Undocumented employment in NYC construction industry has driven wages down 5% since 2003

[peejay 327]

Well there's the thing, you have made assumptions about my opinions based on the fact that I don't support idiotic laws that cost more to implement than the cost of the problem that they are meant to fix.

As for what I do or don't do when not on VJ? Well you can carry on making your assumptions. It doesn't change the arguments as to whether something is a good idea or not and you will not draw me on it.

Arresting and jailing child molesters, rapists, murderers, shoplifters, burglars, peeping Toms, etc., etc. costs money too. We could save a bundle by not enforcing those idiotic laws too...eh? People are going to do that stuff anyway? Why waste the time, money, or effort to combat things that are going to happen anyway? The courts are way too expensive too? Why not save money by eliminating them?

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt IMO. To me...that is what I get out of your statement. I disagree. Cost isn't the #1 factor in deciding what is right, wrong, or in the best interests of society.

IMO..folks that can only criticize, but offer no solution have zero credibility. If someone refuses to publicly take a stand on an issue, we can only make assumptions as to their point or their motives. But you have as much right to post here on VJ as anyone else (including me).

I just don't hold much credibility in someones statements that refuse to state their motives.

[Peikko 1,575]

Arresting and jailing child molesters, rapists, murderers, shoplifters, burglars, peeping Toms, etc., etc. costs money too. We could save a bundle by not enforcing those idiotic laws too...eh? People are going to do that stuff anyway? Why waste the time, money, or effort to combat things that are going to happen anyway? The courts are way too expensive too? Why not save money by eliminating them?

Is this the logic that drives you to the opinion that I support law breakers? Very fuzzy. I'll deconstruct it if I must, but I am sure you can see where it fails as a comparison to the problems of illegal immigration.

Cost plays a huge factor in determing what measures are put in to place for the good of society. If cost wasn't a factor I am sure most people could very easily solve both the problem of illegal immigration and criminality that springs from poverty.

As for placing credibilty on people's opinions based on your own particular set of rules, of course that's entirely up to you.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[peejay 327]

Arresting and jailing child molesters, rapists, murderers, shoplifters, burglars, peeping Toms, etc., etc. costs money too. We could save a bundle by not enforcing those idiotic laws too...eh? People are going to do that stuff anyway? Why waste the time, money, or effort to combat things that are going to happen anyway? The courts are way too expensive too? Why not save money by eliminating them?

Is this the logic that drives you to the opinion that I support law breakers? Very fuzzy. I'll deconstruct it if I must, but I am sure you can see where it fails as a comparison to the problems of illegal immigration.

Cost plays a huge factor in determing what measures are put in to place for the good of society. If cost wasn't a factor I am sure most people could very easily solve both the problem of illegal immigration and criminality that springs from poverty.

As for placing credibilty on people's opinions based on your own particular set of rules, of course that's entirely up to you.

In other words...the benefits of illegal immigration far outway the costs or it is prohibitively too expensive to combat it...so we should learn to accept it?

Please clarify. I don't understand what you are getting at.

[Fandango 1,440]

Bloody illegals, if it wasn't for them, the construction worker would be very well paid indeed. I've a good mind to shoot them all.

A 5% decrease in nominal wages from 03 to 07 translates to a 15% (approx) decrease in real wages. That's significant.

It most certainly is

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bloody illegals, if it wasn't for them, the construction worker would be very well paid indeed. I've a good mind to shoot them all.

A 5% decrease in nominal wages from 03 to 07 translates to a 15% (approx) decrease in real wages. That's significant.

It most certainly is

Yep. And once it directly affects those that think it isn't, they'll come to realize it too.

Unfortunately, it'll be too late then.

[Peikko 1,575]

In other words...the benefits of illegal immigration far outway the costs or it is prohibitively too expensive to combat it...so we should learn to accept it?

Please clarify. I don't understand what you are getting at.

Not what I said at all. What I said was, spending money on measures that will have minimal impact on illegal immigration is more money down the drain.

While it may sound good to shout 'build fences' 'deport illegals' etc etc, it's actually not the best use of resources by any stretch of the imagination.

I am all in favour of directing whatever resources are available in the budget to the enforcement of those laws that prosecute employers who knowingly employ illegal workers. This would be particulary satisfactory if the end result was that these employers were forced to pay a more realistic wage to legal workers. However, one would also have to anticipate that the increased wage bill would be passed on to the consumer and the consumer might not always greet these price increases with enthusiasm, even if they were to realise that the net benefit should be a reduction in illegal immigration.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am all in favour of directing whatever resources are available in the budget to the enforcement of those laws that prosecute employers who knowingly employ illegal workers. This would be particulary satisfactory if the end result was that these employers were forced to pay a more realistic wage to legal workers. However, one would also have to anticipate that the increased wage bill would be passed on to the consumer and the consumer might not always greet these price increases with enthusiasm, even if they were to realise that the net benefit should be a reduction in illegal immigration.

Not really. Always remember that the profiteers of illegal alien labor don't necessarily pass the savings on to the consumer but rather pocket most of that themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer. If they couldn't make it with legal labor, they'd just disappear from the scene altogether. After all, they'd be competing against the same crowd who doesn't exploit illegal alien labor today. The only negative effect would be on the profit margins of those that employ illegals today. Will there be a few consumers who will have to start paying real prices? Absolutely. But I ain't crying a first tear for them. Not one.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Peikko 1,575]

I woud be even happier if what you suggest turns out to be true. I am not in the least in favour of exploitation. As I said at the start, the real villains in the piece are the construction businesses who would rather cut costs all around, not least with wages.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I woud be even happier if what you suggest turns out to be true. I am not in the least in favour of exploitation. As I said at the start, the real villains in the piece are the construction businesses who would rather cut costs all around, not least with wages.

I agree. The focus of the enforcement ought to be on those that exploit illegal alien labor. Their ill-earned assets ought to be seized to compensate the taxpayer for the expenses their cheap labor incurred. Their businesses ought to be shut down, no business license ever again for those greedy profiteers once they are released from jail. Then, we'll get somewhere.