Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[opinterph]

How does massive immigration of poor and unemployed benefit Americans--other than Democrat politicians.

I don’t see any need to venture so far into the hypothetical. If, at some time in the future, levels of immigration become significant enough to adversely affect the native population – we can discuss it then. Otherwise it’s just a red herring.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The difference in wages is only a small portion of the burdens which are forcing emoployers to outsource, plus they end up paying part of the support of the people kept out of work by immigration, e.g. Unemployment insurance taxes.
Do you seriously believe immigration has nothing to do with unemployment? Doesn't the sand get in you eyes with your head buried down there?

I know many people around my age who are either presently looking for new jobs, or have spent at some point in the past 8 years unemployed and struggling to find a new job. All of them have college degrees. None of them are competing for jobs with illegal immigrants.

Yes, there is a competition for some jobs at the very bottom of the socioeconomic scale between immigrants and native-borns, I have said this before. Your position, however, is that nearly all economic problems come from this fight over jobs that Americans primarily don't want to begin with. You then claim that the solution to this is to terminate all immigration and force wages to rise. But if anyone even so much as mentions legal minimum wages or unions, you immediately begin talking about how adding any pressure onto employers will make the situation worse.

Do you ever bite your lip with all of this double talk?

 

[Rolyo85]

That's truly disingenuous. Who do you think pays the taxes that fund those things? Ever looked at the tax rolls in your county, or any county, for that matter? Corporations, and the stockholders who own them, pay more than "their fair share" of taxes.

Um, actually they pay far less than any regular individual, percentage wise. They poff politicians to do that for them, because it's much cheaper. To claim they pay "more than their fair share" is ridiculous.

 

[Benvolio]

I know many people around my age who are either presently looking for new jobs, or have spent at some point in the past 8 years unemployed and struggling to find a new job. All of them have college degrees. None of them are competing for jobs with illegal immigrants.

Yes, there is a competition for some jobs at the very bottom of the socioeconomic scale between immigrants and native-borns, I have said this before. Your position, however, is that nearly all economic problems come from this fight over jobs that Americans primarily don't want to begin with. You then claim that the solution to this is to terminate all immigration and force wages to rise. But if anyone even so much as mentions legal minimum wages or unions, you immediately begin talking about how adding any pressure onto employers will make the situation worse.

Do you ever bite your lip with all of this double talk?

For one thing neither minimum wages nor unions solve the problem of poverty and unemployment caused by immigration. They make they the plight of the poor and unemployed worse by pushing up prices.

 

[Rolyo85]

I find it interesting that according to benvolio we have to deal with immigration through government oppression, yet job outsourcing is somehow just a sad fact of life that can't be dealt with directly. I am sorry, but if we are for government intervention in one case, we should be for it in the other as well, or this just becomes so much hypocrisy.

 

[xbuzzerx]

For one thing neither minimum wages nor unions solve the problem of poverty and unemployment caused by immigration. They make they the plight of the poor and unemployed worse by pushing up prices.

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income.

Source Link: http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/economy_profile.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Note the lack of even a mention of the impact of immigration. Although I'd be bemused to see your lengthy pretzel-shaped explanation as to how illegal immigrants have forced more income to be concentrated at the top, and in the form of dividends and capital gains.

 

[Benvolio]

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Note the lack of even a mention of the impact of immigration. Although I'd be bemused to see your lengthy pretzel-shaped explanation as to how illegal immigrants have forced more income to be concentrated at the top, and in the form of dividends and capital gains.

Immigration, legal and illegal, increases the number of people at the bottom and the competition for jobs holds their wages down. Competition are the very bottom increases competition at the next level, as people try for jobs that they might not have attempted otherwise. That increases competition at the next level, and the next, and the next. Since the lower levels are getting much larger, the top gets smaller AS A PERCENTAGE, and thus stastically more concentrated. I do not claim that immigration increases dividend or capital gain income, but, of course an increase in population, even very poor people, causes growth in the economy as a whole.
Your article mentions the problem of stagnation of wages of low income workers. Do you doubt that immigration contributes to that?
Businesses like high immigration. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Immigration, legal and illegal, increases the number of people at the bottom and the competition for jobs holds their wages down. Competition are the very bottom increases competition at the next level, as people try for jobs that they might not have attempted otherwise. That increases competition at the next level, and the next, and the next. Since the lower levels are getting much larger, the top gets smaller AS A PERCENTAGE, and thus stastically more concentrated. I do not claim that immigration increases dividend or capital gain income, but, of course an increase in population, even very poor people, causes growth in the economy as a whole.
Your article mentions the problem of stagnation of wages of low income workers. Do you doubt that immigration contributes to that?
Businesses like high immigration. Why do you suppose that is?

This analysis is nonsense. Somebody who was a seasonal agricultural worker doesn't suddenly apply for a position requiring an MBA or a computer programming degree this year because too many immigrants are competing with him for his job. Nor do people with an MBA working in an office suddenly compete with an aerospace engineer for his job.

This reads like a stack of cards and I have no reason to believe it isn't, and you've never corroborated anything you've claimed, either.

 

[HenryReardon]

Any corporation successfully operating for almost any period of time is directly benefitting from a plethora of tax-funded programs, from public education to infrastructure construction and maintenance, to fire and police. And larger corporations benefit more from these things existing than individual taxpayers do.

That statement is factually incorrect. Take Walmart, for example.
There are five Walmart Stores and one Sam's Club in our county of 200,000

In 2013, they paid $1,053,059 in ad valorem taxes, which directly affect police, fire, schools, and other public services.
Their fleet of trucks pays highway taxes (which pay for roads).
And that doesn't take the amount of sales taxes they collect into account, some portion of which benefits the local county.

Three or four years ago, before the Obama Recession began, they were paying even more, but as property values declined, so have- the assessments.

In 2014, another new Walmart will add another $150,000 or so to that number.

Therefore, it is correct to say that large corporations are carrying their share of the load, perhaps somewhat more than their share.

 

[HenryReardon]

Um, actually they pay far less than any regular individual, percentage wise. They poff politicians to do that for them, because it's much cheaper. To claim they pay "more than their fair share" is ridiculous.

To say that corporations "pay off" officials in the more than 2,400 county governments in the country is absurdly ridiculous.

 

[xbuzzerx]

That statement is factually incorrect. Take Walmart, for example.
There are five Walmart Stores and one Sam's Club in our county of 200,000

In 2013, they paid $1,053,059 in ad valorem taxes, which directly affect police, fire, schools, and other public services.
Their fleet of trucks pays highway taxes (which pay for roads).
And that doesn't take the amount of sales taxes they collect into account, some portion of which benefits the local county.

Three or four years ago, before the Obama Recession began, they were paying even more, but as property values declined, so have- the assessments.

In 2014, another new Walmart will add another $150,000 or so to that number.

Therefore, it is correct to say that large corporations are carrying their share of the load, perhaps somewhat more than their share.

How much is Wal*Mart contributing to the services supporting all of the employees it profits off having but fails to compensate sufficiently to live independently of any outside aid or services?

It's funny how in any other thread, you reactionaries are talking about how you don't want to have to pay taxes because it goes to support people on government services and it's YOUR MONEY. How can that be, when now you are here telling me it's corporations who bear more of the brunt than you do?

 

[xbuzzerx]

To say that corporations "pay off" officials in the more than 2,400 county governments in the country is absurdly ridiculous.

To claim each corporation needs to pay off every county government in the country to significantly sway important legislation on specific regulatory or taxation matters is intentionally straw manning his point.

 

[Benvolio]

This analysis is nonsense. Somebody who was a seasonal agricultural worker doesn't suddenly apply for a position requiring an MBA or a computer programming degree this year because too many immigrants are competing with him for his job. Nor do people with an MBA working in an office suddenly compete with an aerospace engineer for his job.

This reads like a stack of cards and I have no reason to believe it isn't, and you've never corroborated anything you've claimed, either.

It is absurd to think that most immigrants do agricultural work and I used no such example. But a construction worker forced to compete for wages may decide truck driving, and a truck driver may apply for work as a mechanic, or apply to manage a convenience or fast food store Among the highly educated there is less cross competition, but probably more than you think. Not every MBA ends up in a managerial position, and many fast food and other small business managers are immigrants. If you have been to a city you have noticed that many, sometimes all, the taxi drivers are immigrants, while Americans are unemployed.

 

[HenryReardon]

How much is Wal*Mart contributing to the services supporting all of the employees it profits off having but fails to compensate sufficiently to live independently of any outside aid or services?
?

Failing to compensate them sufficiently? Sufficiently according to whom? That cannot be either properly defined, or agreed-upon. The fact remains that some jobs, many jobs in fact, are only worth so much money.

Take a few courses in economics before making such ridiculous statements.

 

[xbuzzerx]

It is absurd to think that most immigrants do agricultural work and I used no such example. But a construction worker forced to compete for wages may decide truck driving, and a truck driver may apply for work as a mechanic, or apply to manage a convenience or fast food store Among the highly educated there is less cross competition, but probably more than you think. Not every MBA ends up in a managerial position, and many fast food and other small business managers are immigrants. If you have been to a city you have noticed that many, sometimes all, the taxi drivers are immigrants, while Americans are unemployed.

So let me ask you a question Benvolio.

If all basic services required native born American employees for lack of any alternative, pay (according to you) would rise because of the change in demand. This in turn would also mean the cost of these services would rise.

When we talk about a minimum wage, you dismiss any benefit to one because you claim prices will simply rise and that will hurt people.

How do you reconcile your selective application of when you believe prices rising will hurt anyone?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Failing to compensate them sufficiently? Sufficiently according to whom? That cannot be either properly defined, or agreed-upon. The fact remains that some jobs, many jobs in fact, are only worth so much money.

Take a few courses in economics before making such ridiculous statements.

If you work a full time job and are reliant on outside assistance funded by taxes for basic things like healthcare or housing or in order to eat every month, you are not being paid sufficiently.

Perhaps you should go work a minimum wage job for a year and come back and tell us how it's easy to live on for anyone who isn't just irresponsible or a leech.

 

[HenryReardon]

.

Perhaps you should go work a minimum wage job for a year and come back and tell us how it's easy to live on for anyone who isn't just irresponsible or a leech.

Most minimum-wage workers do not live on it.

This from the Dept of Labor:

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median annual income of a U.S. worker is $32,140. Federal minimum wage is currently $5.85 an hour, or about $11,500 per year — just above the poverty line. Of the 76.5 million people paid by the hour in the United States in 2006, 2.2% make minimum wage or less. Here are some generalizations we can make about minimum wage workers:
•Most minimum wage earners are young. While 2.2% of all hourly workers earn minimum wage or less, just 1.4% of workers over the age of 25 are paid at or below the Federal minimum wage. More than half (51.2%) of minimum wage workers are between 16 and 24 years old. Another 21.2% are between 25 and 34.
•Most minimum wage earners work in food service. Nearly two-thirds of those paid minimum wage (or less) are food service workers. Many of these people receive supplemental income in the form of tips, which the government does not track.
•Most minimum wage earners never attended college. Just 1.2% of college graduates are paid the minimum wage. If you only have a high school degree, you’re more likely (1.9%) to be paid minimum wage. Those without a high school degree are nearly three times as likely (3.7%) to earn minimum wage. 59.8% of all minimum wage workers have no advanced education.
•Finally, as you might expect, part-time workers are five times more likely to be paid the minimum wage than full-time workers.

You can find more information at the official characteristics of minimum wage workers page, and in the page of data tables. Also, the Department of Labor has a map that shows how state minimum wage rates compare to Federal minimum wage rates:

I graduated from High School at the age of 16, and worked a minimum wage job for a year, then I went to college, and haven't worked at minimum wage since - other than a part-time job while I was in school.

The minimum wage was never designed to be a "living wage."

 

[Rolyo85]

If you work a full time job and are reliant on outside assistance funded by taxes for basic things like healthcare or housing or in order to eat every month, you are not being paid sufficiently.

Perhaps you should go work a minimum wage job for a year and come back and tell us how it's easy to live on for anyone who isn't just irresponsible or a leech.

Furthermore, a situation in which people are forced to FIGHT for jobs that don't fulfill the minimum requirements of survival, is already deeply wrong.

While reardon is trying to insinuate that Walmart workers have it coming for working a shitty job, he is half right - those jobs ARE worth little money. The point however is that the amount of "little money" should be sufficient for a decent - if modest - living. As it used to be in the past. Any one full time job should allow you to rent a place, pay your bills and not starve. If a job doesn't do it, then the country is having a problem.

 

[Rolyo85]

I graduated from High School at the age of 16, and worked a minimum wage job for a year, then I went to college, and haven't worked at minimum wage since - other than a part-time job while I was in school.

And in which decade did that happen? Because MOST people currently graduating from colleges, are still forced to work minimum wage jobs. Those are the jobs available to them, it's not due to any lack of effort or ability for better.

Typical libertarian thinking: "I got mine, so whoever didn't have it as good as me, did something wrong, so fuck 'em", peppered with utter disregard for social, economic or historical context.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Most minimum-wage workers do not live on it.

1. Some do

2. If you make 50 cents, or a buck or two above minimum wage, you're not in a substantially better situation despite being "above minimum wage."

3. The right-wing argument that it's okay for minimum wage to be far too low for someone to live on relies entirely on the assumption that minimum wage jobs are *only* transient jobs for students or young people entering the workforce, when that simply does not reflect everyone or the reality of how many better jobs are available and how many people can access those jobs.

4. Only a minority of food service workers are waiters or waitresses earning a tip. There is no tipping at all in much of the food industry, such as nearly 100% of fast food.

5. The pointing out of how few people with college degrees earn minimum wage obscures two things: one, that the number of people with educations having to take positions and pay far below what they might have 15 years ago is much higher, two, highly educated people are far more likely to have the resources to wait and keep applying for better jobs rather than taking on a minimum wage job... and will generally strongly avoid doing so. At the time I left school, a very large number of the people I graduated with went unemployed for around a year while repeatedly applying for jobs due to the state of the economy.

The long story short: the list of facts you provided do not change the fact that despite the Republican vision of the American economy as working as intended and the minimum wage as being OK because it only constitutes temporary jobs for entry level workers and students does not reflect reality, nor do other first world countries find it necessary to maintain such a low pay scale even for entry level or totally inexperienced workers. I still see no compelling reason provided here for there to be a picture in which people work full time jobs and struggle merely to eat and house themselves whatsoever each month, let alone for that to be a reality for a very large number of people.

Among many other things, a major problem with the minimum wage being so pathetically low is that it establishes a standard around which the whole economy forms an idea of what is acceptable pay. A job may offer double minimum wage while still paying so little within the context of the location that people working it full time are living with 3 roommates and losing a couple pounds at the end of every month. This *exact* scenario prompted the series of grocery chain strikes here in California over the last decade, where the grocery management's position was: we pay far above minimum wage and we pay the same wage we pay all of our workers. The employees here responded: yes, and you cannot live on that money anywhere near as well in California like you could in Nebraska.