costs to illegals. But that's a small piece of the puzzle, and bleating about it obscures the larger question of what's good for our economy as a whole. Intuitively appealing arguments like "Illegals cost us X amount!!!!!1111 OMG!!!!111" work for politicians, but they're either ignorant or dishonest, and are detrimental to public discourse.
Click to expand...

The High Cost of Cheap Labor
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget​

  • Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
  • Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
  • With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
  • On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

And plenty of other stuff.



This is interesting...

http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=5455

--

What about other costs to society? On the whole, are illegals a net benefit or net liability to the American economy?

The answer to this question can vary wildly depending on what's included as an asset and what's not included as a liability. For example, liberal economist and popular New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says that overall, illegals are an insignificant, positive asset to the economy, although their presence harms poor Americans:

"First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.

Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration - especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst- paid Americans.

The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration."
Click to expand...

On the other hand, according to a conservative group, the Center for Immigration Studies:
"Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion."
Click to expand...

Again, estimates vary on how much of an impact illegals have on the economy, but most of the credible ones show the benefits are insignificant or even in the negative range.

--

Now you have your 'benefits.' I guess it was a huuuge leap by me to assume that billions in social services would dwarf saving $50 on cleaning your house.
 
El Rod d'Irico said:
Exactly! Way more people can afford menial help because of the lower costs!
Click to expand...
So construction workers are going to hire maids? Get real. The people who hire cleaners are the ones who are already well off.
 
Messenger said:
But so long as the consumer has a bit of extra dough to buy other shit that they're too lazy to clean themselves it's all good.
Click to expand...

Except that the consumer does not, in fact, actually have that extra dough -- because in the end it's taken right back out again, and then some, in those higher taxes.

And let's not ignore the very basic dynamic that reads as follows:

Employer hires illegals-->Employer pays less money into local economy-->decreased local spending-->decrease in local consumption-->legal employees laid off-->further reduced local spending-->

Illegal employment kills local economies. It does so slowly, but inevitably.
 
All of its profits? That would vary from employer to employer. But the fatter the profit margin, generally, the fatter the corporate wallets get.
 
The Question said:
All of its profits? That would vary from employer to employer. But the fatter the profit margin, generally, the fatter the corporate wallets get.
Click to expand...
Is that a bad thing? What becomes of the capital?
 
Messenger said:
Watch how quickly the proper punctuation and intellectually honesty vanish after being thoroughly cockslapped!
Click to expand...
It's delightfully ironic when such statements contain grammatical errors of their own.
 
El Rod d'Irico said:
Is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Yes, because it's a stupid, short-sighted thing. They're rotting away the hand that feeds them.

What becomes of the capital?
Click to expand...

Good question. What does not become of the capital, however, is clear -- it does not go into the hands of the consumer base in the normal broad, economically healthy sense.
 
The Question said:
Yes, because it's a stupid, short-sighted thing. They're rotting away the hand that feeds them.



Good question. What does not become of the capital, however, is clear -- it does not go into the hands of the consumer base in the normal broad, economically healthy sense.
Click to expand...
So only consumption is economically healthy? What about savings & investment?
 
The Question said:
Yes, because it's a stupid, short-sighted thing. They're rotting away the hand that feeds them.



Good question. What does not become of the capital, however, is clear -- it does not go into the hands of the consumer base in the normal broad, economically healthy sense.
Click to expand...
What about the Energizer bunny?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top