VOX How Trump’s new immigration plan could hurt the economy
The US needs more low-skilled immigrants, not fewer.
It absolutely fascinates me when people:
Here is a creative idea...
The US needs more low-skilled immigrants, not fewer.
It absolutely fascinates me when people:
- on one hand complain that wages are too low and that we need the government to mandate higher wages and more welfare benefits...
- and on the other hand saying that we should allow more unskilled immigrants into the country?
Here is a creative idea...
- Keep limiting the immigration of unskilled workers
- Cut the welfare benefits
- Have people take the jobs that will now pay "a living wage"
- Even if they are unpleasant demeaning hard jobs...
How did American low skilled low educated workers become so fussy?
And why did our society encourage it?
56 comments:
Simple solution- A "legal guest worker" program for those who have the qualifications AND have a job offer (or a recently vacated job) waiting. Special provisions for "agricultural guest workers" who go in and out.
How is that a solution?
You mean a good way to keep wages low in the USA?
Well, it eliminates those who come here simply to work, potentially displacing American workers. It is because of their illegal status that they can be paid less and not have the ability to complain.
Oh come now. You are smarter than that.
Yes, so it seems obvious that a vast supply of unskilled, "undocumented" labor would drive down the cost of labor, to where Americans could not compete for those jobs. And the undocumented, unable to challenge sub-minimum wages for fear of deportation, keep coming. Make them legal "guest workers" so they must be paid the same as Americans, and then we can let them have "the jobs Americans won't do." And it ends the illegal entry problem except for hardened criminals. Win-win.
I think I would rather keep supply limited to the point where wages rise.
Then more Americans may be willing to do those jobs, and get off welfare...
well, that isn't working very well, is it? And you miss the fundamentals of the proposal. It only admits guest workers for jobs that Americans have not lined up to do at any wage. It prevents the hiring of guest workers at less than the going wage. Coupled with mandatory nationwide E-Verify, it greatly reduces the "draw" of employment for illegal immigrants and limits legal immigration to those with skills commensurate with the job openings our economy has.
And you again assume that all welfare recipients are freeloaders. Shame.
Who is going to decide?
"jobs that Americans have not lined up to do at any wage"
I did not call them free loaders. Those are your words.
I said that if the low level jobs pay a "living wage", more people will be motivated to do them and welfare cases will drop.
"Then more Americans may be willing to do those jobs, and get off welfare.." You are saying (your words not mine) that people on welfare do not want to work, period, unless they receive greater benefits from work than from welfare. That's a freeloader in my book. But yes, if wages rise because employers can no longer employ illegals for substandard wages, more people might take those jobs, ESPECIALLY if the "gravy train" of welfare stops running for them. Remember when ICE went to a Hormel plant in southern MN and deported 300 illegals working there? And a thousand Americans lined up for those jobs the following day?
Who decides? The free market, after we enforce the law against illegal alien hiring and allow only "guest workers" to take the jobs Americans won't do. It is mostly intended as a means to stop illegal entry without penalizing workers (and businesses) already here.
Jerry,
Unfortunately the low wages in the USA are caused by a lot more than "illegal workers"...
We simply have more low end employees than we apparently need.
And you are happy to keep letting more in to keep business costs low.
I am quite happy to let businesses retain workers they "need" and already employ, providing those employees have legal residence (as guest workers), pay taxes, and are paid the same wage as other legal employees. That would raise wages and businesses would no longer have as much incentive to hire foreigners, unless they had skills and/or experience. The guest worker would have a limited license to work here and, at the end of that time, an American might take that job. New jobs would need to be offered to Americans first, and universal E-verify would prevent illegal workers from claiming any job. It would be a largely "merit based" immigration system.
The very low jobless rates at present would indicate that we have plenty of job openings. And Americans with low skills can be trained.
Jerry,
Unfortunately the low unemployment has not led to livable wages yet.
Let's keep starving the supply side of the curve.
But wages are rising. I would think cutting off illegal entry (and employment) would reduce unemployment (hard to see how it could get much lower) and drive wages up even faster. The Fence wasn't built in a day, but if you want to employ illegals to build it, feel free.
Slowly but surely it is...
Of course it took a LOT of federal government deficit spending to keep driving it.
Really? Private sector employment rises and unemployment drops, and that causes federal deficits? Sounds like Pelosi's claim that the release of the full Mueller report and all of the associated "classified" files somehow constitutes a "coverup." Huh?
Jerry,
They dropped taxes, raised spending and borrowed the difference...
So the government is spending...
The private sector is spending...
And it is all going on the "credit card" for our kids to deal with...
Isn't it a sad state of affairs that the GOP is proving themselves to be the irresponsible folks again.
I mean the deficit fell under Clinton and Obama... Just to grow under Bush and Trump.
Just look at those deficits grow year after year
Let's pray to God a recession does not hit or they will really balloon.
The deficit came down under Obama, only after he tripled it. And it fell rapidly under Bush. Is there a point? Deficits do not arise from private sector spending. Tell me, do you favor a Balanced Budget Amendment?
More on Debts and Deficits by President
Deficits occur when not enough taxes are collected to cover the approved spending...
Trump signed tax cuts and spending increases. He owns this mess that we are benefiting from and our children will need to pay for through higher taxes or slower economic flexibility / growth....
Of course I favor a balanced budget amendment.
As for blaming Obama for the Great Recession driven deficits...
What would you have had the politicians do in 2008, 2009, 2010?
Cut spending.
You would cut public spending in the middle of a major recession?
Rationale?
And if cutting is good? What are the GOP and Trump doing?
Please remember that they had 2 years of near complete control...
Cut spending in the middle of a recession? Of course, that is what everybody else is forced to do.
Jerry,
Even I understand that our GDP is made up of Private and Public expenditures.
And when the Private is in deep recession, cutting the Public side is BAD...
We should be cutting the public spend now when times are good, unfortunately Trump and the GOP disagreed.
Our GDP is made up of public and private, true. But public is just taken OUT of private, so why should it not be reduced as well? Deficits increase because gov't income goes down and spending stays the same. Cut spending during a recession and the deficit stays the same or decreases.
You are half right. When times are good, cut spending. But when times are bad, cut spending. In between, cut spending. Set some priorities and engage in some massive reforms, particularly in entitlements. The deficits will shrink quickly.
Jerry,
In 2008, 2009 and 2010 the government was borrowing the money to keep the economy moving. Without that things would have gotten real bleak. It was not being taken from the pockets of the tax payers.
In fact, we were all still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts that started the days of big deficits.
Your beloved Trump is the one signing the big spending increases.. Maybe you should talk to him about that...
It appears that Trump has broken a new record...
The Deficit Has Never Been This High When the Economy Was This Strong
A little economics 101 for you:
"In 2008, 2009 and 2010 the government was borrowing the money to keep the economy moving. Without that things would have gotten real bleak. It was not being taken from the pockets of the tax payers."
When government borrows money, they starve the capital markets which stifles economic growth, and when they borrow money to fund deficits, they are taking from FUTURE taxpayers.
Jerry,
In 2008, 2009 and 2010... No one was looking to borrow / grow... They were laying millions of employees off. Investors were happy to find safe harbor in US Bonds.
So right now Trump is starving the capital markets and stealing from future tax payers. My point exactly.
You are correct, up to the point where you blame Trump. Remember, his budget was DOA in the Democrat Congress.
As for "safe harbor," remember the Obama admin's huge deficit financing scheme: the Fed lent banks billions in newly-minted money at 0%, and then paid 1.5% on the bonds. What fool wouldn't take that deal? Only fools lesser than the fools who created the scheme in the first place.
If Trump could not get the spending cuts, he should not have approved the tax cuts in the middle of an economic boom. Thus he OWNs these record setting deficits.
Same as Reagan owned the huge deficits in the 1980s.
And Bush owns the deficits in the 2000s.
Though at least Bush and Reagan had a reason for giving tax cuts since the economies were both weak at that time. Trump took on debt in the middle of a boom.
And actually the Bank Bailout started on Bush's watch.
And the banks paid back all those loans.
The banks never paid back the loans. The "new money" is still sitting on Fed balance sheets. It just went out and back, giving at least temporary control of the banking system to Obama, in exchange for "loans" they didn't need. Wells Fargo refused to take it until coerced.
And I repeat. The federal government doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Imagine this, that the federal government operates like a household. Income hasn't kept pace with spending, so what is the first thing you do? You cut up the credit cards. The next thing is to figure out where your spending can be cut-- the golf club, the fancy dining, the payments on the fancy car or even the house, until spending comes in line. It's simple common sense, which is why such thinking doesn't exist in DC.
And I point out that illegal immigrants generally don't pay taxes. There's your problem.
Don't you ever tire of being wrong? This was only 4 years after the bail out.
And again... The bailout mostly occurred under GOP control.
"Our ruling:
Not all of the banks who received TARP money have repaid the loans. In fact, 400-plus banks are still on the government’s red list -- more than have completed the payments -- and, according to the GAO, some may never pay the money back.
But, the fact remains, due to interest, dividends and other revenue streams, the government has received more money back ($266.7 billion, according to the Treasury) than it handed out to banks under the bailout law ($245.2 billion). We rate this claim Mostly True."
And something newer.
"Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $632B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $390B has been returned.
The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $349B. When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $107B profit as of Feb. 25, 2019."
Jerry,
Personally if I want more than I can afford... I find a better job...
I certainly don't reduce my income and then complain about the spending.
And more data on your incorrect assumptions
And more
"...about half of undocumented workers in the United States file income tax returns."
And the other half?
And when you lose your job, do you go back to the company and demand to be rehired at a higher salary?
As for the bailout, one question: Since the government was running a deficit at the time, where did they get hundreds of billions of dollars for this bailout?
I am happy deporting all of the illegal workers and pushing US companies to pay raise wages or automate... You are the one arguing to let in more temporary workers to keep wages low.
They borrowed the money as they are today. And it sounds like it was a good investment.
Definitely much better than Trump's current borrowing.
Remember that back then no one wanted to borrow, everything was contracting... Now everything is expanding and the government is sucking up capital.
You missed one thing. I am not arguing to let in more temporary workers. I am arguing that those already here and working for American companies should be made legal guest workers, so that the companies can continue to function, but with the necessity to pay proper wages that might make Americans who are out of work want to apply for those jobs. Otherwise, let the guest workers continue produce in our economy and end the draw for illegal immigrants.
And it really Muddles the definition of "investment" to say that government can do it. Whatever government "invests" is first taken out of the economy, and when it is put back in it merely replaces private investment, with its expected returning economic growth, with investment by government, often with no such return.
What was this transaction, in simple terms? Government prints money, gives to bank. Bank gives money back to government. if it is so great, why don't we do it over and over?
"Simple solution- A "legal guest worker" program for those who have the qualifications AND have a job offer (or a recently vacated job) waiting. Special provisions for "agricultural guest workers" who go in and out. " Jerry
The government invests in infrastructure and many other items that generate returns for the government, our country and our businesses.
Because usually the banks do not need extra liquidity, in that case they did.
Why would the banks need liquidity unless there was a demand for capital from private markets?
Yes, the government can invest in things that DO produce a return, and to the extent they are things that we all agree have such a return AND are best done by government (roads, for example, but done by private contractors), yes. This was FAR from that. Remember Obama's stimulus "created jobs" at $ 1,000,000 each?
OTOH, can the government "invest" in offering a marketplace in labor that allows existing illegals to become legal and temporary, and dissuade illegal workers from coming and holding down wages. Big return on that.
People wanted their money... Banks had their money tied up in Bad Mortgage tools...
Bush, Obama
Ending a Recession Quickly
I don't think the GOP is willing to anything on immigration policy.
Trump offered an immigration deal including three times the DACA semi-amnesty, but the Democrats refuse. It seems obvious that they want no deal whatsoever with Pres. Trump, regardless of how good it is.
Technically Trump has offered NOTHING...
Even his latest non-detailed offering excludes the DACA folk.
So? You really believe the President should offer anything to Congress, knowing that Democrats will make it DOA? This proposal is practical politics. Propose a reasonable solution and then let the opposition oppose it.
Then take back your incorrect statement.
"Trump offered an immigration deal including three times the DACA semi-amnesty, but the Democrats refuse."
That is why Trump is back to proposing political pleasing solutions, rather than practical ones. What I said was correct in the past. Trump learned.
And proposed a solution, I think, two days ago? The solution was fewer unskilled, more skilled. Not exactly what I had in mind, but on the right track.
Ah... But no solutions to the DACA issue.
Please read the link I provided.
The DACA issue is unrelated to the reform of the legal immigration system. For that matter, so is the issue of stopping illegal immigration. The problem of illegal aliens already here is the toughest nut to crack. My suggestion was that be handled by a guest worker program, but I'm guessing that will wait, at least, for a Republican Congress, Senate AND President, AND after these "easier" matters are handled. Heck, 30 years ago we traded "closing the border" for an "amnesty" for those already here. It was a failure all around.
If you want a solution actually implemented...
Negotiations will need to include give and take.
Fine. What have Democrats offered to give and take, in the current hyper-partisan environment? For that matter, where are the negotiations? I heard "not one dollar for the wall." Beyond that...
Do you never get tired of writing incorrect things
I never tire of pointing out the obvious. did any of these become law?
No… Trump and the House blocked all negotiations.
Just as the GOP house did back in 2013
Post a Comment