Real wage depends directly on productivity. Labour, like other resources, is paid its marginal product. So the nominal values you pulled out of your ass do not correlate with the original scenario.
Wages are detached from productivity and have been for a while. That's why America in recent years have seen phenomenal productivity increases, but very little wage increases.
And before you sumarily dismiss my argument, you should know that those wages I supposedly "pulled out of my ass" are very close to reality.
It is unlikely that an American consumer will go all the way to India for a haircut, for instance. Likewise, an American consumer likely won't order a pizza from a pizzeria in India or China.
Ok, so in the global marketplace, Americans are still cheaper giving other Americans haircuts and pizza (at least until the Mexicans move in, illegal or guestworker). Wow, what a resounding success for globalization.
The computers that I buy from Dell and Gateway are cheaper because of the Indian support guy I get when I have a problem.
... And all those Indian support guys have put US support guys out of work. Those were good-paying jobs that contributed to the economy and society in general.
I am able to stretch my dollar by being able to by cheap crap at wallmart made in china. There is no way American wages could produce the stuff that cheap. Competition helps every consumer (you and me).
... And all those products from manufacturers China you bought put US manufacturers out of business. Those were good-paying jobs that contributed to the economy and society in general.
Yes, this competition helps US consumers, but does hurts US workers, the US economy, and the US society.
What would you have us do close our borders and only do business with US companies who don't outsource.
It's up to you to make the better toaster and leave it to them to toil in a hot factory making a million of them...
The way we as Americans win the outsourcing game is to innovate.
BS. That's assuming China doesn't also have cheaper engineers. Or, that China can't or won't copy our inventions.
Unless everything is made cheaper in India in *exactly* the same ratio, there will be benefits to specialization and trade.
The problem with comparative advantage is specifically that it only looks at two countries. Add China to the mix. China and India combined can certainly outproduce the US in both goods and services. Now, add the rest of the world to the mix.
Comparative advantage really doesn't hold any more as a theory now since even services can be done offshore for lower cost.
Suppose it takes China 10 h to produce a computer, and 2 h to produce a car . It takes America 2 h to produce a computer, and 1 h to produce a car. America has an absolute advantage over China, as they can produce more computers and cars in a fixed amount of time.
Let's assume the raw material costs are the same for both countries. Now, take into account the relative wages of the two countries. Say, China pays $0.50 an hour and the US pays $20 an hour. In that case, it doesn't matter that China takes twice as long to build a car since it can build it 1/40th the cost of labor in the US.
Now, that's very basic trade economics. It doesn't necessarily apply well to the real world, but such examples do show us that one country can never produce everything for less than another nation.
The problem with comparative advantage is that it only looks at two countries, and generally two countries that are mostly equal. The problem between the US and China stretches comparative advantage to the limit. The Chinese population is roughly four times the size of the US with wages of the majority of the workers about 1/40th of the US. The Chinese can literally out-manufacture every single manufacturer in the US. The only reasons US manufacturers are still around are our IP laws and the fact that China doesn't know (yet) how to produce certain goods.
So, the US loses to China over producing goods. That leaves services where the US has the comparative advantage, right? Not if you add India to the mix as well. India's another country with four times the population of the US with the majority of the workers earning a small fraction of the US wages. There is no service that UD does which India can not do cheaper. Again, the only thing protecting US services are our IP laws and the fact that India doesn't know (yet) how to perform certain services.
That three-way comparison of US, India, and China completely breaks the already strained idea of comparative advantage. Combined, China and India can outdo the US in any good or service. Add in the rest of the low-cost locations across the world including Korea, Taiwan, the Phillipines, Vietnam, Pakistan, and South America, and you quickly learn that the US really doesn't have much left it can produce at a cheaper cost. That just leaves our IP-protected goods, which really is rather sad.
Please keep in mind that the Democrats are, much like the Republicans, funded by the very corporations and wealthy individuals who gain the most from outsourcing. Voting for them is basically a vote for the status quo.
That's a rather deceptive statement. Certainly, Democrats get a good chunk of the corporate funding. However, the vast majority of that funding goes to Republicans.
Excuse me?! What race is the United States? You can't quite answer that one because the US is made up of descendants from literally all over the world, including China.
That's why I qualified my comments by writing, "However, Business Management certainly is not going to pay more with just a bachelor's degree coming straight out of college."
The managers you're talking about likely did not get those positions straight out of college. Companies are not in the practise of taking fresh college BBAs and making them boss. More than likely, those managers worked up through the ranks -or- they returned to college to get their MBAs. (And that is not an exclusive or.)
Either way, the comp sci graduate will earn more upon graduation with a 4-year degree than a business grad of the same level. Further, that comp sci grad has just as much opportunity to advance as the business grad. Further still, graduate business schools will accept both candidates with comp sci and business undergrad degrees, which again translates to just as much opportunity for both.
The problem with comp sci salaries versus BBA salaries is that the comp sci graduate wants to do fairly low-level development work for all his career. The BBA graduate does not want to do low-level work, but instead wants to become boss and run the company. That is why there is a difference in wages over time.
Actually, the farmers I have grouped with obey the normal loot rules as well.
That's why I said, "A gold farmer would be more likely to choose need over greed for any high level item..." They may follow loot rules with green items, but as soon as a good blue item comes up, they choose need. That's not as likely to anger certain people that wouldn't choose that item anyway and they may not even notice. Since the transgression only happened once in the instance, it's not likely to affect the farmer's standing in the community. However, the farmer clearly benefits since I've seen a single blue or purple item sell for more than all the green items in the instance combined.
Your second point matches my first, except you point out the time vs effort when communicating with foreign players. You have the patience to take 5 mins to explain to someone in another language what to do. Other people don't want to take that time out from their play, which is perfectly understandable and reasonable considering this is a game with the purpose of providing enjoyment. Anything that eliminates fun from the game is worth removing, especially if that distraction is another player.
The motive does matter. A gold farmer would be more likely to choose need over greed for any high level item, making it less likely that someone who actually needs the item would get it. While we are all gold farmers in a sense, non-gold farmers realize that they need to play fair in order to stay in the good graces of other players.
Further, someone who does not speak the language or who understands it poorly is unable to comprehend complex directions in the short period of time you have to give those directions. Given the stressful situations that these groups already face with native speakers, it's only natural to not want to deal with any language barriers on top of that.
A reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants means that the border patrol will be able to apprehend a higher percentage of border jumpers, thereby improving the chances of catching terrorists.
I already addressed this. True conservatives and Libertarians in the Republican party hate to waste any money where it's not necessary. Neo-conservatives and liberals both disdain the Border Patrol for their own reasons and would like to reduce their numbers even now. Without a high amount of illegal immigrants coming across, true conservatives would have no argument for maintaining the Border Patrol's numbers. A decrease in the amount of illegal immigration would result in a further decrease in the Border Patrol. Therefore, reducing the number of illegal immigrants would not necessarily increase the number of any terrorists coming across the border.
You: Are you saying we should make no attempt to stop terrorists at our borders? And would you prefer we made no effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration?
Me: My opinion on either of those matters doesn't change the facts. Examine the facts as they are.
You: I would love to. Unfortunately, you have given no indication as to what "facts" you are referring to.
Me: I don't see the how my overall opinion on terrorism or illegal immigration matters to this discussion. Will you only stop arguing if I say I agree with you? Or will you just not listen to what I have to say if I say I don't agree with you? Are you unable to focus on the facts? Can you actually discuss a topic in a non-partisan way?
You: I am not requesting more of your opinion, I am merely asking you to actually cite your sources... Oh, and I agree that your opinion does not matter =).
Actually, that is the first time you've asked me to cite my sources. Originally, you were more interested in my opinion, despite your final statement that my opinion doesn't matter.
Anyway, my main source for my statements have been the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group formed primarily to stop illegal immigration. They were major backers of the Real ID act, presumably to stop terrorism. However, as an anti-illegal immigrant group, they are and always have been more concerned with the ability of the Real ID act to prevent illegal immigration.
While this administration loves to influence legislation, it is ultimately not responsible for writing bills. This was buried in a military appropriations bill against the wishes of the administration. This administration doesn't veto anything, especially military appropriations bills, so they merely accepted it.
The Republicans in Congress that voted on this wanted something to give to the Conservatives back home who are overwhelmingly against illegal immigration.
So which is it? Will the law do nothing or will it be another disincentive for illegal immigrants?
You falsely assume that I am being inconsistent and that this is a statement of or one or another and not both. A disincentive is only something that lowers the benefits to coming here. It does not provide the means to actually stop anyone. My two statements that you hope to turn against each other are both correct.
Further, I did not say the law would "do nothing". I addressed who the law was actually intended for, which was not terrorists, but illegal immigrants.
Please keep in mind that the ability of the average overworked border patrol agent to do his or her job is abetted by a reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants.
It's a complete assumption that the border patrol would have an easier job if the flow of illegal immigrants dropped. If the flow dropped because the Border Patrol became 100% effective at catching illegal immigrants, then it's unlikely that they would have any free time. Or, if the flow dropped because of less illegals coming over the border, then you're assuming that Congress would keep the Border Patrol staffed at it's current levels.
Either way, I don't see how a reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants would help fight terrorism, unless the flow dropped to 0. Whether this bill would cause that kind of a drop has yet to be seen.
And while you can point to possible benefits of this bill to the war on terrorism, this bill primarily addresses illegal immigration, and not terrorism.
Me: My opinion on either of those matters doesn't change the facts. Examine the facts as they are.
You: I would love to. Unfortunately, you have given no indication as to what "facts" you are referring to.
I don't see the how my overall opinion on terrorism or illegal immigration matters to this discussion. Will you only stop arguing if I say I agree with you? Or will you just not listen to what I have to say if I say I don't agree with you? Are you unable to focus on the facts? Can you actually discuss a topic in a non-partisan way?
Me: The idea that terrorists won't harm us or cross our borders due to a lack of American ID cards is complete nonsense, and everyone knows it.
You: I don't "know it."
Terrorists can cross our borders just as easily as illegal immigrants can. The lack of American ID never stopped illegal immigrants, so it's completely illogical to assume that lack of American ID will stop terrorists.
Are you saying we should make no attempt to stop terrorists at our borders? And would you prefer we made no effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration?
My opinion on either of those matters doesn't change the facts. Examine the facts as they are.
The idea that terrorists won't harm us or cross our borders due to a lack of American ID cards is complete nonsense, and everyone knows it. However, everyone also knows that immigrants can get American IDs and drive on American roads because of it. This law only provides another disincentive for illegal immigrants to enter our country. It has nothing to do with terrorism.
While this administration loves to influence legislation, it is ultimately not responsible for writing bills. This was buried in a military appropriations bill against the wishes of the administration. This administration doesn't veto anything, especially military appropriations bills, so they merely accepted it.
The Republicans in Congress that voted on this wanted something to give to the Conservatives back home who are overwhelming against illegal immigration.
Me: You're ignoring the fact that the entire system rises. Your example of demand decreasing as price goes up only works when you look at a single product by itself when the rest of the system is stable. However, if everyone has to raise prices on their goods due to paying more wages, then demand stays the same. Simply put, workers have more money to spend and they still want to spend it on the same amount of goods and services.
You: Even if that were true (and I'm not saying that it is), then there would be no advantage in having minimum-wage laws.
Actually, when you add in foreign trade, you see that the whole nation is better able to purchase cheap foreign goods and services - that's the advantage. Of course then, you start getting problems like offshoring. But, trade barriers in other countries limit that and make it convenient for countries to produce here, where trade barriers are lax.
Having a higher minimum wage also increases wages all the way up the scale. Say, if we push the minimum wage up from $5.15 to $8, then all the people now making $8 will also want a similar raise to $11. Then, all the people making $11 will want $14. This then ripples throughout the economy.
The costs of products do not rise evenly throughout the economy, even if the costs of labor rise evenly, because every product requires a different amount of labor.
If we don't include foreign trade or company innovation, then demand goes up in response to the decreased supply. Companies can charge more for the labor intensive goods and services. McDonald's did not fire everyone when Washington state raised its minimum wage to $7.63. That's because they knew everyone else would be paying the same wage as well. They just raised the price of the Big Mac.
Certainly, that makes companies want to innovate more to decrease their labor costs. However, I'd be hard-pressed to consider innovation a bad thing.
As for foreign trade, they'll mostly take the labor intensive processes that don't require a great deal a skill. So, they produce our shirts and socks while we make Windows and Linux. Again, I don't consider that a bad thing.
In addition, there are some kinds of high-elasticity labor which are only cost-effective at low hourly rates (primarily "unskilled" labor). With the minimum wage in place these jobs simply do not exist.
Fine, if employers do not want to pay an attractive wage, then let these jobs be done overseas. Otherwise, demand will rise to meet supply. So, if there's enough demand for these goods and services, then employers will find ways to pay employees.
Basic services, in particular, are hard to find at any reasonable price, and consumers spend more time on things they'd rather not have to do themselves while others, who would be willing to perform these tasks for less than the minimum wage, remain unemployed.
No, the problem is that we have 10 million illegal aliens which employers use instead of citizens because they can hire them for less than minimum wage and get away with it without repercussion from the government. Remove the illegals, and employers will have to make their jobs and wages attractive to all the currently unemployed young, inexperienced, or unskilled citizens.
The point of economic growth is just so wealthy countries no longer need to send emergency aid.
You are ignoring the aid that went beyond emergency relief. American schools worked with Indian schools to teach and train them. IIT modeled itself after MIT. They could not have done that without MIT's help.
Note how the need for emergency aid nowadays is much more for "true" emergencies (earthquakes and such)? Fewer countries than ever are so destitute that they need relief.
Your country may no longer need aid. However, your country is not the world. There are certainly countries in worse situations than yours to which we still send money to. You need to look beyond your little corner of the world.
Me: Our money also paid for the development of large companies in our country. Now, all the money we've created and paid is being used to sell our jobs to the lowest bidder in the developing countries... Given my choice, I'd rather see the money stay right where it was created.
You: It is staying.
What world are you living on? Microsoft, IBM, Intel, and tons of other companies are now shipping billions of dollars of work to India and China. That money certainly was not made in India or China. And those companies were certainly not made in those countries either.
Even if you immigrate to Australia or the US, you still send half your check back home. Either way, the money's not staying here.
Me: Let the 3rd world make their own. That's what we did. They obviously don't care about the help we've given them for decades to bring them where they are today.
You: They are making their own wealth. The IT business in Bangalore is thriving, isn't it?
Ahahahahaha!!! That's the funniest thing you've said yet! Microsoft, Dell, Cisco, Google, Yahoo, IBM, Intel, AMD, Sun, Oracle, etc, etc are not Indian companies.
The closest you've come to making your own wealth is Wipro. But, that's just outsourcing, something that will leave India as soon as another place becomes cheaper. Create an innovative company like Microsoft, IBM, or Intel and then you can be believeable.
How would you propose, say, the Indian IT industry to develop and flourish and _not_ compete with IT industry in other countries? If nothing else, if you expect the likes of Microsoft, Dell or IBM to be able to compete for business in India, surely Indian businesses can compete for it in the US and Europe?
Hey let the companies compete. That's all fine and good with me. Create an Indian Dell. Create an Indian Google. Create an Indian Yahoo or an Indian AMD. It's certainly possible. None of those companies existed in America 15 years ago. If we could do it, then so could you.
Note that the US and Europa has not grown any poorer by this development; just that countries like India have grown wealthier even faster.
BS. You seem to ignore the tech downfall here in America from 2000-2005. That recovery was exacerbated by a lack of jobs. Economists sat and scratched their heads wondering where the jobs where, but it was abundantly clear to everyone else that offshoring and H1-B visas played a part. Even now wages are stuck at the same place they were in 2000. Which means, if you include inflation, that real wages are actually down over that time period. Yes, the average US worker has gotten poorer since 2000.
Me, on the whole, I'm much happier seeing my money go to an up-ang-coming country, where it makes a bigger difference, and at the same time I end up getting quality stuff cheaper. And judging from the success of imported goods into the first world, I'm not the only one.
Sorry, not everyone subscribes to the Wal-Mart philosophy. Cheaper goods just means cheaper wages, less ability to purchase, and generally lower quality, not higher.
Actually, it does matter. We're talking about nationalities. You're talking about race. Obviously, you have confused the two. Tell me, what race are Australians? If you say white, then I can point to the aborigines who've lived in Australia far longer than the whites. If you say aborigine, then I can point to the whites who've lived there for over a hundred years. Either way, you could say that Australians, both white and aborigine or whatever, don't want new immigrants taking their jobs.
You're ignoring the fact that the entire system rises. Your example of demand decreasing as price goes up only works when you look at a single product by itself when the rest of the system is stable. However, if everyone has to raise prices on their goods due to paying more wages, then demand stays the same. Simply put, workers have more money to spend and they still want to spend it on the same amount of goods and services.
Yes, there are some countries where race is defined by nationality. However, in places like Australia and the US, that is not true. I suggest you learn and memorize that fact. It will make your discussions with Australians and Americans more understandable and less hostile.
Slashdot Mirror
Real wage depends directly on productivity. Labour, like other resources, is paid its marginal product. So the nominal values you pulled out of your ass do not correlate with the original scenario.
Wages are detached from productivity and have been for a while. That's why America in recent years have seen phenomenal productivity increases, but very little wage increases.
And before you sumarily dismiss my argument, you should know that those wages I supposedly "pulled out of my ass" are very close to reality.
It is unlikely that an American consumer will go all the way to India for a haircut, for instance. Likewise, an American consumer likely won't order a pizza from a pizzeria in India or China.
Ok, so in the global marketplace, Americans are still cheaper giving other Americans haircuts and pizza (at least until the Mexicans move in, illegal or guestworker). Wow, what a resounding success for globalization.
The computers that I buy from Dell and Gateway are cheaper because of the Indian support guy I get when I have a problem.
... And all those Indian support guys have put US support guys out of work. Those were good-paying jobs that contributed to the economy and society in general.
... And all those products from manufacturers China you bought put US manufacturers out of business. Those were good-paying jobs that contributed to the economy and society in general.
I am able to stretch my dollar by being able to by cheap crap at wallmart made in china. There is no way American wages could produce the stuff that cheap. Competition helps every consumer (you and me).
Yes, this competition helps US consumers, but does hurts US workers, the US economy, and the US society.
What would you have us do close our borders and only do business with US companies who don't outsource.
That's a false dichotomy. Look up fair trade.
It's up to you to make the better toaster and leave it to them to toil in a hot factory making a million of them... The way we as Americans win the outsourcing game is to innovate.
BS. That's assuming China doesn't also have cheaper engineers. Or, that China can't or won't copy our inventions.
The problem is with globalization is that we're not trying to compete with one country - we're trying to compete with the world.
And frankly yes, the world can outproduce us in everything.
Unless everything is made cheaper in India in *exactly* the same ratio, there will be benefits to specialization and trade.
The problem with comparative advantage is specifically that it only looks at two countries. Add China to the mix. China and India combined can certainly outproduce the US in both goods and services. Now, add the rest of the world to the mix.
Comparative advantage really doesn't hold any more as a theory now since even services can be done offshore for lower cost.
Suppose it takes China 10 h to produce a computer, and 2 h to produce a car . It takes America 2 h to produce a computer, and 1 h to produce a car. America has an absolute advantage over China, as they can produce more computers and cars in a fixed amount of time.
Let's assume the raw material costs are the same for both countries. Now, take into account the relative wages of the two countries. Say, China pays $0.50 an hour and the US pays $20 an hour. In that case, it doesn't matter that China takes twice as long to build a car since it can build it 1/40th the cost of labor in the US.
Now, that's very basic trade economics. It doesn't necessarily apply well to the real world, but such examples do show us that one country can never produce everything for less than another nation.
The problem with comparative advantage is that it only looks at two countries, and generally two countries that are mostly equal. The problem between the US and China stretches comparative advantage to the limit. The Chinese population is roughly four times the size of the US with wages of the majority of the workers about 1/40th of the US. The Chinese can literally out-manufacture every single manufacturer in the US. The only reasons US manufacturers are still around are our IP laws and the fact that China doesn't know (yet) how to produce certain goods.
So, the US loses to China over producing goods. That leaves services where the US has the comparative advantage, right? Not if you add India to the mix as well. India's another country with four times the population of the US with the majority of the workers earning a small fraction of the US wages. There is no service that UD does which India can not do cheaper. Again, the only thing protecting US services are our IP laws and the fact that India doesn't know (yet) how to perform certain services.
That three-way comparison of US, India, and China completely breaks the already strained idea of comparative advantage. Combined, China and India can outdo the US in any good or service. Add in the rest of the low-cost locations across the world including Korea, Taiwan, the Phillipines, Vietnam, Pakistan, and South America, and you quickly learn that the US really doesn't have much left it can produce at a cheaper cost. That just leaves our IP-protected goods, which really is rather sad.
Please keep in mind that the Democrats are, much like the Republicans, funded by the very corporations and wealthy individuals who gain the most from outsourcing. Voting for them is basically a vote for the status quo.
That's a rather deceptive statement. Certainly, Democrats get a good chunk of the corporate funding. However, the vast majority of that funding goes to Republicans.
Excuse me?! What race is the United States? You can't quite answer that one because the US is made up of descendants from literally all over the world, including China.
Race is different from nationality.
That's why I qualified my comments by writing, "However, Business Management certainly is not going to pay more with just a bachelor's degree coming straight out of college."
The managers you're talking about likely did not get those positions straight out of college. Companies are not in the practise of taking fresh college BBAs and making them boss. More than likely, those managers worked up through the ranks -or- they returned to college to get their MBAs. (And that is not an exclusive or.)
Either way, the comp sci graduate will earn more upon graduation with a 4-year degree than a business grad of the same level. Further, that comp sci grad has just as much opportunity to advance as the business grad. Further still, graduate business schools will accept both candidates with comp sci and business undergrad degrees, which again translates to just as much opportunity for both.
The problem with comp sci salaries versus BBA salaries is that the comp sci graduate wants to do fairly low-level development work for all his career. The BBA graduate does not want to do low-level work, but instead wants to become boss and run the company. That is why there is a difference in wages over time.
Actually, I have two bachelor's degrees. One is in Computer Science. The other is in Business Management.
It certainly would be far, far easier to fake your way through Business Management.
However, Business Management certainly is not going to pay more with just a bachelor's degree coming straight out of college.
Actually, the farmers I have grouped with obey the normal loot rules as well.
That's why I said, "A gold farmer would be more likely to choose need over greed for any high level item..." They may follow loot rules with green items, but as soon as a good blue item comes up, they choose need. That's not as likely to anger certain people that wouldn't choose that item anyway and they may not even notice. Since the transgression only happened once in the instance, it's not likely to affect the farmer's standing in the community. However, the farmer clearly benefits since I've seen a single blue or purple item sell for more than all the green items in the instance combined.
Your second point matches my first, except you point out the time vs effort when communicating with foreign players. You have the patience to take 5 mins to explain to someone in another language what to do. Other people don't want to take that time out from their play, which is perfectly understandable and reasonable considering this is a game with the purpose of providing enjoyment. Anything that eliminates fun from the game is worth removing, especially if that distraction is another player.
The motive does matter. A gold farmer would be more likely to choose need over greed for any high level item, making it less likely that someone who actually needs the item would get it. While we are all gold farmers in a sense, non-gold farmers realize that they need to play fair in order to stay in the good graces of other players.
Further, someone who does not speak the language or who understands it poorly is unable to comprehend complex directions in the short period of time you have to give those directions. Given the stressful situations that these groups already face with native speakers, it's only natural to not want to deal with any language barriers on top of that.
A reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants means that the border patrol will be able to apprehend a higher percentage of border jumpers, thereby improving the chances of catching terrorists.
I already addressed this. True conservatives and Libertarians in the Republican party hate to waste any money where it's not necessary. Neo-conservatives and liberals both disdain the Border Patrol for their own reasons and would like to reduce their numbers even now. Without a high amount of illegal immigrants coming across, true conservatives would have no argument for maintaining the Border Patrol's numbers. A decrease in the amount of illegal immigration would result in a further decrease in the Border Patrol. Therefore, reducing the number of illegal immigrants would not necessarily increase the number of any terrorists coming across the border.
You: Are you saying we should make no attempt to stop terrorists at our borders? And would you prefer we made no effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration?
Me: My opinion on either of those matters doesn't change the facts. Examine the facts as they are.
You: I would love to. Unfortunately, you have given no indication as to what "facts" you are referring to.
Me: I don't see the how my overall opinion on terrorism or illegal immigration matters to this discussion. Will you only stop arguing if I say I agree with you? Or will you just not listen to what I have to say if I say I don't agree with you? Are you unable to focus on the facts? Can you actually discuss a topic in a non-partisan way?
You: I am not requesting more of your opinion, I am merely asking you to actually cite your sources... Oh, and I agree that your opinion does not matter =).
Actually, that is the first time you've asked me to cite my sources. Originally, you were more interested in my opinion, despite your final statement that my opinion doesn't matter.
Anyway, my main source for my statements have been the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group formed primarily to stop illegal immigration. They were major backers of the Real ID act, presumably to stop terrorism. However, as an anti-illegal immigrant group, they are and always have been more concerned with the ability of the Real ID act to prevent illegal immigration.
While this administration loves to influence legislation, it is ultimately not responsible for writing bills. This was buried in a military appropriations bill against the wishes of the administration. This administration doesn't veto anything, especially military appropriations bills, so they merely accepted it. The Republicans in Congress that voted on this wanted something to give to the Conservatives back home who are overwhelmingly against illegal immigration.
So which is it? Will the law do nothing or will it be another disincentive for illegal immigrants?
You falsely assume that I am being inconsistent and that this is a statement of or one or another and not both. A disincentive is only something that lowers the benefits to coming here. It does not provide the means to actually stop anyone. My two statements that you hope to turn against each other are both correct.
Further, I did not say the law would "do nothing". I addressed who the law was actually intended for, which was not terrorists, but illegal immigrants.
Please keep in mind that the ability of the average overworked border patrol agent to do his or her job is abetted by a reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants.
It's a complete assumption that the border patrol would have an easier job if the flow of illegal immigrants dropped. If the flow dropped because the Border Patrol became 100% effective at catching illegal immigrants, then it's unlikely that they would have any free time. Or, if the flow dropped because of less illegals coming over the border, then you're assuming that Congress would keep the Border Patrol staffed at it's current levels.
Either way, I don't see how a reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants would help fight terrorism, unless the flow dropped to 0. Whether this bill would cause that kind of a drop has yet to be seen.
And while you can point to possible benefits of this bill to the war on terrorism, this bill primarily addresses illegal immigration, and not terrorism.
Me: My opinion on either of those matters doesn't change the facts. Examine the facts as they are.
You: I would love to. Unfortunately, you have given no indication as to what "facts" you are referring to.
I don't see the how my overall opinion on terrorism or illegal immigration matters to this discussion. Will you only stop arguing if I say I agree with you? Or will you just not listen to what I have to say if I say I don't agree with you? Are you unable to focus on the facts? Can you actually discuss a topic in a non-partisan way?
Me: The idea that terrorists won't harm us or cross our borders due to a lack of American ID cards is complete nonsense, and everyone knows it.
You: I don't "know it."
Terrorists can cross our borders just as easily as illegal immigrants can. The lack of American ID never stopped illegal immigrants, so it's completely illogical to assume that lack of American ID will stop terrorists.
Are you saying we should make no attempt to stop terrorists at our borders? And would you prefer we made no effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration?
My opinion on either of those matters doesn't change the facts. Examine the facts as they are.
The idea that terrorists won't harm us or cross our borders due to a lack of American ID cards is complete nonsense, and everyone knows it. However, everyone also knows that immigrants can get American IDs and drive on American roads because of it. This law only provides another disincentive for illegal immigrants to enter our country. It has nothing to do with terrorism.
While this administration loves to influence legislation, it is ultimately not responsible for writing bills. This was buried in a military appropriations bill against the wishes of the administration. This administration doesn't veto anything, especially military appropriations bills, so they merely accepted it.
The Republicans in Congress that voted on this wanted something to give to the Conservatives back home who are overwhelming against illegal immigration.
This has nothing to do with reducing terrorism and everything to do with reducing illegal immigration.
Some of us in the northern US have already watched the first season due to our proximity to Canada and CBC.
Me: You're ignoring the fact that the entire system rises. Your example of demand decreasing as price goes up only works when you look at a single product by itself when the rest of the system is stable. However, if everyone has to raise prices on their goods due to paying more wages, then demand stays the same. Simply put, workers have more money to spend and they still want to spend it on the same amount of goods and services.
You: Even if that were true (and I'm not saying that it is), then there would be no advantage in having minimum-wage laws.
Actually, when you add in foreign trade, you see that the whole nation is better able to purchase cheap foreign goods and services - that's the advantage. Of course then, you start getting problems like offshoring. But, trade barriers in other countries limit that and make it convenient for countries to produce here, where trade barriers are lax.
Having a higher minimum wage also increases wages all the way up the scale. Say, if we push the minimum wage up from $5.15 to $8, then all the people now making $8 will also want a similar raise to $11. Then, all the people making $11 will want $14. This then ripples throughout the economy.
The costs of products do not rise evenly throughout the economy, even if the costs of labor rise evenly, because every product requires a different amount of labor.
If we don't include foreign trade or company innovation, then demand goes up in response to the decreased supply. Companies can charge more for the labor intensive goods and services. McDonald's did not fire everyone when Washington state raised its minimum wage to $7.63. That's because they knew everyone else would be paying the same wage as well. They just raised the price of the Big Mac.
Certainly, that makes companies want to innovate more to decrease their labor costs. However, I'd be hard-pressed to consider innovation a bad thing.
As for foreign trade, they'll mostly take the labor intensive processes that don't require a great deal a skill. So, they produce our shirts and socks while we make Windows and Linux. Again, I don't consider that a bad thing.
In addition, there are some kinds of high-elasticity labor which are only cost-effective at low hourly rates (primarily "unskilled" labor). With the minimum wage in place these jobs simply do not exist.
Fine, if employers do not want to pay an attractive wage, then let these jobs be done overseas. Otherwise, demand will rise to meet supply. So, if there's enough demand for these goods and services, then employers will find ways to pay employees.
Basic services, in particular, are hard to find at any reasonable price, and consumers spend more time on things they'd rather not have to do themselves while others, who would be willing to perform these tasks for less than the minimum wage, remain unemployed.
No, the problem is that we have 10 million illegal aliens which employers use instead of citizens because they can hire them for less than minimum wage and get away with it without repercussion from the government. Remove the illegals, and employers will have to make their jobs and wages attractive to all the currently unemployed young, inexperienced, or unskilled citizens.
The point of economic growth is just so wealthy countries no longer need to send emergency aid.
You are ignoring the aid that went beyond emergency relief. American schools worked with Indian schools to teach and train them. IIT modeled itself after MIT. They could not have done that without MIT's help.
Note how the need for emergency aid nowadays is much more for "true" emergencies (earthquakes and such)? Fewer countries than ever are so destitute that they need relief.
Your country may no longer need aid. However, your country is not the world. There are certainly countries in worse situations than yours to which we still send money to. You need to look beyond your little corner of the world.
Me: Our money also paid for the development of large companies in our country. Now, all the money we've created and paid is being used to sell our jobs to the lowest bidder in the developing countries... Given my choice, I'd rather see the money stay right where it was created.
You: It is staying.
What world are you living on? Microsoft, IBM, Intel, and tons of other companies are now shipping billions of dollars of work to India and China. That money certainly was not made in India or China. And those companies were certainly not made in those countries either.
Even if you immigrate to Australia or the US, you still send half your check back home. Either way, the money's not staying here.
Me: Let the 3rd world make their own. That's what we did. They obviously don't care about the help we've given them for decades to bring them where they are today.
You: They are making their own wealth. The IT business in Bangalore is thriving, isn't it?
Ahahahahaha!!! That's the funniest thing you've said yet! Microsoft, Dell, Cisco, Google, Yahoo, IBM, Intel, AMD, Sun, Oracle, etc, etc are not Indian companies.
The closest you've come to making your own wealth is Wipro. But, that's just outsourcing, something that will leave India as soon as another place becomes cheaper. Create an innovative company like Microsoft, IBM, or Intel and then you can be believeable.
How would you propose, say, the Indian IT industry to develop and flourish and _not_ compete with IT industry in other countries? If nothing else, if you expect the likes of Microsoft, Dell or IBM to be able to compete for business in India, surely Indian businesses can compete for it in the US and Europe?
Hey let the companies compete. That's all fine and good with me. Create an Indian Dell. Create an Indian Google. Create an Indian Yahoo or an Indian AMD. It's certainly possible. None of those companies existed in America 15 years ago. If we could do it, then so could you.
Note that the US and Europa has not grown any poorer by this development; just that countries like India have grown wealthier even faster.
BS. You seem to ignore the tech downfall here in America from 2000-2005. That recovery was exacerbated by a lack of jobs. Economists sat and scratched their heads wondering where the jobs where, but it was abundantly clear to everyone else that offshoring and H1-B visas played a part. Even now wages are stuck at the same place they were in 2000. Which means, if you include inflation, that real wages are actually down over that time period. Yes, the average US worker has gotten poorer since 2000.
Me, on the whole, I'm much happier seeing my money go to an up-ang-coming country, where it makes a bigger difference, and at the same time I end up getting quality stuff cheaper. And judging from the success of imported goods into the first world, I'm not the only one.
Sorry, not everyone subscribes to the Wal-Mart philosophy. Cheaper goods just means cheaper wages, less ability to purchase, and generally lower quality, not higher.
Trade is not aid.
Actually, it does matter. We're talking about nationalities. You're talking about race. Obviously, you have confused the two. Tell me, what race are Australians? If you say white, then I can point to the aborigines who've lived in Australia far longer than the whites. If you say aborigine, then I can point to the whites who've lived there for over a hundred years. Either way, you could say that Australians, both white and aborigine or whatever, don't want new immigrants taking their jobs.
You're ignoring the fact that the entire system rises. Your example of demand decreasing as price goes up only works when you look at a single product by itself when the rest of the system is stable. However, if everyone has to raise prices on their goods due to paying more wages, then demand stays the same. Simply put, workers have more money to spend and they still want to spend it on the same amount of goods and services.
nationality != race
Yes, there are some countries where race is defined by nationality. However, in places like Australia and the US, that is not true. I suggest you learn and memorize that fact. It will make your discussions with Australians and Americans more understandable and less hostile.