Hencredible Casanova said:
thegmanifesto said:
This is why the immigration debate is so shitty. The proponents of immigration, who are the dominant force, lump all immigration together, because if you were to separate immigration into different groups, eg by skill level, it would be apparent that some groups don't benefit America, while others grace us with world's best talent.
Right.
But the "unskilled" immigrants do a lot of the "unskilled" work. And keep in mind, American's are such cheapskates that they are the ones paying them.
American's create the "demand" for "unskilled" immigrants.
Also, the amount of "unskilled" immigrants that have done positive things for America is countless.
I agree. If you think prices for goods and services are high now, it would be MUCH worse were it not for a class of people willing to work for wages under conditions most Americans would NEVER accept.
I wasn't bashing Cubans as a whole, just saying Cuban mental patients specifically are probably a bad idea. Maybe we can make an exception for the cocaine huffing gun-toting ones on occasion to prop up Hollywood though.
I agree that Americans created that demand,
once the laws were changed to enable it.
But there are Americans lining up to take unskilled jobs. Employers are fond of saying that they can't find anyone. To the extent that it's true, it's because they aren't willing to raise wages high enough. It's like me complaining I can't find a personal umbrella valet
(because I'm only offering a $1 an hour). And sometimes it isn't true -employers will just simply lie via groups like the Chamber of Commerce, so that immigration brings wages down.
As for the cost of goods soaring without these immigrants - I'm not so sure. The labor cost of the lots of the stuff that you buy is actually fairly low, thanks to highly mechanized industries. Even for retail - I did a stint in retail, in a liquor store, and I calculated that our labor costs were about 10% of revenue. So increasing prices by 5% would be enough to increase compensation by 50%, if demand stayed the same. Demand would probably decline a little, but other stores would be facing the same pressures. There's also a lot of costs of unskilled immigration that you don't see - such as education spending, at $10k per kid per year.
If (the consumer) spends $1 on a pint of strawberries, the farmer's getting 18 cents. He gives about one-third of that to farmworkers, so they make 6 cents." So even if the labor cost were to double, that would still only be a 6 cent increase per pint.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/21/MNGFQIVN991.DTL&type=printable
Sounds like the real crime in this case is how less than 20% of the revenue is going to the farmer and his workers. I wonder where the other 82% goes.