If supply of willing labor at a particular wage is significantly outpaced by the demand for it from employers, employers will have to raise wages until the number of willing laborers meets their demand.

We want to lower the amount of laborers who permanently can only do what is currently low pay, menial work -- not increase this number.

This is also why the race stuff is ridiculous. Americans shouldn't want to import low-skilled white workers either.

And we should fine the *****out of companies knowingly employing them.

But if I'm an ideologue and associate objecting to current pro- or ambivalent immigration perspectives with a lack of moral clarity, I would certainly try to play mental gymnastics too to paint immigration as a sanguine non-issue.

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I've heard it all now: Liberals appealing to fiscal responsibility to demonize immigration law and its enforcement agencies.

---

Stop the virtue signaling. The whole Department of Homeland Security is useless and should be s$itcanned.

---

You sound a lot like Trump. I'm not even sure what is going on with the National Intel Advisor other than all the people at th top are leaving.

---

Trump and the Democrats will never cut Homeland Security, the military budgets or immigration enforcement. It's all
Mother's milk to them. In fact we lived without Homeland Security until 2001. Nobody's life has been improved by any spending on the military or Homeland.

---

So I take it this is a cost cutting measure, instead of a Trump deep state issue? BTW, should we eliminate the intel entities as well to save money, since Trump is basically making them leaderless? I assume the many cases of Homeland stopping terriost attacks is basically false news?

---

It's not a deep state- it is the obvious bipartisan security state. 2001 was 18 years ago and we're still at war. We have troops in over 100 countries are actively fighting in 7 countries- I doubt anyone can name them. And yet the "war on terror" continues at abroad and home even if we don't have an enemy. Bigger budgets, militarize the border, erosion of civil liberties- Americans being surveilled and spied on by their own government. And if anyone- like Tulsi Gabbard-tries to question this she is smeared as a terrorist apologist by both sides.

One thing is always certain in our recent history. The government response to these over hyped fears is always worse than the problem

War on communism- wars in Vietnam, Central America. Witch hunts, HUAC

The war on the weathermen- spy on MLK, wipe out Black Panthers. FBI and cointelpro

War on Drugs- destabilize a hemisphere, surge of migrants, mass incarceration

War on Terror- endless war, removal of civil liberties and due process.

We are the biggest perpetrators and exporters of violence in the world. We're the biggest exporter of guns in the world. There are more guns than people here. We are a violent and alienated country. And yet shooting up a Walmart is shocking? Tell that to 400,000 dead Iraqis

And now more "fake wars" are in play- wars against immigrants, wars against random shooters. . All of this is the same playbook- divide, conquer, whip up hysteria, distract and make this a more authoritarian country. So, yes, don't give the military or Homeland security a cent

---

it is amazing to me how hard core Trump supports have so many common views with the anarchist left. They all view government as one big conspiracy.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I've heard it all now: Liberals appealing to fiscal responsibility to demonize immigration law and its enforcement agencies.

---

Stop the virtue signaling. The whole Department of Homeland Security is useless and should be s$itcanned.

---

You sound a lot like Trump. I'm not even sure what is going on with the National Intel Advisor other than all the people at th top are leaving.

---

Trump and the Democrats will never cut Homeland Security, the military budgets or immigration enforcement. It's all
Mother's milk to them. In fact we lived without Homeland Security until 2001. Nobody's life has been improved by any spending on the military or Homeland.

---

So I take it this is a cost cutting measure, instead of a Trump deep state issue? BTW, should we eliminate the intel entities as well to save money, since Trump is basically making them leaderless? I assume the many cases of Homeland stopping terriost attacks is basically false news?

---

It's not a deep state- it is the obvious bipartisan security state. 2001 was 18 years ago and we're still at war. We have troops in over 100 countries are actively fighting in 7 countries- I doubt anyone can name them. And yet the "war on terror" continues at abroad and home even if we don't have an enemy. Bigger budgets, militarize the border, erosion of civil liberties- Americans being surveilled and spied on by their own government. And if anyone- like Tulsi Gabbard-tries to question this she is smeared as a terrorist apologist by both sides.

One thing is always certain in our recent history. The government response to these over hyped fears is always worse than the problem

War on communism- wars in Vietnam, Central America. Witch hunts, HUAC

The war on the weathermen- spy on MLK, wipe out Black Panthers. FBI and cointelpro

War on Drugs- destabilize a hemisphere, surge of migrants, mass incarceration

War on Terror- endless war, removal of civil liberties and due process.

We are the biggest perpetrators and exporters of violence in the world. We're the biggest exporter of guns in the world. There are more guns than people here. We are a violent and alienated country. And yet shooting up a Walmart is shocking? Tell that to 400,000 dead Iraqis

And now more "fake wars" are in play- wars against immigrants, wars against random shooters. . All of this is the same playbook- divide, conquer, whip up hysteria, distract and make this a more authoritarian country. So, yes, don't give the military or Homeland security a cent

---

it is amazing to me how hard core Trump supports have so many common views with the anarchist left. They all view government as one big conspiracy.

---

It's amazing to me how naive and gullible people are. By the way I didn't vote for Trump, you did.

GBear4Life said:

---

But if I'm an ideologue and associate objecting to current pro- or ambivalent immigration perspectives with a lack of moral clarity, I would certainly try to play mental gymnastics too to paint immigration as a sanguine non-issue.

---

Good thing I'm not doing that.

But it seems to me that you are vastly oversimplifying a complex issue so that you can continue to believe what you want to believe, for whatever reason.

sycasey said:

---

I'll just refer everyone to a previous thread on this subject:
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/88109/1#discussion

In short: I could find no solid evidence that immigrants negatively impact American workers' wages, and you should be very skeptical of anything GBear presents as a "fact" on this subject.

---

Well I think both the left and the right disagree to the extent it depends on the industry and circumstances, but in fact, certain workers are hurt and certain are helped. To quote a famous economist:

Therefore, although immigration yields a positive net gain to domestic workers, that gain is not spread equally: it harms workers who are substitutes for immigrants while benefiting workers who are complements to immigrants. Most economists believe that unskilled domestic workers are the substitutes, so their wages will fall, and skilled domestic workers are complements, so their wages will rise... In addition to wage effects, immigration has "displacement" effects. Some domestic workers will be "displaced" by immigrants, in the sense that they will now have to work in a different industry.

The right (Cato Institute);

Does Immigration Reduce Wages? https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages via @CatoInstitute

The left (Harvard):

Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216 via @politicomag

I might add that almost all economists think immigration has a positive impact on economic growth. It is just that immigration has positive and negative impacts, and overall a positive for most economists, much due to skilled labor, which typically is legal immigration. Things are lot more nuanced than people argue here.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'll just refer everyone to a previous thread on this subject:
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/88109/1#discussion

In short: I could find no solid evidence that immigrants negatively impact American workers' wages, and you should be very skeptical of anything GBear presents as a "fact" on this subject.

---

Well I think both the left and the right disagree to the extent it depends on the industry and circumstances, but in fact, certain workers are hurt and certain are helped. To quote a famous economist:

Therefore, although immigration yields a positive net gain to domestic workers, that gain is not spread equally: it harms workers who are substitutes for immigrants while benefiting workers who are complements to immigrants. Most economists believe that unskilled domestic workers are the substitutes, so their wages will fall, and skilled domestic workers are complements, so their wages will rise... In addition to wage effects, immigration has "displacement" effects. Some domestic workers will be "displaced" by immigrants, in the sense that they will now have to work in a different industry.

The right (Cato Institute);

Does Immigration Reduce Wages? https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages via @CatoInstitute

The left (Harvard):

Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216 via @politicomag

I might add that almost all economists think immigration has a positive impact on economic growth. It is just that immigration has positive and negative impacts, and overall a positive for most economists, much due to skilled labor, which typically is legal immigration. Things are lot more nuanced than people argue here.

---

Yes, that seems like a fair summary.

One thing I do agree about: if the government were truly serious about stopping illegal immigration, they would be prosecuting the employers who hire the undocumented as much as the immigrants themselves, if not more so.

GBear4Life said:

---

It's simple, deport those who are here illegally. Every raid = job openings for Americans (often Americans blacks and hispanics), the people regressive liberals pretend to care about.

If you want to run performance interviews with those whose resume suggests positive ROI for Americans, by all means.

If their American family members don't like it, they can join them on the bus out of here. This breaking up families thing is nonsense. If you insist on being with your now-deported family members, you're free to leave with them.

---

There are at least six ignorant mouth breathers on this forum who believe the above.

sycasey said:

---

One thing I do agree about: if the government were truly serious about stopping illegal immigration, they would be prosecuting the employers who hire the undocumented as much as the immigrants themselves, if not more so.

---

LOL

okaydo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

One thing I do agree about: if the government were truly serious about stopping illegal immigration, they would be prosecuting the employers who hire the undocumented as much as the immigrants themselves, if not more so.

---

LOL

---

Deport him.

Job Fair this Monday at the raided chicken plant. Bound to be a huge turnout

?resize=2560%2C1440&ssl=1

Turn and Burn

socaliganbear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

One thing I do agree about: if the government were truly serious about stopping illegal immigration, they would be prosecuting the employers who hire the undocumented as much as the immigrants themselves, if not more so.

---

LOL

---

Deport him.

---

Construction is one of those examples where immigrants, at least in SoCal, displaced union work (you usually only see unions on government jobs which are required per State statue), lowered wages, spurred real estate development, and thereby raised wages for skilled domestic workers like architects, engineers, builders, real estate attorneys, geologists, and the like. Immigration and its impacts are complicated.

I can only see snippets, but are there people still naive enough to believe that immigrants are taking our jobs? Unemployment is below the ideal level and lack of labor is a drag on our economy. Removing the lowest cost employees from the system will not lead to a massive gain for Americans but will inevitably lead to higher prices and inflation.

Better get used to $10 / lb chicken and processors going out of business. And watch it ripple across the entire food industry if Trump is successful in his war on the poor. There will be no winners.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I can only see snippets, but are there people still naive enough to believe that immigrants are taking our jobs? Unemployment is below the ideal level and lack of labor is a drag on our economy. Removing the lowest cost employees from the system will not lead to a massive gain for Americans but will inevitably lead to higher prices and inflation.

Better get used to $10 / lb chicken and processors going out of business. And watch it ripple across the entire food industry if Trump is successful in his war on the poor. There will be no winners.

---

This is going to sound weird, but if you look at the Fed minutes over the last several years, one objective of the Fed has been to cause more inflation, especially in wage growth at the lower end. I guessTrump's plans are to spur the economy with tax cuts, low interest rates and if he had his way, more spending, and in the case of blue collar work, reducing the illegal work force. This should, in theory, eventually lead to inflation and deficits that I have been *****ing about it, and getting panned on since none of this has happened. However, the inflationary stimulas seems to have been sucked out of the economy, as everyone thinks a recession is coming due to Trump's trade wars and the EU weakening. (I appreciate this is massive over simplification). But yes, the concern we share is actually what those managing the economy want. Go figure.

And to be clear, what is being said about job replacement is more complicated than people are losing jobs. What is being said is immigration has caused wage loss in some sectors, but the overall impact on the economy has been positive according to both liberal and conservative economists (it has also increased wages in some sectors). See the discussion regarding construction above as an example. It is not an issue that can be reduced to a single phrase like immigrants are taking jobs or even immigrants are taking jobs no one else wants. You really have to look at the peculiar situations in local business sectors then on a macro basis, and I believe the articles that I posted and the quote from the Berkeley professor say that.

Possibly apropos:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/statue-of-liberty-origins/

Naming a school after a local who won a Pulitzer is a good thing. Says to all kids you can do it.

That we once took 'everybody' means we must always take 'everybody'?

If that's the rule we're playing by...

And all these (affluent) social justice warriors virtue signaling about taking on the indigent and sticking them in YOUR city and YOUR neighborhoods will never ever have to live among these very people...there is no virtue in calling for behaviors and attitudes in which one will always be 'sheltered' from ALL the realities that accompany it.

GBear4Life said:

---

That we once took 'everybody' means we must always take 'everybody'?

If that's the rule we're playing by...

And all these (affluent) social justice warriors virtue signaling about taking on the indigent and sticking them in YOUR city and YOUR neighborhoods will never ever have to live among these very people...there is no virtue in calling for behaviors and attitudes in which one will always be 'sheltered' from ALL the realities that accompany it.

---

Oh look! He said "virtue signaling" again. Everyone have a drink.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

That we once took 'everybody' means we must always take 'everybody'?

If that's the rule we're playing by...

And all these (affluent) social justice warriors virtue signaling about taking on the indigent and sticking them in YOUR city and YOUR neighborhoods will never ever have to live among these very people...there is no virtue in calling for behaviors and attitudes in which one will always be 'sheltered' from ALL the realities that accompany it.

---

Oh look! He said "virtue signaling" again. Everyone have a drink.

---

Any thoughts on the issue at hand or points shared?

GBear4Life said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

That we once took 'everybody' means we must always take 'everybody'?

If that's the rule we're playing by...

And all these (affluent) social justice warriors virtue signaling about taking on the indigent and sticking them in YOUR city and YOUR neighborhoods will never ever have to live among these very people...there is no virtue in calling for behaviors and attitudes in which one will always be 'sheltered' from ALL the realities that accompany it.

---

Oh look! He said "virtue signaling" again. Everyone have a drink.

---

Any thoughts on the issue at hand or points shared?

---

Why bother? You aren't going to change your opinion and you aren't capable of changing mine.

I just find the constant use of your crutch phrase "virtue signaling" amusing.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

That we once took 'everybody' means we must always take 'everybody'?

If that's the rule we're playing by...

And all these (affluent) social justice warriors virtue signaling about taking on the indigent and sticking them in YOUR city and YOUR neighborhoods will never ever have to live among these very people...there is no virtue in calling for behaviors and attitudes in which one will always be 'sheltered' from ALL the realities that accompany it.

---

Oh look! He said "virtue signaling" again. Everyone have a drink.

---

Any thoughts on the issue at hand or points shared?

---

Why bother? You aren't going to change your opinion and you aren't capable of changing mine.

I just find the constant use of your crutch phrase "virtue signaling" amusing.

---

I'm not immune to having my mind changed. But I guess you are? If the only basis was to change the other person's mind, nobody would need to be posting here. You always have to assume that other readers will read and come to their own conclusions after following a thread. I might not change your mind, and you might not change mine, but we may change somebody else's mind who reads a fruitful exchange.

prospeCt said:

---

..

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

That we once took 'everybody' means we must always take 'everybody'?

If that's the rule we're playing by...

And all these (affluent) social justice warriors virtue signaling about taking on the indigent and sticking them in YOUR city and YOUR neighborhoods will never ever have to live among these very people...there is no virtue in calling for behaviors and attitudes in which one will always be 'sheltered' from ALL the realities that accompany it.

---

Oh look! He said "virtue signaling" again. Everyone have a drink.

---

Any thoughts on the issue at hand or points shared?

---

Why bother? You aren't going to change your opinion and you aren't capable of changing mine.

I just find the constant use of your crutch phrase "virtue signaling" amusing.

---

I'm not immune to having my mind changed. But I guess you are? If the only basis was to change the other person's mind, nobody would need to be posting here. You always have to assume that other readers will read and come to their own conclusions after following a thread. I might not change your mind, and you might not change mine, but we may change somebody else's mind who reads a fruitful exchange.

---

+1000. Many here are incredibly narrow-minded. You have many valid points even if I don't agree with all of them.

GBear4Life said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

That we once took 'everybody' means we must always take 'everybody'?

If that's the rule we're playing by...

And all these (affluent) social justice warriors virtue signaling about taking on the indigent and sticking them in YOUR city and YOUR neighborhoods will never ever have to live among these very people...there is no virtue in calling for behaviors and attitudes in which one will always be 'sheltered' from ALL the realities that accompany it.

---

Oh look! He said "virtue signaling" again. Everyone have a drink.

---

Any thoughts on the issue at hand or points shared?

---

Nobody gives a **** about anything you write

BearNakedLadies said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Any thoughts on the issue at hand or points shared?

---

Nobody gives a **** about anything you write

---

https://www.kveo.com/news/veterans-graves-to-be-dug-up-for-border-wall/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Well well well

the concept of graveyards is kind of silly, no?