Skip to comments.
Illegal workers: Boon for U.S. Economy
CNN/Money ^
| May 1, 2006
| Chris Isidore
Posted on 05/01/2006 8:28:35 AM PDT by blueberry12
The U.S. has benefited from illegal immigrants, most economists say, though some low-skilled workers have been hurt.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - In the heated debate over the impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. economy, Andrew Sum is one of those focusing on the negative.
The economist - the director of labor market studies at Northeastern University in Boston - argues that the large supply of immigrants has displaced low-skilled U.S.-born workers, particularly the young and the poor, from jobs.
"About 85.5 of every 100 new workers are new immigrants in this decade," he said. "At no time in the last 60 years have we come close to this. They're really displacing young workers at a very high rate."
But even Sum would concede that the U.S. economy is larger, and growing faster, due to the supply of illegal immigrants, and that most Americans with higher job skills are better off for their presence.
"Without the immigrants, we would have a decline in labor force of 3 to 4 percent," he said. "We couldn't have grown nearly as much as we did in the '90s if we didn't have immigrants. And in the last few years our growth would have been slower. The only thing I've argued is that we've ignored that illegal immigration has put a lot of young adults into economic jeopardy."
Sum's views point out the dichotomy that many economists see when looking at the impact of immigration on the economy.
Few economists will argue with the concept that the economy is stronger for the presence of the low-cost labor force.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; boycott; cheaplabor; economicimpact; economy; illegal; immigrantlist; immigrants; inflation; mexico; workers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-199 next last
To: blueberry12
Too late we are already Socialist. 40% of the population lives off the Government while the rest of us pay for it.
141
posted on
05/01/2006 10:41:36 AM PDT
by
mad_as_he$$
(Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
To: Dane
No problem, with your arguement oil companies shouldn't be allowed to drill in ANWR either, see where your arbitrary standards get you, instaed of letting the market work it's magic.False and misleading analogy; I'm talking market forces operating within a legal framework, and you are talking about policy.
I'd call it a nice try though, but that wouldn't be true.
142
posted on
05/01/2006 10:42:08 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have right now.)
To: OkieDoke
With the difference between the two things being--and a significant one at that--that Congress decides where and whether to drill for oil, while USC Title 8 (`black-letter law') makes the presence of unauthorized Mexican nationals in our country illegal. We need oil while we have plenty of lawbreakers, thank you very much. And thanks for helping to clear that up Actually you cleared up your own position, businesses that do good things, build buildings or grow food etc.etc, and hire workers you don't like bad, but if they drill for oil, good.
Do you see your hypocrisy?
143
posted on
05/01/2006 10:43:24 AM PDT
by
Dane
("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
To: Dane
"Do you see your hypocrisy?
No.
You are `blowing smoke' today, D-man.
144
posted on
05/01/2006 10:45:04 AM PDT
by
OkieDoke
(not undocumented workers, not illegal immigrants: Mexican nationals illegally in our country)
To: William Terrell
What has that link to do with my post? If you have a credible response to what I had to say, explain it yourself.YOU ASKED: "Illegals are the lowest paid workers; that has been well advertised. So, how do they send so much money back to Mexico?"
I answered with a link that explains that wealth can be created, and it is not something that can only be rearranged.
There is an assumption that these workers "steal" the wealth that would otherwise go to American workers. This is not true. THESE WORKERS CREATE WEALTH. And they create an enormous amount of wealth in America. This is the answer.
Everybody else forgive me now. I have to go back to work.
To: OkieDoke
You are `blowing smoke' today, D-man. Well IMO you are the expert in that.
146
posted on
05/01/2006 10:47:30 AM PDT
by
Dane
("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
To: Dane
How is it micro management when government has a system (like it is now) where the legit business owner gets hammered for playing by the rules?
Care to expound on your comment?
And what took you so long?
Couldn't find "help" today to cut the lawn?
;)
To join in on the silly "capitalism" argument see my
post #72
To defend the humorous "fair" argument see my post # 108
147
posted on
05/01/2006 10:48:03 AM PDT
by
taxed2death
(A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
To: Dane
I am a pretty good rhetoritician, thanks.
But this is a serious issue, Dane, and you completely ignored the call of my question (as did your compatriot BB12): How do you compare enforcement of our immigration laws with the Democrats blocking our urgent need for new energy sources?
Your position is almost as bizarre as lawbreakers appearing on our streets & demanding protection of our laws.
148
posted on
05/01/2006 10:53:20 AM PDT
by
OkieDoke
(not undocumented workers, not illegal immigrants: Mexican nationals illegally in our country)
To: blueberry12
YOU ASKED: "Illegals are the lowest paid workers; that has been well advertised. So, how do they send so much money back to Mexico?" I answered with a link that explains that wealth can be created, and it is not something that can only be rearranged.
So you answered a question he didn't ask...how convenient.
Everybody else forgive me now. I have to go back to work.
Oh the swirling pool of responses possible to THAT one....
149
posted on
05/01/2006 10:55:22 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have right now.)
To: taxed2death
How is it micro management when government has a system (like it is now) where the legit business owner gets hammered for playing by the rules? Let me ask you a question. If the station down the street was selling gasoline for a $1 a gallon, would you buy from him if the other stations are selling it for $3 a gallon. JMO, you would and you know it, since their is nothing inherently evil in buying gasoline for your car.
It's the same with businesses such as contractors and farmers, labor is a commodity, and those contractors and farmers are doing good things such as building buildings and growing food, which to 99% of the people is not an inherently evil endeavor.
150
posted on
05/01/2006 10:56:25 AM PDT
by
Dane
("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
To: OkieDoke
How do you compare enforcement of our immigration laws with the Democrats blocking our urgent need for new energy sources? Our immigration laws are just as mucked as the prohibition of drilling in ANWR.
I am all for a guest worker program, that's lets people who do good things such as grow food or build buildings, get the labor they need, freeing resources to go after the bad guys who want to do harm to us all.
151
posted on
05/01/2006 10:59:35 AM PDT
by
Dane
("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
To: Dane
I actually run diesel....but to answer your question I'd sure take a good hard look at why the guy down the street was able to sell fuel at 1/3rd the "going rate". Probably because he's selling heating oil illegally. I'd probably drop a dime on him and get him busted as a service to all the other local stations who "play by the rule"......By the way I'm having a blast here in Fairfield county with the new ICE phone number.
LOL
It is NOT the same with businesses!
You should try to run a legitimate business some time when a few of your local scumbag competitors hire illegals. After you lose a few $50,000.00 bids, you'll smarten up.
Until then you can continue to stagger around in your dreamworld.
152
posted on
05/01/2006 11:03:08 AM PDT
by
taxed2death
(A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
To: blueberry12
Yes, but remember that illegal immigrants are not allowed to pay taxes. That's why they don't pay, because they are not legal...Most people enter the US illegally because the legal process is extremely slow and costly. Not allowed? They're required to comply with the law.
They're violating the tax law when they file a fraudelent W-2 with their employer.
They're violating the law by not filing a return if their "W-2" earnings are above $8,200 if single, $400 if self employed (the illegals doing day labor are self employed), or if they receive tips on which FICA hasn't been witheld.
Having violated the immigration laws, they violate the tax laws, that's all. It's not about being "allowed".
Also, on your productivity comment. IMO economic concerns shouldnt be governments prime consideration in setting law, but your suggestion that illegal immigration boosts productivity is flawed.
To a large extent labor is a commodity, from an economic perspective.
Productivity, both through the education of workers and mechanization of labor intensive tasks, is encouraged by higher not lower labor costs.
If blueberry12 is talented enough to follow in Eli Whitneys footsteps and invent a tomato gin, the success of blueberry12s tomato gin will be determined by the cost of the labor it displaces.
153
posted on
05/01/2006 11:04:35 AM PDT
by
SJackson
(The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn’t do!)
To: Dane
"guest worker program" "comprehensive immigration reform"
Both are euphemisms for `amnesty'
So we agree to disagree: you want to reward lawbreaking foreign invaders, and I want them deported per our immigration law. If we reward lawlessness here, do you agree that we can expect more waves of invaders?
(Don't p*** down my neck and tell me it's raining.)
PS They're using the term "undocumented workers" on Fox right now.
154
posted on
05/01/2006 11:05:51 AM PDT
by
OkieDoke
(not undocumented workers, not illegal immigrants: Mexican nationals illegally in our country)
To: Dane
freeing resources to go after the bad guys who want to do harm to us all.
Like the first act of the newly acknowledged illegal immigrant underclass,since they have the attention of the national media? They want to harm the US economy today. Does that qualify them as bad guys?
155
posted on
05/01/2006 11:06:16 AM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: fr_freak
I know this because we hold a contract (our HOA) with this contractor for services......
156
posted on
05/01/2006 11:06:40 AM PDT
by
goodnesswins
( "the left can only take power through deception." (and it seems Hillary & Company are the masters)
To: taxed2death
I actually run diesel....but to answer your question I'd sure take a good hard look at why the guy down the street was able to sell fuel at 1/3rd the "going rate". Say if all things were equal, IMO, you would go with the $1 a gallon gasoline and you know it.
It's basic economics and you get mad at businesses that practice that.
157
posted on
05/01/2006 11:07:46 AM PDT
by
Dane
("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
To: papertyger
158
posted on
05/01/2006 11:07:58 AM PDT
by
goodnesswins
( "the left can only take power through deception." (and it seems Hillary & Company are the masters)
To: hedgetrimmer
They want to harm the US economy today. Does that qualify them as bad guys? Get back to me when there is a Christian Mexican homicide bomber.
159
posted on
05/01/2006 11:09:18 AM PDT
by
Dane
("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
To: Dane
Let me ask you a question. If the station down the street was selling gasoline for a $1 a gallon, would you buy from him if the other stations are selling it for $3 a gallon. JMO, you would and you know it, since their is nothing inherently evil in buying gasoline for your car.Why not just steal it from them?
What is this "inherently evil" standard you're refering to?
Is there anything "inherently evil" to receiving stolen merchandise? If so, your dopey analogy just fell on its face.
160
posted on
05/01/2006 11:09:53 AM PDT
by
papertyger
(Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have right now.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-199 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson