ICE Arrests Nearly 500 Illegal Aliens In Sanctuary Cities

[Carl Pickens]

There is also cat **** coffee....

What Is Monkey Coffee?

I think I'll stick with just regular run of the mill coffee....hold the ****

 

[therealUT]

I'm curious, how many here are pro deportation and anti minimum wage?

If you are, what is your argument against increasing the minimum wage?

 

[Squints]

I'm curious, how many here are pro deportation and anti minimum wage?

If you are, what is your argument against increasing the minimum wage?

Go take an Economics 101 course.

One of two things has to happen if a Sanders-like minimum wage hike was implemented (RE: Seattle experiment):

1). Thin the workforce or cut hours. Take your pick. It’s self-evident (an axiom, if you will) of what negative impacts occur for the individual, the company and the economy.

2). Raise prices for goods/services. Let’s say this occurred across the whole scope of our economy (consumer goods, transportation of those goods, services, raw materials, etc., etc.), after a full economic reset at that “economy,” it would equate to the current minimum wage at this “economy.” In other words, every individual marketplace has been affected, including goods/services, housing, vehicles, etc. What was gained?

Let’s say this didn’t occur across the whole economic landscape (let’s say, local/regional), then what? If your competitors are able to drive their costs down, or they aren’t impacted by such legislation, you’ve practically been put out of business, or see #1 above.

It’s destined to be a vicious cycle of economic turmoil. The economy should carry itself with prosperous policies and infusion, not lunacy and pipe dreams. How anyone with 10 minutes of time in an Econ. class doesn’t know this, is, well, dumbfounding.

Bernie Sanders, from an economic policy standpoint, is the biggest DA to ever run for the presidency. And people on here think a tariff on steel/aluminum is catastrophic.....

 

[n_huffhines]

Go take an Economics 101 course.

You have no business saying this to anybody. You know even less about economics than you do coaching men's hoops.

The point TRUT is driving at is that minimum wage and job-protecting anti-immigration policies both artificially increase the price of labor inputs.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I am anpartial to Brazilian coffee myself.

In my house that is the biggest of all..millions, billions,trillions, Brazilians. We only go to Nicaragua, never been to the rest of South mericuh so it works..for us anyway

 

[therealUT]

Go take an Economics 101 course.

One of two things has to happen if a Sanders-like minimum wage hike was implemented (RE: Seattle experiment):

1). Thin the workforce or cut hours. Take your pick. It’s self-evident (an axiom, if you will) of what negative impacts occur for the individual, the company and the economy.

2). Raise prices for goods/services. Let’s say this occurred across the whole scope of our economy (consumer goods, transportation of those goods, services, raw materials, etc., etc.), after a full economic reset at that “economy,” it would equate to the current minimum wage at this “economy.” In other words, every individual marketplace has been affected, including goods/services, housing, vehicles, etc. What was gained?

Let’s say this didn’t occur across the whole economic landscape (let’s say, local/regional), then what? If your competitors are able to drive their costs down, or they aren’t impacted by such legislation, you’ve practically been put out of business, or see #1 above.

It’s destined to be a vicious cycle of economic turmoil. The economy should carry itself with prosperous policies and infusion, not lunacy and pipe dreams. How anyone with 10 minutes of time in an Econ. class doesn’t know this, is, well, dumbfounding.

Bernie Sanders, from an economic policy standpoint, is the biggest DA to ever run for the presidency. And people on here think a tariff on steel/aluminum is catastrophic.....

Interesting...

Minimum wage is government interference. So, remove that interference and wages drop due to competition. Note that prices along the entire supply chain will also drop, leading to much lower prices at the retail end. So long as there are replacement and substitute goods and services, this also entails an increase in real wealth over time. Booms and busts will occur, but in the long run what we will have is an increasing sawtooth.

Now, are you pro deporting immigrants? Or, do you think that deporting immigrants does not present the exact same types of economic risks?

 

[therealUT]

You have no business saying this to anybody. You know even less about economics than you do coaching men's hoops.

The point TRUT is driving at is that minimum wage and job-protecting anti-immigration policies both artificially increase the price of labor inputs.

How you been Huff?

 

[hog88]

I'm curious, how many here are pro deportation and anti minimum wage?

If you are, what is your argument against increasing the minimum wage?

Pro deportation is too vague to directly answer. I think the "dreamers" should have a path to citizenship, I think those here illegally now (non dreamers) should have a path also but a longer path because they did break the law in the first place. Illegals that have committed crimes should be deported. We also need to revamp our immigration laws to speed up and cheapen the process while ensuring applicants are properly vetted.

I'm against all artificial wage floors. A persons wage should be determined by their value.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

There is also cat **** coffee....

What Is Monkey Coffee?

I think I'll stick with just regular run of the mill coffee....hold the ****

lol.....ain't that the truth? Why anybody would consider drinking it is :crazy:

 

[therealUT]

Pro deportation is too vague to directly answer. I think the "dreamers" should have a path to citizenship, I think those here illegally now (non dreamers) should have a path also but a longer path because they did break the law in the first place. Illegals that have committed crimes should be deported. We also need to revamp our immigration laws to speed up and cheapen the process while ensuring applicants are properly vetted.

I'm against all artificial wage floors. A persons wage should be determined by their value.

Yes, illegal immigrants have broken a law. But, I'm not sure that breaking a law entails that we ought to or need to punish anyone. We all break laws all the time, seeing as there are a multitude of statutes on the books from the municipal level on up that regulate a lot of ordinary behavior, but, we usually just say "F*** it" in a lot of these cases, especially where we rightly reason that our behavior is not harming anyone. So, we should have something more than, "They broke the law" (and, further, allowing violations of the law does does not necessarily erode trust in the system nor the rule of law).

I'm interested as to why you, as an American citizen, would want these individuals here, working these jobs, but doing so as citizens or guest workers as opposed to illegal immigrants. As an illegal immigrant, insofar as they are working for a corporation (of which, a substantial portion of illegal immigrants do), they pay income taxes and, yet, do not file tax returns. Thus, they end up paying more in taxes than their citizen counterparts at the same income level. As a citizen, especially living in a nation with an enormous national debt, this is something you should want.

I have no idea what anyone's value is. Do you mean, simply, that a person should be paid for the amount of revenue they bring in to a business? Be careful, here...this will get really Marxian, really quickly, and you will be handing over the means of production to the workers.

 

[n_huffhines]

How you been Huff?

Good, man. Big year for me and mine. Nothing in my life has changed since the last time you were around these parts, but now I'm gonna be a Daddy in August.

How are you? I actually think of you whenever I go through a barrio. You still living in one?

 

[therealUT]

Good, man. Big year for me and mine. Nothing in my life has changed since the last time you were around these parts, but now I'm gonna be a Daddy in August.

How are you? I actually think of you whenever I go through a barrio. You still living in one?

Congrats!

I'm well. Living in KC, working in lawrence. Waiting for that winning lottery ticket.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'm curious, how many here are pro deportation and anti minimum wage?

If you are, what is your argument against increasing the minimum wage?

I think it is OK to raise it some, but I don't think companies should be forced to make it a 'living wage'. I think your life is pretty sad if McDonalds fry cook is your career goal.

But... the world needs ditch diggers too.

 

[Squints]

You have no business saying this to anybody. You know even less about economics than you do coaching men's hoops.

The point TRUT is driving at is that minimum wage and job-protecting anti-immigration policies both artificially increase the price of labor inputs.

Uh huh. This coming from a guy who thinks subsidies are the logical route to solving all economic issues. Don’t leverage the economy against our competitors, let’s tax our own people outright and across the board. And before you say a tariff is a tax, no ****, Sherlock, but I’m attempting to stimulate your mental fortitude to dig deeper, what little of it you may have.

As for basketball, we’re sitting at the house and Loyola isn’t. Considering how that game went throughout and how Loyola beat us up on the perimeter, I liked our chances by having control of the last shot (or at least attempting to). If you think a paradigm should be followed in every game and in every situation, without regard to the game at hand, the stakes, and uniqueness of opponent, your mentality is the reason why people like Butch Jones exist and TN was booted. I would’ve called their hand and given ourselves time to run our offense (which was starting to click again, even at that late point in the game). Loyola had our guards running in circles on nearly every trip down the floor. Oh, and I’ve been told by several others that they would’ve liked to have seen the same thing I mentioned, but keep pretending you’re God’s gift to economics, basketball and arguing. I’ll give you the last one, though. It’s all you know. :hi:

 

[hog88]

Yes, illegal immigrants have broken a law. But, I'm not sure that breaking a law entails that we ought to or need to punish anyone. We all break laws all the time, seeing as there are a multitude of statutes on the books from the municipal level on up that regulate a lot of ordinary behavior, but, we usually just say "F*** it" in a lot of these cases, especially where we rightly reason that our behavior is not harming anyone. So, we should have something more than, "They broke the law" (and, further, allowing violations of the law does does not necessarily erode trust in the system nor the rule of law).

I'm interested as to why you, as an American citizen, would want these individuals here, working these jobs, but doing so as citizens or guest workers as opposed to illegal immigrants. As an illegal immigrant, insofar as they are working for a corporation (of which, a substantial portion of illegal immigrants do), they pay income taxes and, yet, do not file tax returns. Thus, they end up paying more in taxes than their citizen counterparts at the same income level. As a citizen, especially living in a nation with an enormous national debt, this is something you should want.

I have no idea what anyone's value is. Do you mean, simply, that a person should be paid for the amount of revenue they bring in to a business? Be careful, here...this will get really Marxian, really quickly, and you will be handing over the means of production to the workers.

We are either a nation of laws or we're not, it's no more complicated than that for me.

As for a persons value, that is determined by the person who is employing them. How they determine that value should not be dictated by government.

 

[therealUT]

We are either a nation of laws or we're not, it's no more complicated than that for me.

As for a persons value, that is determined by the person who is employing them. How they determine that value should not be dictated by government.

Laws are broken and go unpunished under the watchful eyes of the state every single day in America, and this has always been the case. So, what's special about breaking this law?

As for wages, I agree that employers should offer whatever they want, but why are you adamant about who they must offer these wages to?

 

[hog88]

Laws are broken and go unpunished under the watchful eyes of the state every single day in America, and this has always been the case. So, what's special about breaking this law?

As for wages, I agree that employers should offer whatever they want, but why are you adamant about who they must offer these wages to?

I'm not an open borders guy, I'm fine with a guest worker program and firmly believe our immigration polices need to be revamped. I do not believe we should reward those that cross our borders illegally.

I'm an employer yet I think we should start holding employers accountable for hiring illegals. It puts those of us who follow the law at a disadvantage in competing with companies that don't.

 

[n_huffhines]

Uh huh. This coming from a guy who thinks subsidies are the logical route to solving all economic issues.

This isn't remotely close to my position on subsidies. I'm against subsidies. If I'm so stupid, you shouldn't need to make up arguments for me.

 

[therealUT]

I'm not an open borders guy, I'm fine with a guest worker program and firmly believe our immigration polices need to be revamped. I do not believe we should reward those that cross our borders illegally.

I'm an employer yet I think we should start holding employers accountable for hiring illegals. It puts those of us who follow the law at a disadvantage in competing with companies that don't.

How are they being rewarded? If I jaywalk and the policeman who sees me do this decides not to give me a citation, have I been rewarded? I can't imagine that I have been.

What disadvantages do these companies face?

 

[hog88]

How are they being rewarded? If I jaywalk and the policeman who sees me do this decides not to give me a citation, have I been rewarded? I can't imagine that I have been.

What disadvantages do these companies face?

Come on TUT, I’m not going down one of your rabbit holes.

If my competitor can hire illegals for less than market they have an advantage because I choose to follow the law.

 

[therealUT]

Come on TUT, I’m not going down one of your rabbit holes.

If my competitor can hire illegals for less than market they have an advantage because I choose to follow the law.

Good. I was hoping you would express it in this manner, rather than less than minimum wage (since, most illegal immigrants earn more than minimum wage, even day laborers).

So, if we get rid of illegal immigrants, regardless of whether or not we touch the minimum wage, the cost of labor increases. As such, prices increase, and these increases do not simply occur at the retail end, but also among producers trading with each other, as they require parts that they do not themselves produce. Thus, the prices increase throughout the market system. Moreover, the higher the wage, the more the company pays, per employee, in payroll taxes. So, again, prices increase.

Now, if prices only increase a bit, we are all worse off as citizens, though some citizens will have more job opportunities. However, as labor costs increase, moving the centers of production becomes more attractive to companies. That is, they will move away. They will still hire non-America citizens, they will just hire them in Mexico or elsewhere. And, we will pay the cost of the logistics required to deliver the products to market. Moreover, as labor costs increase, replacing human labor with machines becomes more and more attractive. Thus, we also get closer to the point in which we pay more to get our goods and there are less jobs.

You think all of this is worth it in order to simply make this one law sacred? Why wouldn't this also be worth it in order to give a few American citizens a living wage?

 

[Squints]

This isn't remotely close to my position on subsidies. I'm against subsidies. If I'm so stupid, you shouldn't need to make up arguments for me.

What exactly is your position? When pegged, you either ramp up the arguing or pull a luther and deflect with “you don’t understand,” followed by some smartass insult. It’s always someone else’s inabilities, but never your inability to cogently convey your own argument.

In several instances, and in a wide range of economic topics, you’ve campaigned for subsidies over tariffs. For someone who is against them, you often use them as the all-healing crutch. Enligthen us.

 

[n_huffhines]

What exactly is your position? When pegged, you either ramp up the arguing or pull a luther and deflect with “you don’t understand,” followed by some smartass insult. It’s always someone else’s inabilities, but never your own inability to cogently convey your own argument.

In several instances, and in a wide range of economic topics, you’ve campaigned for subsidies over tariffs. For someone who is against them, you often use them as the all-healing crutch. Enligthen us.

It's really not that complicated and I've explained it before.

Government intervention in the market place is generally a bad idea, and that includes subsidies. However subsidies are less disruptive to an economy than tariffs, and they directly benefit the industry you want to protect, as opposed to tariffs, which have an indirect benefit with more unintended consequences.

Bookmark this so you don't have to ask again. Or you can bookmark the other thread where I explained this position.

A tariff is government control. You're arguing for a tariff. I'm saying don't do anything, but if you're going to do something, do a subsidy.

A subsidy doesn't stifle the economy as much. A tariff does nothing to improve our ability to export steel, but a subsidy does. Also, a subsidy directly benefits domestic producers, while the effects of a tariff are indirect.

 

[n_huffhines]

Squints must not know you can pull up past threads?

 

[hog88]

Good. I was hoping you would express it in this manner, rather than less than minimum wage (since, most illegal immigrants earn more than minimum wage, even day laborers).

So, if we get rid of illegal immigrants, regardless of whether or not we touch the minimum wage, the cost of labor increases. As such, prices increase, and these increases do not simply occur at the retail end, but also among producers trading with each other, as they require parts that they do not themselves produce. Thus, the prices increase throughout the market system. Moreover, the higher the wage, the more the company pays, per employee, in payroll taxes. So, again, prices increase.

Now, if prices only increase a bit, we are all worse off as citizens, though some citizens will have more job opportunities. However, as labor costs increase, moving the centers of production becomes more attractive to companies. That is, they will move away. They will still hire non-America citizens, they will just hire them in Mexico or elsewhere. And, we will pay the cost of the logistics required to deliver the products to market. Moreover, as labor costs increase, replacing human labor with machines becomes more and more attractive. Thus, we also get closer to the point in which we pay more to get our goods and there are less jobs.

You think all of this is worth it in order to simply make this one law sacred? Why wouldn't this also be worth it in order to give a few American citizens a living wage?

You could have saved yourself some typing and used Huff’s favorite term. “Muh Laws”

But in the end things even out.