Big business loves open boarders - cheap labor leaves more $$$ for their shareholders/execs. No party, D or R, will cut off the hand that feeds their campaigns.
.. simple to see, simple to read, simple to accept, is often not as simple as you would prefer .. much research suggests illegal immigration creates jobs, and if any depression of domestic wages it is negligible .. to support your "simple" contention you would have to supply good research showing the depression of wages by illegal labor is much more than any research i have seen suggests it does ..
By Eduardo Porter October 19, 2012 2:29 pmOctober 19, 2012 2:29 pm
Of all the economic dynamics buffeting the American middle class, immigration might seem the easiest to explain: as millions of poor immigrants from Latin America poured illegally into the country seeking work, the conventional wisdom goes, they competed with more expensive American workers, displacing them from their jobs and undercutting their wages.
This understanding of immigration helped propel a vast increase in the Border Patrol’s budget over the last two decades to stop immigrants on their way in. It was the rationale for proposals to build a long, tall fence along the southern border. President Obama, who in 2008 said he would push for a law that would grant many of these immigrants legal access to jobs in the United States, instead deported a record number of immigrants working here illegally.
But this explanation of the impact of immigration is mostly wrong.
For years, economists have been poring through job market statistics looking for evidence that immigrants undercut less-educated Americans in the labor market. The most recent empirical studies conclude that the impact is slight: they confirm earlier findings that immigration on the whole has not led to fewer jobs for American workers. More significantly, they suggest that immigrants have had, at most, a small .. http://www.nber.org/digest/apr09/w14683.html .. negative .. http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gperi/Papers/OP_april_2010.pdf .. impact .. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/business/yourmoney/16view.html .. on the wages of Americans who compete with them most directly, those with a high school degree or less.
Meanwhile, the research has found that immigrants – including the poor, uneducated ones coming from south of the border — have a big positive impact on the economy over the long run, bolstering the profitability of American firms, reducing the prices of some products and services by providing employers with a new labor source and creating more opportunities for investment and jobs. Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California at Davis, estimated that the wave of immigrants that entered the United States from 1990 to 2007 increased national income per worker .. http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-26.html .. by about $5,400 a year on average, in 2007 dollars. He also concluded that the wave had a small positive impact on the average wage of American workers, by lifting the overall economy. If immigrants hurt anyone, it was the previous cohort of immigrants .. http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gperi/Papers/OP_april_2010.pdf, with whom they most directly compete in the labor market.
These conclusions may seem to fly in the face of the laws of supply and demand. But they are not quite so odd. They can become obvious, in fact, once we take into account the response of American companies, and workers, to the inflows of cheap foreign labor.
The belief that immigration would simply displace American workers relies on the assumption that employers would do nothing but replace their costly domestic labor force with cheap imports. But that’s not typically what happens. For one thing, immigrants and domestic workers are not identical. Even the least-educated Americans are likely to be more fluent in English — better at talking with bosses or communicating with customers. When a contractor in Fresno expands into roofing, it will not just need a bunch of cheap immigrant roofers. It will also need an American supervisor and maybe an extra clerk.
Faced with a new, different pool of workers, companies often invest to reap the higher profits that the labor allows. Contractors, for instance, will be able to take on projects that would not have been profitable paying higher wages to domestic workers – like the roofing example in Fresno. This provides new opportunities for immigrants and for more highly paid domestic workers alike.
Mr. Peri and Chad Sparber of Colgate University found that American workers in states with large shares of less-educated immigrants gravitate toward occupations .. http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gperi/publications/peri_sparber_main_appendix_final.pdf .. like cashiers and bank tellers, waiters or sales floor clerks, which require more communications skills. Foreigners, in turn, stick to manual tasks and physical labor. By encouraging this specialization and capital investment, immigration contributes to productivity growth.
In other words, immigration can produce domestic jobs. Restaurants are much less common in Norway than the United States because Norway lacks the cheap labor — making a dinner out in Oslo prohibitively expensive. In many New York restaurants, the American waiters and hosts owe their jobs to the underpaid illegal immigrants in the kitchen, whose low wages allow the restaurant to exist .. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13239. The vast agricultural industry in the Central Valley of California might not exist without cheap immigrant farm workers who make it profitable.
There are victims of immigration. Immigrants can displace domestic workers – before business investment starts rising and creating new jobs. This is particularly notable .. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Peri-June2010.pdf .. in economic downturns, when demand and business investment are depressed. Some displaced workers may not be able to fit in the reconfigured labor market, even if new investments kick in and the economy as a whole benefits. A 50-year-old American janitor with no high school degree may find it hard to make the transition to another job when immigrants move into the building maintenance business.
This dynamic potentially causes a small negative impact on the wages of less-skilled workers – but it’s also possible that this impact is positive. A study by Mr. Peri and Gianmarco Ottaviano of Bocconi University in Milan concluded that the immigration wave into the United States from 1990 to 2006 changed the wages of American workers .. http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gperi/Papers/OP_april_2010.pdf .. with no high school degree by somewhere from minus 0.1 percent to plus 0.6 percent.
But over the long term, most less-skilled American workers are likely to benefit. Immigrant workers, in fact, may help their American peers resist the forces of globalization and technological progress that have been walloping the American middle class.
Those nostalgic for strawberry fields harvested by well-paid Americans ignore the fact that without the cheap foreigners, there might not be American strawberry fields. Chances are, it would be cheaper to import the strawberries. When the bracero program ended in the 1960s, tomato growers in California responded to the sudden shortage of Mexican immigrant farm workers by deploying a new mechanical harvester and a tomato that could be cut by machine.
These days, the problem of low-wage immigration seems academic. Since the financial crisis in 2009, poor immigrants from Latin America have been mostly leaving the United States, unable to find a decent job here. American workers might want them back. “If some firms don’t expand because this labor isn’t there,” Mr. Peri says, “they will create less jobs for native workers.”
Yep, it was another pretty damned good week for Obamacare, if you don't count that whole impending Supreme Court doom part. Here's what we found out this week.
This one is particularly salient for a Supreme Court considering stripping subsidies away from millions of people: the uninsured rate dropped more than 30 percent from September 2013 to September 2014. The Urban Institute has been releasing quarterly data since the implementation of the law, and has found that the uninsured rate for adults under age 64 has been significantly lowered, across genders and races and age groups. But not economic groups—the working poor and the middle class saw the largest drops because of the combination of Medicaid expansion and federal tax credits, or subsidies, for the middle class. In other words, the law is doing exactly what it was intended to do. At least in the Medicaid expansion states.
Thanks in part to some of the Medicare provider reforms and incentives in the law, healthcare spending in the U.S. grew slower in 2013 than it had in 53 years. Half a century. Lowest healthcare spending growth. It's worth repeating that the shrinking of Medicare spending has already cut the deficit more than any of the austerity-minded plans that anyone has come up with—Simpson/Bowles, or Paul Ryan, or anyone else.
There's this, too: 50,000 lives saved because hospitals have been made safer. The law included both penalties and incentives for hospitals to reduce readmissions and thus to cut down on the incidence of things like patient falls, poor sanitation practices that increased hospital-based infections, or patients being given the wrong prescriptions. This is all critical in saving lives, but incidentally helped in that whole spending less money on health care part, particularly for Medicare.
Finally, the good folks at the Kaiser Family Foundation released the results of their research into state marketplaces. They found that premiums under Obamacare are being held largely in check for 2015 thanks to the fact that lots of insurers have decided to join in, and are creating competition. As the law intended. That doesn't mean that health insurance premiums aren't still too high for a lot of people, particularly people whose wages aren't keeping up with the growth in healthcare inflation, but it is helping.
What does all of this tell us? That our healthcare system can be made to work better and more efficiently and can save more lives. This is all under a complicated, cumbersome system that still maintains the profit incentive for insurance companies. Imagine what more could be accomplished if Republicans in Congress were to finally accept that it's the law and it's working and can be built upon? Ok, that's a pipe dream. But imagine what could be accomplished if Democrats realized that it's working and can be built upon and start campaigning on that right now for 2016?
The flip side, of course, is not hard to imagine because we've seen it. If the Supreme Court does indeed decide to gut the law by revoking subsidies for millions of people, then those millions will be where the millions who live in states that didn't expand Medicaid are: shit out of luck. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/05/1349481/-Obamacare-has-another-very-very-good-week
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
