[QUOTE=magellan01]
Economic disaster? I don’t think so. These illegals represent about 3% of the population. So if they contributed to the economy (dollars spent) at the same rate as the other 97%, we’d lose that 3%. A hit, yes; disaster, no. But the effect would be less than that because much of the money they earn is not spent here, it is sent back to the home country. So given the fact that they are at the lower end of the earnings scale and that they send many of their dollars out of the economy, the number will be much lower than the 3%. Then we have the degree to which wages for legals at the lower end of the wage scale would rise. The supply of people available and williing to do those jobs will shrink, increasiing demand, and then wages. (As well as the attractiveness of those jobs.) Also, we have to take into account the amount that will not have to be laid out by the government in the areas of health and education and law enforcement, as illegals have a higher rate for incarceration than the general population. Finally, the reality is that there is no way to just snap your fingers and have the 12,000,000 disappear. Even with a serious effort it will take years. And as they leave, if we see (likely) that we cannot meet the demand internally, we can open the doors with a legal guest-worker program, mush like Canada has. I didn’t provide a lot of the actual numbers because I don’t feel like going through all that again. I know we’ve both been in more than one thread where those numbers have been provided, and for the purposes of this particular discussion I think that the broad strokes suffice.
[/QUOTE]
Cites about those negative numbers in your favour that aren’t provided by bigoted sights like Vdare and FAIR or their lackies?
I’d also like to remark that it is big of you to admit that the actual number of illegal aliens is miniscule and that they contribute positively to economy.
[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
I also read about this in today’s Houston Chronicle. While Swift may be beating the rap for the moment (I have a feeling that general public opinion may force the government to attempt filing charges after all) from what I read so far they’ve actually had to shut down the plants in question, and thus will suffer financially from their, let’s be charitable and call it rather loosely-controlled, hiring practices.
[/quote]
How wil that affect the price of meat, I wonder?
Conservatives who decry the economic effects of government oversight of insdustry/business should bear in mind that argument applies with as much force here as anywhere else. If you really want to maximize economic efficiency on the supply side – illegals are the cheapest labor to be found, and blocking industry’s access to that resource will have reverberating effects throughout the economy. Sure, it might force the corporations to provide more jobs to American citizens – but not at the same low cost.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
So they would never knowingly hire illegals, but they DO know that a raid arersting illegals would remove up to 40% of their 13,000 workers? (a 5,200 estimate by the way.) WTF? Am I reading this wrong?
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps they feared non-illegals would be swept up in the raid based on accent/appearance. I’m sure that does happen. Knowledge of illegal status cannot be legally imputed to the company based on employees’ accent/appearance – but that does not mean ICE cannot use such criteria in a roundup. The legals could be back at work as soon as ICE verified their status – but that might take a while, especially when they have a very large number of detainees to process.
No, I don’t buy it either, but that’s what I would be arguing if I were Swift’s lawyer or PR man.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
How wil that affect the price of meat, I wonder?
Conservatives who decry the economic effects of government oversight of insdustry/business should bear in mind that argument applies with as much force here as anywhere else. If you really want to maximize economic efficiency on the supply side – illegals are the cheapest labor to be found, and blocking industry’s access to that resource will have reverberating effects throughout the economy. Sure, it might force the corporations to provide more jobs to American citizens – but not at the same low cost.
[/QUOTE]
Speaking of Conservatives, wouldn’t a National ID Card (or even an implanted microchip :p) fix this supposed problem of illegal aliens working for major companies? Is there ethnic hatred high enough to override their paranoia?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
If you really want to maximize economic efficiency on the supply side – illegals are the cheapest labor to be found, and blocking industry’s access to that resource will have reverberating effects throughout the economy. Sure, it might force the corporations to provide more jobs to American citizens – but not at the same low cost.
[/QUOTE]
Labor costs are not the major contributor to the price of a product, something like 10%, so increases would be small, even if wages doubled.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Labor costs are not the major contributor to the price of a product, something like 10%, so increases would be small, even if wages doubled.
[/QUOTE]
So product prices would have to at least rise 20%?
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
So product prices would have to at least rise 20%?
[/QUOTE]
If wages doubled, yes. Not likely to happen though. Wage increases if the illegals we taken out of the equation would likely not be that much.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Labor costs are not the major contributor to the price of a product, something like 10%, so increases would be small, even if wages doubled.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll remember that the next time somebody argues raising the minimum wage costs jobs.
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
So product prices would have to at least rise 20%?
[/QUOTE]
No. A 20% rise in wages, which account for 10% of the costs of goods (a number I’ve seen as well) would result in product prices increasing 10%.
Costof goods: $1.00
% due to wages: .10
% due to wages after increase: .20
New cost of goods: $1.10
I’ll try to request this nicely. You are once again saying that the conservative objection to illegals is ethnic hatred. This has been repeadtedly been pointed out to you to not be the case. Now there is a civil discussion going on which is, and will, move along productively based on the actual issues. Can we, perhaps, continue in that vein?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’ll try to request this nicely. You are once again saying that the conservative objection to illegals is ethnic hatred. This has been repeadtedly been pointed out to you to not be the case. Now there is a civil discussion going on which is, and will, move along productively based on the actual issues. Can we, perhaps, continue in that vein?
Emphasis mine.
[/QUOTE]
It is ethnic hatred. You’ve exhibited this trait towards Muslims and Hispanics often enough on here. You’ve used the bigot’s excuse of language and culture as an argument against immigration and non-immigrant US Hispanics so much that you really shouldn’t argue that ethnic hatred is not behind it. You display the trait far too often. As such, you apparently have a beef against an organization that fights it while as you have in the past whole heartedly accepted and praised bigoted organizations such as the Minutemen, Vdare, and Fair.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I’ll remember that the next time somebody argues raising the minimum wage costs jobs.
All the same – cite?
[/QUOTE]
There was a good one posted in a previous minimum wage thread, though it eludes me now. It had to do with the impact of illegals on the price of food. I will post it if I can locate it.
[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
It is ethnic hatred. You’ve exhibited this trait towards Muslims and Hispanics often enough on here. You’ve used the bigot’s excuse of language and culture as an argument against immigration and non-immigrant US Hispanics so much that you really shouldn’t argue that ethnic hatred is not behind it. You display the trait far too often. As such, you apparently have a beef against an organization that fights it while as you have in the past whole heartedly accepted and praised bigoted organizations such as the Minutemen, Vdare, and Fair.
[/QUOTE]
First, there were two portions I underlined. One, yes, was the organization that filed the lawsuit. Who files it matters. The other was the fact that the language you cited was from a lawsuit someone filed—period. It is simply a claim from one side. Surely, you don’t think that every allegation found in every lawsuit is factual, do you?
And you keep wanting to call me (and others) who disagree with you a bigot. Can you not fathom that one can be against illegal immigration and not be a bigot? Even after it has been explained to you again and again and again? Seriously, just pause for a minute right there. Can you not fathom that?
Moving on. Here’s what I think. I think that you are so afraid of your position being shown to be untennable that you don’t want a civilized discussion to occur based on the issues, the positions, and their merits. Thus, you you must derail or deflect the discussion.
Now, as I stated. There is an interesting discussion going on. You’ve managed to contribute for a time without hurling allegations of racism or bigotry. If you don’t like the implications of the discussion, challenge the positions. Of course, you can always choose to actually contribute elsewhere.
Or why not start your own thread on the role racism plays in immigration policy? That’s where you always end up anyway? That’s the discussion that you want to have, isn’t it? Go start a thread.
Going back to the orginal topic, there was an article in today’s paper which said that Swift had tried to be more thorough in its investigation of whether prospective employees were illegal aliens, but they were sued by the Federal government for discrimination, so they backed off.