Why more Americans pay no income tax

[Red Dawn]

You may have missed my replies in the linked thread, but just a short recap. around 700 million people used to make less than a dollar a day working all day in china. That would be somewhere around 0.0625 dollars an hour. The factory is now paying them 0.56 dollars an hour, and provides a small bunk in a barracks and crappy food. I know their living conditions suck compared to mine, but that company just gave them a raise of over 700% without the housing and food, as crappy as they are, being included in the pay. I find a 700% raise to be a very strange definition of the phrase "taking advantage of."

You miss the part where they are required to work 6 days a week,15 hours a day with no bathroom breaks?

 

[daishi5]

You miss the part where they are required to work 6 days a week,15 hours a day with no bathroom breaks?

No I didn't. They used to work 14-16 hours a day 7 days a week, they made less than a dollar a day, and that had to pay for everything; food, clothing, and shelter. Yes, their life is pretty bad, but it used to be worse. I don't see improving their life as taking advantage of them.

Now, if the workers are not allowed to quit, and the company uses force to keep them there, that is a completely different story, and that would be wrong in many many ways.

 

[Patranus]

You miss the part where they are required to work 6 days a week,15 hours a day with no bathroom breaks?

Lots of people work 6 to 7 days a week and more than 8 hours per day in demanding professions that pay them lots and lots of money.

 

[Red Dawn]

No I didn't. They used to work 14-16 hours a day 7 days a week, they made less than a dollar a day, and that had to pay for everything; food, clothing, and shelter. Yes, their life is pretty bad, but it used to be worse. I don't see improving their life as taking advantage of them.

Now, if the workers are not allowed to quit, and the company uses force to keep them there, that is a completely different story, and that would be wrong in many many ways.

I guess they could always use catheters🙄

 

[daishi5]

I guess they could always use catheters🙄

Again, their life sucks compared to mine, I would not want to be in their place. But, their life sucked worse before this, the fact that most of the country is poor will not just go away. We should not deny them improvements in their life because we think the improvement is not good enough.

 

[Sclamoz]

No I didn't. They used to work 14-16 hours a day 7 days a week, they made less than a dollar a day, and that had to pay for everything; food, clothing, and shelter. Yes, their life is pretty bad, but it used to be worse. I don't see improving their life as taking advantage of them.

Now, if the workers are not allowed to quit, and the company uses force to keep them there, that is a completely different story, and that would be wrong in many many ways.

Right, they improved the employment conditions from utter shit to just shit and that's improving their life? You realize that the workers are as young as 14-15 years old and describe themselves as prisoners? They aren't even paid the very small minimum wage that Taiwan has?

Management also illegally withholds two weeks wages from the worker, and since it is almost impossible for workers to receive permission from management to leave, when they do flee, they have to forfeit two weeks of their wages.

Its always amazing in these discussions how the solution given to outsourcing from some people is to become China.

 

[daishi5]

Right, they improved the employment conditions from utter shit to just shit and that's improving their life? You realize that the workers are as young as 14-15 years old and describe themselves as prisoners? They aren't even paid the very small minimum wage that Taiwan has?

Management also illegally withholds two weeks wages from the worker, and since it is almost impossible for workers to receive permission from management to leave, when they do flee, they have to forfeit two weeks of their wages.

Its always amazing in these discussions how the solution given to outsourcing from some people is to become China.

So, you would prefer they lived in utter shit, and not get to move up to just shit? Can you make their life better than just shit? I don't advocate becoming china, but if we cut off trade with china we send them back to utter shit. I am sorry their lives are not becoming better fast enough for you, but almost all the recommendations I see from people would make their lives worse and eliminate the gains they have made.

If I knew a way to make all of china wealthy tomorrow, I would tell you. But, I don't, and I don't think you know how to engineer economic growth for a billion people either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Again, their life sucks compared to mine, I would not want to be in their place. But, their life sucked worse before this, the fact that most of the country is poor will not just go away. We should not deny them improvements in their life because we think the improvement is not good enough.

I agree, I was just responding to that little snot gobblers comment that Market Value is what the pay in China was.

 

[CycloWizard]

A problem with this scenario is that the company will ensure that there is no American that can take the job. The "posted position" will include bogus/unneeded qualifications that can not be met.


These posted positions must be submitted to the state unemployment division as one of the paperwork filing requirements.

Example: in '96 I came across a programmer position posted that required 3 years of Window '95 experience and was paying $30K w/ a Masters or equivalent. Advertised starting position for a programmer w/ a BS for local government was $35-40K But no one called the company that submitted the req on bogus info:\

After the position is listed for 30 days; then the company can file for H1-B status.

At this point, they either have a foreign college student groomed for the position or they farm out the req to a hiring agency.

Now the position was filled by someone from India that had no Windows API experience who was placed on salary at 50 hrs/wk.

Neither the student nor whom ever the agency delivers will meet the qualifications - but at this point; it matter not.

So someone was willing to do a job for $x, but they were born in India, so we shouldn't give it to them? If someone in Nauru is willing to come here and do my job for less than me and the company is willing to hire them to do it, more power to him - I'm obviously not worth as much as I'm demanding for the position.

 

[Sclamoz]

So, you would prefer they lived in utter shit, and not get to move up to just shit?

Nope. I would prefer they weren't treated like slaves. You make the claim that the factory has started paying them more and has improved their lives. Their pay raise was because of labor laws introduced by the Chinese government. These laws and others have been fought by American companies and even the Chamber of Commerce, while outsourcing American jobs at the same time.

Even lawyers working for multinational corporations seem to agree that there is an epidemic of cheating. Liu, the Shanghai lawyer who advised the government on the draft law, says many companies avoid existing laws by using employment agencies to hire workers. He says the new law will do more to protect workers from such abuse by holding companies accountable.

That was from 3 years ago, does it remind you of anything similar?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/business/worldbusiness/12iht-sweat.3141923.html?pagewanted=1

Can you make their life better than just shit? I don't advocate becoming china, but if we cut off trade with china we send them back to utter shit. I am sorry their lives are not becoming better fast enough for you, but almost all the recommendations I see from people would make their lives worse and eliminate the gains they have made.

Here is a simple recommendation: Companies should follow the laws that are in place and not abuse workers?

 

[EagleKeeper]

So someone was willing to do a job for $x, but they were born in India, so we shouldn't give it to them? If someone in Nauru is willing to come here and do my job for less than me and the company is willing to hire them to do it, more power to him - I'm obviously not worth as much as I'm demanding for the position.

The problem is not the pay rate, butthe fact that the job was rigged in advance to allow them to get someone on the H1-B.

The person did not have the qualifications for the position advertised but was hired.

A person who may have had the similar qualifications either did not apply for the job and/or was turned down because they "were not qualified".

It is difficult to have 3 yrs of Windows '95 experience when the product was out for only 1 year. the only others that could have had such experiece were beta develpers of those within MS.

In otherwords, the requirements were bogus to enable the company to justify bringing in an H1B

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Victim victim victim! Do you know how visas work? Why would a company sponsor a foreigner's visa if they could hire an American to do the same job? The only reason would be if the American, not unlike yourself, refused to turn his brain on to allow him to do the job.

So they could pay them less? To be able to recruit the top 1% of talent around the world so that they don't have to settle for merely the top 10%? In some cases it's probably an issue of talent, in other cases it's about depressing wages. Don't you remember the stories about Americans being made to train their replacements?

Cyclo, why don't you provide an economic argument to explain to us why it makes more sense to employ foreigners instead of Americans instead of name calling?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You just completely contradicted yourself. Why are these foreigners not part of the market? If they are willing to do the job for less than an American, then good for them. If I refuse to do the same work for the same pay as someone else, why should a company hire me? They absolutely should not and they would be foolish to do so, regardless of my country of origin. Why is this sort of discrimination codified as part of the liberal viewpoint, when all other forms are railed against so fiercely?

The difference is that our nation, as a whole, has an economic interest in keeping Americans employed (duh). In almost every field there's no shortage of college-educated Americans to fill the jobs that need to be done.

If we took your logic to the extreme--the American standard of living would average out with that of the third world because the supply of labor willing to work for far less than American labor is almost infinite. This should be obvious to anyone who has ever had an entry-level economics course. When you increase the supply relative to the demand, the price point (wages) decreases.

In fact, so far, no economist, politician, or pundit has been able to contradict that fact and provide a convincing economic explanation as to how global labor arbitrage is good for Americans. If they could, you can bet that they would be shouting it from the rooftops.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So someone was willing to do a job for $x, but they were born in India, so we shouldn't give it to them? If someone in Nauru is willing to come here and do my job for less than me and the company is willing to hire them to do it, more power to him - I'm obviously not worth as much as I'm demanding for the position.

You sound like a brainwashed free market moron who believes that conflicts of interest do not exist among rational men. In reality, it is in your rational selfish economic interest for the government not to allow that to happen. Do you want to live the way average people live in India, China, and Mexico? What do you think adding 2.6 billion relatively impoverished people to our nation's labor market would mean? How do you think that would affect the percentage of a worker's contribution to the act of wealth production that an employer must pay him in compensation based on market demand? Even blue collar workers who didn't finish high school can understand that it's in their selfish interest not to have competitors.

 

[CycloWizard]

The problem is not the pay rate, butthe fact that the job was rigged in advance to allow them to get someone on the H1-B.

The person did not have the qualifications for the position advertised but was hired.

A person who may have had the similar qualifications either did not apply for the job and/or was turned down because they "were not qualified".

It is difficult to have 3 yrs of Windows '95 experience when the product was out for only 1 year. the only others that could have had such experiece were beta develpers of those within MS.

In otherwords, the requirements were bogus to enable the company to justify bringing in an H1B

But that's not really how H1B's work. An H1B is requested by a company in order to bring in someone from overseas with qualifications. If that person gets here and is fired, the visa is rescinded and the person can be deported. Further, companies who are successful in their application for an H1B must meet all sorts of requirements, including paying, "at least the higher of the wage paid to similar workers in the same company or the "prevailing wage" (usually determined by the relevant State Employment Services Agency) for the occupation in the area the worker will be employed." Source: http://www.workpermit.com/us/investor_h-1b.htm

Simply applying for an H1B also cost the employer money. Given all of these things, what motivation would a company have for falsifying job requirements to cater to foreigners?

 

[EagleKeeper]

It goes back to a matter of $$.

The position is valued at $40K by the company based on the listed qualification.
The budget is $30K.
If they try to post the job with true requirements the prevailing wage would force it to be set at $35K.

By inflating the requirements to make it a $40K; they will get no takers.
Now they can legit request the H1B slot which gets filled at $30K and meets the real qualifications.

They are able to bypass the "prevailing wage" because there is no valid comparison for that slot with the "required" skills.

 

[Throckmorton]

Stop subsidizing children. Problem solved.

 

[Hacp]

So someone was willing to do a job for $x, but they were born in India, so we shouldn't give it to them? If someone in Nauru is willing to come here and do my job for less than me and the company is willing to hire them to do it, more power to him - I'm obviously not worth as much as I'm demanding for the position.

Screw that. These people are not US citizens. The advantages of working in the US should be reserved for US citizens. If he wants to work for those wages in India, that's fine. He can do that all he wants. But if we let everyone come to the US that wants to come here, we'll be a shithole. Billions of the poorest,dirtiest, ugliest people coming to the US working for nothing. NO. Not happening.

 

[Jhhnn]

Screw that. These people are not US citizens. The advantages of working in the US should be reserved for US citizens. If he wants to work for those wages in India, that's fine. He can do that all he wants. But if we let everyone come to the US that wants to come here, we'll be a shithole. Billions of the poorest,dirtiest, ugliest people coming to the US working for nothing. NO. Not happening.

Heh. If things were the way you want them to be, there wouldn't be any advantages to working in the US... global wage arbitrage being what it is.

You can't, won't, basically refuse to see that, even though it's been pointed out repeatedly... circular reasoning and denial working hand in hand... with a whiff of xenophobia added for good measure...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

But that's not really how H1B's work. An H1B is requested by a company in order to bring in someone from overseas with qualifications. If that person gets here and is fired, the visa is rescinded and the person can be deported. Further, companies who are successful in their application for an H1B must meet all sorts of requirements, including paying, "at least the higher of the wage paid to similar workers in the same company or the "prevailing wage" (usually determined by the relevant State Employment Services Agency) for the occupation in the area the worker will be employed." Source: http://www.workpermit.com/us/investor_h-1b.htm

Simply applying for an H1B also cost the employer money. Given all of these things, what motivation would a company have for falsifying job requirements to cater to foreigners?

To drive down wages? To be able to hire top talent at lower wages than what the American market dictates? There are even law firms out there that have advertised to help businesses circumvent the laws for that very purpose. Just because the spirit of the law might prohibit our discourage something doesn't mean it cannot be circumvented. Also, employees on visas who risk deportation and being sent back to the third world will be extra-motivated to work very hard and/or to work longer hours without extra compensation; it's another form of wage depression in that sense, obtaining more productivity than what you are paying for.

 

[blackangst1]

It goes back to a matter of $$.

The position is valued at $40K by the company based on the listed qualification.
The budget is $30K.
If they try to post the job with true requirements the prevailing wage would force it to be set at $35K.

By inflating the requirements to make it a $40K; they will get no takers.
Now they can legit request the H1B slot which gets filled at $30K and meets the real qualifications.

They are able to bypass the "prevailing wage" because there is no valid comparison for that slot with the "required" skills.

Not really. When a company hires an H1B worker, they are bound by the Labor Condition Application (a federal document maintained by DOL). On this application employers are required to pay prevailing wage and benefits. As far as I know there hasnt been any official reports by GAO or DOL that show employers are NOT paying prevailing wage. Of course, you can find plenty of reports from groups who oppose H1B immigration.

Lower wage also doesnt mean lower cost to employer. It is significantly more expensive to hire an H1B employee due to immigration fees and renewal fees (you can look up the $8500 "Scholorship and Training fee mandated as part of immigration changes passed in 2007). Obama signed a few laws regarding H1B's also, but if memory serves it only applies to financial positions. But, before USCIS approves an H1B, the employer must show they've either offered or tried to recruit a citizen first for the position, and that the position being filled is not being used to replace a worker who has been laid off in the previous 90 days.

Anyway. Hope that clears up some of your misunderstanding of immigration.

 

[blackangst1]

To drive down wages? To be able to hire top talent at lower wages than what the American market dictates? There are even law firms out there that have advertised to help businesses circumvent the laws for that very purpose. Just because the spirit of the law might prohibit our discourage something doesn't mean it cannot be circumvented. Also, employees on visas who risk deportation and being sent back to the third world will be extra-motivated to work very hard and/or to work longer hours without extra compensation; it's another form of wage depression in that sense, obtaining more productivity than what you are paying for.

And just because a law CAN be circumvented doesnt mean it is. This statement by you:

Also, employees on visas who risk deportation and being sent back to the third world will be extra-motivated to work very hard and/or to work longer hours without extra compensation; it's another form of wage depression in that sense, obtaining more productivity than what you are paying for

shows you know absolutely nothing about real world visa immigration.

Now, do abuses happen? Sure they do as reported by Newsweek here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_15/b4126063331942.htm?chan=magazine+channel_opinion but its not as common as you make it out to be.

edit: I edited to take out a personal attack 😛

 

[jpeyton]

It is a very disturbing trend that needs reversing. But how else are they going to buy votes? To half of the country all this big government is great because it's "free".

Wait, so you want to raise taxes now? I thought Obama's taxes were too high.

 

[Patranus]

Wait, so you want to raise taxes now? I thought Obama's taxes were too high.

Taxes are only high for the 53% who actually pay a federal income tax.
The tax base needs to be expanded not taxes on those who pay them now.

 

[blackangst1]

Taxes are only high for the 53% who actually pay a federal income tax.
The tax base needs to be expanded not taxes on those who pay them now.

Really? My wife and I make low six figures and I think our net tax rate for 2009 was about 19%...I dont find that high at all. Mind you, Im just talking about federal income tax. Other tax rates are indeed too high (capital gains, investment, and death taxes to begin with) but, at least for me personally, I dont have a problem with my tax rate.