Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_Markk]

You believe our immigration is being conducted in a measured, common sense approach? That's weird.

- Doc

It actually is...$250.00 will get one across the border, and the common sense part is "we can make" 10 bucks a day in our country if we can find work", or we can go across the border and make 10,15, or more dollars and hour, have medical and send our kids to school, and have free breakfast and lunch."

Another true story...I have a friend that has worked with me for some 20 years...he has a green card ( I think). He probably makes around 18-20 dollars an hour (private wages), or up to $45.00 and hour on publicly funded projects (prevailing wage). He is a good worker, and was on a good run of about three years of prevailing wage. I was talking to him one day at lunch and he told me his kids get free lunch and breakfast, and his wife a ebt card (food stamps)...and all the while making 90k a year? This is typical here in so ca.

Why wouldn't they want to come here.

[_EAllusion]

Markk, in a study linked to you by Kevin, what the researchers did is compare microareas of different immigration, controlling for all sorts of confounding variables, and looking at the differences wages in similar sectors depending on variant levels of immigration. What the found is that immigration had the impacts described. The absolute wages doesn't matter in that type of research. What matters is the relative difference. Other studies look at changes in wages based on when immigration influxes occurred. And you are still confusing differences between wages in real dollars vs. wages in dollars.

Think of it this way. Suppose in scenario A, wages go up 10 dollars, but real wages actually decline by a 1.25. In scenario B, wages go up by 12 dollars, but real wages actually are stagnant. Suppose we know the cause between the difference in these scenarios is immigration. Would you understand that it makes sense to say that immigration boosts wages? Do you understand why repeatedly pointing out that real wages haven't increased does not refute that assertion?

This isn't the only way to look at this, but you just aren't getting why what you are pointing out doesn't contradict what is being claimed.

Take the bottom link of your list. It's not a paper from a peer reviewed journal, but rather a commentary by an economist. He discusses why labor's total share of GDP is on the decline. Specifically, he's looking at why wages aren't growing as fast as the economy as a whole is. He lists several causes, of which immigration is not one, and goes on to discuss them. This doesn't mean that immigration doesn't slightly depress sub-high school workers' wages or increase others'. It just means that real wage stagnation is occurring. He actually points the finger at slow productivity growth and one of the things that increases productivity growth is immigration and one thing that would be a surefire way to depress it would be to abruptly cut the immigration rate.

You think this contradicts what's being said because you don't quite understand what's being said.

[_Markk]

Markk, in a study linked to you by Kevin, what the researchers did is compare microareas of different immigration, controlling for all sorts of confounding variables, and looking at the differences wages in similar sectors depending on variant levels of immigration. What the found is that immigration had the impacts described. The absolute wages doesn't matter in that type of research. What matters is the relative difference. Other studies look at changes in wages based on when immigration influxes occurred. And you are still confusing differences between wages in real dollars vs. wages in dollars.

Think of it this way. Suppose in scenario A, wages go up 10 dollars, but real wages actually decline by a 1.25. In scenario B, wages go up by 12 dollars, but real wages actually are stagnant. Suppose we know the cause between the difference in these scenarios is immigration. Would you understand that it makes sense to say that immigration boosts wages? Do you understand why repeatedly pointing out that real wages haven't increased does not refute that assertion?

This isn't the only way to look at this, but you just aren't getting why what you are pointing out doesn't contradict what is being claimed.

Take the bottom link of your list. It's not a paper from a peer reviewed journal, but rather a commentary by an economist. He discusses why labor's total share of GDP is on the decline. Specifically, he's looking at why wages aren't growing as fast as the economy as a whole is. He lists several causes, of which immigration is not one, and goes on to discuss them. This doesn't mean that immigration doesn't slightly depress sub-high school workers' wages or increase others'. It just means that real wage stagnation is occurring. He actually points the finger at slow productivity growth and one of the things that increases productivity growth is immigration and one thing that would be a surefire way to depress it would be to abruptly cut the immigration rate.

You think this contradicts what's being said because you don't quite understand what's being said.

Why do you make more because of illegal immigration...be specific? Again this was your assertion...

"Immigrants actually raise wages for all but those who lack a high school degree, and the effect even there is relatively modest. I suppose this might be counterintuitive until you realize that more participants in a consumer economy produces economic growth, which leads to wage increases.


If you want to depress wages, cut off immigration."


What I have shown you through the other "studies"...is that wages were higher 40 or so years ago, with less illegal immigration, than they are now with more immigration, whether with a diploma or not.

Some jobs may benefit, like ICE, law enforcement, immigration attorneys, and other services that apply directly to illegal immigration...but I think we would agree those would not count in context here.

Again why do you make more today becasue of illegal immigration...be specific...I have shown why others in my world make less...much less. Factory workers make less than 50 years ago... a lot less...and illegal immigration was a trickle to what it is today.

Also does you study take into account the cash/black market they bring that takes away from legit businesses?

[_honorentheos]

Markk, you're the only one not following the conversation and seem stuck on a very linear anecdotal observation from which you can't seem to step back from in order to even be engaging in discussion.

Here, quote one of your sources that showed how illegal immigration is the cause of wages being down across the board in the US. That would be something different.

[_Markk]

Markk, you're the only one not following the conversation and seem stuck on a very linear anecdotal observation from which you can't seem to step back from in order to even be engaging in discussion.

Here, quote one of your sources that showed how illegal immigration is the cause of wages being down across the board in the US. That would be something different.

That was not the question...you just moved the goal post. I have given data that wages are down in many areas, and some that contradiction each other. The question was that Illegal immigration creates higher wage with folks with a high school diploma and up.

Give me an example of how this works, how does illegal immigration help a teachers pay go up? Or a Lawyer (other than immigration related attorney)?

How about a factory worker with a HS diploma, vs a factory worker without...especially with manufacturing wages are down big time since the 50's when illeagl immigration was nowhere near what it is today?

If you truly understand the data you claim is true, then, put it in real terms.

Many benefit from illegal immigration, mostly owners of companies, and executives that hire them, but the working man does not...which is the majority of workers in the country, they take jobs and lower wages. I benefit from them when I hire them from home depot and pay them cash. I could hire a licensed insured contractor for 50, 60, or 70 dollars and hour, or go to Home Depot and give an illegal a $100.00 a day and lunch (or less).

I have hired illegals before around my house, and I know contractors that do this all the time...is this factored into your studies.

I have asked this question with no response, how do illegal help union jobs...they don't...unions have to renegotiate and lower wages to compete...the So CA landscaping union is a perfect example...and you can objectively see this in prevailing wage rates. Also Unions are declining becasue they cannot compete in private sectors...

[_EAllusion]

Markk -

Suppose you are a construction worker. It's a reach, I know, but follow me.

As a construction worker, you are making $25 an hour. Things are going fine, but along comes an immigrant who is willing to undercut you for $18 an hour because that's still much better than what they were making. Your boss says that while you are a little bit better of a worker, the difference in value is too much to pass up. You either take a pay cut or are laid off. Or, more realistically, while you keep your job, no one else is ever hired in at your rate and it is a legacy wages. Wages in your field are depressed due to increased labor competition.

Your son takes a look at this situation and thinks, "better not follow in Dad's footsteps." Instead, he becomes a computer programmer. Computer programmers make more money, but they do so - and this is key here - because what they do produces more marginal value than what a construction worker does. So if a person can be attracted into that field instead of construction work, then on average you're going to see some increase in wages. Meanwhile, because houses are now being built more cheaply due to a relative decline in the cost of labor, the wage your son is earning goes a little bit further because less of it has to be spent on building his house. And the coding that he is doing makes that product more accessible for construction workers like you. Good thing your son isn't like your neighbor's son. He dropped out of highschool and is doing menial labor in a field that has had its wages hurt a little by increased competition from immigration.

This is a simplification, but is roughly how it works. Studies that try to empirically look at what is happening find exactly that happening. The overall effect is small in the past 30 years or so. Meanwhile, because you have more active participants in the economy, the overall size of it is larger. This is relevant when things like how the power of your military is tied to a % of the total size of your economy.

What you are caught up on, badly, is the fact that since the 1970's wage growth for people not at the top have been fairly stagnant when you adjust for inflation. Wages themselves have gone up a lot, but so have prices. This fact doesn't mean immigration hasn't been a positive force on wage growth for certain people, nor does it make relative wage growth impossible to measure. You are struggling mightily to understand this, and end offering anecdotal observations that miss the mark as a result.

[_EAllusion]

So we have this situation where immigration is helping or is neutral to most of us, but it is hurting low-skill workers at the bottom of the rung. How do we help them?

One answer is to not help them at all and let the market just do what it does. This is what posters like Ajax almost always say they favor. But, because it is immigration that is hurting them, all of a sudden Ajax et. al. gets religion on big government intruding on freely made economic transactions in order to help the poor. He proposes choking off immigration as a form of labor protectionism for the native workers. This is not too dissimilar from using tariffs to protect native industries.

Forgetting the issue of liberty entirely, the response to this is that this is actually hurting the standard of living for other people. If we're worried about the plight of low-skilled workers taking a slight pay cut because of increased competition, couldn't we fix that by redistributing wealth from the top in a more progressive, easier to absorb fashion back down to them through programs like the earned income tax credit, social safety nets, etc? In other words, we can take a fraction of the gains we get from having a more productive labor pool and neutralize the losses the bottom run takes from immigrant competition. Wouldn't that achieve the same policy outcome while not depressing economic activity as much? Win/win right? A classic conservative concern about doing this is that wipes away the pain of taking low-value jobs and disincentives people from trying to improve their value as a worker. This has always been the biggest practical concern with any type of welfare at all. "It makes people lazy" is the low-brow intuitive version of this concern. So, maybe not win/win? But once we accept that the government ought to intervene on their behalf, then the debate is merely over how to best do it. And there's no way protectionism through restricting the flow of labor is that answer.

Ajax reacts to that by going, "Omg! Socialism!" and the carousel goes round and round. But you're better than that, right?

[_honorentheos]

What I have shown you through the other "studies"...is that wages were higher 40 or so years ago, with less illegal immigration, than they are now with more immigration, whether with a diploma or not.

Here, quote one of your sources that showed how illegal immigration is the cause of wages being down across the board in the US. That would be something different.

That was not the question...you just moved the goal post.

[_honorentheos]

Recognizing this is aimed at a different discussion with Ajax and Markk, I still think some points need addressed that shouldn't be allowed to fly by unchallenged.

Forgetting the issue of liberty entirely, the response to this is that this is actually hurting the standard of living for other people.

I don't agree that the following paragraph assumes a position that isn't concerned with liberty. The effects wealth distribution has on choice availability was foundational to the enlightenment. Access to wealth tends to align with so many other advantages from education to household stability to networking and on and on that a society concerned with maximizing access to opportunities to optimize the chance the most capable are able to achieve their potential must be concerned with the direction the wealth gap has taken. It's absolutely an argument about liberty.

If we're worried about the plight of low-skilled workers taking a slight pay cut because of increased competition, couldn't we fix that by redistributing wealth from the top in a more progressive, easier to absorb fashion back down to them through programs like the earned income tax credit, social safety nets, etc? In other words, we can take a fraction of the gains we get from having a more productive labor pool and neutralize the losses the bottom run takes from immigrant competition. Wouldn't that achieve the same policy outcome while not depressing economic activity as much? Win/win right? A classic conservative concern about doing this is that wipes away the pain of taking low-value jobs and disincentives people from trying to improve their value as a worker. This has always been the biggest practical concern with any type of welfare at all. "It makes people lazy" is the low-brow intuitive version of this concern.

I posted this elsewhere on the board but it speaks to this question and suggests the types of benefits that come from freeing people up to pursue avenues of interest where they can be most productive rather than being tied to a menial job anyone could do can be realized through forms of universal basic income even if there is a certain percentage of social drop outs content to do nothing if they can live on a subsistence wage:
https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2018/ ... tudy-finds

“It is reasonable to expect an unconditional cash transfer, such as a universal income, to decrease employment,” Jones said. “A key concern with a universal basic income is that it could discourage people from working, but our research shows that the possible reductions in employment seem to be offset by increases in spending that in turn increase the demand for more workers.”

[_EAllusion]

Forgetting the issue of liberty entirely, the response to this is that this is actually hurting the standard of living for other people.

I don't agree that the following paragraph assumes a position that isn't concerned with liberty.

I think it is concerned with liberty, especially as it related to the right of people to engage in voluntary transactions, and wanted to bracket that part of the discussion and focus on standard of living.

You can say "standard of living is liberty" and in a sense that is true - in the same way that any limitation imposed by the real world reduces the choice space people have - but that wasn't what I was focusing on. I wanted to ignore the discussion on people's moral right to voluntary transactions.