The Poojer Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 and while I know all these recent stories are seperate in their scope, the reactions to each are just frightening....relative silence is some cases and uproar in other cases... this most 'recent' story is the revelation that the Duke Health Official who used his kids for sex, the kids were black....now there is outrage...apparently when they were just kids, it was not worth the uproar Scary stuff She makes a couple of worthy points but overall still a bit scary and then this story: where is the outrage from both sides for such reactions again, let me reiterate, I realize these stories are not similar in any substantial way, only on a very tenuous and superficial way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 and while I know all these recent stories are seperate in their scope, the reactions to each are just frightening....relative silence is some cases and uproar in other cases... this most 'recent' story is the revelation that the Duke Health Official who used his kids for sex, the kids were black....now there is outrage...apparently when they were just kids, it was not worth the uproar Scary stuff She makes a couple of worthy points but overall still a bit scary and then this story: where is the outrage from both sides for such reactions again, let me reiterate, I realize these stories are not similar in any substantial way, only on a very tenuous and superficial way Why should there be outrage over that last story? Outrage over the results of a democratically held election? EDIT: Ok, I see the reactions you were talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 hahahahahahaha...that was actually the headline on drudge...took a while to find that in the article Why should there be outrage over that last story? Outrage over the results of a democratically held election? EDIT: Ok, I see the reactions you were talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 and rather than start a new thread about 'racial' issues....I just came across this article as well about african americans unemployment rate numbers being 4x higher than other groups...yet look at the example they site...it's right under the picture of the person not sure i get the logic... he left his job to find another one?????? and this counts towards unemployment numbers....shouldn't he have tried to get another job before leaving the one he had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 and rather than start a new thread about 'racial' issues....I just came across this article as well about african americans unemployment rate numbers being 4x higher than other groups...yet look at the example they site...it's right under the picture of the person not sure i get the logic... he left his job to find another one?????? and this counts towards unemployment numbers....shouldn't he have tried to get another job before leaving the one he had? It is not a racial issue, but a socioeconomic issue. In an downturn, the lower skilled, lower educated will suffer more on a proportionate basis. Since the inner city black & Latino population fits that description, it should not be a surprise there is a higher proportion of unemployed in their midst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 It is not a racial issue, but a socioeconomic issue. In an downturn, the lower skilled, lower educated will suffer more on a proportionate basis. Since the inner city black & Latino population fits that description, it should not be a surprise there is a higher proportion of unemployed in their midst. Sorry for going off on a tangent, but this is what irk me the most about affirmative action. If you tell me, "Poor kids who grew up in crappy schools deserve a leg up", I'd be fine with it. I wouldn't necessarily AGREE, but I'd accept the opinion. When you change it to "Black kids deserve a leg up", then it becomes a racist. So a rich black kid is somehow disadvantaged, but a poor white kid from the inner city doesn't get jack? It should never be about race. If you want to legislate based on socioeconomic status, go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 oh i agree, but like i said, they point out a guy, who happens to be african-american, who left his job before securing another one.....show someone who lost his/her job as an example of it.... It is not a racial issue, but a socioeconomic issue. In an downturn, the lower skilled, lower educated will suffer more on a proportionate basis. Since the inner city black & Latino population fits that description, it should not be a surprise there is a higher proportion of unemployed in their midst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 It is not a racial issue, but a socioeconomic issue. In an downturn, the lower skilled, lower educated will suffer more on a proportionate basis. Since the inner city black & Latino population fits that description, it should not be a surprise there is a higher proportion of unemployed in their midst. Are illegal aliens still helping the economic cause and quality of life for our citizens? Or, are there people out there unable to find jobs because of their presence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Are illegal aliens still helping the economic cause and quality of life for our citizens? Or, are there people out there unable to find jobs because of their presence? Not really. The free market has a way of rectifying itself. There's a far lesser movement of bodies from south of the border. Yet, the border agents are busier than ever. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Not really. The free market has a way of rectifying itself. There's a far lesser movement of bodies from south of the border. Yet, the border agents are busier than ever. I wonder why? The narcotics trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Sorry for going off on a tangent, but this is what irk me the most about affirmative action. If you tell me, "Poor kids who grew up in crappy schools deserve a leg up", I'd be fine with it. I wouldn't necessarily AGREE, but I'd accept the opinion. When you change it to "Black kids deserve a leg up", then it becomes a racist. So a rich black kid is somehow disadvantaged, but a poor white kid from the inner city doesn't get jack? It should never be about race. If you want to legislate based on socioeconomic status, go ahead. The problem isn't the crappy schools. The money that goes into teacher pay, schools, resources etc... are actually on par or higher in those areas. The difference for disadvantaged children and why it is an ongoing cycle that rarely is proken is the parents. Parents who are unwilling to spend the time teaching or even just making sure Johnny did his homework. No push to make sure Susie goes to school and isn't out getting pregnant and/or doing drugs. All the money in the world doesn't fix the problem. Look at Michael Vick, Sean taylor etc... all the money to get away from that life-style yet they go back. They teach, preach and live it even after they have a college education and millions of dollars. It isn't a black thing it's a desire to continue what you were taught as a child, even if it was all bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 The narcotics trade? Yup. Hooray for the war on drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Sigh... The town’s facilities were substandard, he said, gesturing towards the humble town hall, where a “No Loitering” sign is nailed next to the door. "There isn’t even a phone or a fax machine in there. How can we communicate with the outside world and ask for things?" There was jubilation among the town’s blacks after Mr Brown’s victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Didn't see this one coming. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/15/swim.club...lems/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Not really. The free market has a way of rectifying itself. There's a far lesser movement of bodies from south of the border. Yet, the border agents are busier than ever. I wonder why? How in the hell is the current "speed un-read legislation through Congress spending 2 trillion dollars" an example of the free market rectifying itself? How does the free market rectify itself in the face of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's racially motivated tinkering with the mortgage market? Or, a better question: how is the de facto wage controls that are put upon illegal workers compared to legal workers an example of the free market rectifying itself? As long as these wage controls are in place, there's no hope of the free market rectifying itself: the cheaper worker will always be hired. The only rational ways to have the market work is to remove the wage control = stop the flow of illegal workers/remove the illegal workers, or, stop the hiring/start the firing of illegals, or go at it from the other side: remove the minimum wage. You can't force companies to pay illegals the minimum wage, payroll taxes, etc., because doing so makes them incriminate themselves. So what else is left? One of these things is not like the other: everything but removing the minimum wage has been been tried and has failed, miserably. Removing the minimum wage is a radical step to be sure, but that is the only VIABLE way of removing the illegals wage control, because it removes the motivation to hire the illegal worker, and it, unlike the giant waste of money at the borders, actually has a chance of working. The race thing: I will never forget the 4 times I have discussed Affirmative Action with formerly under-privileged minority people. In each case, to my continued surprise, they were against it. Specifically because they believed that it created doubts about their abilities in my mind. In each case, I told them that they don't get to decide what goes on in my mind, I do...right or wrong In each case, they responded that while I may control my own thoughts, and, that my words and actions gave them no cause to support their fears, it didn't mean that I still didn't think it. While these were all very strong people both in skill and character, they still felt insecure. Ultimately, they all said that removing Affirmative entirely was the only way to remove the problem. I am more inclined to listen to people who have actually experienced the policy for themselves, lived it, dealt with the consequences, and then made themselves into something good, than I am to listen to people who are still trying to play the "victim" or their white enablers. These same white enablers who are clearly just using minorities for votes, blaming everyone else but themselves when their policies cause far more problems than they solve, and then trying to call me a racist for pointing out their utter failures, are lower than whale schit in the ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 How in the hell is the current "speed un-read legislation through Congress spending 2 trillion dollars" an example of the free market rectifying itself? How does the free market rectify itself in the face of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's racially motivated tinkering with the mortgage market? Or, a better question: how is the de facto wage controls that are put upon illegal workers compared to legal workers an example of the free market rectifying itself? As long as these wage controls are in place, there's no hope of the free market rectifying itself: the cheaper worker will always be hired. The only rational ways to have the market work is to remove the wage control = stop the flow of illegal workers/remove the illegal workers, or, stop the hiring/start the firing of illegals, or go at it from the other side: remove the minimum wage. You can't force companies to pay illegals the minimum wage, payroll taxes, etc., because doing so makes them incriminate themselves. So what else is left? One of these things is not like the other: everything but removing the minimum wage has been been tried and has failed, miserably. Removing the minimum wage is a radical step to be sure, but that is the only VIABLE way of removing the illegals wage control, because it removes the motivation to hire the illegal worker, and it, unlike the giant waste of money at the borders, actually has a chance of working. Huh? Slow down the typing, as you're not making sense. The free market I was referring to was the elimination of demand for labor, especially labor that was filled by the Latinos - agriculture, construction & hospitality. I don't think that the minimum wage plays a role at all, because it wasn't the pay that attracted the illegal but the availability of the job that Americans didn't want. But since you brought it up, if Americans didn't want the job that was protected by a minimum wage, what makes you think the Americans would want that same job if it paid less money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Huh? Slow down the typing, as you're not making sense. The free market I was referring to was the elimination of demand for labor, especially labor that was filled by the Latinos - agriculture, construction & hospitality. I don't think that the minimum wage plays a role at all, because it wasn't the pay that attracted the illegal but the availability of the job that Americans didn't want. But since you brought it up, if Americans didn't want the job that was protected by a minimum wage, what makes you think the Americans would want that same job if it paid less money? 1. What makes you think that demand for agriculture, construction & hospitality will ever be significantly diminished, never mind eliminated? Of all the demand in this country those are typically the last ones to be touched. You sure you want to talk about making sense? Since when will 300 million people not want food? housing? or Mexican cleaning ladies? I understand the point you are trying to make = cyclical unemployment gets the unskilled first. But, I don't think that it applies very well when we are talking about food, housing and service industry people, especially when you can pay them $3 an hour. If anything the cheaper labor cost means MORE illegals get hired in a recession rather than less. I think you should be talking about factory workers, delivery and truck drivers, etc., basically line of business and supply chain people, when you talk about the initial casualties of an economic downturn. 2. I don't buy into the myth that there are jobs "nobody wants". I believe that as long as you can get away with paying people $3 an hour, due to their illegal status, you will. Hence you artificially devalue that job below the price that the free market would otherwise set. If you do it long enough....you then start telling people that the free market, and not you, is responsible. Hence, nobody who is artificially "entitled", via the minimum wage, to a higher paying job, will "want to do" the lower paying job. There's no way in hell that a highway department laborer is any more skilled than a hotel housekeeper, in terms of the free market. But, since the former's value has been artificially raised(union BS), and the latter's artificially devalued, due to nothing more than: they can get away with it, the highway dude who sits on his ass most of the day gets $10 and the housekeeper who busts her ass gets $3. Neither price for labor has been set by the free market. You cannot remove the "take advantage of people's illegal status" wage control, because people will do it regardless of what you do. The only thing you can do is remove the other wage control, minimum wage, and allow all the workers to compete equally for the jobs. As we know unhindered competition will always bring the price to the proper market value. EDIT: And keep in mind I am only suggesting this as a "break only in event of recession" option. Only a minimum wage suspension, if you will, that could very easily kickstart the economy, because it would allow hiring of people that would otherwise not be hired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 1. What makes you think that demand for agriculture, construction & hospitality will ever be significantly diminished, never mind eliminated? Of all the demand in this country those are typically the last ones to be touched. You sure you want to talk about making sense? Since when will 300 million people not want food? housing? or Mexican cleaning ladies? I understand the point you are trying to make = cyclical unemployment gets the unskilled first. But, I don't think that it applies very well when we are talking about food, housing and service industry people, especially when you can pay them $3 an hour. If anything the cheaper labor cost means MORE illegals get hired in a recession rather than less. I think you should be talking about factory workers, delivery and truck drivers, etc., basically line of business and supply chain people, when you talk about the initial casualties of an economic downturn. 2. I don't buy into the myth that there are jobs "nobody wants". I believe that as long as you can get away with paying people $3 an hour, due to their illegal status, you will. Hence you artificially devalue that job below the price that the free market would otherwise set. If you do it long enough....you then start telling people that the free market, and not you, is responsible. Hence, nobody who is artificially "entitled", via the minimum wage, to a higher paying job, will "want to do" the lower paying job. There's no way in hell that a highway department laborer is any more skilled than a hotel housekeeper, in terms of the free market. But, since the former's value has been artificially raised(union BS), and the latter's artificially devalued, due to nothing more than: they can get away with it, the highway dude who sits on his ass most of the day gets $10 and the housekeeper who busts her ass gets $3. Neither price for labor has been set by the free market. You cannot remove the "take advantage of people's illegal status" wage control, because people will do it regardless of what you do. The only thing you can do is remove the other wage control, minimum wage, and allow all the workers to compete equally for the jobs. As we know unhindered competition will always bring the price to the proper market value. EDIT: And keep in mind I am only suggesting this as a "break only in event of recession" option. Only a minimum wage suspension, if you will, that could very easily kickstart the economy, because it would allow hiring of people that would otherwise not be hired. For an evidently smart guy, you can't resist on jumping on the rote talking points that have no basis in fact. Minimum wage exists only because it gives the right an opportunity to slam protectionist wages, and it gives the left a platform to complain that the poor are disadvantaged. The reality is the minimum wage is an irrelevant wage floor that has absolutely no bearing on the economy, other than inflaming whatever your party's base is. I don't suppose you've done an analysis of exactly who earns the minimum wages? If you did, you may adjust your position. Although based on your history, doubtful. I urge you to find a single serious economist who would argue that lowering the minimum wage and getting a good portion of displaced workers back to the workforce at $3/hr. is a good way to climb out of a recession. As minimum wage would put a person at the poverty level, I wonder what the impact on the economy would be if you took the vast majority of the unemployed middle class and dumped them into below minimum wage paying jobs, and then the resulting downward pressure on all wages because of that. Yeah, a deflation is a good way to exit a recession. The free market among illegal workers actually functions very well. They don't come here for the opportunity to earn $3/hr. If the employers in food processing & construction industries go through the trouble of winking at the fake SSNs, that means that they do record the SSNs and pay the requisite payroll taxes, along with at least the minimum wage. The food processing plants pay about $8-$10/hr. Construction jobs do not pay $3. If you want to see free market in action go to the reviled Home Depots where Central Americans line up for work. You'd be hard pressed to get someone for under $10/hr. The free market in labor works, because the immigrants know the score and they know where the jobs & pay is. No one will risk a border crossing and a $10K-$20K fee to work at a $3 job. As for more people getting hired in a recession, I'd like to know where you get those statistics. Every job I know is allocated based on cost vs productivity. So while it may be tempting to hire more people if they cost 1/2 as much, if you don't have a use for those people, you won't hire them even if they are free. So as, hospitality is down by 25%, construction has stopped, cheaper per unit labor costs will do squat to hiring decisions, because you don't need the workers. Period. Not a difficult concept for a smart guy like you to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 For an evidently smart guy, you can't resist on jumping on the rote talking points that have no basis in fact. We'll see Minimum wage exists only because it gives the right an opportunity to slam protectionist wages, and it gives the left a platform to complain that the poor are disadvantaged. The reality is the minimum wage is an irrelevant wage floor that has absolutely no bearing on the economy, other than inflaming whatever your party's base is. Wrong. Apparently you don't do what I do, because anybody in my job will tell you just how important the minimum wage is to businesses, in multiple industries and the military. Wait: minimum wage was created so that right wing pols can complain? Wtf? No it wasn't. Minimum wage was created so that the left wing can complain? Wrong again. It was created based on expositions of abuse of workers by poorly run corporations. It was a populist creation representative of the large, pro-union movement of the 30s-60s. Surprisingly wiki actually has a great article on it: here I don't suppose you've done an analysis of exactly who earns the minimum wages? If you did, you may adjust your position. Although based on your history, doubtful. I expect better from you than subscribing to simplistic views. Who is getting caught up in the talking points? Me or You? Quoting the Heritage Foundation? Yeah, if we limit our view to only the minimum wage itself, and if we pretend that it's effect lives in a vacuum, then this simplistic view holds. However, we don't live in simpleton land, and, economies are by definition, interwoven. This is why it's so important: Unions/Government/Military use it as one of the centerpieces to base their entire wage structure. They start with the minimum wage and work up. Surely you didn't think that they care about teenagers that work part time. Did you? So, the reason they are always pushing for it to go up is that they can then demand raises in their scale, across the board, across entire industries that compete for similar workers. You are right to say that, on it's own, its a relatively irrelevant measure, especially for the people that make it, who are also largely irrelevant to the overall economy. But since there are soooo many dependencies on it, it is absolutely wrong to say that it is irrelevant in general. I urge you to find a single serious economist who would argue that lowering the minimum wage and getting a good portion of displaced workers back to the workforce at $3/hr. is a good way to climb out of a recession. As minimum wage would put a person at the poverty level, I wonder what the impact on the economy would be if you took the vast majority of the unemployed middle class and dumped them into below minimum wage paying jobs, and then the resulting downward pressure on all wages because of that. Yeah, a deflation is a good way to exit a recession. How about a Nobel Laureate? From the wiki article: Nobel laureate James M. Buchanan responded to the Card and Krueger study in the Wall Street Journal, arguing:[53] ...no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimum scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores. So I think it's safe to say that if increases in the minimum wage decrease employment, the contrapositive, decreases cause increased employment, is also true. Unless, of course, you want to be called a camp-following whore. And what a shocker in that article: d-bag Krugman supports the nonsense. The point is that the downward pressure you are referring to is artificial: paying illegals less because of their status, not based on the true price of their labor. You cannot remove the downward pressure as long as illegals are illegals, AND, people are willing to take advantage of them. The only thing you can do is remove the other wage control = minimum wage. Without the wage controls, IF there was any REAL downward pressure, it would be temporary at best, as the market drove itself to to equilibrium. If we could hire all people for less than the minimum wage, and then give them market-driven raises as demand is inevitably spooled up, the market works as expected. But, if the minimum wage stays in place, that is only going to happen for one segment of the labor force, and it will happen much more slowly, because there is no motivation to pay illegals market price for their labor. In effect, these two phony wage controls represent an anchor around the economy's neck. WRT deflation: um people working rather than doing nothing is hardly an example of deflation. Hint: the deflation has already occurred. If you get the bottom of the economy going, it can only help the middle and the top. If middle class workers work lesser jobs to get things going, and then move back up to their expected level of jobs once they become available, thus creating more jobs, that too is hardly an example of deflation. Rather, its an example of how to get rid of it. The free market among illegal workers actually functions very well. They don't come here for the opportunity to earn $3/hr. If the employers in food processing & construction industries go through the trouble of winking at the fake SSNs, that means that they do record the SSNs and pay the requisite payroll taxes, along with at least the minimum wage. The food processing plants pay about $8-$10/hr. Construction jobs do not pay $3. If you want to see free market in action go to the reviled Home Depots where Central Americans line up for work. You'd be hard pressed to get someone for under $10/hr. The free market in labor works, because the immigrants know the score and they know where the jobs & pay is. No one will risk a border crossing and a $10K-$20K fee to work at a $3 job. I am supposed to believe that every single illegal working here today has a fake SSN, and that employers actually go to all this trouble? Or, am I supposed to believe that regardless of what the paperwork says, the employer, or the foreman, is NOT actually only handing out $4/hr, because he can get away with it? Hint: the paperwork is fake to begin with, why in the hell would they actually follow it? Again, you are looking at individual wages and missing the point: wages are dependent on each other, if one goes up/down, others that are based on it will go up/down as well. Why? Because, again, there are two artificially separate labor forces, and, by definition, those labor forces get paid different rates, from the minimum level to the $20/hr level. The real problem is supply, not demand. If there is a unlimited supply of workers that are willing to work for less than minimum wage, AND, for $8/hr when the job is "supposed" to pay $10, then the price for labor can never reach its real value. I am arguing that as long as there are 2 types of supply, one whose wage scale is set by the minimum and one whose wage scale is purposely depressed due to illegal status, employers will go with the cheaper guy, across all wages and for all jobs. As for more people getting hired in a recession, I'd like to know where you get those statistics. Every job I know is allocated based on cost vs productivity. So while it may be tempting to hire more people if they cost 1/2 as much, if you don't have a use for those people, you won't hire them even if they are free. So as, hospitality is down by 25%, construction has stopped, cheaper per unit labor costs will do squat to hiring decisions, because you don't need the workers. Period. Not a difficult concept for a smart guy like you to understand. You are ignoring the cost accounting side of this: not a good plan for a smart guy like you. What is stopping me from laying off/firing my existing work force, and replacing them with people who will work for $2-3/hr less? It cuts my cost of operation. I am not hiring MORE people, I am hiring the same amount of people I had before. Cutting cost in a recession is not only a good idea, its what we do. In fact, we cut cost ALL THE TIME. So again, when there are 2 distinct, artificially created unskilled labor forces, the cheaper one will prevail. You don't have to have a new need for labor for these artificial wage controls to have a serious effect on the economy. Namely, keeping disposable income down, or non-existent, and keeping the income you do create largely untaxed, and keeping legal workers unemployed, or costing them their jobs. So the current minimum wage, along with unlimited supply of workers willing to/forced to work for less than the actual price for each job, erodes disposable income and increases unemployment of legal workers, not because of the wage itself, but because of the dependencies placed upon it by employers and unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Boy enough contradictions in that tome to fill a swellwed head. So minimum wage was good when it was first implemented in the sweatshops, but we should get rid of it now because employers are different now? Ok. It's always entertaining debating you because I have to spend pages typing explanations about things I never say, but that you claim to be my argument. Where did I claim that eliminating minimum wages would not increase employment? Hint I didn't. What I did say is that reducing mimum wages would not move the needle on the macro economy. The biggest hit to the economy is by job losses among the $50k-$75k workers. Hard to see how you replace that purchasing power by lowering the minimum wage. You're right the economy is interrelated. But you also know the job market will not rebound until you sense a noticeable trend in demand. Even if you throw people into the workforce at far lower wages than before they are not going to increase that consumption, while they still have fixed debts from the good times. So the economy will need to adjust with more bankruptcies and lowering of prices. Sure sounds like deflation to me. Illegals do shift the market, but not at the minimum wage levels. They shift it at the $10 wage level. But they also shift it by availing a steady supply of low skill low pay work. Yes if you eliminate that supply the natural laws would dictate that either those jobs would be priced up or those industries would shrink. In either scenario as a consumer you would have fewer choices. I also would have to question the rationale of a national economic policy that stresses a low growth platform to protect the low wage low skill labor force. Did you see Karl Marx in the mirror when you typed your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts