Yes, i know, that must be the case for any job.How is this even debatable?
Person A = American
Person B = Illegal immigrant
Person A and Person B both apply for a job. Person B will work for less than minimum wage, Person A won't.
Person B is hired.
Person A can't get that job now = Person B took Person A's job. = Illegal immigrants take American's jobs.
McJugga
Do illegal Immigrants really take our jobs away?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I'm liberal, but don't believe the liberal hype train of "They take jobs Americans don't want!" BS
So I guess every American is a college scholar, with lots of money to finish college and don't need...
That construction job
That McDonalds Job
That Janitor Job(I guess no one ever see's black and white janitors)
That Warehouse job
That job where the only task is to drive from point a to point b
That street cleaning job
etc, etc.
Face the facts, that poor American born urban youths mostly needs these types of jobs since we've mostly been ****canned into a position where we aren't hardly ever born into families with crap loads of money. Just because most who say that live in suburbs I suggest you talk for your self, friends, and family and stop suggesting just because no one around you needs those jobs because your parents either line your pockets, or can make a savings for you even before you were born, with no problems. Don't suggest that.
Are there a shortage of those jobs:?I'm liberal, but don't believe the liberal hype train of "They take jobs Americans don't want!" BS
So I guess every American is a college scholar, with lots of money to finish college and don't need...
That construction job
That McDonalds Job
That Janitor Job(I guess no one ever see's black and white janitors)
That Warehouse job
That job where the only task is to drive from point a to point b
That street cleaning job
etc, etc.
Face the facts, that poor American born urban youths mostly needs these types of jobs since we've mostly been ****canned into a position where we aren't hardly ever born into families with crap loads of money. Just because most who say that live in suburbs I suggest you talk for your self, friends, and family and stop suggesting just because no one around you needs those jobs because your parents either line your pockets, or can make a savings for you even before you were born, with no problems. Don't suggest that.
DazedDarkness
No. Just no. They are low paid because they are given to illegal immigrants. They would be required by law to pay minimum wage otherwise. They are only low paying because there is no legal recourse for illegals as there are for citizens. Yes, I realize that. What I am saying is that if these jobs were held by legal residents receiving the minimum wage their income would virtually not be taxed at all.That is not a foregone conclusion. Nonetheless, it's better for people to have jobs than not. I don't believe in the hiring of illegal immigrants while Americans are on assistance.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] What? The jobs that illegal immigrants take from legal residents are usually extremely low income jobs; i.e. they are not subject to an income tax.-Sun_Tzu-
They probably attacked him because his position is absurd; with the systems of governments we currently have, just allowing anybody to walk in and settle in any country they want whenever they want is asinine, and his reasoning ("American troops can go whereve they want"? Wtf) is just pathetic.And of course those greedy politicians backed up their position with facts.Theokhoth
Why is it asinine to allow everyone to be in any country he/she wants? You ancestors actually did the same and the American troops which are stealing Iraqi oil are also doing quite the same.
Also this pretty much disproves your theory that there is a God. Evidence really points out that there isn't any or at least no good God.
Yes why is there a debate?:?
And neither do I. What I was responding to originally was the claim that if a legal resident were to have a job that an illegal immigrant took that it wouldn't matter because the legal resident would have to pay so much in income taxes that it would render the job for the legal resident meaningless, which is a false claim.I don't believe in the hiring of illegal immigrants while Americans are on assistance.
LJS9502_basic
And neither do I. What I was responding to originally was the claim that if a legal resident were to have a job that an illegal immigrant took that it wouldn't matter because the legal resident would have to pay so much in income taxes that it would render the job for the legal resident meaningless, which is a false claim.It's not necessarily false though. You are assuming.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
I don't believe in the hiring of illegal immigrants while Americans are on assistance.
-Sun_Tzu-
People who are against Illegal immigrants because they "take our jobs" need to read anything by Frederic Bastiat, specifically his essay "Petition of the Candlemakers"
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]They probably attacked him because his position is absurd; with the systems of governments we currently have, just allowing anybody to walk in and settle in any country they want whenever they want is asinine, and his reasoning ("American troops can go whereve they want"? Wtf) is just pathetic.
And of course those greedy politicians backed up their position with facts.X4D
Why is it asinine to allow everyone to be in any country he/she wants? You ancestors actually did the same and the American troops which are stealing Iraqi oil are also doing quite the same.
Also this pretty much disproves your theory that there is a God. Evidence really points out that there isn't any or at least no good God.
:| While I shouldn't dignify that mess with a response, my ancestors also pooped in holes, bathed in public, and--who knows?--maybe even ate people at some point.
The American troops aren't immigrating to Iraq "whenever they want."
As for the God stuff. . . :|:|:|
I don't see why.....his opinion is not definitive.People who are against Illegal immigrants because they "take our jobs" need to read anything by Frederic Bastiat, specifically his essay "Petition of the Candlemakers"
danwallacefan
Gross over-simplification... the hallmark of all conservative "logical" arguments I'm not conservative in the least. Gross oversimplification.:) um... did I say anything about you? No, I said your argument was conservative, and seeing this is the exact same train of thought used by conservatives, it is. I didn't say anything about you as a person. Stop qualifying attacks on an argument and attacks on a person together. (And the same goes to Theokth)[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Godly_Cure"]
Yep. Logically if they are in the US and they have a job they have taking an American job.:)
Godly_Cure
The only reason illegal immigrants present a problem is because of the minimum wage and the fact that they don't generally pay the income taxes that fund our social programs. The libertarian solution would be to eliminate the minimum wage, eliminate social programs (except perhaps child services...), cut taxes, and make it easier to become a citizen. Illegal immigrants put companies that follow the law at a competitive disadvantage. If we followed the steps above, it would be a non-issue.savebatteryAnd how do you propose to have a decent standard of living for people or does third world sound nice?
And neither do I. What I was responding to originally was the claim that if a legal resident were to have a job that an illegal immigrant took that it wouldn't matter because the legal resident would have to pay so much in income taxes that it would render the job for the legal resident meaningless, which is a false claim.It's not necessarily false though. You are assuming. Well, considering that the people who fall victim to illegal immigrants vis-a-vis the job market are those who can't find or have a great deal of trouble finding work (i.e. the unemployed), and that the jobs that illegal immigrants take away from legal immigrants are predominantly minimum wage jobs, their income is most likely not large enough to be subject to an income tax, so unlike what hamstergeddon claimed (which was "So illegal immigrants aren't taking our jobs because it is impossible for us (citizens) to hold the low paying jobs right now and still turn a profit because of the income tax.") illegal immigrants ARE taking away our jobs.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
I don't believe in the hiring of illegal immigrants while Americans are on assistance.
LJS9502_basic
Also this pretty much disproves your theory that there is a God. Evidence really points out that there isn't any or at least no good God.Ah c'mon! Why do you have to go and hijack a perfectly good thread like this!??!?!?X4D
[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"]I'm not conservative in the least. Gross oversimplification.:) um... did I say anything about you? No, I said your argument was conservative, and seeing this is the exact same train of thought used by conservatives, it is. I didn't say anything about you as a person. Stop qualifying attacks on an argument and attacks on a person together. (And the same goes to Theokth) Er....what about your comment?[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] Gross over-simplification... the hallmark of all conservative "logical" arguments hamstergeddon
[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"]I'm not conservative in the least. Gross oversimplification.:) um... did I say anything about you? No, I said your argument was conservative, and seeing this is the exact same train of thought used by conservatives, it is. I didn't say anything about you as a person. Stop qualifying attacks on an argument and attacks on a person together. (And the same goes to Theokth)[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] Gross over-simplification... the hallmark of all conservative "logical" arguments hamstergeddon
Erm, you pretty much lumped all conservative thought (twice) into a small, oversimplified strawman. . .exactly what you're criticising the other person for doing. Ergo, hypocrisy.
And you have no argument to criticise. All you've done is go "oh, your argument looks Conservative; it is therefore too simple and wrong."
um... did I say anything about you? No, I said your argument was conservative, and seeing this is the exact same train of thought used by conservatives, it is. I didn't say anything about you as a person. Stop qualifying attacks on an argument and attacks on a person together. (And the same goes to Theokth)[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="Godly_Cure"]I'm not conservative in the least. Gross oversimplification.:)
Theokhoth
Erm, you pretty much lumped all conservative thought (twice) into a small, oversimplified strawman. . .exactly what you're criticising the other person for doing. Ergo, hypocrisy.
And you have no argument to criticise. All you've done is go "oh, your argument looks Conservative; it is therefore too simple and wrong."
No, I said your argument is over-simplified, therefore it is invalid. The conservative part was just a cheap jab (and attempt at humor) at conservative America. And, for the purpose of this debate, not really applicable.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] um... did I say anything about you? No, I said your argument was conservative, and seeing this is the exact same train of thought used by conservatives, it is. I didn't say anything about you as a person. Stop qualifying attacks on an argument and attacks on a person together. (And the same goes to Theokth) hamstergeddon
Erm, you pretty much lumped all conservative thought (twice) into a small, oversimplified strawman. . .exactly what you're criticising the other person for doing. Ergo, hypocrisy.
And you have no argument to criticise. All you've done is go "oh, your argument looks Conservative; it is therefore too simple and wrong."
No, I said your argument is over-simplified, therefore it is invalid. The conservative part was just a cheap jab (and attempt at humor) at conservative America. And, for the purpose of this debate, not really applicable."My" argument?
And what is oversimplified about the other guy's argument? How is it invalid for being simple? Your position so far hasn't exactly been complicated.
I don't see why.....his opinion is not definitive. Well I'm not saying that illegal immigration should be a non-issue BECAUSE of Bastiat's opinion, but I'm simply redirecting you people to an essay which destroys many protectionist myths.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
People who are against Illegal immigrants because they "take our jobs" need to read anything by Frederic Bastiat, specifically his essay "Petition of the Candlemakers"
LJS9502_basic
If we take these economic theories seriously, then we can (and should) take these theories to absolutely absurd extremes. By that same token, we should ban the Sun because its putting light bulb manufacturers and utility companies at a competitive disadvantage, much like illegal immigrants put american workers at a competitive disadvantage.
Moreover, as a rule of thumb, workers get paid according to how much they contribute to a firm. So if they demand more money than they contribute to a firm, they will be unemployed. So its hard to imagine why an American worker, who earns more than an immigrant worker, would be put out of the job unless the immigrant worker contributes just as much to the firm. Also, this is why minimum wage laws are so terrible. Rather than help out people who earn low incomes, they just put them out of work. This is why trade unions supported minimum wage laws, it stifles competition by keeping more people out of the workforce, thus artificially inflating the wages of skilled workers.
And how do you propose to have a decent standard of living for people or does third world sound nice? There's a distinct difference between capital and money. The minimum wage creates unemployment and raises the price of goods. If a worker is deemed unworthy of $7.25 (or whatever the minimum wage is in your area) an hour by their employer, they're simply fired. Futhermore, if a worker isn't doing that amount of work per hour, they're a net drain on productivity. And what do you think happens to profit margins when the minimum wage is raised? In order to keep profit margins the same after tax hikes, business owners charge more for their products. The end result is you having more money, but being able to purchase less with it. Think about it. Why not make the minimum wage eighty dollars an hour? Because it doesn't work that way. Employment is a voluntary contract, and wage should be agreed upon by both parties. If a worker wants more than he's worth, he won't get a job. If an employer doesn't pay well enough, he won't have any workers.[QUOTE="savebattery"]The only reason illegal immigrants present a problem is because of the minimum wage and the fact that they don't generally pay the income taxes that fund our social programs. The libertarian solution would be to eliminate the minimum wage, eliminate social programs (except perhaps child services...), cut taxes, and make it easier to become a citizen. Illegal immigrants put companies that follow the law at a competitive disadvantage. If we followed the steps above, it would be a non-issue.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]They probably attacked him because his position is absurd; with the systems of governments we currently have, just allowing anybody to walk in and settle in any country they want whenever they want is asinine, and his reasoning ("American troops can go whereve they want"? Wtf) is just pathetic.
And of course those greedy politicians backed up their position with facts.X4D
Why is it asinine to allow everyone to be in any country he/she wants? You ancestors actually did the same and the American troops which are stealing Iraqi oil are also doing quite the same.
Also this pretty much disproves your theory that there is a God. Evidence really points out that there isn't any or at least no good God.
This is silly. Of course, American soldiers are stealing oil by the bucket full and riding first class back home with those buckets. Do you realize how a comment like that can draw a negative response? That's a typical anti-American thing to say.
My family, including myself, immigrated from Israel. We did it the LEGAL way. You know what, there's no excuse you can come up with to not do it the way the government designed it.
Yes, illegal immigrants take away jobs. They are illegal and should not be in this country. Save the liberal tree-hugging crud for one of those mindless arguments on Youtube. Rules are set up for a reason, they should be followed. If I had no job, I would work the fields like many do. Its called working for a living. Sure, many Americans are picky saying they wouldn't do this or that, but when it comes down to it, everyone would do those jobs if they absolutely had to.
And how do you propose to have a decent standard of living for people or does third world sound nice? I'm sure you have the best intentions at heart LJS, but seriously, you REALLY need to read some literature from the Austrian and Monetarist (Chicago school) schools of economics.[QUOTE="savebattery"]The only reason illegal immigrants present a problem is because of the minimum wage and the fact that they don't generally pay the income taxes that fund our social programs. The libertarian solution would be to eliminate the minimum wage, eliminate social programs (except perhaps child services...), cut taxes, and make it easier to become a citizen. Illegal immigrants put companies that follow the law at a competitive disadvantage. If we followed the steps above, it would be a non-issue.LJS9502_basic
Workers get paid according to however much they contribute to a company. So if we suddenly repealed the minimum wage laws, its not like everyone would all of the sudden experience a drastic fall in wages. What would happen is that companies would start putting people to work even though they can barely contribute anything to that company. Let's take the current minimum wage, 7.50$ an hour. If someone cannot contribute that much to a company, what do you think will happen to that person? Do you think the company will hire him anyway, and have a net loss? OF COURSE NOT! He will be left unemployed! This sort of phenomenon also blocks many people from entering the work force, which is why trade unions support minimum wage laws.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And how do you propose to have a decent standard of living for people or does third world sound nice? There's a distinct difference between capital and money. The minimum wage creates unemployment and raises the price of goods. If a worker is deemed unworthy of $7.25 (or whatever the minimum wage is in your area) an hour by their employer, they're simply fired. Futhermore, if a worker isn't doing that amount of work per hour, they're a net drain on productivity. And what do you think happens to profit margins when the minimum wage is raised? In order to keep profit margins the same after tax hikes, business owners charge more for their products. The end result is you having more money, but being able to purchase less with it. Think about it. Why not make the minimum wage eighty dollars an hour? Because it doesn't work that way. Employment is a voluntary contract, and wage should be agreed upon by both parties. If a worker wants more than he's worth, he won't get a job. If an employer doesn't pay well enough, he won't have any workers.Yes we all know how staggeringly high the minimum wage is:? It was only introduced recently in the UK, but when it came into use, it had no effect whatsoever. Its simply a law that protects the extremely vulnerable.[QUOTE="savebattery"]The only reason illegal immigrants present a problem is because of the minimum wage and the fact that they don't generally pay the income taxes that fund our social programs. The libertarian solution would be to eliminate the minimum wage, eliminate social programs (except perhaps child services...), cut taxes, and make it easier to become a citizen. Illegal immigrants put companies that follow the law at a competitive disadvantage. If we followed the steps above, it would be a non-issue.savebattery
I just find the notion that a person can't live and own land in one place because he or his parents just happen to have been born somewhere else is absolutely absurd.
[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And how do you propose to have a decent standard of living for people or does third world sound nice?-Pred-Alien-There's a distinct difference between capital and money. The minimum wage creates unemployment and raises the price of goods. If a worker is deemed unworthy of $7.25 (or whatever the minimum wage is in your area) an hour by their employer, they're simply fired. Futhermore, if a worker isn't doing that amount of work per hour, they're a net drain on productivity. And what do you think happens to profit margins when the minimum wage is raised? In order to keep profit margins the same after tax hikes, business owners charge more for their products. The end result is you having more money, but being able to purchase less with it. Think about it. Why not make the minimum wage eighty dollars an hour? Because it doesn't work that way. Employment is a voluntary contract, and wage should be agreed upon by both parties. If a worker wants more than he's worth, he won't get a job. If an employer doesn't pay well enough, he won't have any workers.Yes we all know how staggeringly high the minimum wage is:? It was only introduced recently in the UK, but when it came into use, it had no effect whatsoever. Its simply a law that protects the extremely vulnerable. It doesn't really protect anyone from anything. Again, they have more money, but everything they try to buy costs more. And it puts more people out of work, which makes them rely on social programs, which raises taxes, and thus drives up prices further. The minimum wage is an illusion. It's government incompetence masked as humanitarianism.
[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And how do you propose to have a decent standard of living for people or does third world sound nice?There's a distinct difference between capital and money. The minimum wage creates unemployment and raises the price of goods. If a worker is deemed unworthy of $7.25 (or whatever the minimum wage is in your area) an hour by their employer, they're simply fired. Futhermore, if a worker isn't doing that amount of work per hour, they're a net drain on productivity. And what do you think happens to profit margins when the minimum wage is raised? In order to keep profit margins the same after tax hikes, business owners charge more for their products. The end result is you having more money, but being able to purchase less with it. Think about it. Why not make the minimum wage eighty dollars an hour? Because it doesn't work that way. Employment is a voluntary contract, and wage should be agreed upon by both parties. If a worker wants more than he's worth, he won't get a job. If an employer doesn't pay well enough, he won't have any workers.Yes we all know how staggeringly high the minimum wage is:? It was only introduced recently in the UK, but when it came into use, it had no effect whatsoever. Its simply a law that protects the extremely vulnerable. but the point that savebattery was getting at was the simple fact that "the most vulnerable" wont be able to get a job in the first place if they can't contribute as much or more than the minimum wage laws mandate.-Pred-Alien-
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] No, I said your argument is over-simplified, therefore it is invalid. The conservative part was just a cheap jab (and attempt at humor) at conservative America. And, for the purpose of this debate, not really applicable. hamstergeddon
"My" argument?
And what is oversimplified about the other guy's argument? How is it invalid for being simple? Your position so far hasn't exactly been complicated.
There's more to economics than "there are jobs in our country and Mexicans are taking them, therefore they are taking our jobs" Since it fails to comprehend so many other factors, his argument is an over-simplification and therefore invalid.Admit it when you've been whipped. It makes you so much more reputable when you've won an argument ;)
I couldn't have been whipped because you still have yet to present an argument beyond "That's too simple/Conservative!" :|
And how do you propose to have a decent standard of living for people or does third world sound nice? I'm sure you have the best intentions at heart LJS, but seriously, you REALLY need to read some literature from the Austrian and Monetarist (Chicago school) schools of economics.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="savebattery"]The only reason illegal immigrants present a problem is because of the minimum wage and the fact that they don't generally pay the income taxes that fund our social programs. The libertarian solution would be to eliminate the minimum wage, eliminate social programs (except perhaps child services...), cut taxes, and make it easier to become a citizen. Illegal immigrants put companies that follow the law at a competitive disadvantage. If we followed the steps above, it would be a non-issue.danwallacefan
Workers get paid according to however much they contribute to a company. So if we suddenly repealed the minimum wage laws, its not like everyone would all of the sudden experience a drastic fall in wages. What would happen is that companies would start putting people to work even though they can barely contribute anything to that company. Let's take the current minimum wage, 7.50$ an hour. If someone cannot contribute that much to a company, what do you think will happen to that person? Do you think the company will hire him anyway, and have a net loss? OF COURSE NOT! He will be left unemployed! This sort of phenomenon also blocks many people from entering the work force, which is why trade unions support minimum wage laws.
There have been studies that suggest that an increase in the minimum wage may actually increase employment, although they aren't exactly conclusive.Yes we all know how staggeringly high the minimum wage is:? It was only introduced recently in the UK, but when it came into use, it had no effect whatsoever. Its simply a law that protects the extremely vulnerable. but the point that savebattery was getting at was the simple fact that "the most vulnerable" wont be able to get a job in the first place if they can't contribute as much or more than the minimum wage laws mandate.That doesnt matter, it just there so that people dont exploit, thats all. Many people are relatively skilled, but do 'lesser' jobs, are you saying they arent worth protecting?[QUOTE="-Pred-Alien-"][QUOTE="savebattery"] There's a distinct difference between capital and money. The minimum wage creates unemployment and raises the price of goods. If a worker is deemed unworthy of $7.25 (or whatever the minimum wage is in your area) an hour by their employer, they're simply fired. Futhermore, if a worker isn't doing that amount of work per hour, they're a net drain on productivity. And what do you think happens to profit margins when the minimum wage is raised? In order to keep profit margins the same after tax hikes, business owners charge more for their products. The end result is you having more money, but being able to purchase less with it. Think about it. Why not make the minimum wage eighty dollars an hour? Because it doesn't work that way. Employment is a voluntary contract, and wage should be agreed upon by both parties. If a worker wants more than he's worth, he won't get a job. If an employer doesn't pay well enough, he won't have any workers.danwallacefan
There's more to economics than "there are jobs in our country and Mexicans are taking them, therefore they are taking our jobs" Since it fails to comprehend so many other factors, his argument is an over-simplification and therefore invalid.[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
"My" argument?
And what is oversimplified about the other guy's argument? How is it invalid for being simple? Your position so far hasn't exactly been complicated.
Theokhoth
Admit it when you've been whipped. It makes you so much more reputable when you've won an argument ;)
I couldn't have been whipped because you still have yet to present an argument beyond "That's too simple/Conservative!" :|
I already told you, "There's more to economics than "there are jobs in our country and Mexicans are taking them, therefore they are taking our jobs" Since it fails to comprehend so many other factors, his argument is an over-simplification and therefore invalid." and also, "The conservative part was just a cheap jab (and attempt at humor) at conservative America" and not really applicable. I think I've covered all of my bases...And that would still keep many people in poverty.:|[I'm sure you have the best intentions at heart LJS, but seriously, you REALLY need to read some literature from the Austrian and Monetarist (Chicago school) schools of economics.
Workers get paid according to however much they contribute to a company. So if we suddenly repealed the minimum wage laws, its not like everyone would all of the sudden experience a drastic fall in wages. What would happen is that companies would start putting people to work even though they can barely contribute anything to that company. Let's take the current minimum wage, 7.50$ an hour. If someone cannot contribute that much to a company, what do you think will happen to that person? Do you think the company will hire him anyway, and have a net loss? OF COURSE NOT! He will be left unemployed! This sort of phenomenon also blocks many people from entering the work force, which is why trade unions support minimum wage laws.
danwallacefan
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]I'm sure you have the best intentions at heart LJS, but seriously, you REALLY need to read some literature from the Austrian and Monetarist (Chicago school) schools of economics.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And how do you propose to have a decent standard of living for people or does third world sound nice?
-Sun_Tzu-
Workers get paid according to however much they contribute to a company. So if we suddenly repealed the minimum wage laws, its not like everyone would all of the sudden experience a drastic fall in wages. What would happen is that companies would start putting people to work even though they can barely contribute anything to that company. Let's take the current minimum wage, 7.50$ an hour. If someone cannot contribute that much to a company, what do you think will happen to that person? Do you think the company will hire him anyway, and have a net loss? OF COURSE NOT! He will be left unemployed! This sort of phenomenon also blocks many people from entering the work force, which is why trade unions support minimum wage laws.
There have been studies that suggest that an increase in the minimum wage may actually increase employment, although they aren't exactly conclusive. Name one. Every study I've ever seen indicates exactly what I described. http://mises.org/story/2130[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] There's more to economics than "there are jobs in our country and Mexicans are taking them, therefore they are taking our jobs" Since it fails to comprehend so many other factors, his argument is an over-simplification and therefore invalid.
Admit it when you've been whipped. It makes you so much more reputable when you've won an argument ;)hamstergeddon
I couldn't have been whipped because you still have yet to present an argument beyond "That's too simple/Conservative!" :|
I already told you, "There's more to economics than "there are jobs in our country and Mexicans are taking them, therefore they are taking our jobs" Since it fails to comprehend so many other factors, his argument is an over-simplification and therefore invalid." and also, "The conservative part was just a cheap jab (and attempt at humor) at conservative America" and not really applicable. I think I've covered all of my bases...Except one: you're still using a bunch of oversimplifications when you criticise others for doing the same. :|
Going "there's more to economics than. . .therefore you are wrong" isn't an oversimplification? I'd hate to see one if that's the case. . .
The Conservative part is unnecessary, rude, off-topic and there's not so much as a hint that you weren't being serious.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] I'm sure you have the best intentions at heart LJS, but seriously, you REALLY need to read some literature from the Austrian and Monetarist (Chicago school) schools of economics.There have been studies that suggest that an increase in the minimum wage may actually increase employment, although they aren't exactly conclusive. Name one. Every study I've ever seen indicates exactly what I described. http://mises.org/story/2130 Card and Krueger. It's best not to get all your information from the Mises institute ;)Workers get paid according to however much they contribute to a company. So if we suddenly repealed the minimum wage laws, its not like everyone would all of the sudden experience a drastic fall in wages. What would happen is that companies would start putting people to work even though they can barely contribute anything to that company. Let's take the current minimum wage, 7.50$ an hour. If someone cannot contribute that much to a company, what do you think will happen to that person? Do you think the company will hire him anyway, and have a net loss? OF COURSE NOT! He will be left unemployed! This sort of phenomenon also blocks many people from entering the work force, which is why trade unions support minimum wage laws.
savebattery
And that would still keep many people in poverty.:| But you cannot artificially lift people out of poverty by means of the minimum wage.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
[I'm sure you have the best intentions at heart LJS, but seriously, you REALLY need to read some literature from the Austrian and Monetarist (Chicago school) schools of economics.
Workers get paid according to however much they contribute to a company. So if we suddenly repealed the minimum wage laws, its not like everyone would all of the sudden experience a drastic fall in wages. What would happen is that companies would start putting people to work even though they can barely contribute anything to that company. Let's take the current minimum wage, 7.50$ an hour. If someone cannot contribute that much to a company, what do you think will happen to that person? Do you think the company will hire him anyway, and have a net loss? OF COURSE NOT! He will be left unemployed! This sort of phenomenon also blocks many people from entering the work force, which is why trade unions support minimum wage laws.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And that would still keep many people in poverty.:| But you cannot artificially lift people out of poverty by means of the minimum wage. Companies should not be able to get rich off employees and not allow for a living wage. Which is exactly what your economics would allow.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
[I'm sure you have the best intentions at heart LJS, but seriously, you REALLY need to read some literature from the Austrian and Monetarist (Chicago school) schools of economics.
Workers get paid according to however much they contribute to a company. So if we suddenly repealed the minimum wage laws, its not like everyone would all of the sudden experience a drastic fall in wages. What would happen is that companies would start putting people to work even though they can barely contribute anything to that company. Let's take the current minimum wage, 7.50$ an hour. If someone cannot contribute that much to a company, what do you think will happen to that person? Do you think the company will hire him anyway, and have a net loss? OF COURSE NOT! He will be left unemployed! This sort of phenomenon also blocks many people from entering the work force, which is why trade unions support minimum wage laws.
savebattery
Name one. Every study I've ever seen indicates exactly what I described. http://mises.org/story/2130 Card and Krueger. I said name studies, not economists. And both Paul Krueger and David Card are addressed in the URL I gave. Both did studies, and both found that minimum wage increases led to unemployment increases. Their argument is that the unemployment change was small, not positive.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] There have been studies that suggest that an increase in the minimum wage may actually increase employment, although they aren't exactly conclusive.-Sun_Tzu-
But you cannot artificially lift people out of poverty by means of the minimum wage. Companies should not be able to get rich off employees and not allow for a living wage. Which is exactly what your economics would allow. If they're not paying a decent wage then nobody would work for them. The market corrects those who abuse it.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And that would still keep many people in poverty.:|
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] I already told you, "There's more to economics than "there are jobs in our country and Mexicans are taking them, therefore they are taking our jobs" Since it fails to comprehend so many other factors, his argument is an over-simplification and therefore invalid." and also, "The conservative part was just a cheap jab (and attempt at humor) at conservative America" and not really applicable. I think I've covered all of my bases...
Theokhoth
Except one: you're still using a bunch of oversimplifications when you criticise others for doing the same. :|
Going "there's more to economics than. . .therefore you are wrong" isn't an oversimplification? I'd hate to see one if that's the case. . .
The Conservative part is unnecessary, rude, off-topic and there's not so much as a hint that you weren't being serious.
well I'm sorry I offended you I guess... and if you want to go back to the reasons WHY there are other factors, well I'm afraid only a semester in macro-economics can fully explain why there's more to economics than what the original over-simplification stated, If you want more on this, see my OTHER original post on the second page,Well here's what's up. With income taxes that a legal citizen would encounter, these jobs that illegal Mexicans hold as of now are barely profitable. The only way they are sustainable for an individual is if they aren't taxed, like with illegal immigrants. So illegal immigrants aren't taking our jobs because it is impossible for us (citizens) to hold the low paying jobs right now and still turn a profit because of the income tax. hamstergeddonAnd for all intents and purposes, this argument is over, especially since it was based on something extremely trivial. And as I said before, I believe I've covered all of my bases
to everyone who said they take jobs no one would want:
Peole who can't complain about getting a job would take the stolen job anyday. They need the money.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Card and Krueger. I said name studies, not economists. And both Paul Krueger and David Card are addressed in the URL I gave. Both did studies, and both found that minimum wage increases led to unemployment increases. Their argument is that the unemployment change was small, not positive. And Card and Krueger is what their studies are called. The Card and Krueger studies.[QUOTE="savebattery"] Name one. Every study I've ever seen indicates exactly what I described. http://mises.org/story/2130savebattery
And no.
"The increase in New Jersey's minimum wage probably had no effect on total employment in New Jersey's fast-food industry, and possibly had a small positive effect"
http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdf
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]but the point that savebattery was getting at was the simple fact that "the most vulnerable" wont be able to get a job in the first place if they can't contribute as much or more than the minimum wage laws mandate.That doesnt matter, it just there so that people dont exploit, thats all. Many people are relatively skilled, but do 'lesser' jobs, are you saying they arent worth protecting? how on earth would they be "exploited"? No two parties will ever enter a contract unless 1 of 3 criterion are met[QUOTE="-Pred-Alien-"]Yes we all know how staggeringly high the minimum wage is:? It was only introduced recently in the UK, but when it came into use, it had no effect whatsoever. Its simply a law that protects the extremely vulnerable. -Pred-Alien-
1: One party is committing fraud
2: One party, or a third party, is forcing them to make the contract
3: They both mutually benefit.
I said name studies, not economists. And both Paul Krueger and David Card are addressed in the URL I gave. Both did studies, and both found that minimum wage increases led to unemployment increases. Their argument is that the unemployment change was small, not positive. And Card and Krueger is what their studies are called. The Card and Krueger studies.[QUOTE="savebattery"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Card and Krueger.
-Sun_Tzu-
And no.
"The increase in New Jersey's minimum wage probably had no effect on total employment in New Jersey's fast-food industry, and possibly had a small positive effect"
http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/90051397.pdf
If there isn't really an effect on employment by minimum wage, then why did the teenage unemployment rate jump when the first minimum wage laws were passed?Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment