Need for Immigrant Workers

[bilby]

What is the special need to exclude only immigrant workers?

Racism.

Duh.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes it might reduce labor compensation just as now any increase in Black labor or Hispanic labor or Italian labor or Blue-eyed labor or Brown-eyed labor or Left-handed labor or Right-handed labor etc. reduces the wage level. <...snipped repetitive word salad>

So you need to come up with a better rationale for excluding them than just saying they "will reduce labor compensation" in the economy. [/SIZE]

Actually you need to come up with a better argument. No one needs to come up with a rationale to keep the status quo. The status quo prevails.

Whether you like it or not, it is a long accepted practice for national policy to work for the betterment of the citizens or residents of a country. Your examples would either violate current law or directly hurt some citizens. Immigration restrictions do neither.

Whether you like it or not, no nation is compelled to look after the citizens of other countries. That is the world in which we live.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

As for seasonal jobs like farm workers? Those can be filled by migrants, but they need legal status, decent wages, and . . .

The "decent" wage is whatever the worker and employer individually agree to, each exercising his/her free choice. Employers have to increase the wage and terms as necessary to attract the needed workers. For outsiders, like government, to interfere and dictate these terms only makes everyone worse off. What is gained by artificially restricting production by imposing arbitrary terms that don't benefit society? The best terms, for everyone's interest, is whatever the workers and employers themselves agree to individually, without interference from Leftist ideologues pretending to know what everyone's income should be, or Populist fanatics pretending to know who "belongs" here and who does not.

Higgins: The individual and the massive employer... what those "two" come to an agreement with? You can't be that naïve? Employers generally have had all the leverage, especially with lesser skilled positions.

"the leverage"? In virtually every transaction there is an imbalance between the parties, with one having more "leverage" than the other. So what? It's still good for society to allow all those transactions, without the gov't interfering to help either side, no matter how great the imbalance may be.

Let's imagine the greatest possible imbalance between the 2 sides. Maybe a multibillionaire, like Elon Musk, buying something from the smallest imaginable poor person who is desperate, maybe starving -- imagine whatever scenario. Maybe Musk suddenly noticed the grass somewhere needing to be cut, and a poor homeless vagrant happened to be passing by -- maybe Musk needs to get it done instantly, because someone he needs to impress is showing up at any moment -- so Musk sends for the vagrant and there's a quick deal for $3/hour (or make up your own scenario and fill in the details, the most imbalanced imaginable). Whatever -- no matter how vast the imbalance is, it is still in the interest of society to stay out of it and allow the rich tycoon to "exploit" the cheap labor.

And even in the most extreme case, that more powerful tycoon does not have "all the leverage" because the poor vagrant still can refuse the offer, so at least that free choice is still a small amount of "leverage" which the weaker party has, in all cases where we are guaranteed our individual free choice. The only safeguard we need -- all of us -- is the protection of our freedom as individuals to always refuse any offer, and to make any offer we wish to anyone else, which they can refuse. Except to guarantee that individual free choice, we need no gov't interference to dictate the terms to anyone.

And this same principle applies to immigrant workers. Of course they have little leverage, as in most transactions there are the stronger and weaker parties. But making them legal (instead of illegal as we do now), and guaranteeing free choice to every individual person, is the right way to protect them and everyone else from being victimized, because we're all free to refuse any offer which would not serve our individual interest. Of course this has to include protection against fraud, against which we need laws which are enforced, for everyone. No need to make any exception for immigrant workers, who must be subject to the same rules as everyone else, without special policies to exclude them.

Regulation? It was the Government that put OSHA into place...

This is really a separate topic, having pros and cons. If there are some bad laws, like bad regulations that are enforced, these should be applied equally to all, including immigrant workers. But some of these regulations can be shown to have done more harm than good.

. . . put OSHA into place in the 1970s (!) to reduce workplace injuries and deaths. The individual worker wasn't able to get those "not dying at work" policies into place, the Government had to force employers to do it.

Let's assume there are some good regulations, including OSHA, and also bad ones. Even if some legitimate need was served, by the good OSHA regulations, this has nothing to do with setting the wage levels, or imposing certain wage minimums onto immigrant workers before they can be hired. I.e., nothing about OSHA gives any reason for special rules applied to immigrant workers as opposed to native-born workers. The bad laws, like minimum wage, as long as we have them, must be enforced equally in all cases, regardless what class the workers belong to -- OR, as practical, circumvented as necessary (as many bad laws are in fact circumvented, for the benefit of the economy), and this circumvention, which does happen and is ignored by police or enforcement agencies (who "look the other way"), should be allowed to take place as much for immigrant workers as for native-born workers.

So with regard to good regulations (OSHA or any other kind), there is no need for any special treatment of immigrant workers, even if there might be a need for some form of gov't interference into the economy. Such legitimate interference into the market is mostly in the area of environmental protection, not workers' rights or terms of employment, where there is no legitimate need served by gov't "regulation" or interference.

Minimum wages and what not aren't just for the employee, but also for the employer, as in making the playing level even.

This sounds like a claim that employers who pay higher wages need to have a higher-wage law imposed onto other employers in order to "level the playing field" with those competing companies which might be saving on labor cost by hiring cheap labor. Or similarly, employers hiring only red-blooded Americans need to be protected against other companies which are cheating by hiring immigrants who work for less.

But the truth is that if there is a real benefit to hiring native-borns only and excluding immigrant workers, the employers already know of this benefit and of the better production they can perform by hiring only the native-borns, and so they will do this automatically, choosing to pay the higher wage as a cost worth paying in return for the higher-quality production to benefit their customers.

It's best for society if the individual employers make these decisions, because they know best what leads to the best production, and they know best if any higher-quality production is worth paying the higher cost for it. There is nothing inherently wrong with some employers seeking to hire the less costly workers (to save on cost), or seeking only certain preferred workers who cost more (to improve the production); as long as they're individually free to make the decision as to what is in the company's interest, and the interest of their customers.

The only proper "level playing field" is the one which leaves all the players -- buyers and sellers, employers and workers -- free to make their individual choice on what the terms should be, who can perform better, who has higher value, etc.

That is why we have government regulations on fucking ice cream... or what is called ice cream or "frozen dessert" (formerly know as Ice Milk). Not because the Democrats wanted to put their fingerprint on the frozen dairy industry, but the frozen dairy industry wanted an even playing field with what product could be called what and that one company couldn't be lying to their customers as to what product they were actually buying.

This is about fraud -- or we could say "product standards" -- to properly label a product so consumers are not deceived. There's a legitimate need for this. But it's irrelevant to the terms of employment, like the proper wage to pay, or to whether immigrant workers should be hired or whether the rules or terms should be different for immigrants than they are for native-born workers.

To say gov't should not obstruct employers from hiring immigrants is not to say there should be no regulations at all in the economy. The point is only that there's no legitimate need for gov't to regulate the terms of employment, such as the wage levels, or to impose conditions to suppress the labor supply in order to prop up the general wage level. That kind of interference into the economy does not serve a legitimate social need. Whereas some regulation, such as to protect the environment, is legitimate.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Ford: As for seasonal jobs like farm workers? Those can be filled by migrants, but they need legal status, decent wages, . . .

The "decent" wage is whatever the worker and employer individually agree to, each exercising his/her free choice. Employers have to increase the wage and terms as necessary to attract the needed workers. For outsiders, like government, to interfere and dictate these terms only makes everyone worse off.

But you are advocating that outsiders to interfere by allowing immigrant workers.

OK, let's have a semantics quibble over
the meaning of "interfere"
(thus requiring another Wall of Text)

Obviously this word can refer to a good sense of interfering, such as to stop a crime situation, to put an end to slavery, to end poverty, to eradicate a disease, etc.; but also to a bad sense where someone interrupts a process which performs better if left alone, i.e. laissez faire would be better. So some kinds of interference in the "status quo" are good for society, while other kinds are bad. Obviously we can name many examples of both.

Our economy is already dependent on immigrant workers both legal and illegal. To make a change to exclude them would be a negative interference, worse than the already-existing interference, which would cause disastrous consequences to an economy which does much better as a result of having these immigrants now allowed legally (but also illegally because the law is not strictly enforced (which nonenforcement should continue because strictly enforcing these bad laws would make the economy much worse)).

But we need a change (a good "interference") into the current status quo of restricting immigrant workers, which restriction makes the economy worse while serving no legitimate purpose. The existing immigrant employment we already allow makes the economy better, and yet the need being filled is only part of the need, because much of the need goes unmet as a result of the artificial immigration limits which serve no legitimate social purpose -- especially now in this period of reduced production due to the pandemic, which is far from being over and may never come to an end. These limits are due to prejudice only, not a legitimate need to restrict this labor supply. The perception is that immigrant labor poses a threat to some native-born workers we need to protect, that this immigrant competition is bad for the economy because of our obsession to protect these native-borns in their job slots where they are kept out of mischief they would otherwise commit because they are inferior scum who will go on a rampage unless they are kept in these job slots -- i.e., babysitting slots.

There is no other way to explain why we are obsessed with keeping out the immigrant workers who might become a competitive element in the labor market. Who is threatened by them? All or most of us? Of course not. At best you could claim that some uncompetitive workers are threatened by the competition, just as they are threatened by any competition, even from other domestic workers. But no one else is threatened other than this perceived class of uncompetitive wage-earners needing protection -- rather, the vast majority of the population benefits from the added competition or added labor supply which would be a net benefit to all, to all consumers, including the poor. The vast majority of the poor are made better off by increasing the immigrant labor.

What is happening currently is simply an increase in our already-existing need for immigrant workers -- need which has been partly met by allowing some immigrants (even illegally) but fewer than we need. So this disparity now has become even greater than before, and thus the shortages and harm to consumers.

So, what does "interfere by allowing immigrant workers" mean? It only means challenging the artificial dogma that we must protect certain uncompetitive native-born workers from having any additional competition, even though the need for more labor supply has greatly increased.

Threat from competition? And yet there is no legitimate need to protect ANY class of producers from additional competition. More competition is always better for the economy, never worse. Of course there is frequently prejudice and hate against newcomers, seen as a threat to some of the uncompetitive native-borns -- just as the Luddites felt threatened by new technology 200 years ago, and many American labor fanatics felt threatened by Chinese immigrant workers in the late 1800s. But this prejudice and nativism is never a legitimate basis for excluding additional competition. Nor is the elitist snobbery of some Red or Blue ideologues (Trump and Bernie Sanders populists) who perceive the existence of a lower class of uncompetitive scum needing to be kept in their job slots to keep them off the streets and out of trouble. This is a delusion on the part of these populists, because it's not only the upper classes who benefit from increased labor supply and competition, but also the poor, as ALL consumers rich and poor benefit from the improved performance of a more competitive economy, just as they all suffer from the unnecessary shortages caused by artificially restricting the competition.

So far no one has given any explanation, other than the above, how any need is served by restricting the supply of immigrant labor.

 

[laughing dog]

Ford: As for seasonal jobs like farm workers? Those can be filled by migrants, but they need legal status, decent wages, . . .

The "decent" wage is whatever the worker and employer individually agree to, each exercising his/her free choice. Employers have to increase the wage and terms as necessary to attract the needed workers. For outsiders, like government, to interfere and dictate these terms only makes everyone worse off.

But you are advocating that outsiders to interfere by allowing immigrant workers.

OK, let's have a semantics quibble over
the meaning of "interfere"
(thus requiring another Wall of Text) .. <word salad snipped>

[/QUOTE]
Let's not.

The rationale for restricting immigration has been given many times. It is factually untrue for you to claim otherwise. You may not agree or like the rationales, but they have been given.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Immigrants in past waves in part served to keep wages down overall.

But living standard up. Like automation has done, eliminating jobs and reducing the need for labor = reduced value of the labor = lower wages.

= lower production cost = increased production = more supply = lower prices = higher standard of living for all consumers. Whether the higher-paid workers are replaced by machines or by cheap labor, either way the good results are the same for the whole economy, as the labor cost is reduced and production improved to the benefit of all consumers; whereas various crusades to counteract this progress and save the more costly jobs always did more harm than good. I.e., like the Luddites did more harm than good for the economy at times when they succeeded in saving their jobs and preventing their replacement by the less costly technology.

Basic supply and demand. Increase labor pool, wages go down.

And standard of living goes up, just as with automation, which reduces the cost of labor and production cost = increased production and higher living standard. It's always a delusion to think we somehow improve the economy by saving the higher-paid jobs from being replaced by something that does it at lower cost. The irrational instinct to preserve the more costly jobs or safeguard them from being replaced has always done net harm to the economy by driving up the cost of living to all consumers. This harm is often ignored in order to save the jobs of some uncompetitive but high-profile workers, and as a result the overall living standard is made lower than it would have been if instead the law of supply-and-demand was left free to do its function of rewarding the more competitive producers and penalizing the less competitive.

It's only a pretense to say you care about "the workers" when you crusade to save these less competitive jobs. The real result is to make most workers worse off as consumers, because their cost of living is made higher as a result.

My Italian uncle who started as a construction laborer put it this way. If you did not want to work for $0.80 an hour there was somebody behind you who would work for $0.75 an hour, . . .

or a machine which would cost even less, driving down the cost of labor even more = more production and higher living standard. No matter whose job is threatened, even an Italian's (even your uncle's), it's always the case that it's better for that worker to be replaced by whatever can do it at lower cost. It's better to do what's good for the whole economy rather than artificially preserve a few less competitive workers in jobs where they're not needed -- just because you feel sorry for them doesn't mean it's better to keep them in that job where we don't need them.

In many cases they're needed elsewhere, in a job that otherwise goes vacant -- like today's economy with so many necessary jobs going unfilled. E.g., today we have steel-worker jobs being protected against foreign competition, wasting steel workers in jobs where we don't really need them, while they really are needed doing construction work, or driving trucks, or doing electrical or plumbing work, etc. But because of demagogues like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (and the mindless masses who vote for them), we waste these workers in protected steel jobs ("jobs! jobs! jobs!"), contributing nothing new to the economy, but doing work which would be done more easily by foreign labor at lower cost. And because of this waste we have reduced production = lower real GDP and higher cost of living = lower living standard for the whole population, rich and poor. And we suffer similar damage to the economy by excluding needed immigrant workers.

. . . until the unions came along.

How much good they could have done for the whole nation, to improve labor and performance of workers, instead of only driving up the costs and making production more expensive = higher prices, driving down the living standard of all consumers (the whole population). When the unions are able to improve the workers, making production happen more efficiently, then they might serve a productive function for the nation rather than only a predatory parasitic role of causing higher production cost = higher prices = higher cost of living for all.

Tech companies have used foreign engines to keep wages down

and production up (at lower production cost) = increased supply = lower prices and higher living standard for all consumers. Same as the benefit from automation, replacing humans with machines, whatever increases the supply and reduces the production cost. If you're against this, then you're against computers and robots and would bring back the Luddites to do the jobs manually and get rid of the machines = lower living standard for all.

By law employers are required to look for American workers first.

= higher cost and less production and lower living standard. It's always best to allow producers to make the production and hiring decisions = improved performance, better production to serve all consumers = higher living standard. Rather than reducing employers to the role of babysitters, providing job slots for crybaby native-borns needing "jobs" to keep them out of mischief. One reason small businesses are being replaced throughout the economy by the large corporations is that the latter are more efficient at playing the babysitter role, able to pay the much higher cost which this role imposes onto employers (but not necessarily able to produce more efficiently).

Tech companies figured out how to get around it.

And lower their cost = good for all consumers. Definitely it's a win-win for the economy when the producers are able to circumvent the babysitting demands imposed by the "America First" labor laws. In fact, it's this circumvention which makes it possible for business to survive and keep serving consumers even though these "jobs! jobs! jobs!" babysitting costs are imposed onto them by such bad laws which would make them less competitive if they were totally enforced. Fortunately for the nation, these bad laws are not totally enforced and can often be circumvented.

E.g. --

They would publish job openings in obscure publications or make the job requirements impossible to meet, then go offshore . . .

And thus make the nation better off by letting the market competition drive the production decisions rather than petty nationalistic "jobs! jobs! jobs!" nativism; and even the lawmakers themselves knew these "America First" laws are more harm than good, even allowing loopholes so they could be circumvented, for the benefit of the nation. It's more competition which makes the nation's economy stronger, not shielding the uncompetitive and scapegoating foreigners and preaching "bring back the factories" sermons in order to provide job slots for native-born crybabies.

Just like the underground economy in Soviet Russia found ways to circumvent the law = improved performance and more supply = best for all consumers.

Russian engineers were common. They were willing to work below market rates.

No, not "below market rates" but bringing down those rates through competition, which is always best for consumers. When the market rate comes down due to increased competition, that's not "below market rates" but reduced market rate due to supply-and-demand competition = higher benefit to all consumers.

The "market" price is whatever is best for consumers = best for the nation, or for the whole population, getting the production up as needed (by rewarding the best quality while also getting down the prices as low as possible through competition) to reward those who do the production at lower cost. The best result for consumers is whatever competition produces, rewarding the best production = highest quality output at the lowest cost.

But on all the above both the Democrats/Progressives and Trumpsters/Reds are totally in agreement, pandering to the uncompetitive crybabies, promoting the employer-bashing and China-bashing and immigrant-bashing nativist populism currently on the rise. You are deluded by thinking this xenophobia will Make America Great Again. This is only driving the nation's economy deeper into the hole.

 

[RVonse]

And isn't BUSINESS a basic American value? The business culture in the U.S. wants and needs more immigrant workers.

I think we can both agree business is an American value. I think we also agree that competition is the main driver of success and productivity, no argument from me at least.

But what about negative consequences due to business and competition? How do you feel about regulation Lumpens? Do you think Exxon should be allowed to dump unlimited oil on the pristine gulf shores?

And if you do believe the public good is also important as is productivity and lowest possible price, could you also agree that unlimited immigration might have negative consequences to the public over and above the desire to produce at lowest possible price?

And in summary, could you also agree that the political class is responsible to the wishes of the existing crybabies? Or do you think the crybabies should be put aside in favor of organized special interests?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

TomC:

Whatever jargon you use to describe it, there's a
need for workers to do jobs that are going vacant,
causing disruption that hurts consumers and drives up prices.

Why is it that if I decide that the current price of gasoline is too high, and think that $3 gal is reasonable, that is . . .

There's probably a point here, but the example of gasoline price is inappropriate, because there is reason to restrict the consumption of this product, and this could be why the supply has been limited, for a legitimate reason. But that's not the case with labor, because labor is not a threat to the environment, like gasoline or carbon emission is a threat.

But if we take a different kind of product -- let's take health care, e.g., instead of gasoline -- it becomes clear that unnecessary artificial restriction of supply is a major cause of the shortage. Health care too is a case of higher prices and shortages, and in this case there is no need to restrict supply or consumption, or no justification anyone can give why such restrictions are needed (like the bone-headed limits on immigrant workers noted in the Sept. 14 hearing). The shortages and higher prices in health care are similar to the labor shortage (or it's a subcategory of the labor shortage): In both cases there is artificial restriction of supply, and increasing the supply is a major part of the solution, rather than higher prices only. The reality is that there are higher prices/wages also, as part of the solution; but still higher supply is a potential solution and yet is being blocked for some reason. There are many artificial restrictions on licensing the needed health-care personnel, leading to massive shortages throughout the U.S., as shown in the Sept. 14 hearing: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/me...ucial-to-bolstering-our-health-care-workforce

Despite the evidence of all the harm being inflicted by these anti-immigrant laws, nothing is being done to make the necessary changes, even though the need to allow more immigrants is abundantly obvious. (The Democrats leading the hearing did a good job showing the problem, but are doing nothing to solve it.) There is obviously a systemic prejudice of some kind which says these foreigners don't "belong" here, and we must put up obstacles and barriers to them. No one is giving any reason why we need these artificial obstacles. Rather, it's just accepted that we are supposed to block foreigners with artificial rules, no matter how much need is going unmet and how bad the shortages are.

In the case of Republicans/Reds/Trumpists, the motivation is probably straightforward anti-immigrant prejudice. But in the case of Democrats/Blues/Progressives, the motivation is a Leftwing anti-Employer hate which says no one's wage can ever be threatened, because higher wages is a religious dogma which must be the solution to every problem, and for anyone's wage to be threatened would destroy the economy (because higher wages to workers is what creates "demand" in the economy), so everyone's wage must be protected no matter what it takes, no matter how much the general population (all consumers) must suffer in the form of higher prices and shortages. Better to protect 100% of all wage-earners from any possible competition threat than to allow any further immigrants who might steal jobs away from red-blooded American workers somewhere.

(Of course self-righteous Democrats/Progressives deny this, in their rhetoric, but their actions show that this is what they really think, especially their scatter-brained econo-babble theories about the need to prop up the wage level no matter what.)

So in some cases the problem is the shortage due to such bone-headed theories to restrict competition and curtail supply in order to protect someone's job.

Even if you can complain that low wages are at fault, that doesn't change the fact that restriction of supply is also a main cause of what's wrong. Just because there's a need for some higher prices or wages does not change the fact that there is also a need to increase the supply, or to stop imposing the artificial limits on the supply. It's obvious that the limits on immigrant workers are part of the problem; and where it's needed there have also been wage increases recently -- nothing prevents employers from increasing wages as needed. This need for more labor supply is not negated by saying there's also a need for higher wages in some cases.

Why is it that if I . . . think that $3 is reasonable, that is not considered a gasoline shortage?

That's not just a throwaway line. I cannot help but notice that when commodities profitable to the "investing class" (aka Big Donors) go up in price it is "supply and demand". But when the price of labor goes up it's put down to laziness and artificial suppression.

I'm calling bullshit on rightists and their economic theories.

It's not clear what this has to do with the labor shortage, or limits on immigrant workers.

Is this a rant that there really is no "labor shortage" at all? it's really a problem of low wages only? that the domestic labor supply is great enough to meet all the need if only the dirty capitalist pigs would double all the wages? and this would cause all the shortages to disappear?

As pointed out before, wage increase is only a partial solution, even minor in some cases, because the fact still remains that employers can't raise the wage level above the point where profit drops to zero. In all those cases the only alternative is to cut production = lower supply = higher prices and shortages and reduced living standard for all.

 

[laughing dog]

As pointed out before, wage increase is only a partial solution, even minor in some cases, because the fact still remains that employers can't raise the wage level above the point where profit drops to zero. In all those cases the only alternative is to cut production = lower supply = higher prices and shortages and reduced living standard for all.

More poor economic reasoning. Higher wages do not mean a reduced living standard for all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As pointed out before, wage increase is only a partial solution, even minor in some cases, because the fact still remains that employers can't raise the wage level above the point where profit drops to zero. In all those cases the only alternative is to cut production = lower supply = higher prices and shortages and reduced living standard for all.

More poor economic reasoning. Higher wages do not mean a reduced living standard for all.

ld, you don't get it. The ONLY cost involved with business is wages. Everything else is free and has no impact on the cost of business. Therefore, if wages are increased, profits automatically go to red and you destroyed capitalism... you ugly monster you. Why do you hate America?!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the case of Republicans/Reds/Trumpists, the motivation is probably straightforward anti-immigrant prejudice.

Gaslighting?

But in the case of Democrats/Blues/Progressives, the motivation is a Leftwing anti-Employer hate which says no one's wage can ever be threatened, because higher wages is a religious dogma which must be the solution to every problem, and for anyone's wage to be threatened would destroy the economy (because higher wages to workers is what creates "demand" in the economy), so everyone's wage must be protected no matter what it takes, no matter how much the general population (all consumers) must suffer in the form of higher prices and shortages. Better to protect 100% of all wage-earners from any possible competition threat than to allow any further immigrants who might steal jobs away from red-blooded American workers somewhere.

(Of course self-righteous Democrats/Progressives deny this, in their rhetoric, but their actions show that this is what they really think, especially their scatter-brained econo-babble theories about the need to prop up the wage level no matter what.)

Love it. *grabs some popcorn* So, what else do I believe?

So in some cases the problem is the shortage due to such bone-headed theories to restrict competition and curtail supply in order to protect someone's job.

Even if you can complain that low wages are at fault, that doesn't change the fact that restriction of supply is also a main cause of what's wrong. Just because there's a need for some higher prices or wages does not change the fact that there is also a need to increase the supply, or to stop imposing the artificial limits on the supply. It's obvious that the limits on immigrant workers are part of the problem; and where it's needed there have also been wage increases recently -- nothing prevents employers from increasing wages as needed. This need for more labor supply is not negated by saying there's also a need for higher wages in some cases.

This sounds overly simplistic. It isn't as if America has 200 million available jobs and only 150 million bodies to fill those positions. You create the this odd idolatry over the businesses right to low wages right after complaining about left-wing 'idolatry' demanding reasonable pay.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What are you arguing for? Stated in one sentence what is it that you think is wrong?

Leftist employer-bashing takes priority over immigration reform.

In addition to https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/me...ucial-to-bolstering-our-health-care-workforce , (Senate hearing on needed immigration reform (focused mostly on health care)), the particular flaws needing to be fixed are also addressed here:
This presents some of the current legislation aimed at fixing the flaws and at least alleviating some of these flaws.

"in one sentence"? OK, here's what's wrong: There are arbitrary and artificial obstacles to allowing more needed immigrant workers who would greatly help to alleviate the unusual shortage problems in the U.S. economy today (resulting largely from the pandemic situation), and Democrats are not enacting the needed changes, even though they currently dominate the 3 federal branches and have pending legislation which won't pass (though it could) -- and Democrats do have the ability to get those changes enacted if they made the effort.

In the above video, actually, there is prediction that maybe one bill will pass, but most of the needed reform legislation will not pass. (And even if all of them should pass, it would only partly address what's wrong, and would accomplish this in a piecemeal fashion. Still this would be an improvement, and yet so far nothing is happening to fix the harm from our anti-immigrant laws, even though the damage is well documented in the testimony at the Sept. 14 hearing.)

The flaws -- obstacles preventing more immigrant workers, or preventing needed changes to allow more immigrants -- originate from bad laws of the 1990s. Why is nothing being done to fix it, now that the harm has gotten much worse and no one is giving any reason for keeping all the bad restrictions we've been imposing on immigrant workers? The testimony in the hearing explains the harm being done (mostly in health care), preventing employers from acquiring the needed immigrant workers. (And the same problems in health care exist throughout other sectors of the economy.)


Why nothing is being fixed, and Democrats are mostly to blame

It's true that Republicans mostly oppose easing any immigration restrictions, and Democrats have only thin majorities in both Houses. But there is actually significant support for these reforms (to allow more immigrant workers) -- support from among commercial interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce, and other business institutions who favor much increased immigrant work visas and reduced restrictions on employment of immigrants. So Democrats are able to get the support they need to enact these reforms, with their majority control and with help from business interests which are mostly conservative and Republican.

BUT -- Democrats have a HATE problem, being hampered by their ideological commitment to employer-bashing Left-wing labor theories. They are subservient to a philosophy which hates employers per se and thrives on scapegoating employers as a class, and which promulgates a wages-based economics ideology opposing anything in the direction of wage competition and not committed to propping up the wage level higher and higher as an Absolute Infallible Doctrine.

I.e., they give priority to their fear of added competition in the labor force; and the prospect of increased immigrant workers is perceived as allowing more such competition. They see this added competition possibility as a threat which would undermine their basic commitment to higher wages above all else, and so they are instead submitting to the populist clamor for higher wages per se as more important than what's good for the nation's economy overall. This is a rejection of the supply-and-demand principle for prices, and instead a religion of higher wages no matter what, even if the nation's economy must suffer as a result, by excluding needed workers.

What has happened is that Reds/Trumpsters have pre-empted the traditional Democrats' monopoly on the labor vote, by making populist promises to exclude immigrants who are "stealing our jobs" and driving down the wage level. So even though Democrats have the opportunity to get needed reforms enacted, with the help of pro-immigrant business interests, they are refusing to enact these changes, refusing to take the steps to fix this. The anti-business employer-bashing fanaticism of the Left has paralyzed Democrats from being able to do what's in the interest of the nation's economy. Any perception of them collaborating with business interests to allow more hated immigrants would alienate more of the employer-hating ideologues and drive some of them to vote Red.

Though Democrats have put forth some legislation which would partly accomplish needed reforms, yet there is intense opposition to this from the Left-wing Populist-Progressive ideologues who instead impose their ideological higher-wages-at-all-cost doctrine, no matter what damage this inflicts onto the general economy.

Except for conservative extremists we all know we need immigration. We always have going back to the 19th century.

Decent wages apply to all not just immigrants and it is a current topic. California is arbitrarily setting a higher mein wage for people like fast food workers.

All such populist brain-dead laws do the economy more harm than good. But with Left-wing demagogues whipping up the rabble in order to gain cheap votes, there is little that can be done by thinking people to stem the tide.

Learning from the Leftists/Progressives: An important difference today is that Conservatives have now adopted this demagoguery strategy from the Leftists and are turning the Left's employer-bashing rhetoric into an immigrant-bashing and China-bashing and trade-bashing rhetoric, and are beginning to beat the Left at their own game.

All immigrants today who have the legal right to work have the same labor protections as anyone else.

Not exactly. Many immigrant workers are harassed by legal restrictions. E.g., many are required to leave the country at a certain time, or are limited as to where they're allowed to work. Many who have trained, spent years in the U.S. preparing for their career, and who are needed after completing the requirements, are still required to leave the country for 2 years before being allowed to start work in the U.S. They hardly have the "same protections" if they are subject to such arbitrary and pointless restrictions. Much of this is pure anti-immigrant harassment.

What's your point?

Are you a die hard Marxist?

A what? My point is that our immigrant-hating and employer-hating culture is so obvious, seeing all the harm these laws are inflicting, preventing legitimate employment of needed workers, and yet it seems those who claim to be pro-immigrant oppose doing anything to change this, and instead are offended that the problem is pointed out to them and have no response other than a knee-jerk "What's your point? and "Are you a die hard Marxist?" outburst.

The Leftist dogmatic mindset must be incapable of seeing all the damage it inflicts, and seems unable to accomplish anything other than to teach their bad habits to their traditional enemies on the Right, which is now beating the crap out of them, as it looks more and more like the upcoming elections are going to be a bloodbath with the Trumpist demagogues kicking Leftist demagogues' butt.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

correction to previous post:

. . . and Democrats are not enacting the needed changes, even though they currently dominate the 3 federal branches and have pending legislation which won't pass (though it could) -- and Democrats do have the ability to get those changes enacted if they made the effort.

correction to the above: ". . . and Democrats are not enacting the needed changes, even though they currently dominate the executive and legislative branches and have pending legislation which won't pass (though it could) -- and Democrats do have the ability to get those changes enacted if they made the effort."

I.e., Democrats dominate the 2 branches which play a role in enacting legislation (or 3 entities -- the Executive, the House, and the Senate) and so have power to fix the anti-immigrant policies preventing the U.S. from admitting the additional immigrant workers needed.

 

[Patooka]

Democrats dominate the 2 branches which play a role in enacting legislation

I literally live on the other side of the planet and even I know this statement is disingenuous as fuck.

 

[laughing dog]

correction to previous post:

. . . and Democrats are not enacting the needed changes, even though they currently dominate the 3 federal branches and have pending legislation which won't pass (though it could) -- and Democrats do have the ability to get those changes enacted if they made the effort.

correction to the above: ". . . and Democrats are not enacting the needed changes, even though they currently dominate the executive and legislative branches and have pending legislation which won't pass (though it could) -- and Democrats do have the ability to get those changes enacted if they made the effort."

I.e., Democrats dominate the 2 branches which play a role in enacting legislation (or 3 entities -- the Executive, the House, and the Senate) and so have power to fix the anti-immigrant policies preventing the U.S. from admitting the additional immigrant workers needed.

The Republicans dominated for a while under Trump and did nothing.

The Democrats have the votes in the House but not in the Senate because of the filibuster rules.

Hence, your wall of text is based on a rather uninformed view of reality.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Lumpy believes that "required production" to keep the economy churning is all that matters, workers be damned.

Most workers today are being made worse off by our anti-immigrant laws. Laws which restrict the supply of needed workers, thus curtailing production, end up hurting everyone as consumers, which includes all workers.

The Senate hearing -- https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/me...ucial-to-bolstering-our-health-care-workforce -- gave numerous examples of the harm being inflicted onto everyone as a result of the very bad anti-immigrant policies from the 1990s. Aside from the needed health-care workers being excluded, there is the harm done to all the patients, who have to postpone treatment or get no treatment at all. These victims of a bad system are themselves mostly wage-earners.

So what's happening is an immigrant-bashing system which says, "Exclude immigrants as much as possible, consumers be damned." And "consumers" includes all workers. It is perverse to preach exclusion of needed immigrant workers in order to protect the jobs of some uncompetitive native-born workers. The right not to have any competition should not be made an Absolute Basic Right enjoyed by every native-born wage-earner and guaranteed no matter how much damage it inflicts onto the whole economy and population.

 

[atrib]

Lumpy believes that "required production" to keep the economy churning is all that matters, workers be damned.

Most workers today are being made worse off by our anti-immigrant laws. Laws which restrict the supply of needed workers, thus curtailing production, end up hurting everyone as consumers, which includes all workers.

The Senate hearing -- https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/me...ucial-to-bolstering-our-health-care-workforce -- gave numerous examples of the harm being inflicted onto everyone as a result of the very bad anti-immigrant policies from the 1990s. Aside from the needed health-care workers being excluded, there is the harm done to all the patients, who have to postpone treatment or get no treatment at all. These victims of a bad system are themselves mostly wage-earners.

So what's happening is an immigrant-bashing system which says, "Exclude immigrants as much as possible, consumers be damned." And "consumers" includes all workers. It is perverse to preach exclusion of needed immigrant workers in order to protect the jobs of some uncompetitive native-born workers. The right not to have any competition should not be made an Absolute Basic Right enjoyed by every native-born wage-earner and guaranteed no matter how much damage it inflicts onto the whole economy and population.

I am very much in support of increased immigration. I also think we should find a way to legalize the millions of undocumented aliens who live and work in this country today, so they cannot be so easily exploited by unscrupulous employers and the police alike. But not for the reasons you espouse. You want to increase immigration so that employers can exploit foreign workers by compensating them substantially less than their American counterparts are willing to work for, and to undermine the ability of American workers to negotiate competitive wages and benefits that are appropriate to the standards of living in the US. You want to turn this country into China or Korea, where massive corporations like Foxconn and Apple exploit the impoverished locals into low paying jobs, where they are often confined in deplorable conditions, housed in dorms crammed to the rafters with people and unsanitary conditions, threatened with termination if they complain, with no ability to even walk away. Conditions that force workers to often take their own lives because they can see no way out. No thank you. You can go work for Foxconn in China if you think that is a good model, but I don't want to turn my fellow citizens into logistical units that are used solely to shore up profits for the select few who own and run the corporations.

I say, let the free market decide. The jobs will get filled if the employers offer a competitive wage. If not, the employers will find ways to automate production to save on the need for expensive human labor, or go out of business, and someone else will take their place and find a way to manufacture goods without exploiting human misery.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As pointed out before, wage increase is only a partial solution, even minor in some cases, because the fact still remains that employers can't raise the wage level above the point where profit drops to zero. In all those cases the only alternative is to cut production = lower supply = higher prices and shortages and reduced living standard for all.

More poor economic reasoning. Higher wages do not mean a reduced living standard for all.

No, he's right. Raise labor costs, you raise prices, you get a spiral of inflation. In the long run the government has no control over business profit margins except in monopoly situations. Force profits too low, businesses that fail won't be replaced. Profits go too high, competitors enter. You can force it away from it's natural value but in time it will return to it in anything resembling a free market.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As pointed out before, wage increase is only a partial solution, even minor in some cases, because the fact still remains that employers can't raise the wage level above the point where profit drops to zero. In all those cases the only alternative is to cut production = lower supply = higher prices and shortages and reduced living standard for all.

More poor economic reasoning. Higher wages do not mean a reduced living standard for all.

ld, you don't get it. The ONLY cost involved with business is wages. Everything else is free and has no impact on the cost of business. Therefore, if wages are increased, profits automatically go to red and you destroyed capitalism... you ugly monster you. Why do you hate America?!

While you obviously weren't being serious you're actually pretty close to right.

Fundamentally, there are only two costs: Wages and taxes. Anything else is really just past wages in some form. The left loves to try to eat those past wages under various guises but once they're eaten they're eaten, they won't return.

 

[laughing dog]

As pointed out before, wage increase is only a partial solution, even minor in some cases, because the fact still remains that employers can't raise the wage level above the point where profit drops to zero. In all those cases the only alternative is to cut production = lower supply = higher prices and shortages and reduced living standard for all.

More poor economic reasoning. Higher wages do not mean a reduced living standard for all.

No, he's right. Raise labor costs, you raise prices, you get a spiral of inflation. In the long run the government has no control over business profit margins except in monopoly situations. Force profits too low, businesses that fail won't be replaced. Profits go too high, competitors enter. You can force it away from it's natural value but in time it will return to it in anything resembling a free market.

First, if my wage increases by proportionally more than inflation, I am better off.

Second, an increase in wages need not cause an increase in prices if productivity is increasing.

Third, the notion that there is a natural value for profit margins is bizarre. Profit margins are the result of market forces. If labor costs rise, profit margins can "naturally" (to use your phrase) shrink.

So, your response is based on 3 economically false premises. It is an example of poor economic reasoning.