Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think you are overestimating the number of jobs taken by illegals, it is closer to 13 million than 40 million. If you could share your source, I will reconsider my number.But currently, IMO, if there is enough of these jobs to attract 40 million immigrants, then there is enough demand there to greatly increase wages if we curtain immigration and deport the illegals and any legal immigrants who meet the standards for revoking citizenship.
And the Third World is not Europe. Europe, post WWII was an industrialized First World continent that needed REBUILT.
Any policy that depends on OUR ability to raise the Third World to First World status in any reasonable time frame is not a reasonable proposal.
I think you are overestimating the number of jobs taken by illegals, it is closer to 13 million than 40 million. If you could share your source, I will reconsider my number.
simply making labor more expensive could create better paying jobs due to capital investment to improve productivity.
The Wall Street Journal Sept. 17, 2010
The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.
Lost Decade for Family Income
The New Yorker SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
On Tuesday morning, the United States Census Bureau released its annual report on income and poverty in the United States...
Median household income was eight per cent lower in 2013 than it was in 2007, when the recession began. And the poverty rate in 2013 was two percentage points higher than it was in 2007.
The Income Chart That Explains American Politics - The New Yorker
View attachment 48948
View attachment 48947
Boss is or expects to be on the right side of the growing income gap. Good for him.
Nevertheless, an economy where the median income adjusted for inflation declines while the rich get richer does not nurture a healthy society. During past eras of growing inequality most people rose somewhat.
Yes, it does work by helping capitalists find more cost effective solutions that may involve re-tooling and upgrading capital equipment.simply making labor more expensive could create better paying jobs due to capital investment to improve productivity.
Doesn't work. Artificially making labor more expensive by governmental mandate only results in decreasing demand for labor and increasing supply... the opposite of what we need.
Capital investment is sometimes interested in improved productivity but it is usually centered around technology upgrades which greatly increase productivity and profits. Investors are not interested in forking over cash to compensate for jacked up wages by the government. There isn't much ROI there and they will almost always pass. It's the equivalent of drilling holes in the roof of your car with no AC to make it easier to sell... it simply doesn't work and is a really dumb idea.
it does work by helping capitalists find more cost effective solutions
Yes, it does work by helping capitalists find more cost effective solutions that may involve re-tooling and upgrading capital equipment.
improving the widget making process can lower cost and increase productivity.
I think you are overestimating the number of jobs taken by illegals, it is closer to 13 million than 40 million. If you could share your source, I will reconsider my number.But currently, IMO, if there is enough of these jobs to attract 40 million immigrants, then there is enough demand there to greatly increase wages if we curtain immigration and deport the illegals and any legal immigrants who meet the standards for revoking citizenship.
And the Third World is not Europe. Europe, post WWII was an industrialized First World continent that needed REBUILT.
Any policy that depends on OUR ability to raise the Third World to First World status in any reasonable time frame is not a reasonable proposal.
No , they are not Europe, but nor was Japan. Actually Japan's gdp was below Mexico's and slightly above Brazil's in 1950... five years after the war.
Countries Compared by Economy > GDP per capita in 1950. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
I think you are overestimating the number of jobs taken by illegals, it is closer to 13 million than 40 million. If you could share your source, I will reconsider my number.
I doubt there are 13 million. The problem is, we just don't know.
I agree with him in principle, we have to stop illegal immigration and we need to put the brakes on legal immigration until our house is in order. Where Correll and I are butting heads is over the notion that we'll ever deport ALL illegals or end ALL legal immigration... that isn't going to ever happen. So instead of being immediately dismissed as an extremist kook, why not be reasonable about this? When you start calling for us to kick out all foreigners, that's a bit caustic and dangerous. You won't be taken seriously or even invited to the table for a reasonable discussion.
This thread is about how we get to better paying jobs. Stopping illegal immigration is just a small part of the problem. And let's be perfectly clear on this, there is not any ONE THING that is the miracle "cure-all" for this! There are dozens of things we need to be doing. None of them will be effective by themselves, it's a multi-faceted and complicated problem which requires a dynamic solution. The hardest part of which is to fight a recalcitrant liberal movement that refuses to budge on anything.
Extremist rhetoric gets us nowhere, it only gives the left more fodder to promote their notion of a wacko right-wing. We have to be reasonable... we're not ever going to up and deport 6 million people or 13 million, let alone 40 million.
The Wall Street Journal Sept. 17, 2010
The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.
Lost Decade for Family Income
The New Yorker SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
On Tuesday morning, the United States Census Bureau released its annual report on income and poverty in the United States...
Median household income was eight per cent lower in 2013 than it was in 2007, when the recession began. And the poverty rate in 2013 was two percentage points higher than it was in 2007.
The Income Chart That Explains American Politics - The New Yorker
View attachment 48948
View attachment 48947
Boss is or expects to be on the right side of the growing income gap. Good for him.
Nevertheless, an economy where the median income adjusted for inflation declines while the rich get richer does not nurture a healthy society. During past eras of growing inequality most people rose somewhat.
simply making labor more expensive could create better paying jobs due to capital investment to improve productivity.
simply making labor more expensive could create better paying jobs due to capital investment to improve productivity.
Increasing cost of labor does not increase capital available for investment.
If stating that the US does not need more unskilled uneducated workers to compete in the 21st century gets you dismissed as a "kook" then I think we have identified the source of our problem.
This is not extremist. Extremist is arguing for effectively open borders and and a defacto ONe Party State.
Growing middle class jobs and middle class wages is how to decrease the income inequality.
no, but it does provide incentive to lower costs through productivity.simply making labor more expensive could create better paying jobs due to capital investment to improve productivity.
Increasing cost of labor does not increase capital available for investment.
it is the difference between micro and macro economics, dear.it does work by helping capitalists find more cost effective solutions
who helps the capitalists?? the capitalists themselves with a life time of experience and their own money or idiot soviet bureaucrats investing other people's tax money in fake companies like Solyndra that lie to the ignorant bureaucrats??
no, but it does provide incentive to lower costs through productivity.simply making labor more expensive could create better paying jobs due to capital investment to improve productivity.
Increasing cost of labor does not increase capital available for investment.
Why would capitalists prefer obsolete methods merely to use inexpensive labor? i believe capitalist may prefer to re-tool to achieve gains from productivity using the latest technologies available.no, but it does provide incentive to lower costs through productivity.simply making labor more expensive could create better paying jobs due to capital investment to improve productivity.
Increasing cost of labor does not increase capital available for investment.
Except, it doesn't.
They lower costs by laying people off and maintain productivity by delegating it to others. You have better paying jobs but fewer of them and more demanding. IF the demand for their product or service warrants increase in productivity they may choose to invest in new technology but this also generally results in fewer jobs, better pay but more technical skill required.
