NoLeftNoRight
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2015
- Messages
- 1,578
- Reaction score
- 418
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
All the news organizations report as accurately as they can.
There are a lot of empty truck seats right now.
Freight volume is down overall.
It's not a "tell-all"......... but it goes to show that general goods and materials are not moving
All the news organizations report as accurately as they can. The bias is in deciding which stories to report and which not to report. I'm surprised I had to tell you that.
When the rate of job growth amongst illegal immigrants is twice that of native born citizens at a time when job growth is tepid at best, is a solid argument against the use of foreign labor to undermine wage growth.
All the news organizations report as accurately as they can. The bias is in deciding which stories to report and which not to report.
If Fox News runs a piece interviewing someone who questions whether Obama was born in the US, is that ethical journalism, or not?
And there is no credible evidence that non-native Americans "undermine wage growth."
This is a common Fox strategy. Bring on people who lie and say outrageous things about, e.g., the POTUS, and then stand back and insist it's all "fair and balanced." One of my favourites is Ralph Peters (Puke Penises) who has appeared on their air calling Obummer "a coward" and "a *****." How can you put someone like that on television, praising him as an expert on national security?
Ya mean stories like that?
Labor has a certain demand and there is a certain supply of it. When you bring in more labor willing to accept a lower cost for their good (labor) the overall cost or wage is going to drop.
Fox does the news straight just like other news sources.
No, I mean news stories not opinionated comments.
In my experience, all of Fox's "reporting" is biased. What do you have to say about that Petallides "report"? Has unemployment, as measured by U-3, been cut in half "because the amount of Americans giving up looking for work has been going up" or because fourteen million full-time, private-sector jobs have been added in the past six years? Which factor has had the great influence: the additional 265K Americans reporting that they want a job but have given up looking, which is actually a decline if you adjust for the growth in the population, or the fourteen million more full-time, private-sector jobs? If Petallides was "expressing an opinion," I'd say she doesn't know what she's talking about. Given that she does know what she's talking about, how do you explain her stupid lie?
You are still confusing news reporting with opinion comments
The reality is, that the unemployment rate is about 1% higher than reported.
Yes, but that's not the way the US labor market operates. The non-native population has a stronger tendency to accept jobs that native-born workers typically reject. That benefits the economy as a whole.
Think of it this way: we "employed" African-Americans for centuries as slave labor, and workers don't come any cheaper than that. How did that institution affect our economy? It can be argued that the United Sates would not exist if it weren't for all the slave labor we were able to draw one. Or am I "playing the race card"?
In this same way, the lazy, good-fer-nothing, on-the-dole Mexicans who perform very difficult, low-wage work picking our fruit and vegetables, cleaning our hotel rooms, and washing our cars, etc, actually strengthen our economy. You might check out this short article: Illegal Immigrants Don't Lower Our Wages Or Take Our Jobs, Forbes, Aug 28, 2015
>>There is no proof of it except simple economics which should be evident to you.
One thing I found in my graduate education in macroeconomic policy was that "laws" of supply and demand that have value in a microeconomic environment, such as supply and demand setting prices, can be very misleading in the context of a massive and highly dynamic economy like we have here in the US. Those forces play a role, but are typically affected substantially by things like segmentation.
>>As for the job numbers: The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
Yes, I'm familiar with the controversy about the level of unemployment. Fwiw, I've worked for the US Department of Commerce since 1999, and part of my responsibility involves collecting the data that goes into the monthly BLS reports. I've been reading them for seventeen years.
U-3, currently at 4.9%, isn't the only statistic generated. There's also U-6, the Bureau's broadest measure of under/unemployment. It's currently 9.9%, down from 17.1 in Oct 2009. I agree with the president that we still have work to do improving our labor market, but I don't think you can credibly deny that there has been a lot of improvement in recent years.
I'd say the biggest problem Americans have isn't becoming employed, it's the relatively flat wages we've had for the past thirty-five years, the result of globalization, automation, and two rounds of SSE policies, all of which have combined to create a grotesque and highly dysfunctional level of income and wealth inequality. Building a wall to keep Mexicans out of the country won't do anything to address that.
your link at Forbes. Its based on a study that examined companies in which they employ illegal immigrants
I would expect that employers are able to hire undocumented workers for lower wages than they pay documented ones. So if undocumented workers aren't driving down wages or taking jobs away from native-born Americans, as that study shows, how could foreign-born Americans, either documented or citizens, be having that impact?
>>You aren't playing the race card by comparing slavery to illegal immigration but you are using an emotional argument in place of a factual one.
I don't see it as emotional. Slaves are very low-cost workers? Did their labor make it more difficult for members of the non-slave population to find employment? Did it drive down their wages? Or did it instead add dramatically to national wealth and in fact allow for a vibrant and expanding US economy to exist?
>>Do you believe illegal immigrants are good for nothing?
You must know I was being sarcastic.
>>I can't deny there has been improvement, I can deny the current government policy is improving it.
When did I refer to "current government policy"? You made a similar comment earlier:
You cannot argue both that the President deserves to be praised for job growth AND that he cannot be criticized for lack of it in certain areas.
I asked you to point to where I did that, and you haven't responded.
So yer saying that Petallides was not "reporting" but rather "expressing an opinion" when she said that unemployment, as measured by U-3, been cut in half "because the amount of Americans giving up looking for work has been going up," ignoring the fact that fourteen million full-time, private-sector jobs have been added in the past six years?
You just proved you didn't read the link which was the basis for your own source.
If you claim to know as much about economics as you say
Yes it is an opinion.
When someone says something the exact opposite of their position with a sarcastic connotation they are generally implying it towards the person they are speaking to.
There are plenty of economists that have stated that illegal immigration is causing wage depression, and loss of low end jobs.
An interesting observation, but forgive me if if I'm not satisfied that it provides proof of the validity of yer argument. Are you "appealing to authority"?
>>I don't need to provide proof
I agree. But if you don't have any, I'm not likely to be convinced.
>>it would be nice if you actually had an open enough mind to look at multiple sources.
The good news for you there is that I am more than ready to listen.
Regarding the links you posted, in my view it's bad practice to throw a pile of documents on the table and say, "Read this." Did you read them? If you did, why not help me and other readers out by citing relevant excerpts?
The GAO study is nearly thirty years old, and is loaded with qualifiers, like "information is limited," "useful evidence is scarce," and "available research has significant methodological weaknesses." I'd say it needs to be evaluated in light of all of the work done on this issue over the past three decades.
The findings are mixed.
llegal workers and international migrant workers (who are both illegal and legal) have exercised downward pressure on wages in some labor markets. However, in other labor markets, the wage depressive effect of illegal aliens also was shown to expand employment possibilities for complementary legal or native workers.
It also notes that undocumented status is itself a negative influence. Accordingly, if we could somehow get around right-wing. anti-immigrant zealotry and manage to reform our immigration policies to include a more effective guest worker program, that impact would be eliminated.
Perhaps you could dig through that study to discover its estimate of the depressive impact of non-native labor on native-born worker wages. It might be more than the Atlanta Fed finding of 0.15%.
I ran through the OECD study but didn't notice anything useful. Perhaps you could enlighten me in that regard.
I didn't see any data in the article covering the interview with the Gallup economist. Is there something in there you want to focus on, other than a vague reference to a "substitution effect"?
increase in the minimum wage increases illegal immigration
Employers are not required to pay undocumented workers the minimum wage, so I don't see how that applies.
<snipped to get to the point>
My point, and one you did not mention is that the growth of jobs among non-citizens has amounted to a lot of the job growth during this administration. Consider or it don't consider, but it is a factor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?