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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (246098)	4/29/2010 1:00:17 PM
From: Slumdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>You gotta say rules are rules at some point, if you don't like 'em then change 'em.<< ....sounds like a pep rally at Goldman Sachs!

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (246098)	4/29/2010 1:03:48 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Yes, but the flip side is all the money spent on illegals via entitlements (mainly medical care) I'd guess more on education of their kids, at least that is what I see around here. I quite agree with your point, see below. That'll more than pay for any lost tax revenues and everyone here knows it (which is why the bill enjoys about 60% support). Not sure what you are thinking here. There will not be lost tax revenue. This is a tax increase not decrease. If less under the table work occurs, then a larger fraction of the commerce that occurs in the state will now be taxed, thus boosting tax revenue. There may in fact be a net tax decrease if there is an even larger contraction in the overall economy, but I doubt the Gov is claiming this bill was designed to contract the economy significantly. Might happen of course. Everyone with a green card will be OK. You gotta say rules are rules at some point, if you don't like 'em then change 'em. I'm so sure of this point. The fundamental problem is we want good wages for ourselves and cheap wages for those we employ or who make the products we buy. Republicans generally vote for free trade and against minimum wage increases. When American workers don't want large swaths of low end jobs which American businesses need workers for (at the legal low minimum wages) then increased worker visas tend to get authorized. Those workers still can make babies, who are now American citizens, and will suck up social services, starting from the delivery room through college. What has happened, AFAIK, is that we have socialized the cost of labor in order to boost private (corporation) profits. This seems to be the preferred Republican approach, but of course, they don't connect the dots and spell this out for their voters. At some point we must come to terms with the equivalent full cost of labor, and I would rather see that directly born by employers, rather than socialized, given that we don't socialize the profits (and should not IMHO). I guess the good Gov of AZ could propose if any increase in worker visas are granted to mitigate the effects of the current law, that all applicants must be on birth control while working in AZ. LOL!

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (246098)	4/29/2010 1:06:54 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

BTW, have you seen any analysis of the impact on housing in AZ due to this law? Most would be renters I assume, but having a few more 100K vacancies ain't going to help either.

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (246098)	4/29/2010 1:11:36 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

I think the main pain will be felt by low wage-paying small businessmen. Which is probably ALL small businessmen. What will they DO when they look around and have no workforce, no applicants? One guy can't operate a McDonalds.