Ed this makes no sense. Jobs in almost every sector have had stagnant wages for two decades while corporate profits and executive pay continue to grow at unprecedented rates. There are arguments to be made that a lot of immigration can reduce wages for low skilled labor. There is almost no economists arguing that across the board wage stagnation is largely due to immigration as far as I’m aware. Most of these professions were wages are stagnant have very little migrant workers in the field. If you actually read modern economist research the labor market is most negatively affected by globalization, structural forces, and automation. These forces give companies an insane amount of power to refuse wage increases and keep wages stagnant as they can threaten to ship jobs overseas or automate jobs if people try to organize or fight for higher wages. This is why likely even at full employment most workers are not seeing real wages increases (wage increases adjusted for inflation). You can argue against immigration and for conservative economic policies all day long and we can have a discussion about the merits of that. But to pretend that the main reason wages are low for most American workers is immigration is complete and utter horse shit that nobody actually in the field believes. We could have complete shutdown of immigration and wages would largely be stagnant due to the conglomeration of corporations, automation, technological factors like the gig economy, and large multinational corporations who can move jobs at the drop of the hat. There’s no trade deal in the world that will really be able to stop this phenomenom because our technology/food/everything requires many global supply chains. Corporations are negotiating from a position of power that allows them to keep wages stagnant . If you don’t think that corporations are culpable in keeping wages stagnant and it’s mainly immigrants than you just aren’t paying attention.
Hey man don’t be a dick. No reason to insult people, it drags down the conversation and it ends up getting good threads locked or turns them into bickering
Does a massive increase in low-skill immigration negatively impact the weaker (low-skill) or the stronger (high-skill) parts of society? Do you gather that the modern American left has an idealistic view of immigration, or a realistic one? What consequences might arise from open migration of high-skill forces - "brain drain" - on emerging countries? Are there moral reasons to curtail migration - for the weaker elements in society of one's own developed nation, as well as for the potential of growth in developing nations? If one is for a welfare state, one must also be for restricted immigration, as per the Nordic model, at least.
You’re completely missing the point of my post. I wasn’t debating whether or not immigration is a positive for a country, that is a seperate debate. I was pointing out that Ed’s claim that the main reason wages are stagnant is because of immigration is most likely not true. That the biggest contributors to low stagnant wages (which even more nativists economists would concede) are technological changes, the conglomerazations and consolidations of large corporations, automation, and globalization. The reason corporations haven’t given high skilled workers a real wage raise in almost two decades even while productivity skyrockets is not because of an influx of low skilled labor. As I acknowledged there is some legitamate research in my view that shows immigration can lead to a reduction in wages for low skilled workers but that still doesn’t explain why high skilled workers similarly have seen wage stagnation. The point being that corporate entities are imposing wage stagnation and even reducing immigration will not change that in any significant manner. You can argue for reducing immigration for other reasons but arguing it will raise wages for most people is unlikely to be true. The reason places like the Nordic countries have high wages is because the power of labor is far stronger. You can get away with not having a minimum wage because there is a stronger labor presence. In America labor has been decimated, especially with the massive push towards contract work and other schemes to avoid paying workers.
All corporations just got to keep 14% more of their revenue. They should all be giving massive raises and bonuses. After all, we the people voted in the motherfuckers that made the effing tax cut...
Now to answer your questions because they’re a seperate conversation from the point I was arguing with Ed. A massive increase is hard to define and very subjective. But I would say a large amount of low skilled immigration marginally reduces wages, although this is a point of contention amongst economists on both the right and left. I would say immigration definitely has a more negative impact on low skilled workers than high skilled workers, as I acknowledged in the initial post when I said immigration may have an impact on low skilled wages but unlikely to have an impact on the wage stagnation we see in high skilled work. I would say both the modern left and modern right have idealistic perceptions about immigration and neither is honest about the pros/cons with the left having a more naive view. The modern right pretends there are zero economic benefits to immigration which is preposterous. The modern left pretends there are no economic downsides or security concerns to immigration. I think ed’s view on immigration, that it’s the main driver of wage stagnation is a perfect example of the modern right’s naïveté when it comes to immigration. But the left’s view which argues alll immigration enforcement is inherently based on racist motivations and the notion of having no immigration enforcement is fool hardy. Basically like with most political issues both sides suck and are fairly intellectually dishonest. That being said I’m far more sympathetic to the left wing persoective as I think that immigration enforcement is often a juice that isn’t worth the squeeze. The economic/security downsides of illegal immigration make the costs of illegal immigration enforcement desired by the right are not worthwhile in my opinion. People are always going to get through our border no matter how much money we put into enforcement and we need a policy to address that. I think maybe stricter enforcement at the border in exchange for legal residency (not citizenship) with the potential for citizenship after paying fines, abiding by laws, etc. This was basically the bill proposed by the democrats in 2010 and it died after republicans refused to support it. I think the democrat position on immigration has gone further to the left and I think that’s a strategic mistake. You could argue that we have a moral obligation to protect people through stricter immigration enforcement. But I think that’s a bad framework for solely deciding government policy. You have to also ask what is logistically possible. Is it logistically possible to stop all illegal immigration, maybe but it would take resources that would likely far outweigh the benefits immigrants receive. I think overall immigration in its current form for the US is probably about a wash in terms of pros/cons and that increased immigration enforcement probably has very little return on investment. I think people vastly underestimate the resources it would take to stop illegal immigration and the moral dilemmas involved (such as the detainment of children for examples). Once again I think the question is far more complicated than either side pretends and involves a lot of trade offs.
I don’t disagree with you politically and we’re probably very sympatico on the issues. But there’s no reason to insult people for disagreeing with you and just gives credence to the right swing smear that all left wingers are crazed lunatics who can’t respectfully disagree with others. You’re likely never going to convince someone like Ed that he’s wrong but being smarmy isn’t going to win over someone who is more undecided when it comes to politics. Not that it ultimately matters that much as most people have already made up their minds, but we should try to keep this forum more civil.
There are no "shoulds" when it comes to corporate welfare... remember the myth of "trickle down"? well, it's not a myth it's a blatant lie since at least POTUS Ronnie R... Instead the corps. buy back more shares of the stock to keep the price up and encourage more greedy retail investors to buy more... if there ever is a trickle down (and thus far in history there hasn't been) it will be a really small trickle... think drip drip drip , ok that's all folks... lol So the workers have to get food stamps, federal housing support, can't afford health insurance, etc... and that of course comes out of our tax dollars and more subsidizing the pinche by we the people...
Not on cent of that will trickle or drip down to the workers. It will FLOW into the pockets of the rich which are already overflowing. Sent from my SM-G950F using Grasscity Forum mobile app
We got our raise 6 months early because of it. They are still saving the same percentage next year though so we should probably get it 6 months early again but we won't.
I didn't say illegal immigration was the main reason for wage stagnation across the board and I was talking about how capitalism isn't working to increase wages because there's a constant influx of illegals willing to work for whatever they can get. Still I think illegal immigration does contribute to wage stagnation across the board. Everyone agrees illegal immigration hurts the low skilled workers more than skilled but some of those illegals are going to know a trade, there will be carpenters and mechanics etc that some employers would love to hire and saved $10/hr per worker so the trades which are middle class doesn't get appropriate pay increases either. But let's say you're right (and you probably are since I'm a combination of toasted and senile) let's say illegal immigration only hurts the unskilled labor force. Isn't that still a negative? These people are the working poor and you don't seem to be too concerned about them being the ones paying the price for illegal immigration. Championing illegal immigration is a reasonable position if it's not your job that's affected. I haven't heard the left talk about that much.
Ok so illegal immigration stops tomorrow do you think the unskilled work forces bosses will give them a wage rise. Does your system allow them to unionize for better wages. The problem is the system is made to disadvantage the working class illegal immigrants or not. Sent from my SM-G950F using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I agree with most of this, and think it's well stated. With a bone to pick on the detail of the Nordic immigration and labor market: Nordic countries do indeed have a strong labor force; but that’s not a throwaway statement. It has a strong labor force in part because of restricted immigration; if you migrate and contribute to the strong labor force by way of education etc, then you’re welcome. If you don’t, you’re not so welcome, because you add to a strain that may well undo the welfare state. Separate countries have separate economies, and different people fit into those different economies. Produce a lot of electronics, well, then immigrants with expertise in electronics production are going to fit into the economy a lot better than immigrants with expertise in fields that aren’t part of the economy. As has recently been discovered, mostly by Sweden, importing a large population without any skills is extremely expensive in such a welfare state, because they must A) first learn the language and B) then learn a skill relevant to the economy in order to be able to contribute. If they don’t contribute, they are a massive drain on the state’s resources, especially if they bring their families, and as we both agree, no capitalism with profit, no welfare state. The Nordic countries didn’t have ghettos in modern times until recently, and those ghettos consist almost entirely of migrated labor forces that don’t fit into the high-skill labor force. I myself had to spend almost 8 years in the universities to be competitive at a higher level – someone stepping off a boat who can’t even speak the language has a long and taxpayer-straining road to being a contributing member of such a society, and has little to no chance of competing against someone like me, with all my natural-born advantages. Part of becoming a social democrat worth his salt (or being able to convince the uncertain centrist/amiable opposition that one is not unreasonable*) is dispensing with the ideologically held belief that all immigration is good, and that opposition to unrestricted immigration is some kind of racism/Nazism/bigotry. If one can demonstrate to the opposition and the undecided that one is not a fundamentalist in ones beliefs, then there’s a much bigger chance of winning the overall battle in democratic elections. To your great credit, you have been moving, and continue to move away from the ideological traps of the US far left, whose claw-fingered chokehold on the greater US left is beginning to slip. I realize my questions had little to do with that specific segment of the conversation; I didn’t have the time or interest to read all of it, and I understand that it might have irked you. I also get frustrated when I know someone hasn’t read what I’ve written. I wanted to “check in” on your ideological state of mind with my line of questioning, and I’m quite pleased, not that you have to give a fuck if I’m pleased or not, but I think this is good progress. *As here. If I’m going to critique you, I should also commend you. I think you’re beginning to smell a bit of the importance of tactics and strategy here, in light of how poorly the image of the US left has been going. Let the right be unreasonable assholes if they are (Cactus Ed is not, per my experience) – it’s precisely this behavior that led to the US left’s downfall. It matters more what we do and how we present ourselves than how the opposition does – this is something I’ve desperately been trying to communicate for the past half a decade through the smearing. Why you see me confront my own left wing faction (at name-calling cost), whilst making friends with the right. We’ve got to be able to confront the troublemakers in our own faction, put them in their place, and demonstrate this capability of self-repair to the uncertain and the opposition – tribalism only breeds resentment outside the tribe. And gets Trump elected. And may well lose the US left it’s advantage in the upcoming midterms. I only hope that it's not too late, that the image of the US left is not so damaged in so many people's minds that they've become permanently associated with the cancer that gripped it for the last half a decade. I think that fever is starting to burn out. I agree with the core sentiment of this. If there's one thing worth discussing that I don't agree with, it's that I don't think it's logistically impossible to deter illegal immigration, nor does it necessarily outweigh the costs. A far-reaching wall is too expensive (yet not ineffective), yes, but deterrence can take many forms, and a combination of those forms is effective. The US left can learn a lot from it's parallels in Europe. We've managed to deter migration in Europe by many means. The migrant crisis is all but over, here. It's effects remain, of course, but the wound has stopped bleeding. As virtually every European nation has felt - due to the rise in far-right power - giving the right the sole ground on immigration control is extremely dangerous for left-wing power. We lose it, unless we also make moves to restrict migration. Subsume and milden, as I've said before, is a good strategy for preventing power grabs by other factions. I think the US left would be wise to do the same, rather than giving the floor to Donald Trump on it.
I think you guys are trying to have it both ways, when you want to promote a minimum wage increase you say it benefits us all but when you defend illegal immigration you say wage suppression from illegal immigration doesn't affect us. I'm forgetful as hell but I do remember people claiming that raising the minimum wage makes ripples that affect us all in beneficial ways. If increasing pay for low skilled workers is beneficial for us all then it would follow that keeping it low would be harmful for us all.
Politicians have been lying since the beginning about anything and everything, and people still follow with the wool covering their eyes, even after they've been proven to be professional liars. People are so ignorant that they would literally stand in a line blindfolded and walk off a cliff if their leader told them to. This is how I see people that pick teams.