|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| thecount wrote: |
| Quote: |
The average American, or don't you believe the Harvard prof? |
You can't get much farther from the average American fiscally, politically or religiously than a Harvard Prof.
(All of that can be proven, as well).
What would he know about the average American?
I just got back from Newton, MA last week. It's virtually on top of Harvard. Harvard is one of the most ideologically isolated locations in America. These are the people who just built a $200 million high school (less than 2,000 students). Newton had consultants from the very same Harvard making decisions for that school.
Nearby, there is an elementary school that is filled with dividers. The same Harvard had educational consultants for THAT school, too - they demanded that it be built without walls dividing the classrooms.
In the center of town, there is a giant cement pit covered with weeds. It used to be a pool, demanded by the (Harvard) city planner at the time. Unfortunately, there was not enough revenue to pay the lifeguard, afford the insurance, or even maintenance fees...so they had to close it.
You see, all the money had to go to fixing the school without walls.
These guys are living in their own little world most of the time. Bring Harvard to Arizona and stick 'em in Pheonix for their studies. Then see what they say about immigration. |
I find your circumstantial evidence so enlightening. You surely do know more than people from Harvard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
One town is quite a bit different than a whole nation. Come back to me when you have something more relevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
One town is quite a bit different than a whole nation. Come back to me when you have something more relevant. |
I guess we should wait till the national demographic shifts dramatically before we accept preliminary evidence? What will your "oops" be worth then?
I'd say that observation of an actual event is a hell of a lot more relevant than theoretical studies.
This stuff isn't difficult to see, if you are looking.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp
FN story where LA officials are talking about illegal immigrant costs
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html
A nice aggregate of findings can be found here:
http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
all of your articles are small scale studies. Not very convincing. Why don't you come out and say why you are against it so strongly? I think I know why, but am waiting to hear your reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
all of your articles are small scale studies. Not very convincing. Why don't you come out and say why you are against it so strongly? I think I know why, but am waiting to hear your reasons. |
What is it about the scale that you find unconvincing? If anything, in an issue this complex, it is the attempts to rationalize on a large scale that are subject to the most variables.
Are you DISPUTING results of the small-scale studies? Are you DISPUTING results of the numerous towns that have embraced illegal immigration? Maywood is not the first (or the last) to follow a specific trajectory of economic decline, only the most punctuated.
If you'd care to present the studies themselves, that would be nice. Even the NPR article only alludes to them. It might make your case of disparaging physical evidence a bit easier to swallow.
Also, for every study extolling the virtues of illegal immigration, there are many that talk about the under-reported effects on our system. Here is such a study.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.pdf
If, after all the arguments I have made, you still only "think" you know why I am against illegal immigration, then you are intentionally not listening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
| Quote: |
all of your articles are small scale studies. Not very convincing. Why don't you come out and say why you are against it so strongly? I think I know why, but am waiting to hear your reasons. |
What is it about the scale that you find unconvincing? If anything, in an issue this complex, it is the attempts to rationalize on a large scale that are subject to the most variables.
Are you DISPUTING results of the small-scale studies? Are you DISPUTING results of the numerous towns that have embraced illegal immigration? Maywood is not the first (or the last) to follow a specific trajectory of economic decline, only the most punctuated.
If you'd care to present the studies themselves, that would be nice. Even the NPR article only alludes to them. It might make your case of disparaging physical evidence a bit easier to swallow.
Also, for every study extolling the virtues of illegal immigration, there are many that talk about the under-reported effects on our system. Here is such a study.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.pdf
If, after all the arguments I have made, you still only "think" you know why I am against illegal immigration, then you are intentionally not listening. |
None of the studies you use are comprehensive. The cost of increasing security would offset the benefit to the federal government. Also these studies say nothing about the effect that these people have on increased consumer spending, as well as cheaper goods overall. Unless you are trying to pick fruit or be a manual laborer then then what's it to you? According to the article you posted the cost to the federal government is 10 billion dollars, which truly isn't that much. When you combine the effect that they have on consumer prices and spending plus the cost of deporting all of them and increasing border security it becomes clear that it is more economically prudent to keep them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
None of the studies you use are comprehensive. The cost of increasing security would offset the benefit to the federal government. Also these studies say nothing about the effect that these people have on increased consumer spending, as well as cheaper goods overall. Unless you are trying to pick fruit or be a manual laborer then then what's it to you? According to the article you posted the cost to the federal government is 10 billion dollars, which truly isn't that much. When you combine the effect that they have on consumer prices and spending plus the cost of deporting all of them and increasing border security it becomes clear that it is more economically prudent to keep them. |
I'd argue that none of the studies YOU posted were legitimate. I'd pick out instances of their fallacies, reveal to you the bias behind them.
I can't, though...
Because you have presented NOTHING. Absolutely nothing.
I have already asked for them. You respond by making unfounded statements with no sourcing.
Your statement doesn't touch upon the costs of medical care. It doesn't cost about the incurred police cost of HAVING illegal immigrants...of jailing them here, often for many years, as opposed to stopping illegals at the border.
It speaks nothing of the increased costs on our system due to the drug trade arrests, when obscene amounts are trafficked by illegals (for the record, I'm for legalizing pot, but that is neither here nor there).
Your response speaks not about the costs to our education system. It speaks nothing about the implicit costs to our national security with porous borders.
These are very real and apparently VERY ignored.
I've posted link after link. You've made vague references to "studies" and posted insinuations about some sort of ulterior motive of mine.
As far as arguing goes, you've done very little (if anything) to advance your position, other than blindly refute on faith what I've given you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
None of the studies you use are comprehensive. The cost of increasing security would offset the benefit to the federal government. Also these studies say nothing about the effect that these people have on increased consumer spending, as well as cheaper goods overall. Unless you are trying to pick fruit or be a manual laborer then then what's it to you? According to the article you posted the cost to the federal government is 10 billion dollars, which truly isn't that much. When you combine the effect that they have on consumer prices and spending plus the cost of deporting all of them and increasing border security it becomes clear that it is more economically prudent to keep them. |
I'd argue that none of the studies YOU posted were legitimate. I'd pick out instances of their fallacies, reveal to you the bias behind them.
I can't, though...
Because you have presented NOTHING. Absolutely nothing.
I have already asked for them. You respond by making unfounded statements with no sourcing.
Your statement doesn't touch upon the costs of medical care. It doesn't cost about the incurred police cost of HAVING illegal immigrants...of jailing them here, often for many years, as opposed to stopping illegals at the border.
It speaks nothing of the increased costs on our system due to the drug trade arrests, when obscene amounts are trafficked by illegals (for the record, I'm for legalizing pot, but that is neither here nor there).
Your response speaks not about the costs to our education system. It speaks nothing about the implicit costs to our national security with porous borders.
These are very real and apparently VERY ignored.
I've posted link after link. You've made vague references to "studies" and posted insinuations about some sort of ulterior motive of mine.
As far as arguing goes, you've done very little (if anything) to advance your position, other than blindly refute on faith what I've given you. |
I posted a link from PBS. You posted several links from openly biased sources. Your argument was that the study was off because it sourced a HARVARD professor. Come on man, the sources you used are biased and do not do anything to disprove the one I posted which did claim that it incurred a cost on the government. The costs are there, and are real, as are the benefits. As to the drug trade arrests, no matter what we do they will find ways to come over here. The ones that will suffer are the ones that came over to better their lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I posted a link from PBS. You posted several links from openly biased sources. Your argument was that the study was off because it sourced a HARVARD professor. Come on man, the sources you used are biased and do not do anything to disprove the one I posted which did claim that it incurred a cost on the government. The costs are there, and are real, as are the benefits. As to the drug trade arrests, no matter what we do they will find ways to come over here. The ones that will suffer are the ones that came over to better their lives. |
You posted a link from NPR. Not PBS. And there was no citation in the link! The professor didn't name a single study! I've challenged you to present them. YOU STILL HAVE NOT.
I have a better study.
It demonstrates that eliminating illegal immigrants from the workplace benefits the non-immigrant population. Oh, and it is by your guy.
"The analysis by Dr. Borjas, one of the nation's leading authorities on the effects of illegal immigration on the American economy, demonstrates that enforcement of the employer-sanctions law will help to protect and potentially increase wages in Arizona, especially among lower-skilled workers. Dr. Borjas reports that the employment of unauthorized workers has depressed wages in Arizona by nearly $1.4 billion, and has reduced the earnings of low-skilled authorized workers in Arizona by 4.7%."
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2008/01/county_attorney_andrew_thomas.php
Ironically, the columnist pillories Borjas for his "slant." What slant, you ask?
"that Mexican immigration is depressing the wages of poorer Americans."
In a Borjas lecture, he reveals the numbers of his study.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k6oUOPmaaI
(23:20ish and onward)
He claims that native workers lose $280 billion, while native employers gain $300 billion in savings...a "net gain" of $20 billion.
This net gain is completely erased by the non-wage costs he does not compute - education, criminal justice and welfare being among the non-wage factors. Throw those aside, though (you can't, because they completely erase the $20 billion, but try), and you will still see lopsided benefits:
Let's look again at his own words:
"All of the available estimates suggest the annual net gain is astoundingly small...less than 0.1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product." If our economy is $7 Trillion, that's LESS THAN $7 billion!
Borjas jokes about the raise in the GDP and notes that "a more relevant question is: what happens to per-capita GDP?" This is the point I was making - of course GDP is increased with millions of extra workers, but it is at a dramatic cost to those in the country LEGALLY.
Here are some more of his direct quotes:
"In my book I present a wide range of evidence that the great majority of immigrants tend to have a less than favourable impact on North American workers and tax-payers."
He has stated that "Immigration discourages innovation," that "If we focus on the economic impact, it is clear that a country benefits more by regulating the number and quality of the immigrants...Admitting all those who knock on the door is counter-productive"
He certainly agrees that illegal immigrants are taking up the welfare system:
"[Back then] The public sector didn't exist, nor welfare payments, nor what we call the Welfare State. When things got rough, thirty per cent of the immigrants returned to their countries of origin. Now people trust in the protection the state offers and remain in their new country because they receive public welfare payments. For example, in the 1990s the immigrants benefited more often from social policies than the native population."
"The workers are the biggest losers, because they find themselves forced to compete with new arrivals who sell their labour at a lower price."
He said this. Do you disagree?
(All these quotes here: http://www.barcelonametropolis.cat/en/page.asp?id=22&ui=158)
A few last things:
I laugh when you say that the sources I used are "BIASED." I mean, heck, I used the Huffington Post. You don't get much more biased in favor of YOUR position, yet they still had to concede the facts on the ground.
"As to the drug trade arrests, no matter what we do, they will find ways to come over here."
That's demonstrably incorrect. Legalization has been proven time and again to destroy cartels and reduce immigration. The Dutch don't spend their time busting Afghan opium cartels, and the only illegal immigrants Amsterdam worries about are the Bulgarians. Legalize it and the enforcers will be out of business...the sellers will be out of business...etc.
They'll go somewhere where it is not legal and can therefore make a black market premium on their goods. That, or try to compete legally. Either way, crime (much of it violent) would drop dramatically.
Your own source has stated that the "benefits" of illegal immigration as far as GDP are distributed primarily to these same illegal immigrants, at a net cost to those living here.
If you believe that immigration is such a boon, do you believe that the United States should take all the immigrants who wish to show up? After 9/11, Forty-Thousand lottery "green cards" were available to immigrants as part of a special diversity initiative. 11 Million applied. This is just those who know about the program.
The fact is, illegal immigration hurts American workers. Your own sources have confirmed it. The negligible amount that illegals end up providing a "net benefit" (and those numbers were well within margin of error), but only because they are now included in the net. The effects on workers are irrefutable and dramatic.
But your arguments don't surprise me.
Borjas pretty much sums you up:
"There is no interest in speaking clearly about the problems that derive from immigration. Any discussion of the matter is conditioned by pious paternalistic attitudes and political correctness. If you say that a particular ethnic group causes problems, especially if they are not white, you get damned by those who believe in the so-called "positive discrimination".
I'm done here.
Adi�s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I posted a link from PBS. You posted several links from openly biased sources. Your argument was that the study was off because it sourced a HARVARD professor. Come on man, the sources you used are biased and do not do anything to disprove the one I posted which did claim that it incurred a cost on the government. The costs are there, and are real, as are the benefits. As to the drug trade arrests, no matter what we do they will find ways to come over here. The ones that will suffer are the ones that came over to better their lives. |
You posted a link from NPR. Not PBS. And there was no citation in the link! The professor didn't name a single study! I've challenged you to present them. YOU STILL HAVE NOT. |
opps, NPR. Anyways heres what business week has to say
"Standard & Poor's has yet to see a direct effect on states' and localities' credit quality as a result of undocumented immigration costs. The impact is difficult to evaluate because no clear correlation exists between the two. Many localities that attract high numbers of undocumented immigrants, such as California, Texas, Florida, and New York, also enjoy relatively low unemployment rates, healthy income growth, and increasing property values, all of which contribute to stable financial performance.
A more complete analysis must also consider these workers' contributions beyond payroll and income taxes. Undocumented immigrants are consumers who contribute to both the economy's overall growth with their purchases and to state and local sales taxes. Many undocumented immigrants also pay real estate taxes, either directly as homeowners or indirectly as renters. Those taxes are a prime source of funding for state and local governments."
and
"
What might the consequences be if illegal immigration was severely restricted and guest worker status made more difficult to achieve?We believe that the first and most noticeable effect would be on the business sectors that most heavily employ these workers -- among homebuilders, where undocumented workers provide much of the semiskilled labor, and in agriculture, where unskilled workers frequently work quite cheaply. Nursing home and some health-care workers might also be affected. (Some employers in these fields now shield themselves from penalties for using undocumented immigrants by doing their hiring through middlemen and subcontractors who are willing to take the risk -- and often a sizable chunk of the immigrants' pay to make it worth their while.)
We would expect to see costs for employers in these industries to gradually rise as the pool of cheap labor diminished. Those higher costs would likely be passed along to consumers, resulting in pricier homes, produce, and medical care, although the inflationary impact would likely be small. Indeed, one of the strongest arguments against large numbers of undocumented workers is that although they serve to keep prices down in the industries where they work, they do so by depressing wages."
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060407_072803.htm
| thecount wrote: |
I have a better study.
It demonstrates that eliminating illegal immigrants from the workplace benefits the non-immigrant population. Oh, and it is by your guy.
"The analysis by Dr. Borjas, one of the nation's leading authorities on the effects of illegal immigration on the American economy, demonstrates that enforcement of the employer-sanctions law will help to protect and potentially increase wages in Arizona, especially among lower-skilled workers. Dr. Borjas reports that the employment of unauthorized workers has depressed wages in Arizona by nearly $1.4 billion, and has reduced the earnings of low-skilled authorized workers in Arizona by 4.7%."
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2008/01/county_attorney_andrew_thomas.php |
Are you a low skilled worker? I'm not, and I'm not too worried about it. They offset that dip by providing lower prices, and business that hire them make more money. Overall the economy isn't affected, some places in it benefit and some don't, it levels out.
| thecount wrote: |
Ironically, the columnist pillories Borjas for his "slant." What slant, you ask?
"that Mexican immigration is depressing the wages of poorer Americans."
In a Borjas lecture, he reveals the numbers of his study.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k6oUOPmaaI
(23:20ish and onward)
He claims that native workers lose $280 billion, while native employers gain $300 billion in savings...a "net gain" of $20 billion.
This net gain is completely erased by the non-wage costs he does not compute - education, criminal justice and welfare being among the non-wage factors. Throw those aside, though (you can't, because they completely erase the $20 billion, but try), and you will still see lopsided benefits:
Let's look again at his own words:
"All of the available estimates suggest the annual net gain is astoundingly small...less than 0.1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product." If our economy is $7 Trillion, that's LESS THAN $7 billion!
Borjas jokes about the raise in the GDP and notes that "a more relevant question is: what happens to per-capita GDP?" This is the point I was making - of course GDP is increased with millions of extra workers, but it is at a dramatic cost to those in the country LEGALLY. |
Again, too a small number of low skilled workers. Maybe it will inspire them to gain some skills or stay in high school. I know not every one can do that, but a 4-5% dip isn't that dramatic a drop in wages.
| thecount wrote: |
Here are some more of his direct quotes:
"In my book I present a wide range of evidence that the great majority of immigrants tend to have a less than favourable impact on North American workers and tax-payers."
He has stated that "Immigration discourages innovation," that "If we focus on the economic impact, it is clear that a country benefits more by regulating the number and quality of the immigrants...Admitting all those who knock on the door is counter-productive"
He certainly agrees that illegal immigrants are taking up the welfare system:
"[Back then] The public sector didn't exist, nor welfare payments, nor what we call the Welfare State. When things got rough, thirty per cent of the immigrants returned to their countries of origin. Now people trust in the protection the state offers and remain in their new country because they receive public welfare payments. For example, in the 1990s the immigrants benefited more often from social policies than the native population."
"The workers are the biggest losers, because they find themselves forced to compete with new arrivals who sell their labour at a lower price."
He said this. Do you disagree?
(All these quotes here: http://www.barcelonametropolis.cat/en/page.asp?id=22&ui=158)
A few last things:
I laugh when you say that the sources I used are "BIASED." I mean, heck, I used the Huffington Post. You don't get much more biased in favor of YOUR position, yet they still had to concede the facts on the ground. |
Not all of them were, but some clearly were.
| thecount wrote: |
"As to the drug trade arrests, no matter what we do, they will find ways to come over here."
That's demonstrably incorrect. Legalization has been proven time and again to destroy cartels and reduce immigration. The Dutch don't spend their time busting Afghan opium cartels, and the only illegal immigrants Amsterdam worries about are the Bulgarians. Legalize it and the enforcers will be out of business...the sellers will be out of business...etc.
They'll go somewhere where it is not legal and can therefore make a black market premium on their goods. That, or try to compete legally. Either way, crime (much of it violent) would drop dramatically. |
I'm for legalization. This is irrelevant. What I said stands true for as long as it is illegal, which it will be for the foreseeable future.
| thecount wrote: |
Your own source has stated that the "benefits" of illegal immigration as far as GDP are distributed primarily to these same illegal immigrants, at a net cost to those living here.
If you believe that immigration is such a boon, do you believe that the United States should take all the immigrants who wish to show up? After 9/11, Forty-Thousand lottery "green cards" were available to immigrants as part of a special diversity initiative. 11 Million applied. This is just those who know about the program.
The fact is, illegal immigration hurts American workers. Your own sources have confirmed it. The negligible amount that illegals end up providing a "net benefit" (and those numbers were well within margin of error), but only because they are now included in the net. The effects on workers are irrefutable and dramatic.
But your arguments don't surprise me.
Borjas pretty much sums you up:
"There is no interest in speaking clearly about the problems that derive from immigration. Any discussion of the matter is conditioned by pious paternalistic attitudes and political correctness. If you say that a particular ethnic group causes problems, especially if they are not white, you get damned by those who believe in the so-called "positive discrimination".
I'm done here.
Adi�s. |
Where I'm I not speaking clearly. If I anything I personally benefit from it because I am not a low skill worker, but I still get lower prices. I'm not an advocate for open immigration. My only argument is that I don't understand why people are so up in arms about illegal immigrants when it likely doesn't affect most of them. These people who make it over here show initiative and drive to get here to work jobs most Americans won't. Should our border be closed, yes. I'm not arguing against enforcement of the laws, as much as against peoples views on a segment of our population, and the way that some people want to enforce immigration laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
