quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I personally don't know because I'm not an expert on immigration but I assumed if it was written by a UCLA professor and published in a well-known LA weekly publication by somebody named Wilson that it had some merit. I thought it was reasonable to assume what he is saying is true.

quote:

I personally don't know because I'm not an expert on immigration but I assumed if it was written by a UCLA professor and published in a well-known LA weekly publication by somebody named Wilson that it had some merit. I thought it was reasonable to assume what he is saying is true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

If you honestly can't spot a completely biased piece of journalistic crapola when you see it, please stop starting threads!

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
how do you come up with "figures" about what may or may not happen in the future and to what extent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
math wise, the story doesnt hold up. What it is saying is that by deporting 2.5 million people from the LA County, each person they deport will reduce the income by 40,000. Most of those people dont even make that in a year, let alone draw in that much in revenue for the county. These are also not people who run their own businesses.

This story just makes no sense, Brain. I hope you can see why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
how do you come up with "figures" about what may or may not happen in the future and to what extent?

That's not so difficult, actually.  The prof's scenario is a crude first step.  If he then put in a few factors to account for some of the businesses going broke and some of them hiring replacement labor at a higher rate (the last thing he wants to do, because it would be US citizens picking up the slack, which he does not want to admit is a possibility), and the difference in the effects of a citizen vs a noncitizen working, such as money getting sent out of the country, it might be usable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
math wise, the story doesnt hold up. What it is saying is that by deporting 2.5 million people from the LA County, each person they deport will reduce the income by 40,000. Most of those people dont even make that in a year, let alone draw in that much in revenue for the county. These are also not people who run their own businesses.

This story just makes no sense, Brain. I hope you can see why.

tazzy, the idea is that there's a multiplier.  If one of them gets paid $20K/year, and he spends 80% of it here, saves nothing, and sends the other 20% south of the border, then he will pump $16K back into the state's economy.  The people he pays the $16K to will then pay all or most of that out, ad infinitum.  If all concerned saved 50% and spent 50%, then the multiplier would be 2.

The truth is that if you pay a noncitizen money, in this instance, a good share of it will find its way being sent out of the country to support back-home relatives.  For obvious reasons, Hinojosa-Ojeda omitted that, making his analysis fraudulent but permitting him to claim that he "proved" the effects of deportation.

quote:

The problem with this as related to the OP is that it assumes that none of each of those 16k's would be paid to someone else. The net of what an illegal contributes to the economy that would not be replaced by some other worker/consumer is miniscule compared to what they cost in education expenses alone.

quote:

He hasn't gotten any better. The fundamental assumption underlying his analysis is that if the illegals are deported, nobody will hire to replace them, and all the products that would have been made possible by them, will simply not make it to market.

I am with you at this point

Not only is this a ridiculous assumption, but it also assumes that a business owner will have no incentive whatsoever to make a product and will quit at the first setback,

I think he assumes that the business owner will have no incentive to make the same product for the same price because he will be forced to pay more for labor.


which violates the entire priciple of capitalism, in which the profit motive makes things get done.

Here is where you completely lost me.
To me this implies that things get done best, or well, or as good as can be...
ie:
In the field of vcr's beta was far and away the better format but vhs won out because it brought more profit.

quote:

and the difference in the effects of a citizen vs a noncitizen working, such as money getting sent out of the country, it might be usable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

which violates the entire priciple of capitalism, in which the profit motive makes things get done.

Here is where you completely lost me.
To me this implies that things get done best, or well, or as good as can be...
ie:
In the field of vcr's beta was far and away the better format but vhs won out because it brought more profit.

quote:

Well, the profit motive DID get things done. Unfortunately, they were not optimal for the consumer.

Still, in a centralized economy where the state owns the means of production, the businesses would likely die. I prefer capitalism, warts and all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

The problem with this as related to the OP is that it assumes that none of each of those 16k's would be paid to someone else. The net of what an illegal contributes to the economy that would not be replaced by some other worker/consumer is miniscule compared to what they cost in education expenses alone.

Education is funded by property tax...unless you live under a bridge you pay property tax. If as tazz says "they" live six to an apartment then"they" obviously do not have kids and thus contributors to a money pool that" they" do not draw from. If on the other hand "they" have kids in school "they" are paying for that with their property taxes. You argument about educational expenses just does not stand up to scrutny.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Well, the profit motive DID get things done. Unfortunately, they were not optimal for the consumer.

Still, in a centralized economy where the state owns the means of production, the businesses would likely die. I prefer capitalism, warts and all.

In a centralized economy where the state owns the means of production do you think illegals would be a factor???that may be one of the upsides of a centralized economy. You will note the only times that s. korea's production falters is when they are overcome with a temporary infatuation with democracy.