Just remember

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:46 pm

Especially when the median wage is stagnant.

Not to mention the whole 'number of people without health insurance has increased by several million over the past year' thing.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:16 pm

Since when are tax cuts a BAD thing for working people? I know it wasn't much, but I'll take $1,200 over nothing. And that money is almost certainly going back into the economy.

Now if you honestly want to address the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, start by getting on the right side of the immigration debate. Stop the influx of cheap Mexican labor. It's costing American workers their jobs and further fueling the class divide.

p.s. And let's not forget the outsourcing trend for high paying jobs. The net effect is an increase in the labor pool both for blue and white collar jobs. Americans are not just competing with their fellow citizens anymore on any front. It's well and truly a global economy. The Bush tax cut has nothing to do with wage stagnation.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:20 pm

Ah, yes. Capital should be free to cross borders, but labor shouldn't.

If one thinks the influx of labor is a problem, one must must--to be consistent--likewise think capital going overseas is a problem. Therefore one must also be opposed to outsourcing, and should support capital controls, quotas, high tarrifs, and the like.

In other words, one must be opposed to free trade. Possibly to any substantial trade at all.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:23 pm

You just beat me to the punch. Edited my post to include the outsourcing epidemic. If YOU are worried about wages, THIS is what you need to focus on.

fluffmonster · Post by **fluffmonster** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:25 pm

mxlm wrote:Especially when the median wage is stagnant.

Well...its easy to put too much stock into that. The fact is that whatever growth spurt the US has enjoyed, its being broadly shared across the globe. This growth is creating a lot of people with more disposable income, who will thus consume more or at least want to consume more. Now on the one hand this is great cuz poverty sucks. On the other hand though, we are at the point where we are starting to look planetary resource limits in the eye. We Americans, who have enjoyed the cheap consumption that relative abundance permitted, are the most likely to suffer real reductions but its important to understand this is a function of previous abundance. We will suffer because we are too focused on quantity, and not enough on efficiency.

Also, greater relative scarcity will hit some goods more than others which will have a profound effect on relative prices. Its not too hard to imagine a world where people have to be careful with their food budget, but iphones are cheap disposable commodities. A lot depends on where productivity gains are made (since productivity gains are the only path out of the Malthusian trap until space is opened up).

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:31 pm

Well...its easy to put too much stock into that. The fact is that whatever growth spurt the US has enjoyed, its being broadly shared across the globe. This growth is creating a lot of people with more disposable income, who will thus consume more or at least want to consume more. Now on the one hand this is great cuz poverty sucks. On the other hand though, we are at the point where we are starting to look planetary resource limits in the eye. We Americans, who have enjoyed the cheap consumption that relative abundance permitted, are the most likely to suffer real reductions but its important to understand this is a function of previous abundance. We will suffer because we are too focused on quantity, and not enough on efficiency.

Sure. I was just thinking back to a leader in The Economist earlier this year that, essentially, said something to the effect of 'look, dickheads, share the wealth. If you don't, globalization will be jeopardized due to domestic political pressure, and globalization is a good thing. So, like, give raises and stuff'.

fluffmonster · Post by **fluffmonster** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:33 pm

Oh, and tax cuts are a bad thing when that means cutting investment in the future of our country. Businesses won't do it all, there are some areas in which markets aren't just bad, but fail miserably, even worse than government. Add on top that the biggest tax cuts are for those who need the cuts the least, and will spend the least proportion of their tax cut, and even a trickle-down rationale is exposed as smoke and mirrors.

On labor, immigration isn't the problem. Its *illegal* immigration that's the problem, and we have it because of bad law, not bad immigrants.

JaydeMoon · Post by **JaydeMoon** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:34 pm

Non of you people have any real clue what you're talking about.

But it's fun to watch.

fluffmonster · Post by **fluffmonster** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:38 pm

The_Phoenyxx wrote:Non of you people have any real clue what you're talking about.

But it's fun to watch.

I have a piece of very important paper that says I do. *Very* important paper.

JaydeMoon · Post by **JaydeMoon** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:59 pm

I know a lot of people with very important papers, many of them likely quite similar to yours.

They still don't know what they are talking about. Difference is that they can get people to listen to them.

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:02 pm

fluffmonster wrote:On labor, immigration isn't the problem. Its *illegal* immigration that's the problem

Of course. That goes without saying. My assumption here is that immigration quotas would move lock-in-step with the economy, though I'm not entirely sure that's true.

, and we have it because of bad law, not bad immigrants.

Okay but what's bad about the law? Anything short of permitting unregulated entry into the United States is going to be subject to enforcement. And to be perfectly honest, if we have thus far been unable to enforce existing laws, how can government ever sell "immigration reform"? The underlying problem is the utter lack of enforcement. Talk about smoke and mirrors.

I understand that it's not an easy problem to fix overall. It's much easier to try and solve one dimension of it, which of course is not something all Americans will ever agree on.

ThinkTank · Post by **ThinkTank** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:08 pm

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:18 pm

I have a piece of very important paper that says I do. *Very* important paper.

My daddy has a nearly identical piece of paper from Duke.

Does that win me any points?

JaydeMoon · Post by **JaydeMoon** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:41 pm

The most important paper you'll ever find is sold rolled around a short carboard tube.

fluffmonster · Post by **fluffmonster** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:10 am

ç i p h é r wrote:
, and we have it because of bad law, not bad immigrants.
Okay but what's bad about the law? Anything short of permitting unregulated entry into the United States is going to be subject to enforcement. And to be perfectly honest, if we have thus far been unable to enforce existing laws, how can government ever sell "immigration reform"? The underlying problem is the utter lack of enforcement. Talk about smoke and mirrors.

Well, unregulated entry is simply not acceptable. Not during an active terrorist threat most certainly not. But to put it as a binary choice, all the immigrants or none, isn't reasonable either. Consider also that the more people that come through the legal path leaves that many fewer for illegals to hide in. So, it comes down to numbers. Even if looked at from the narrow self-interest of the country, we benefit from substantial numbers of immigrant laborers. A great deal of risk is incurred to get in to the US, there is certainly a great deal of value to it to be worth it. We could even extract some of it to help out Social Security through a currently existing system.

So, a firm number...how about, how many we have or a little lower, but legal? One estimate i've seen is that there are 12m illegals, lets just go with that for sake of argument. So maybe 7-10m? are active in the labor force. Boom...7-10m visas and the staff to handle the extra paperwork, and you have legal immigration with minimal *current* impact on prices.