GOP Debate live - 1-14-16

[LegendKiller]

China is your 3rd largest export market after Canada and Mexico. You sell the Chinese over $120 billion dollars in goods and services/year. You consider that pathetic?

So China takes in 106bn and puts out 443bn. Wow, great. They have a trade surplus of 337bn with us, or more than 3x our gross exports to them.

 

[LegendKiller]

And those people create demand of their own for goods and services, which requires more people to be hired to provide them, which drives up the price of that labor.

If you're going to call something 'simple' you should probably be sure you haven't fucked it up. lol.

But their demand is much lower, hence them taking in government subsidies, which also results in others taking government subsidies also.


Creating scarcity of labor is not a bad thing when there are tens of millions on food stamps and unable to find employment or full employment.

 

[pcgeek11]

"Anchor babies" are, by the way, growing up fully legal, tax paying citizens.

Are Trumptards implying that anchor babies also get "illegal jobs"? Or is the problem with "anchor babies" simply that they're not white..and have Latino heritage? Aka: RACISM
("They shouldn't have jobs because their parents are illegal?") Tell me!

***

If we're already at the age old, incredible idiotic "anchor baby" debate...why just deny "anchor babies" of Latino heritage citizenship and rights and deport them?

If the idea is to deny them rights and deport them because their parents are illegal, the next logical step would be applying the same principle to others. For example, folks from other countries that immigrate into the US, folks who marry US citizens etc., folks who via various reasons become "natural citizens" at some point

The biggest point is their parents are using the anchor baby law to get themselves head of the line privileges via their child.

The act of coming here without permission ( Illegally ) with the intent of becoming permanent by taking advantage of the anchor baby laws. That was not the intent of the law.

 

[MongGrel]

So China takes in 106bn and puts out 443bn. Wow, great. They have a trade surplus of 337bn with us, or more than 3x our gross exports to them.

It's business as usual these days.

Why do you act surprised ?

Really isn't a need to rant, this has been going on for decades, most people are well aware of it.

 

[Atreus21]

I agree we need to do something to fuck with China, but I don't agree that tariffs are the way to do that.

That means an effective tax increase on the poorest americans.

 

[LegendKiller]

I agree we need to do something to fuck with China, but I don't agree that tariffs are the way to do that.

That means an effective tax increase on the poorest americans.

You do realize that placing tariffs on them, or any country that doesn't allow reciprocal free trade and/or pegs their currency to ours artificially low, will only spur growth here?

 

[MongGrel]

The US corporations are too busy making money in China.

Grow up someday, to be blunt about it.

 

[shady28]

The US corporations are too busy making money in China.

Grow up someday, to be blunt about it.

So a US company takes its capital out of the US and sends it to China.

Builds a factory in China.

Hires Chinese workers.

Sells goods in China.

And keeps the money, in China.


If I recall correctly, this is exactly the type of things liberals keep complaining about? You know, keeping profits off shore?

In what way should any US Citizen give one flying fuck about ensuring those companies can continue to do that?

 

[MongGrel]

So a US company takes its capital out of the US and sends it to China.

Builds a factory in China.

Hires Chinese workers.

Sells goods in China.

And keeps the money, in China.


If I recall correctly, this is exactly the type of things liberals keep complaining about? You know, keeping profits off shore?

In what way should any US Citizen give one flying fuck about ensuring those companies can continue to do that?

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make atm.

From the sound of it you do not know yourself.

I guess you have it down a bit to a simplified low level.

 

[shady28]

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make atm.

From the sound of it you do not know yourself.

The US corporations are too busy making money in China.

Grow up someday, to be blunt about it.

So what did you mean by US corporations are too busy making money in China then?

Is there any particular reason workers in the states should give a shit about that seeing as how that capital, those jobs, and that money just sit in China?

 

[MongGrel]

You have a nice day.

 

[lopri]

I cannot believe that Cruz gave Trump an opportunity to deliver his (Trump's) most memorable debate performance ever. I thought he (Cruz) was supposed to be the smart one.

And now Cruz is facing a lawsuit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...orn-citizen-status-challenged-in-birther-suit

Schwartz, 85, said in a phone interview he isn’t connected to any particular campaign, though he personally “probably” supports Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination.
“Honestly, I was watching C-SPAN one night when Donald Trump was talking about it and I couldn’t believe no one had thought to just file something with the court,” said Schwartz, a practicing trial attorney and self-described news junkie.

I doubt the high court will take the case unless the district court rules against Cruz, and a chance of that happening is close to nil. But surely it will keep people talking for a bit longer, and that cannot be helpful for Cruz.

So is this what it came down to, Trump v. Cruz?

 

[Subyman]

If that's how you determine causation, that's fine.

Correct your math though. 11M is the estimated number of illegal immigrants.

There are 42.2M immigrants, total. That's what that chart is showing.

http://cis.org/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Record-Second-Quarter-2015

Also on raw cost :


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econo...alth_due_to_contribution_to_population_growth

How do you account for the 1970s to ~1998 period of time when there was practically no change but the immigrant population increased 3x? You can't plot two things together and then immediately make correlations between them. I wish it was that simple. Science would be a cake walk.

And I don't need to correct my math I used the difference in population between the points you were talking about versus the coordinating difference in wages and accounted for those in the work force.

 

[shady28]

How do you account for the 1970s to ~1998 period of time when there was practically no change but the immigrant population increased 3x? You can't plot two things together and then immediately make correlations between them. I wish it was that simple. Science would be a cake walk.

And I don't need to correct my math I used the difference in population between the points you were talking about versus the coordinating difference in wages and accounted for those in the work force.

I'm quite aware correlation does not mean causation. However there is strong correlation in those charts.

As far as the two points, the difference in immigrant population from 1970 until now is about 30 million. From 1970 to 1998ish is about 15 million. Immigrants went from about 4.5% of the population in 1970 to about 13% in 2010.

Maybe more to the point, wages are like any other service or product. Prices are always set at the margin. If there are 100 job openings for plumbers, but only 90 seeking work, the wages are likely to go up a lot more than 10%.

A good example - one not easily outsourced - is nurses.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/6/199.long

How high must RN wages rise in the future to end the RN shortage? We find that inflation-adjusted wages must increase 3.2–3.8 percent per year between 2002 and 2016, with wages cumulatively rising up to 69 percent, to end the shortage. Total RN expenditures would more than double by 2016.

Higher wages and increased nurse training are key ingredients in the effort to end the U.S. nurse shortage.

So I can't find data going all the way to 2016, but these charts and this article by the Fed clearly show the effect.

What I see here is a roughly 35% increase in income over 6 years driven by scarcity of labor - those years included the .com implosion and the market crash after 9/11.

Now here's the question for you.

Would this have happened if there were plenty of nurses around?

And what do you think that says about the effect of importing labor?


https://minneapolisfed.org/publications/fedgazette/send-more-nurses-stat

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Now I'm sure you're going to explain it away but I'll take your ineptly conceived excel chart from a right wing website and raise you a comprehensive review of actual empirical research into the effects of immigration on wages.

Here's the relevant conclusion:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18515.pdf


Although all of the research does not agree that there is no effect, that's the general consensus. Sorry, the evidence does not support your conclusion.

Your study addresses all immigrants, not illegal immigrants. buckshot and shady may be talking about all immigrants, but the discussion towards the top of the page seemed clearly directed towards the effect of illegal immigration. They have just two mentions of "undocumented", and admit that the effect of a large labor pool without the same labor rights as legal immigrants can "displace natives".

 

[buckshot24]

And those people create demand of their own for goods and services, which requires more people to be hired to provide them, which drives up the price of that labor.

If you're going to call something 'simple' you should probably be sure you haven't fucked it up. lol.

I don't think I messed anything up. Nowhere do I say anything about this being the only factor, no where.

For discussions sake, let's cut the importation of "cheap labor" into this country off completely. Would there be more or less people here able and willing to do unskilled labor? Less. Less available workers, higher wages needed to attract them.

 

[buckshot24]

How do you account for the 1970s to ~1998 period of time when there was practically no change but the immigrant population increased 3x?

I for one am not saying immigrants are causing low wages I'm saying importing cheap labor allows employers to give lower wages than they otherwise could for unskilled jobs.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think I messed anything up. Nowhere do I say anything about this being the only factor, no where.

Of course you did, which was obvious by the conclusion.

For discussions sake, let's cut the importation of "cheap labor" into this country off completely. Would there be more or less people here able and willing to do unskilled labor? Less. Less available workers, higher wages needed to attract them.

You absolutely cannot say that. There would be less people here willing to perform that labor, which yes would lower the labor supply, increasing wages. Unfortunately for your point there would also be fewer consumers of goods and services which would in turn lower the demand for labor and decrease wages. Put extremely basically, labor prices are a function of the supply of labor vs the demand for it. You assumed that decreasing the supply of labor would have no effect on the demand for it. Wrong.

This is the fundamental part about economics that people so frequently screw up. Your spending is my income and my spending is your income. If you remove competitors for jobs you're also removing customers for those jobs. This is one reason (of many) that the actual empirical research generally shows no effect on wages from immigration.

I noticed that nobody claiming immigration suppresses wages actually took issue with the paper, by the way. They just kept saying the same thing as if no contrary evidence was ever presented.

 

[Atreus21]

You do realize that placing tariffs on them, or any country that doesn't allow reciprocal free trade and/or pegs their currency to ours artificially low, will only spur growth here?

Growth? By raising prices on cheap Chinese goods that tens of millions of Americans, particularly the poor, consume?

 

[LegendKiller]

Growth? By raising prices on cheap Chinese goods that tens of millions of Americans, particularly the poor, consume?

And then they likely get home sourced and jobs (and wages) increase. Not to mention it may spur them to liberalize their trade, increasing access to us companies.

 

[ivwshane]

And then they likely get home sourced and jobs (and wages) increase. Not to mention it may spur them to liberalize their trade, increasing access to us companies.

Whose jobs and wages? The Chinese when they realize that they have a potential cater to billions of new customers at home?

 

[LegendKiller]

Whose jobs and wages? The Chinese when they realize that they have a potential cater to billions of new customers at home?

As 300bn of current account surplus disappears and a huge portion of their working class becomes unemployed?

And then they likely get home sourced and jobs (and wages) increase. Not to mention it may spur them to liberalize their trade, increasing access to us companies.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Sanders seems to be doing better than Hillary.

















Oooops wait..