Posted on 02/21/2020 12:38:49 PM PST by Theoria
The Trump administration plans to allow 45,000 additional seasonal guest workers to return to the U.S. this summer, the highest number since the president took office, according to three administration officials.
The Department of Homeland Security plans to announce the additional seasonal-worker visas next week, an administration official said. They will become available in two waves: the first 20,000 will be immediately available, while employers can apply for the remainder for jobs beginning June 1.
It wasn’t clear whether the White House has fully signed off on the numbers, and an administration official cautioned they could change.
The additional visas are being made available ahead of the summer, when demand for short-term work is typically highest.
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf “has made no decision yet on the issue,” a DHS spokesperson said. “Any numbers reported on at this time are being pushed to press by junior staff who are not privy to all of the discussions taking place.”
The seasonal worker program, known as the H-2B visa program, enables U.S. employers to hire as many as 66,000 foreign workers a year, with the allotments split evenly between the winter and summer seasons. Congress permits the Department of Homeland Security each year to raise that cap by as many as 64,000 additional visas.
In Mr. Trump’s first two years in office, DHS raised the cap by 15,000 visas to 81,000, and last year it raised the cap by 30,000 to 96,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Got it! Well what do you know, we have a Bernie Sanders supporter here...........
You are a complete buffoon. And then you have the gall to accuse me of being a Sanders supporter? Really, I would say you are the fascist here - the who wants to import wage slaves and set wages..
Wrong; as you yourself noted earlier, your link also used more recent data.
They conclude that the relationship is "not statistically significant" using a standard approach that treats 'no relationship' as the default (null hypothesis); without that debatable assumption, the actual size of the relationship they find is about a third what the earlier authors did
The important part of what they found was the tax incentives affected the timing of births but not the overall number in the medium to long term.
That "not" is based on a debatable albeit standard assumption as to what the default conclusion is, as I noted.
which would mean that an increase in tax value of child benefits of $440 would (all else held equal) get us at least back to replacement level, and $1800 at least back to our circa-1960 peak.
Wait. On the one hand you claim a multivariate analysis but the conclusions only hold if "all else held equal"?
No contradiction there; in a multivariate analysis, the only way to see the influence of changes in a single one of those multiple variables is to hold the rest constant.
Look, whatever they considered their conclusions simply don't hold in the real world.
We've provided much bigger tax incentives than they say are necessary and the rate hasn't improved.
You keep returning to your own vomit of imposing a univariate analysis on a multivariate reality; it's ignorant and wrong no matter how often you repeat it.
Apparently your "Free Market" isn't willing to pay those $20, then $22 for the jobs that you haven't mentioned....You just contradicted yourself.
No contradiction; in the first place, labor purchasers are making an end run around the market by getting government to let in 'cheap' foreign labor; in the second place, if end customers won't pay the price needed to supply the free-market wage, that's the market saying that the labor purchaser needs to go out of business, freeing up resources for more efficient competitors or markets. Inefficient producers want cheap-labor socialism to protect them from the free market.
Stop being such an ignorant fool, never once did I suggest setting wages.
And if I'm not mistaken, isn't it you who made the following comment:
This is the USA pay more and you will get more people for the job. Try $20. Then $22.
You're the buffoon who believes that higher wages will benefit employers in their attempt to lure workers. Well why stop at $22, start at $50 and potential workers will be flocking at your door......
We're talking about seasonal workers here dude which not only include the migrants who pick your berries and lettuce but the wait staff in the bars and restaurants.
All you have to do is look at the cities that have raised the mandatory minimum wage and the number of bars and restaurants that have gone out of business because of it.....
Maybe I'm addressing the wrong guy but did you or did you not make the following statement:
This is the USA pay more and you will get more people for the job. Try $20. Then $22.
That is the dream of Socialists, and Bernie would be proud of you..........
Of course it will - supply rises with price: Econ 101.
Well why stop at $22, start at $50 and potential workers will be flocking at your door......
Yes, they will - more than the employer needs; the market wage is the one that gets the employer no fewer and no more employees than he needs.
All you have to do is look at the cities that have raised the mandatory minimum wage and the number of bars and restaurants that have gone out of business because of it.....
Apples and oranges - government-mandated minimum wage stops existing employees from taking the wage they had been accepting, whereas voluntarily raising an offered wage from below-market to market level gets new employees who hadn't been accepting the lower wage.
Sometimes I loose faith in Feerpers in general but your post gives me hope to go on with the fight. Thanks.
Glad to hear it! Truth will prevail ... no matter how loud and obnoxious Error gets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.