New Study Shows that Immigrants Don't Steal Jobs from American Citizens

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The state hospital my wife worked at until recently was paying Kenyans to come work for them.

I'm noticing that in my location, where factories are propping up left and right. There is large population of heavy-accented African immigrants that seems to be increasing quickly around here.

Whether they're here legally or illegally, I have no clue, but the increase of their population has been noticeable. We have a heavy medical industry here, too--I wonder if it's more that than the factories. Or both. I was just talking about that with a buddy I work with yesterday...it's funny that you mention that today.

a reply to: neo96

I'm asking you.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I admire your commitment at least.

What is your opinion on the lax (non-existent) enforcement of any of these fine laws?:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I should hope your conviction would stand true that we need to persecute these offenses as vociferously as illegal immigrants are being assailed against here in this thread.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Would immigrants not be included in the wage group I am singling out in that study? Especially the illegal variety.

OH.

MY.

FRICKIN'.

GORD!

If immigrants--illegal or legal--are part of that group, then THEY ARE TAKING JOBS THAT AMERICANS COULD HAVE!!!

You literally just negated your entire OP.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ok. I misrepresented my source there. Sorry. But I still don't see how that disproves my point that this fund shows that illegals are paying taxes in some way.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

What if they are taking a job for a company owned by another immigrant?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ok. I misrepresented my source there. Sorry. But I still don't see how that disproves my point that this fund shows that illegals are paying taxes in some way.

I know you don't.

Kudos for admitting the mistake, though.

ETA: Sorry, I'll be constructive...the study mentions nothing about the status of those who filed taxes, therefore you cannot make a conclusion either way. It is proven, however, that many immigrants hold jobs for which they do not file taxes, and therefore would not be included in studies based on data derived from filed taxes.

I cannot make the statement any more direct than that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And what if 'ifs' and 'butts' were candies and nuts?

Here, a quote from you:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why should I imagine the impossible?

Why can you disregard hypotheticals, but then propose hypothetical, improvable questions yourself? Where I come from (and live now...and used to live...and may live in the future...), that's called hypocrisy.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I understand that the data isn't as exact as we'd like it to be, but it is better than nothing or guessing based on your biases. It is a good insight into the true picture and the picture appears to be showing that right wing concerns about illegal immigration are likely overblown. We should be embracing these people moreso than we are.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's called have the economy actually grow above the anemic rates of the Early Days after the "Great Recession" To extrapolate that to "illegals don't effect things" is a mighty long stretch. What would unemployment and wages be without even half of the illegal workforce?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And what if 'ifs' and 'butts' were candies and nuts?

Here, a quote from you:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why should I imagine the impossible?

Why can you disregard hypotheticals, but then propose hypothetical, improvable questions yourself? Where I come from (and live now...and used to live...and may live in the future...), that's called hypocrisy.

Ok so that was a rhetorical question to get you to see that immigrants don't just take jobs that Americans provide. Immigrants come to this country and start businesses too. Those businesses contribute to the total job pool. If the number of jobs from these additional entrepreneurs increases the job pool then you can't say that jobs are being stolen from citizens. Especially when you are near full employment (which we are). There has to be a give in the logic there.

a reply to: Wayfarer

State and municipal laws aren't in the same category as federal laws and codes. That said, I'm not sure all of the laws listed there are that ridiculous. Taking the one from my state as an example, waking a sleeping bear for the purposes of taking a photograph is, in the state of Alaska, wildlife harassment. That's illegal here for good reasons.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

What if they are taking a job for a company owned by another immigrant?

Discrimination against US citizens in regards to employment is illegal...
www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
That may be true....

....but then the opponents of Trump spent a couple of weeks parading all sorts of DREAM candidates who had professional jobs like nurses, accountants, EMT's, etc, and pointing out that we were going to deport these people. Those folks absolutely are filling American jobs that are desired.

Except of course, that's not how economies actually work either. If it were, then increase in the population would result in a loss of jobs. We know that's not what happens.

Nurses, accountants and EMTs don't exist in a vacuum.

They eat food. They live places. They drives cars and use public transportation and sometimes they Uber (or Lyft I guess, somebody does that). They wear clothes and have kids and buy TVs and telephones and have Internet services and well, you know, do all the things that people do when they're real life, living breathing human beings and not theoretical constructs existing in poorly thought out talking points.

In other words, the way a modern capitalist economy is supposed to work, is that when a new human being is born, that person (who is at first a very non-productive mooch) grows up to be both a part of the labor supply AND a consumer of goods and services — which means that they're contributing to a demand for goods and services that requires additional labor to fulfill.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's called have the economy actually grow above the anemic rates of the Early Days after the "Great Recession" To extrapolate that to "illegals don't effect things" is a mighty long stretch. What would unemployment and wages be without even half of the illegal workforce?

The recession ended awhile ago. Obama pulled us out of that during his Presidency.

So then, in 2016 the numbers had rebounded to 2010 levels after very bad years from 2010 to 2013? No gain, no actual change.

The point of all of this and how it means anything regarding immigrants, illegal or otherwise is beyond me.

Possible flaws in the way this study was conducted are mentioned and an attempt to counter them is also mentioned. That means any small changes are pretty much meaningless. Again

originally posted by: Wildbob77
Talk to any contractor building houses about illegals.

See if their competitors are using labor that may not be in this country legally.

Go to some of the Home Depot try stores and look at the day labor that is available.

Could these jobs be done by Americans?

. It's worse than that. Some contractors are Illegals themselves employing other illegals. Painters and Drywall off the top of my head. They can price themselves 35% to 40% less than a fully above the board contractor. None of that income is being taxed.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

What if they are taking a job for a company owned by another immigrant?

Discrimination against US citizens in regards to employment is illegal...
www.foxnews.com...

That's a lawsuit, not a criminal charge.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
September 2017 Vol. 103, No. 3 Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2013 to 2016: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances
I found this study on a WaPo article, but that was an opinion article so I'm going to post the actual study source as my primary source so I don't have to post this in the Mud Pit. The Federal Reserve posted this study analyzing wages from 2013-2016. The study shows that immigrants don't steal jobs or affect native American citizen wages negatively like is usually claimed by the anti-immigrant camp.

-Between 2013 and 2016, median family income grew 10 percent, and mean family income grew 14 percent (figure 1).
-Families throughout the income distribution experienced gains in average real incomes between 2013 and 2016, reversing the trend from 2010 to 2013, when real incomes fell or remained stagnant for all but the top of the income distribution.
-Families at the top of the income distribution saw larger gains in income between 2013 and 2016 than other families, consistent with widening income inequality.
-Families without a high school diploma and nonwhite and Hispanic families experienced larger proportional gains in incomes than other families between 2013 and 2016, although more-educated families and white non-Hispanic families continue to have higher incomes than other families.

I bolded the most important point from the study that I want to focus on here. Families without a high school diploma. The same class of people that illegals supposedly steal jobs from. As you can see, the conclusion is that proportionally, that class saw more gains than other groups did. Again. These are the people taking construction jobs, farming jobs, landscaping jobs, roofing jobs, etc. If wages are going up for them across the board, then how are illegals cutting into wages for citizens?

Seems the biggest gains are in the gaming/gambling industry. HS education or race/ethnicity/gender is a nonissue. Apparently just age. Got to be 18. Jobwise, gaming is bigger than the airline industry. What's interesting is most millennials don't play slots because they're playing pay to play video games.

There are many factors to consider in regards to this question posted at the end of this OP. One is concerning regulations and the legal or illegal applications associated with what makes a regulation what it is, a regulation.

An example of a regulator is the American Gaming Association. In 2014, this Association said that industry labor income in gambling/gaming had surpassed its prerecession peak and hit $25.5 billion. They said consumer spending on that hit an all time high of $67 billion. Then they said, "...if you look at all of the different regulations that are in place, there are a million different regulations that manufacturers have to adhere to as they move their equipment around the country.""

www.google.com...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

State/Municipal/Federal are semantics really, since there exists these kind of laws in any space.

Some federal ones:

www.freedomworks.org...

I especially like the last two on that list.

It sounds thought like you're beginning to waffle on enforcement since you bring up 'category' as a conditional modifier to your response.

The point isn't whether they're good or not, the point is enforcement. As you intimated earlier, the law must be enforced absolutely. That leaves no room for 'spirit of the law' interpretation or selective enforcement (state/federal/municipal, etc) as a socially acceptable method of avoiding onerous and subjectively maladaptive laws.

Or would you like to clarify/adjust your previously stated position?