Pener Kropoopkin posted:

You mean like the upswing in unemployment we'll have when you deport millions of consumers?

Majorian posted:

"Both" is a pretty dumb answer when one of those options will kneecap the economy.

Majorian posted:

lol, you're dodging because the initial claim that I made that's being argued against was the following:


This was in response to Trump's asinine claim that "We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own." It seems pretty clear to me that you're doing everything you can to shift the focus of this discussion away from the fact that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about on this issue.

The Kingfish posted:

a heavy blow to the economy experienced by the working class as employment opportunities and wage growth.

as halfway crooks posted:

Can you see your bad logic here? I haven't made any posts about Trump's claims, only yours
Don't be defensive just because you made a specific claim about the effects of illegal immigration on agriculture that turned out to be untrue

Majorian posted:

That would be incredibly costly and tie up the judicial system for a long, long time. Not going to happen.


Magical thinking. Not every disadvantaged urban youth can simply his or her bags, move to a rural area, and start working at the drop of a hat. Moreover, agriculture is becoming increasingly mechanized; one of the reasons why illegal immigrant labor is still employed is because overall it's cheaper than using machines to harvest crops.

Majorian posted:

The evidence doesn't suggest that the working class will experience those benefits.


Where, exactly, did it turn out to be untrue? I was arguing against Trump's (and his supporters') position that wages across the board would benefit from the deportation of illegal immigrants. The evidence doesn't support that.

But hey, keep on moving those goalposts there, sport.

Majorian posted:

California's agricultural sector would collapse without migrant workers.

Majorian posted:

California's agricultural sector would collapse without migrant workers.

Majorian posted:

California's agricultural sector would collapse without migrant workers.

The Saurus posted:

and send the majority of their earnings out of the country.

quote:

Much better than those jobs paying a living wage to American citizens which actually pay taxes and purchases goods and services here instead of in Mexico.

quote:

But, taxes too high, wages too high, we’re not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it (the minimum wage) the way it is. People have to go out, they have to work really hard and have to get into that upper stratosphere.

T r a v i s posted:

He's talking about freeing up jobs in urban areas, not farms.

quote:

Would you mind telling me what 'machismo-motivated' means?

as halfway crooks posted:

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

The jobs currently performed by undocumented workers are never going to earn a "living wage."

quote:

Demoralization is, in a context of warfare, national security, and law enforcement, a process in psychological warfare with the objective to erode morale among enemy combatants and/or noncombatants. That can encourage them to retreat, surrender, or defect rather than defeating them in combat.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

*citation needed

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

t.
It's also not just a matter of farmers refusing to treat their workers like human beings, it's the economies of scale which make it impossible for small farms to operate without a low wage labor source. So unless you're operating on the behalf of a major ag corp, which can much more easily absorb the labor costs, you have to sell the plot. That means further consolidation of agricultural land, and monopolization.

Of course, none of this would actually be a problem if you granted amnesty to illegal workers. Or socialized agriculture.

Majorian posted:

What sorts of jobs would those be, exactly?


Nah, I like the answers you're coming up with more.


Oh, that's the part you think I'm wrong on? LOL, okay:

Illegal immigrants comprise up to 38% of California's agricultural labor force, according to a study by the California Immigrant Policy Center. They also account for 14% of the construction industry. That would be a pretty massive economic blow if we were to suddenly deport them all.

The paper you posted, lol posted:

"Among the most affected sectors... longrun relative declines from 2.0 to 5.4 percent in output"

T r a v i s posted:

You can cash checks with little or no ID and wire money in one convenient location in almost any low income neighborhood in America.

as halfway crooks posted:

The Saurus posted:

If you granted amnesty to illegal workers, it would have the exact same effect as deportation - small farmers would be forced to pay a living wage and therefore shut down in favour of larger farms according to you.

If small farms aren't economically productive enough to survive without semi-slave labour - then they shouldn't exist. There's nothing inherently good about having small farms rather than larger ones, they're all capitalists large or small.

as halfway crooks posted:

Majorian posted:

That is referring specifically to "Fruits, tree nuts, vegetables, and nursery production." You unbelievable dolt.

NFWM posted:

Most farm workers are paid based how many buckets or bags they pick of whatever crop they harvest—this is known as the “piece rate.” Payment in this format has some drawbacks.
First of all, if workers are being paid by how much they pick, this acts as a disincentive to take breaks for water or shade, as taking breaks would cut into their productivity and thus cut into their pay.
Additionally, it’s possible for a farm worker being paid by piece rate to make less than the minimum wage. For instance, the piece rate for orange juice in Florida is 85 cents per 90-pound box of oranges. Average productivity for a worker is 8 boxes per hour, which means that during an 8-hour workday, a worker will produce 64 boxes of oranges (or 5,760 pounds of oranges!). According to the 85 cents piece rate, a worker would receive only $6.80 an hour, which is significantly less than Florida’s $7.31 minimum wage (as of 2011).

To compensate for this problem, as of 1966, federal law requires employers on large farms to pay minimum wage if a worker doesn’t earn it based on the piece rate. Unfortunately, there are loopholes to this system.
For one, about one-third of the nation’s farm workers work on small farms, and these are not subject to federal law surrounding minimum wage. If a farm worker is hired through crew leaders or farm labor contractors, which approximately one half of all farm workers are, then their growers can avoid state and federal-level employment laws, including minimum wage. Another common issue amongst farm workers is wage theft, in which a portion of a worker’s wage is stolen by their employer or supervisor. Unfortunately, oversight on this is lax.

At the end of the day, a law is only as strong as its enforcement. In the case of workers in our country’s fields, labor laws are poorly enforced at best, and at worst, farm workers are paid very little or no wages and work under modern slavery conditions.

quote:

Large farms with over $1 million in sales account for only 4 percent of all farms, but 66 percent of all sales. That's up considerably from 1 percent of all farms and 50 percent of all sales a decade ago.

However, three quarters of all U.S. farms gross only $50,000 a year and currently account for only 4 percent of product sales.

All told, there are some 3.2 million farmers operating 2.1 million farms on 914.5 million acres of farmland across the United States.

"It's not terribly surprising that a relatively small number of farms produce the lion's share of products," said Darren Hudson, a professor of agriculture and applied economics at Texas Tech University.
"Most of the smaller farms are 'hobby' farms with significant sources of off-farm income," he said. "They are large in number but have very small output."
"Most of it is driven by the local, fresh food movement," said Texas Tech's Hudson. "This is good in that it offers farmers some diversification in market channels, so they're not completely dependent on large agribusiness firms to move products."
If the recent findings—which cover the years from 2007 to 2012—do one thing, said Justin Gardner, a professor of agribusiness at Middle Tennessee State University, they dispel a common misconception.
"Most farms in the U.S. are not the big corporations people think," he said. "If you look closer I suspect that you will find that the majority of the 'corporate' farms are large family farms that found it beneficial to form a corporation."

as halfway crooks posted:

Yes, the "most affected sectors" (in agriculture)
I tried to help by using the numbers most favorable for you

That's your Alamo - "collapse" is a 5% decline in tree nut output (or, in other sectors, less) in exchange for a 10% wage increase in the income level with the highest multiplier?

Laphroaig posted:

Majorian posted:

What sorts of jobs would those be, exactly?

The Saurus posted:

Construction, hotel, restaurant, warehouse, housekeeping, beauty and hairdressing,

T r a v i s posted:

There aren't a lot of "more productive areas of the economy" to move to for people who speak little or no English, so many would go on welfare if given citizenship, and that's not even taking into account the illegals in many other industries. The word 'gun' doesn't provoke the same reaction in most people as it gets from liberals.

Majorian posted:

You know what I'm going to ask you for, right?

T r a v i s posted:

There aren't a lot of "more productive areas of the economy" to move to for people who speak little or no English

The Saurus posted:

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/03/26/share-of-unauthorized-immigrant-workers-in-production-construction-jobs-falls-since-2007/

Majorian posted:

The, errr, headline doesn't seem to be supporting your case there, slugger. Or any of the study beneath the headline, for that matter. In fact, it kind of makes it seem like illegal immigration, perhaps, isn't the problem Trump makes it out to be?

Majorian posted:

That is referring specifically to "Fruits, tree nuts, vegetables, and nursery production." You unbelievable dolt.

e: Plus the evidence does, indeed, suggest that wages would not improve among legal workers if we stopped employing illegal workers.

Also California is facing a shortage of agricultural workers, not a glut, and has been for years now.

Trump's position doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's all about fear of scary foreigners and non-whites.

Majorian posted:

Looks like you didn't read even the introduction of the paper. This is a simulation positing "a 5.8-million-person decrease in the total number of unauthorized workers in all sectors of the economy, including agriculture." That's nationwide. Not just restricted to California. Given that California has by far the most illegal immigrant workers, and given that agriculture is California's largest industry, I think it's safe to say that no, you're wrong - the effects of ending illegal immigration would have a much larger effect on California's agricultural production.

Majorian posted:

But hey, keep on moving those goalposts there, sport.

Majorian posted:

The, errr, headline doesn't seem to be supporting your case there, slugger.

as halfway crooks posted:

So you're saying that it's a national decline of 5% in the (most affected) case of tree nut output? You mean it could be even more in California?

ITT: bad leftist poster "Majorcan" doesn't understand GNP vs. income, gets owned by his own paper (lol), desparately searches "illegal immigrant impact evidence" and skims the third link he finds. "An NGO? This'll do," he thinks as he edits his post (again), "I'll need to add something though - a newspaper article."



edit: I edit my posts just like Majorian, why didn't you reply to my edit that was made after your last reply hey why

the trump tutelage posted:

All this talk about the dubious merits of a permanent illegal immigrant underclass is interesting and all, but what if - ultimately - it's as simple as not wanting illegal immigrants in the country as a matter of principle?

Majorian posted:

Nothing wrong with opposing illegal immigration as a matter of principle, it's just a question of what's the best way to deal with those who are already here, paying taxes, buying our poo poo, etc.

the trump tutelage posted:

All this talk about the dubious merits of a permanent illegal immigrant underclass is interesting and all, but what if - ultimately - it's as simple as not wanting illegal immigrants in the country as a matter of principle?