Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (521056)	1/7/2004 9:39:23 PM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I disagree. It is another example of a presumptuous economist who thinks he can predict and orchestrate an open economy. How many times must that attempt be tried and failed before the basic reason why is understood?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (521056)	1/8/2004 12:12:20 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Let me see if I understand... By constraining the supply of labor, thus driving up its cost, we force the implementation of otherwise uneconomic production technologies. That about it? You want to force industry to operate with higher cost structures by restricting the supply of labor all in hopes of stimulating technological innovation? That is no way to make US industry more competitive, Ann. Besides, why wouldn't industry just move more production offshore as you force wages higher. Rather than employing Mexicans to make carpet in Georgia (a big employer of illegals if you can believe the local press), just make it in Mexico. Of course, you also lose the supervisory and management jobs held by Americans, plus the jobs at local businesses that support the workers and large employers. Or would you prohibit offshoring, too? Well, at least you've solved the illegal immigration problem, right? Or have you? Even if it made economic sense to force up labor costs for the "higher purpose" of encouraging innovation, you haven't solved the illegal immigration problem. No, all you've done is argued for keeping it illegal. You don't stop a single illegal border crossing just by asserting it makes economic sense to do so. How much do you think it would cost taxpayers to actually STOP illegal immigration, not to mention find and deport those already here? My guess is it's not a modest cost, Ann. And if we actually did everything necessary to accomplish that, I'm sure there'd be a loud outcry from the left about "the cruel jackbooted INS thugs" and "Bush's Iron Curtain" or some such nonsense. No, Bush's plan creates a means to effectively regulate and police immigration at a reasonable cost. It also levels the playing field for American workers who want to pick lettuce, make carpet, lug bundles of asphalt shingles to rooftops, mow lawns, etc. You see, companies employing illegals don't pay payroll taxes, provide health insurance and other benefits, ensure safe workplaces, or even necessarily pay minimum wage. The workers can't really complain, of course - who would they complain to? American workers couldn't get those jobs if they wanted them - they cost too much to employ, BY LAW. The workers also don't pay taxes, but they do use public services and their kids do go to public schools. It's essentially the same argument some make for legalizing pot, BTW - make it legal so you can regulate and tax it, and eliminate the criminal activity surrounding it. It's a big part of the underground economy, Ann, and Bush's plan brings it above ground. Everyone benefits, except perhaps for the employers who are currently breaking the law. So sad for them.