Immigration Highly benefits the U.S. Economy

[Publicus]

Immigration is Good for the U.S. Economy

In a recent speech, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, commented that easing restrictions on immigration would go a long way in solving labor shortages that are threatening the US's continued economic growth, such as the problem faced in Japan and certain Western European countries. He has recommended increased immigration as a way to ensure that the economic boom continues!

Mr. Greenspan, among others, does recognize the vital role played by immigrants to the U.S.! The contributions that immigrants make to the U.S. economy far surpass any benefits they take from the U.S.

For example, in a study by Stephen Moore, entitled "A Fiscal Portrait of the Newest Americans", he demonstrates how immigrants benefit America!

Examples include:

* Immigrants contribute $10 billion to the U.S. economy each year.
* In 1997, immigrant households paid $133 billion in direct taxes to the U.S. federal, state and local governments.
* Immigrants and their families pay $80,000 more in taxes than they use in any services, over the course of their lifetimes!

In addition, the net benefit to the U.S. Social Security System, and we know that they need help, is $500 billion over the next 20 years!!! These are few benefits out of many that the U.S. receives from the direct contributions of immigrants!

[Publicus]

Immigration is Good for the U.S. Economy

In a recent speech, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, commented that easing restrictions on immigration would go a long way in solving labor shortages that are threatening the US's continued economic growth, such as the problem faced in Japan and certain Western European countries. He has recommended increased immigration as a way to ensure that the economic boom continues!

Mr. Greenspan, among others, does recognize the vital role played by immigrants to the U.S.! The contributions that immigrants make to the U.S. economy far surpass any benefits they take from the U.S.

For example, in a study by Stephen Moore, entitled "A Fiscal Portrait of the Newest Americans", he demonstrates how immigrants benefit America!

Examples include:

* Immigrants contribute $10 billion to the U.S. economy each year.
* In 1997, immigrant households paid $133 billion in direct taxes to the U.S. federal, state and local governments.
* Immigrants and their families pay $80,000 more in taxes than they use in any services, over the course of their lifetimes!

In addition, the net benefit to the U.S. Social Security System, and we know that they need help, is $500 billion over the next 20 years!!! These are few benefits out of many that the U.S. receives from the direct contributions of immigrants!

[AliBA]

Benefits WHOM in the US economy?

In what is probably an even more recent speech (Nov. 4--probably his last as Chairman), reported in the Wall Street Journal last week, Mr. Greenspan recognized that the effort to hold down wages to control inflation (this is a rationale for immigration) has had the dysfunctional effect of increasing wage and income inequality in the US. Note also--in the summary of his remarks that I read, he discusses educated workers from former Soviet countries, China, and India--not unskilled uneducated illegal aliens.

"Mr. Greenspan acknowledged that the process [integration of China, India and the former Soviet bloc into world markets] also is restraining wages of manufacturing workers. Indeed, he cited Fed staff research that suggests wage inequality is growing dramatically in the U.S., with the 20% of workers who are managers and supervisors enjoying wage gains of 10% a year, while the rest, mainly production workers, see gains of less than 4% a year, barely keeping up with inflation."

As for your fascination with "billions", you need to keep them in perspective. $10 billion is nothing in a TRILLION dollar economy. The billions contributed to the Social Security suspense fund over the past 30 years (presumably by illegal aliens) wouldn't pay for more than ONE YEAR of SS's obligations--less if illegal aliens become eligible to receive benefits under the totalization agreement with Mexico. Furthermore, the study you're referring to is of IMMIGRANTS, not illegal aliens. The latter tend to be lower wage earners and net users of services. The poor also get disproportionately more back in benefits from SS than they pay in. Legal immigrants and illegal aliens should not be conflated into one group "immigrants". Finally, were it not for immigrants, especially illegal aliens, US citizens would be paying more into Social Security. Those that are not working would have jobs to pay SS on, while those who are seeing their wages depressed would have higher wages to pay SS on. The so called contribution of $500 billion is not due to "immigrants" per se, but to jobs they're filling--jobs which American workers could do.

[ImmortalE]

You see, Publicus, this is how Aliba usually argues his points: I call that "destroy-and-distort-the-facts" method of arguing.

He ignores what is written in plain English, instead tries to convince us that Greenspan said what he didn't.

Aliba either takes us for fools, or else he doesn't fully understand what he reads.
In either case, very unfortunate for him.


1. What a fallacy to suggest that FED's keep inflation down by holding wages down and that they achieve such end by means of bringing here illegal aliens??
Whoever suggests it must be smoking "dream pipe".

FED'S control Inflation by means of adjusting the INTEREST RATE.

Lower the rate - and make more money available, so economy can boom. But as soon as it leads to inflation, FED's start increasing the rate, thus making less money available, thus stopping the inflation.
Reverse is done when there is a deflation.

2. When Greenspan speaks od Global integration of China, India and Russia, thus restraining wages, HE DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL THE MANUFACTURING JOBS WITHIN US ARE TAKEN BY CHINEESE, RUSSIAN AND INDIANS, AND THEREFORE US WORKERS SUFFER OF STAGNATION!
WHAT A FALLACY!

What Greenspan means is that US Employers are unwilling to increase the wage of it's own blue collar workers, BECAUSE, in an OPEN GLOBAL Market it COSTS US EMPLOYERS less to move their manufacturing of goods/services OVERSEAS, RATHER THAN STAY IN US AND PAY MORE TO US WORKERS.

So, what it has to do with Immigrants per se (Future Americans who will suffer just as any American from any adverse effects), if it is a matter of Foreign Economic Relationships and Markets?

3. Further, note how Aliba changes his stance when you tell him about benefits of immigration.
When he argues about "Loss" every penney counts.
But when it comes to "Gain" from "Immigrants", those "BILLIONS" are but "NOTHING" in a "TRILLION DOLLAR ECONOMY".

This is an obvious hippocracy.

[AliBA]

ImmortalE--

You're the fool, buddy boy. Yes, the Fed regulates the interest rate, and it's planning on raising it to help control inflation. Mr. Greenspan does not confine himself to discussing just interest rates, but the economy in general. In fact, a number of people on this site were all too eager to proclaim the news when he supported more immigration and used it as evidence that the US needed more. If immigration doesn't matter to his role in the Fed, why even discuss it? Higher interest rates mean businesses and consumers have less money to spend, and less money to spend means less inflation. More workers (from immigration or natural growth) means more people competing for jobs, which means pressure keeping wages down, which also helps to keep inflation down. Inflation is, after all, too much money chasing too few goods. Oh, yes--if you've got an ARM or credit card debt, you'd better lock in rates now, because you're about to get poorer as the Fed raises rates.

The quote was from the Wall Street Journal, and a more pro immigration rag you won't find. The speech was before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on Nov. 3. Check it out for yourself. Wall Street Journal online.

[AliBA]

When it's the state governments which are hemorrhaging money it is. The federal government deals in trillions. State budgets, where the costs are, are in billions. That's where hospitals are closing, prisons are overcrowded with illegals, and hospitals shut down because of unreimbursed costs. And the federal government even gets to print money States, on the other hand, are required by law to balance their budgets.

Trying to claim that immigrants are a net gain to the economy by only looking at FEDERAL programs and federal income, when most of the expenses are on the state level is the real shell game, a specialty of supporters of illegal immigration.

[ImmortalE]

Aliba,
those State Welfare Concerns that you mention once again are more than well addressed in quoted article by Conservative Republican Shaun Kenney.

LINK:

http://discuss.ilw.com/eve/forums/a/.../m/34910567821

[Publicus]

Furthermore, the study you're referring to is of IMMIGRANTS, not illegal aliens.

Aliba, I was going to answer you but I discovered in the course of reading your retort that you have answered yourself. You seem to have issues with illegal immigration and that's fine. However I wasn't talking about illegal immigration and I have no time to talk about it.

Although I appreciate the fact that you finally noticed the core subject of my message which is a mere report of a study. So maybe you ought to send the reporters a letter regarding your concerns.

Thank you.

[AliBA]

You should ask some of those immigrants who are rushing here what it's like in their countries without medical care, public education, pensions, and the like. All these are the social programs Mr. Kenney apparently wants to see dissolved. As it is, our private sectors (medical care, schools, 401-Ks) aren't doing all that well at taking up the slack. If anything, they're all cutting back on medical benefits, defined benefit pension plans, and the like, so don't count on the private sector. I wonder how fast a bird flu epidemic will spread without public health provisions. What it would be like with only the truly wealthy being able to afford a K-12 education, much less college. How much fun it would be to see the unemployed or elderly begging in the streets because their 401-Ks evaporated due to corporate malfeasance, and without SS to provide even a floor. Wait! We had that at the turn of the 20th century, which is why labor unions and other social movements evolved.

Should social programs absolve the individual of personal responsibility? NO. But to be crude about it, sometimes s--t happens, and all the preparation in the world won't save you from a catastrophic illness, or a boss who prefers a sweet young thing to you as an employee. Americans realized that, which is why they're willing to have Mr. Bush's private accounts AS AN ADDITION TO, not a replacement for, SS.

[AliBA]

Publicus--The study you're quoting has been kicking around for quite a while, and is nothing new. I only posted because you seem to think it is, which means others probably will.

You did post another study on another link, sponsored by the Manhattan Institute. That one has some major flaws, but others with a lot better access to the press than I have have already commented on it.

[Publicus]

Here is my take on these anti-Capitalistic people who keep crying about wages going down. We live in a Global World now. Whether you like it or not, we do. If you are lazy and accustomed to receiving $30+ for a Job that a machine can do, then you better start educating yourself and learning new skills. Not only you are competing with people who not only do a better job but at lower price as well. You are competing with machines and computers who can automatically do the same job for technically free.

And if you want to keep receiving high wages, stop being cheap and stop spending your money in Wal-Mart buying the cheapest products you can find. Which are mostly imported. No Sir, go to a store where all products are made in the USA and pay top dollar for them. Because the American workers who made them, want to get that $30+ per hour like you do.

You see I work in the Telecommunication business. When I talk to some of my clients, they complain about the price of their cable TV bill. I say well how much you're paying? They reply $45. And I say, $45 only for 140 channels. So I tell them that we had to drop the prices to stay competitive with Satellite Dish, and guess who pays for that: The American Technicians who do the installs, the Customer service representatives, etc...Why? Because it is simple arithmetic and economic formulas. To keep the price down, you have to get rid of some of the overhead. Because the cheap people who complain about their wages going down due to competition are simply selfish on top of it. Their action say: Keep my wages up, drop all the prices down and keep everybody else's wages down. It doesn't make sense. Does it?

[Publicus]

Aliba wrote: Publicus--The study you're quoting has been kicking around for quite a while, and is nothing new. I only posted because you seem to think it is, which means others probably will.

You did post another study on another link, sponsored by the Manhattan Institute. That one has some major flaws, but others with a lot better access to the press than I have have already commented on it.

Do you have any facts to back up your claim that the study is flawed?

[ImmortalE]

Aliba,
just because you think/call me a fool doesn't nesessarily mean I am.
But the way you comprehend/arbitrarily interpret what you read certainly makes me think twice about "pot calling kettle black".

Here is quote of the news about Greenspan's speech:

[QUOTE]
Greenspan says foreign labor will ebb as anti-inflation force
Nov. 4, 2005


US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan yesterday said rising employment from China, India and the former Soviet Union bloc will help hold down inflation, but only for a limited period. Mr Greenspan told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that the countries'' integration into global trading is also holding wages of manufacturing employees down, an occurrence that must be monitored by global central banks. The federal agency upgraded short-term interest rates on Tuesday to 4% from 3.75% to prevent energy prices from pushing up inflation.
[END QUOTE]

Clearly it is a matter of GLOBAL MACRO-ECONOMICS that you refer to in your post(In contest of Greenspan's speech), yet somehow you want to force us to link Greenspans thoughts about holding down inflation in US to presence of IMMIGRANT LABOR IN US.


The fact is: if labor wages in India, China, Russia and etc. are LOW, in GLOBAL MARKET ECONOMY it will inevitably affect US workers and keep pressuring wages down in US as well.
Because, no American Employer will raise the wages of American laborer past certain level, having an opportunity to move a factory/service overseas
and employ much cheaper labor OVERSEAS.

Greenspan also notes(as far as inflation goes) that the effects of low wages OVERSEAS will help to keep inflation down in US for a while(by creating ground for US Employers to stagnate US wages, or else they can move out of US and employ cheaper labor in Soviet Block countries/China/India etc.), yet , he says, it will hold the inflation down for a limited period only.



How on earth, Aliba, do you make ARBITRARY EQUATIONS between FOREIGN LABOR(meaning LABOR THAT EXISTS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES) and "Immigrants"(LABOR WITHIN US), I wonder?

Now I will refrain from calling you a fool, rather wait for you to enlighten me.

[AliBA]

Publicus--Be consistent. Education and training don't matter when there are people in the Third World with the same educations but lower costs of living. If a medical doctor in India can read X-rays for one-tenth of what one in the US can, no way a doctor who has to pay his bills in the US can compete. Of course, China is now working on teaching its citizens English so that they can better compete with Indians. Ditto, Latin America. They want those call centers and outsourced jobs, too, AND they're in the same time zone as the US. The time is fast approaching when the jobs that went to India will go to China or Latin America because labor in these countries has the education and is cheaper. It's already happened to Mexico, with manufacturing moving to China in search of cheaper labor. A classic race to the bottom.

Oh, yes--those Capitalists who have been used to people buying automobiles and PCs and all sorts of costly goodies had better get used to the idea. Keep raising the interest rates. People are already slowing their buying. A mass market without the money to buy your good is no market at all for you.

[Publicus]

Let me educate you about the Central Bank. The Interest Rates at this moment are speeding the Economy and not slowing it down. Chairman Greenspan is trying to make the FED neutral, meaning that its policies do neither stimulate nor slow the economy down.

You may remember that the Federal Fund Rate which is the interest rate at which a depository institution lends immediately available funds (balances at the Federal Reserve) to another depository institution overnight, was 6.5% before 9/11, and it was dropped to a mere 1% in a move of genius by Greenspan to save the economy from going into a Depression. He saved the day, but of course there are side effects, one of them in the Housing Bubble forming in different pockets around the country and Inflation which has to be controlled. Do you know what's the Federal Fund rate now: only 4% which puts the prime at 7%. You see this is still 2.5 points below pre-9/11 levels. So what are you talking about?

Yeah here is Economics 101 à la Aruba (sorry à la Aliba): Keep my wages up and up very high, drop the prices down and down, cheap housing, cheap products, I don't want to be creative, I just want to have a huge salary and be able to buy cheap stuff. I want to live like a king without doing any inventive hard work. Good morning...It's 7 o'clock....