Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In Oklahoma City the trashman (at least when I talked to them a while ago) makes more than the medic on the ambulance.

But yeah, it's not like fruit is left rotting in the fields when migrant labor isn't around to pick them or anything like that.

- Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

- Right - so I really don't like the argument that migrants just do jobs that Americans don't want to do. Not only does it make Americans seem lazy and unwilling to do hard work - which I don't think is true. It tries to justify migrants taking jobs from American's by saying American's don't want to do this work - that's not true - Americans will do this work if the price is right.

Interesting choice of words there at the end, because that's the problem at the other end. Americans then won't buy the end product because the price will be too high. That's why we have cheap migrant labor and why we've sent jobs overseas: because it's cheap.

I find it quite odd that the same people that champion higher minimum wage all the sudden think that getting rid of illegal workers will cause a massive increase in product prices. All I ever heard from the people that supported raising the minimum wage was that "businesses can absorb the cost", "prices might rise a nickel", or "with more money for low income workers they will spend more and help everyone". Well, if artificially increasing the cost of labor will do all that, wouldn't the same be true if the cost of labor went up due to supply and demand? With fewer illegal workers at the bottom of the economic ladder legal low-income workers will be making more increasing their purchasing power. Isn't that a good thing?

I can't see how someone can argue both sides of the fence on this one.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Even a blind Squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Let me look at my clock. Yeah, it's broken, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, it's 3PM.

So, once again, is this a case of "your evidence doesn't align with what I feel, so I will turn my nose up at it without providing any evidence of my own"?

Listen, I understand that the one guy I linked to is a little kooky. I just couldn't find the original page I read over a year ago and this stated pretty much the same thing. Attack the evidence, not the messenger.

Even if the messenger is the one pushing false evidence?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Even a blind Squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Let me look at my clock. Yeah, it's broken, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, it's 3PM.

So, once again, is this a case of "your evidence doesn't align with what I feel, so I will turn my nose up at it without providing any evidence of my own"?

Listen, I understand that the one guy I linked to is a little kooky. I just couldn't find the original page I read over a year ago and this stated pretty much the same thing. Attack the evidence, not the messenger.

Even if the messenger is the one pushing false evidence?

I think cuda is saying, just because this guy has built a career out of being a professional liar, doesn't mean he's lying this time.

 feeder wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Even a blind Squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Let me look at my clock. Yeah, it's broken, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, it's 3PM.

So, once again, is this a case of "your evidence doesn't align with what I feel, so I will turn my nose up at it without providing any evidence of my own"?

Listen, I understand that the one guy I linked to is a little kooky. I just couldn't find the original page I read over a year ago and this stated pretty much the same thing. Attack the evidence, not the messenger.

Even if the messenger is the one pushing false evidence?

I think cuda is saying, just because this guy has built a career out of being a professional liar, doesn't mean he's lying this time.

Regardless of this tangent about the website that was linked to, a simple google search turned up a link to the Federal Government's study done by the GAO that concluded the following:

http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-95-133

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens to all levels of government; (2) the variation in these estimates; and (3) areas in which the estimates could be improved.

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments; (4) displacement costs and revenue estimates account for much of the variation in the estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens; (5) the estimates are difficult to assess because the studies do not always clearly explain the criteria used to determine which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in the estimates; and (6) the cost estimates could be improved by recognizing the difficulties inherent in collecting data on a hidden population, focusing on key characteristics of illegal aliens, and explaining more clearly which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in such estimates.

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, once again, is this a case of "your evidence doesn't align with what I feel, so I will turn my nose up at it without providing any evidence of my own"?

Listen, I understand that the one guy I linked to is a little kooky. I just couldn't find the original page I read over a year ago and this stated pretty much the same thing. Attack the evidence, not the messenger.

The problem with this idea is it presumes the people you are arguing with either have infinite time, or have time totally without value, to spend debunking the nuggets of disinformation you harvest from the dankest pits of the derposphere - which is an endless font of them - in pursuit of what, leading a particularly non-thirsty horse to water? Talk about a fools errand.

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So, once again, is this a case of "your evidence doesn't align with what I feel, so I will turn my nose up at it without providing any evidence of my own"?

Listen, I understand that the one guy I linked to is a little kooky. I just couldn't find the original page I read over a year ago and this stated pretty much the same thing. Attack the evidence, not the messenger.

The problem with this idea is it presumes the people you are arguing with either have infinite time, or have time totally without value, to spend debunking the nuggets of disinformation you harvest from the dankest pits of the derposphere - which is an endless font of them - in pursuit of what, leading a particularly non-thirsty horse to water? Talk about a fools errand.

Yet the assertion in question, that illegal immigration costs the govt more than it generates in tax revenue, is accurate. An assertion made by the dankest pit in the derposphere can still be a true statement. The veracity of the information is of far more importance than the source of the information.

What it doesn't do is debunk the original claim that California makes more from illegal immigrants than it costs them.

Prestor Jon wrote:


http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-95-133

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens to all levels of government; (2) the variation in these estimates; and (3) areas in which the estimates could be improved.

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments; (4) displacement costs and revenue estimates account for much of the variation in the estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens; (5) the estimates are difficult to assess because the studies do not always clearly explain the criteria used to determine which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in the estimates; and (6) the cost estimates could be improved by recognizing the difficulties inherent in collecting data on a hidden population, focusing on key characteristics of illegal aliens, and explaining more clearly which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in such estimates.

So, the GAO acknowledges that it is basically a guess? The cost ranges from $2 billion to $19 billion (quite a range), and the studies don't even have clear criteria for their analysis.

Doesn't seem terribly useful.....

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Even a blind Squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Let me look at my clock. Yeah, it's broken, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, it's 3PM.

So, once again, is this a case of "your evidence doesn't align with what I feel, so I will turn my nose up at it without providing any evidence of my own"?

Listen, I understand that the one guy I linked to is a little kooky. I just couldn't find the original page I read over a year ago and this stated pretty much the same thing. Attack the evidence, not the messenger.

Even if the messenger is the one pushing false evidence?

I think cuda is saying, just because this guy has built a career out of being a professional liar, doesn't mean he's lying this time.

Regardless of this tangent about the website that was linked to, a simple google search turned up a link to the Federal Government's study done by the GAO that concluded the following:

http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-95-133

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens to all levels of government; (2) the variation in these estimates; and (3) areas in which the estimates could be improved.

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments; (4) displacement costs and revenue estimates account for much of the variation in the estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens; (5) the estimates are difficult to assess because the studies do not always clearly explain the criteria used to determine which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in the estimates; and (6) the cost estimates could be improved by recognizing the difficulties inherent in collecting data on a hidden population, focusing on key characteristics of illegal aliens, and explaining more clearly which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in such estimates.

A 22 year old report with a $17 billion margin of error. I'm not convinced. Perhaps the federal government , nah too incompetent, Texas state , nah too conservative, Cali state , nah too liberal, er how about Elon Musk commission a new study with well defined parameters?

 jmurph wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-95-133

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens to all levels of government; (2) the variation in these estimates; and (3) areas in which the estimates could be improved.

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments; (4) displacement costs and revenue estimates account for much of the variation in the estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens; (5) the estimates are difficult to assess because the studies do not always clearly explain the criteria used to determine which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in the estimates; and (6) the cost estimates could be improved by recognizing the difficulties inherent in collecting data on a hidden population, focusing on key characteristics of illegal aliens, and explaining more clearly which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in such estimates.

So, the GAO acknowledges that it is basically a guess? The cost ranges from $2 billion to $19 billion (quite a range), and the studies don't even have clear criteria for their analysis.

Doesn't seem terribly useful.....

eh... do you think it's closer to $0 impact than a feth ton of money?

Here's the problem going down with this rabbit hole.

It shouldn't matter whether the illegal immigrants are a plus/negative to the economy.

They are here illegally, using finite resources that would otherwise go to actual citizens.

Would ought to expect our Federal government to enforce that damn laws (maybe reform them) and look out for it's own citizen's interests. That means, hammer employers who willingly hires illegals. If the farmer need cheap labor... allow migrant seasonal visas tailor-made for those industries.

 jmurph wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-95-133

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens to all levels of government; (2) the variation in these estimates; and (3) areas in which the estimates could be improved.

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments; (4) displacement costs and revenue estimates account for much of the variation in the estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens; (5) the estimates are difficult to assess because the studies do not always clearly explain the criteria used to determine which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in the estimates; and (6) the cost estimates could be improved by recognizing the difficulties inherent in collecting data on a hidden population, focusing on key characteristics of illegal aliens, and explaining more clearly which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in such estimates.

So, the GAO acknowledges that it is basically a guess? The cost ranges from $2 billion to $19 billion (quite a range), and the studies don't even have clear criteria for their analysis.

Doesn't seem terribly useful.....

It concludes that illegal immigration is a net loss for the govt. The exact amount is always going to be an educated guess because the exact number and location of illegal immigrants isn't known.

Here is a CBO study from 2007 that draws the same conclusion that illegal immigrants cause more govt spending than the tax revenue they generate and explains in detail why exact numbers can't be determined.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-immigration.pdf

So apparently Flynn wants to cut a deal.

 Laughing Man wrote:
So apparently Flynn wants to cut a deal.

Accidentally brutally cut his own head off while combing his hair in 3...2...

 feeder wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
So apparently Flynn wants to cut a deal.

Accidentally brutally cut his own head off while combing his hair in 3...2...

Ah.....a Colombian suicide. While handcuffed to the plumbing of the bathroom, the deceased shot himself twice in the back of the head - after beating himself up.

 Laughing Man wrote:
So apparently Flynn wants to cut a deal.

That wouldn't happen to be the same Michael Flynn who, a year or so ago, claimed that if you asked for immunity, you likely committed a crime, would it?

 Ouze wrote:
[
The problem with this idea is it presumes the people you are arguing with either have infinite time, or have time totally without value, to spend debunking the nuggets of disinformation you harvest from the dankest pits of the derposphere - which is an endless font of them - in pursuit of what, leading a particularly non-thirsty horse to water? Talk about a fools errand.

Hey, you asked for citation, don't compain when it is given. Admittedly, it is a rather bad citation, but I didn't have "infinite time, or have time totally without value, to spend debunking the nuggets of disinformation" that you believe. And by the way, a bad citation is still better than NO citation, which is what you provided.

As someone else (Thanks Prestor Jon) has all ready linked and quoted the Federal Government's GAO study that validated my claims this is a moot point and you were wrong in your premiss. It appears the non-thirsty horse is you.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Hey, you asked for citation, don't compain when it is given.

You are again wrong. I didn't ask for a citation, that was a different poster - Spinner, specifically.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In Oklahoma City the trashman (at least when I talked to them a while ago) makes more than the medic on the ambulance.

But yeah, it's not like fruit is left rotting in the fields when migrant labor isn't around to pick them or anything like that.

- Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

- Right - so I really don't like the argument that migrants just do jobs that Americans don't want to do. Not only does it make Americans seem lazy and unwilling to do hard work - which I don't think is true. It tries to justify migrants taking jobs from American's by saying American's don't want to do this work - that's not true - Americans will do this work if the price is right.

Interesting choice of words there at the end, because that's the problem at the other end. Americans then won't buy the end product because the price will be too high. That's why we have cheap migrant labor and why we've sent jobs overseas: because it's cheap.

I find it quite odd that the same people that champion higher minimum wage all the sudden think that getting rid of illegal workers will cause a massive increase in product prices. All I ever heard from the people that supported raising the minimum wage was that "businesses can absorb the cost", "prices might rise a nickel", or "with more money for low income workers they will spend more and help everyone". Well, if artificially increasing the cost of labor will do all that, wouldn't the same be true if the cost of labor went up due to supply and demand? With fewer illegal workers at the bottom of the economic ladder legal low-income workers will be making more increasing their purchasing power. Isn't that a good thing?

I can't see how someone can argue both sides of the fence on this one.

The CEOs at Del Monte, Monsanto, Pepsi, Walmart, etc. can most definitely absorb the costs... but it means that they would individually take a hit and instead of making 25 million in a year, they'd personally take home 24, or heaven forbid, 23 million.

The businesses that cannot really absorb the higher cost of labor are the "Bob's Running Shoe Co. LLC" or "Jane's Rib Roast and Burger Shack" . . . ya know, where usually they aren't raking in literally millions or billions per year. These are most often the small, one location shops with very few employees.

The problem with the argument is simply greed: The CEOs at the top think they "earn" their money, and have lied to people for well over 100 years that any increase to the cost of labor will necessitate an increase in prices (when in reality, the increase in price is largely due to those same liars wanting to pad their pockets at the same margins as before). Further, there's an infographic going around the facebooks that I've seen a few times illustrating this greed concept. The trickle-down argument says that higher labor costs means higher cost for goods, right? Well then, explain how Australia, the UK, Germany, and France all have significantly higher minimum wage levels than the US, but the Big Mac is anywhere from 10 to 25 cents cheaper in those countries compared to the US???

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In Oklahoma City the trashman (at least when I talked to them a while ago) makes more than the medic on the ambulance.

But yeah, it's not like fruit is left rotting in the fields when migrant labor isn't around to pick them or anything like that.

- Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

- Right - so I really don't like the argument that migrants just do jobs that Americans don't want to do. Not only does it make Americans seem lazy and unwilling to do hard work - which I don't think is true. It tries to justify migrants taking jobs from American's by saying American's don't want to do this work - that's not true - Americans will do this work if the price is right.

Interesting choice of words there at the end, because that's the problem at the other end. Americans then won't buy the end product because the price will be too high. That's why we have cheap migrant labor and why we've sent jobs overseas: because it's cheap.

I find it quite odd that the same people that champion higher minimum wage all the sudden think that getting rid of illegal workers will cause a massive increase in product prices. All I ever heard from the people that supported raising the minimum wage was that "businesses can absorb the cost", "prices might rise a nickel", or "with more money for low income workers they will spend more and help everyone". Well, if artificially increasing the cost of labor will do all that, wouldn't the same be true if the cost of labor went up due to supply and demand? With fewer illegal workers at the bottom of the economic ladder legal low-income workers will be making more increasing their purchasing power. Isn't that a good thing?

I can't see how someone can argue both sides of the fence on this one.

You know what I find quite odd? The massively erroneous assumptions you're making about me. Your very last sentence is a complete fabrication in regards to what I'm arguing. At least try to make a fething effort to argue honestly rather than just make up lies about me.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
So apparently Flynn wants to cut a deal.

That wouldn't happen to be the same Michael Flynn who, a year or so ago, claimed that if you asked for immunity, you likely committed a crime, would it?

Why, yes... yes it is.

Prestor Jon wrote:
https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

Federal government statistics show the labor participation rate for people 55 years and older and the labor participation rate for people 65 years and older was greater in 2014 than it was in 2004 or 1994. If the percentage of the labor force that is old is growing then you can't blame the overall shrinking of the labor force participation rate on retirement. The data says we have more employed old people than previously while the participation rate for people aged 25-54 is decreasing.

Sort of but not quite. For starters, you have to consider weighting. 55+ might have moved from 30% employed to 40% employed, but if they grow by enough as a share of the economy they will still drag down total participation even if 25-54 remains with a constant participation.

If you're not quite sure how that works, then note that while total participation dropped 3.7, among prime age workers it dropped 2.5 points... despite participation among older working actually increasing. This is because the weighting of each group has changed.

Even within that 2.5 drop in 25-54, you'll note that a large portion is driven by changes in demographics within the group. Of the three groups listed, the change within each was 2.0, 2.6, and 2.1. How do those three changes average out to 2.5... because the number of people in the 45-54 group grew most, and the 25-34 group grew least, changing the weighting towards the oldest group with the lowest participation rate. Averaging the three groups give a drop of 2.2.

So of the headline state of a 3.7 point decline, demographics account for about 1.5 points, with a real drop of 2.2. As to the reason for the 2.2 drop... well that's a decent question which so far has produced a hell of a lot of terrible answers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Why is Devin Nunes in a position to decide anything?
Wasn't he the guy that provided Trump with information regarding the investigation into Trump/Russia connections before he informed members of his own committee?
Wouldn't such a person have been found unfit (or willingly have stepped down due to obvious demonstrable conflicts of interest) to be in such a committee, much less the chair?

Nunes is in a position to decide because Paul Ryan appointed him chair of the House Intel Committee, and hasn't rejected any calls to remove him from that position.

And yes, given what Nunes has done he should be expected to stand down, or be removed from his position on the committee. But that isn't happening because senior Republican leadership has no problem with him operating to cover up Trump's malfeasance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Indeed... I think I'd welcome a parliamentary system, but alas... that'll never happen.

Most of the differences between the US system and a parliamentary system are in expections, not actually in formal, legal differences. Parliamentary systems expect strong party loyalty, while the US congressional system expects party affiliation to be only one factor, with personal values and regional interests commonly causing people to cross the floor. That's changed simply because people in the US changed how they approached politics.

The only thing that's really different now is that the head of state is popularly elected, and so doesn't necessarily align with the party controlling the house of reps. Which isn't a feature of every parliamentary system anyway.

...That's a great idea man. The senate could definitely tailor their business to do exactly that.

Be interesting to see it in operation. Might be too late though, given the current level of politicisation I just can't see either party in majority giving power to the minority to block legislation at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Yup. Evidently it's someone from the intelligence depts seeking whistleblower protection who *claims* of having evidence of "unmasked" Trump campaign/transition peeps from incidential surveillance.

Latest, best reporting is that Nunes intel came from a Trump staffer who had been assigned to review transcripts to find some evidence of what Trump claimed, and a lawyer working for Trump, who had previously worked for Nunes. The intel they found was that some captured conversations involved Russian officials talking about how they might ingratiate themselves in to the Trump admin.

So the whole thing is Trump read a Breitbart story that said Obama had recorded Trump and/or his staff, and Trump put this on twitter, either because he was running a cynical distraction ploy, or perhaps more likely because he's just like that elderly relative we all have that buys in to every bit of nonsense he reads on the internet. When Trump was questioned about this, someone in his team set a staffer to work to find something to support the claim. When the staffer found something with Russian officials talking about Whitehouse personnel, they figured that will do, and leaked it to Devon Nunes, head of the House Intelligence Committee. Who covertly rushed over to the Whitehouse, bought in to the Whitehouse interpretation delivered to him, and then he hopped in front of the press to claim he had evidence that supported Trump's tweet, while keeping completely silent on the source of that information and its content, because really either would discredit Nunes' claim. Then Nunes went back to working as totally as hard as he could to investigate Trump's engagement with Russia.

It is far from the worst scandal in US history, if we take 'worst' to mean costly or immoral. But it is perhaps the worst scandal in US politics, if we take 'worst' to mean sad and incompetent

 sebster wrote:
So of the headline state of a 3.7 point decline, demographics account for about 1.5 points, with a real drop of 2.2. As to the reason for the 2.2 drop... well that's a decent question which so far has produced a hell of a lot of terrible answers.

No doubt a mix of factors, but the biggest one IMO would be that the labor market on average gives less money and less benefits for the same amount of work as compared to the past.


Or in other words; its tied to all the money being at the top. Amazing how many of the country's problems lead to that. Doubly amazing that so many people continue to vote for the party that actively promotes it.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I find it quite odd that the same people that champion higher minimum wage all the sudden think that getting rid of illegal workers will cause a massive increase in product prices. All I ever heard from the people that supported raising the minimum wage was that "businesses can absorb the cost", "prices might rise a nickel", or "with more money for low income workers they will spend more and help everyone". Well, if artificially increasing the cost of labor will do all that, wouldn't the same be true if the cost of labor went up due to supply and demand? With fewer illegal workers at the bottom of the economic ladder legal low-income workers will be making more increasing their purchasing power. Isn't that a good thing?

I can't see how someone can argue both sides of the fence on this one.

There's one very big difference, but before I get to that note I never made the argument that you'd see a much bigger increase in prices. I actually suspect the price increase would be minor, as in most cases US products would be replaced by countries produced in countries that can maintain lower costs.

Anyhow, the big difference is that increasing minimum wage only affects the labour cost. It's the same worker, only now instead of $8 he gets $10, or whatever the numbers are in each state. But if you restrict immigrant labour, legal or illegal, then you're replacing one worker with another who is not only on a higher wage, he's also likely to be a lot less productive. It's likely to get the same amount of fruit picked, you might need two or even three people on that higher rate. Now, picking is just a portion of the total cost of growing that apple (there's water, maintenance of facilities, storage, transportation etc) so even though picking might have increased in cost by 3 or 4 times as much, that will likely increase the overall cost of the product by a fraction of the price, maybe 10% or 20% at most, but I'm guessing at that amount.

The problem, again, is that opens up to being unable to compete with foreign products. The US would find it hard to sell their more expensive products overseas, and less able to compete with imports in to the US. This is an issue that didn't exist when we debated increasing the minimum wage in fast food, because fast food is a localised service, there is no scope for competition with imports.

So...can anyone find the logic here for Trump?

"Trump declares war on party rebels"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39384739

Last week Donald Trump said he was going to "come after" congressman Mark Meadows, the head of the House Freedom Caucus, if he didn't support the American Health Care Act. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer later said the president was joking.

No one is laughing now.

The House Freedom Caucus, the collection of libertarian-leaning conservatives who helped sink the Trump-backed American Health Care Act last week, appears to be as much of a political enemy for the president as the Democratic Party.

"The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast," Mr Trump tweeted on Thursday morning. "We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!"

So, he just sustained a potentially legacy-ending political blow in his first hundred days, in support of a bill that was opposed by over 80% of the country and on both sides of the aisle, without his actual opposition to having to lift much more than a finger, and his plan is to undermine what little support he can lay claim to on other fronts?

Well, good luck with that agenda of yours Mr. Trump...

 feeder wrote:
I think cuda is saying, just because this guy has built a career out of being a professional liar, doesn't mean he's lying this time.

Thing is, it's possible. And even if it is unlikely that he's being honest, the only meaningful rebuttal is one that rejects the substance of this claim, not one that relies on the guy having made dubious claims elsewhere.

But there's a question of the amount of work that'd take. I was actually tempted to take the piece apart. I mean, the case is built around IRS stats so the facts are right, but he's aligned them in very strange ways, looking only at the single rebate the IRS permits illegal immigrants to claim, and ignoring withholding taxes and SS paid by illegal immigrants who don't file, to say nothing of the state taxes they will pay. But confirming all of that to put the articles claim in context, and possibly show it as highly misleading, or even as outright deceptive would be a huge amount of work, and I'm unsure there'd be any meaningful pay off.

Because I've done similar stuff a bunch of time in the past. Gone through each claim, written out all the mistakes and deceptions in detail, only to get a glib response or no response at all. Or just a new link from a different junk source, with a slightly different claim.

It sets up a dynamic of person A spending 10 minutes hunting for a junk site that supports his claim, which means either person B spends hours debunking the story only for person A to got get another crap source... or person B doesn't spend hours doing the work of showing why the piece is crap, and person A declares victory.

I think really the only way to bypass this is to start expecting people to use decent, reliable sources, and if a person uses a source that's shown to be crappy, then we shouldn't persecute them, but we should expect them to go find a different, decent source.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Yet the assertion in question, that illegal immigration costs the govt more than it generates in tax revenue, is accurate. An assertion made by the dankest pit in the derposphere can still be a true statement. The veracity of the information is of far more importance than the source of the information.

No, see the difference is you linked to GAO. That's a solid source, and there's no problem there. It's information I actually found quite useful.

This is fundamentally different to posting to a link from the crazies of crazy town, and then saying 'sure the guy is crazy but he uses IRS figures so unless someone spends hours picking apart how that data is manipulated we can accept it as valid'.

I mean, there's an issue that the GAO piece is 22 years old and so can't be taken as gospel, but that also isn't enough to dismiss it entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The problem with the argument is simply greed: The CEOs at the top think they "earn" their money, and have lied to people for well over 100 years that any increase to the cost of labor will necessitate an increase in prices (when in reality, the increase in price is largely due to those same liars wanting to pad their pockets at the same margins as before). Further, there's an infographic going around the facebooks that I've seen a few times illustrating this greed concept. The trickle-down argument says that higher labor costs means higher cost for goods, right? Well then, explain how Australia, the UK, Germany, and France all have significantly higher minimum wage levels than the US, but the Big Mac is anywhere from 10 to 25 cents cheaper in those countries compared to the US???

I don't know man, when I was in the US I was amazed at how cheap McDonalds was. I mean it's cheap here, but it was crazy cheap in the US. 20 nuggets was like $5. The idea that you could get more food than you could eat for pocket change was kind of amazing.

As to CEO pay, the 100 year thing is a bit off. The disconnect between CEO pay and average wages only really took off in the late 1970s. And it isn't a purely US thing, it's pretty established across the Western world now.

Nor is CEO pay in and of itself the issue. It's an easy touchstone, because its pretty clearly absurd that a CEO can get such a large pay packet. Especially when it's someone like Les Moonves, who gets $60m for basically acting as steward for a business as usual, nothing exciting here company like CBS. But in terms of a company like CBS, with 14b in revenue, its less than half of one percent. It's absurd, but one person getting an absurd pay doesn't impact a company on that size.

What's really happening isn't just CEOs but all high skilled, high value employees are seeing their pays grow year on year, while other workers pay is stagnant. This isn't as neat a morality tale as greedy CEOs, rather its about changing structures in the economy, the move to an increasingly information driven economy has meant a change that focuses more and more of the economy in to an increasingly small number of people. They have bargaining power to increase ever increasing wages, while everyone else loses more bargaining power each year.

This doesn't mean its okay for those people to end up with almost all of the money. But it is what it is, and we won't start to fix it until we understand what it is, and hopefully one day why it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
No doubt a mix of factors, but the biggest one IMO would be that the labor market on average gives less money and less benefits for the same amount of work as compared to the past.

I'm not sure that's the argument. For starters, its pretty much a 'they choose to be unemployed' argument, which is the point the right makes often but never with evidence, only here you're retouching it to add a left wing twist of 'because the pay is too low'. Either way, there's never been much evidence for the argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So...can anyone find the logic here for Trump?

"Trump declares war on party rebels"

Thing is, I'm not sure Trump has a choice. He never argued for AHCA on policy grounds, likely because he never understood it. His argument was entirely personal, congressmen need to support this out of loyalty to the party, so that the party can keep a promise, and they need to support this or else Trump will come after them, he even threatened putting up his own primary challengers against them.

If it had been argued on policy and failed, well then Trump could rebuild bridges. Disagree on a policy, oh well, move on to the next policy. But because it was argued on personal grounds, it becomes a personal rejection of Trump, especially of Trump's personal status. If you tell someone that unless you do what they want you'll come after them and they call your bluff, you can't come back and ask them how you can all be friends again. You end up a laughing stock. So he had to take some kind of a swing.

Thing is, though, in the scheme of things this is probably about a weak a swing as you'll ever see from Trump. Consider how quickly in the past Trump has taken to twitter to make direct, personal attacks against anyone who's wronged him. But here is merely threatens, and then applies the weasel words 'if they don't get on the team'. That's a justification for Trump to delay action, and one without clear meaning or time frame. It's Trump trying to sound tough while actually doing nothing, and likely intending to never do anything.

I mean, hey, I could be wrong. We might see a 30 tweet tirade tonight against 'ACA loving Meadows'. No-one can predict that guy. But what we've seen so far shows Trump is trying to make a show of having his bluff called, without actually doing anything.

I think the labor participation dip has been attributed to people going back to school.

 sebster wrote:
[
I think really the only way to bypass this is to start expecting people to use decent, reliable sources, and if a person uses a source that's shown to be crappy, then we shouldn't persecute them, but we should expect them to go find a different, decent source.
.

I whole heartedly apologize for my crap citation. The original information I was looking for laid things out quite a bit better, however in the year or so since I last visited that site it has become defunct. As I was at work at the time I only had a few minutes to devote to searching for something similar. If I had known about this particular reporter's history I'd probably have left him out.

On the other hand, how much utter crap must a source have in its history before being labeled as unworthy? There are several sources still considered viable even after scandals, intentionally lying to their readers, supporting the anti-vax movement, trying to help rig an election, or being vaguely racist.

 cuda1179 wrote:
On the other hand, how much utter crap must a source have in its history before being labeled as unworthy?

I feel like this might be a loaded question.

There are several sources still considered viable even after scandals, intentionally lying to their readers, supporting the anti-vax movement, trying to help rig an election, or being vaguely racist.

Such as?

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Hey, you asked for citation, don't compain when it is given.

You are again wrong. I didn't ask for a citation, that was a different poster - Spinner, specifically.

You would be correct, that was Spinner. However, I have a problem with you using the word "again". That implies I was wrong the first time, when that was actually you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
On the other hand, how much utter crap must a source have in its history before being labeled as unworthy?

I feel like this might be a loaded question.

There are several sources still considered viable even after scandals, intentionally lying to their readers, supporting the anti-vax movement, trying to help rig an election, or being vaguely racist.

Such as?

Not a loaded question at all. I'm actually serious. How much crud does a news source need to spit out before someone will claim the whole thing can't be trusted. Fox News will occasionally sound a tad misogynistic and insensitive to minorities, Rolling Stone kept reporting false rape accusations, and CNN employees were both fairly open about their bias and slipped Clinton debate questions. Even entities such as Huffington Post, NBC, and even the BBC have quoted a statistic that Politifacts gave three Pinocchios to.

What is the threshold? 10%?

Also, is some small-time startup that has an okay record but lists citations less worthy than a once-cherished news stations that has a string of poo stories in recent history?

Is a news source with one wacko-reporter not reliable when the others report?

 cuda1179 wrote:
You would be correct, that was Spinner. However, I have a problem with you using the word "again". That implies I was wrong the first time, when that was actually you.

There wasn't anything for Ouze to be wrong about because he made no claims.

Following the exchange, I think he was referring to this specifically when saying you're wrong again:

cuda1179 wrote:So, once again, is this a case of "your evidence doesn't align with what I feel, so I will turn my nose up at it without providing any evidence of my own"?

You accused him of discounting evidence because it doesn't align with his opinion (he didn't) and then you told him not complain because he asked for a citation (he didn't). In fairness, I think he will be well within his rights to say you have now been wrong again.