Migrants easily cut through Trump's wall with a $100 saw

[Endus]

Not ever issue needs a thesis to explain it...

Assuming the best case scenario and every immigrat seeks employment and finds it that is still utterly crippling to the working class.

If there is a excess of labor especially unskilled labor the workers are no longer able to force companies to compete for their labor driving wages lower and lower. This has the additional nasty effect of increasing the amount of consumers in the market lowering the buying power of individuals when it comes to necessities.

Even in the best case scenario there are drawbacks to the current system for the current population. Only those wealthy enough to own businesses that can employ the new cheap labor benefit from it.

There's no observable nor identifiable lack of jobs that's occurring because of labor performed by illegal immigrants. The vast majority of work they undertake is work that American workers simply won't do.

What you're describing is Myth #2 that's explained in more detail here; https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...he-u-s-economy

Worse, this is a factor that only really exists because of restricted immigration. If they were granted easily-accessible work visas and thus enjoyed worker protections, the ability for employers to undercut minimum wages by paying undocumented labour under the table would be severely restricted, compared to the current status quo.

Yes. Your thesis does need defending. Because it's absolute hogwash.

[Elegiac]

If there is a excess of labor especially unskilled labor the workers are no longer able to force companies to compete for their labor driving wages lower and lower. This has the additional nasty effect of increasing the amount of consumers in the market lowering the buying power of individuals when it comes to necessities.

Wow, amazing. Almost none of what you said is true.

- "Unskilled labor" implies a lack of qualifications; the fact that there is a natural rate of unemployment means that there is already no ability within the workforce to make companies 'compete for their labor'. The only instance in which this would be true is if people could choose to opt out of the workforce, which they can't.

- Minimum wage is, like, a thing.

- More consumers in the market grows the economy by definition because there is more demand for goods. The idea that it lowers buying power is absolute nonsense.

Care to come up with some actual "harm"? Or are we gonna stop dancing around the point that this is all just a function of nativism.

[Whiskyjack]

There's no observable nor identifiable lack of jobs that's occurring because of labor performed by illegal immigrants. The vast majority of work they undertake is work that American workers simply won't do.

What you're describing is Myth #2 that's explained in more detail here; https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...he-u-s-economy

Worse, this is a factor that only really exists because of restricted immigration. If they were granted easily-accessible work visas and thus enjoyed worker protections, the ability for employers to undercut minimum wages by paying undocumented labour under the table would be severely restricted, compared to the current status quo.

Yes. Your thesis does need defending. Because it's absolute hogwash.

You made a strawman argument... It isn't a lack of employment that is a common misconception it is a over abundance of workers. Now I know to the layman that seems confusing so let me explain.

You claim they will do work others are unwilling to do. Let's tackle that first. Why are they unwilling to do it? Usually the answer is the work is difficult, unpleasant, and pays poorly. Usually it is at least some combination of the two with it always paying poorly.

There isn't a thing as work people won't do. Only work people won't do at the salary offered. When you let companies get around competing for workers and turn it into workers competing for companies you get the rather sick system we have now with ever diminishing buying power.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, amazing. Almost none of what you said is true.

- "Unskilled labor" implies a lack of qualifications; the fact that there is a natural rate of unemployment means that there is already no ability within the workforce to make companies 'compete for their labor'. The only instance in which this would be true is if people could choose to opt out of the workforce, which they can't.

- Minimum wage is, like, a thing.

- More consumers in the market grows the economy by definition because there is more demand for goods. The idea that it lowers buying power is absolute nonsense.

Care to come up with some actual "harm"? Or are we gonna stop dancing around the point that this is all just a function of nativism.

More people in the market lowers the buying power of each individual unless they are adding a surplus of resources to the market from their labor...

Having more consumers in a market doesn't lead to each consumer having more buying power...

[The Butt Witch]

Yes, it's almost like any object that's undefended and in the middle of nowhere, can be destroyed by someone with a hammer. Mind boggling, I know.

No wall can stop intruders. The point of a wall is to establish a physical border and slow down the intruders. The point of Trump's wall is to not allow hundreds of migrants to just waltz across the nonexistent border.

Also walls can be fixed. Nonexistent walls can't.

[Elegiac]

More people in the market lowers the buying power of each individual unless they are adding a surplus of resources to the market from their labor...

Having more consumers in a market doesn't lead to each consumer having more buying power...

It does, because buying power is not remotely related to how many "resources" people contribute.

Buying power is a function of the ability to consume. More consumers = more buying power = more aggregate demand.

This is basic shit, man.

[Dontrike]

Well probably because it was Trump's major slogan during his campaign and going ahead with that would've been yet another major defeat for them.

It was also Trump's slogan that "Mexico would pay for it" and that would be a defeat for him (and as we all know Mexico won't pay for it) and it would be a defeat for America since we'd all be stuck paying for the stupid fucking thing.

Perhaps, now stick with me here as this is a crazy thought, but maybe NOT taxing all of America just to build a wall that won't work is a victory. Trump getting his wall would have been a defeat for all of us.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it is past time that the states took securing its border seriously. If not they may as well abandon the working poor in favor of effectly slave labor from illegal immigrants. Making life harder for human traffickers and drug dealers is just a bonus.

You can do border security seriously without having a manned and far lamer version of the Great Wall of China, crazy I know.

[Whiskyjack]

It does, because buying power is not remotely related to how many "resources" people contribute.

Buying power is a function of the ability to consume. More consumers = more buying power = more aggregate demand.

This is basic shit, man.

Except it isn't.. let me make it easier for you... let's say I have 5 apples. Now let's say five people want to buy apples. I sell an apple for a dollar the current price.

Now let's say the next day 30 people want to buy an apple but I still have 5 apples to sell I can't produce anymore in a short period of time. I now sell my apples for 10 dollars a piece...

It's a extremely simple example and I know it doesn't cover all of intricacies of it but simply adding consumers to a market doesn't actually make necessities cheaper to obtain but the opposite.

[Dontrike]

Also walls can be fixed.

And most don't want to pay for that wall in the first place let alone for it to be fixed.

[Whiskyjack]

It was also Trump's slogan that "Mexico would pay for it" and that would be a defeat for him (and as we all know Mexico won't pay for it) and it would be a defeat for America since we'd all be stuck paying for the stupid fucking thing.

Perhaps, now stick with me here as this is a crazy thought, but maybe NOT taxing all of America just to build a wall that won't work is a victory. Trump getting his wall would have been a defeat for all of us.

- - - Updated - - -



You can do border security seriously without having a manned and far lamer version of the Great Wall of China, crazy I know.

You can and I would welcome it as well but broader security is a weirdly contentious issue given how both major parties use it as a political tool for gaining votes.

[Kaleredar]

Not ever issue needs a thesis to explain it...

Complex geopolitics that influences the lives of millions of people requires "an explanation"

Except it isn't.. let me make it easier for you... let's say I have 5 apples. Now let's say five people want to buy apples. I sell an apple for a dollar the current price.

Now let's say the next day 30 people want to buy an apple but I still have 5 apples to sell I can't produce anymore in a short period of time. I now sell my apples for 10 dollars a piece...

It's a extremely simple example and I know it doesn't cover all of intricacies of it but simply adding consumers to a market doesn't actually make necessities cheaper to obtain but the opposite.

Are you saying there's a shortage of consumer goods to buy in the US?

What?

[Whiskyjack]

Are you saying there's a shortage of consumer goods to buy in the US?

What?

I'm saying you can't increase the number of necessities like food and housing rapidly and if the demand outpaces the supply the prices will increase as they have been for decades...

I honestly don't know where I lost you... none of this is new or even contested as fact.

[Elegiac]

I'm saying you can't increase the number of necessities like food and housing rapidly and if the demand outpaces the supply the prices will increase as they have been for decades...

None of which has anything to do with buying power.

You're misusing basic terms.

[PosPosPos]

I'm saying you can't increase the number of necessities like food and housing rapidly and if the demand outpaces the supply the prices will increase as they have been for decades...

I honestly don't know where I lost you... none of this is new or even contested as fact.

I think all of us lost you when you are too busy defending Trump but also inherited that penchant for not understanding how to use simple words like him.

Your little charade is slipping, might want to touch up that "woke independent" makeup of yours.

[Dontrike]

You can and I would welcome it as well but broader security is a weirdly contentious issue given how both major parties use it as a political tool for gaining votes.

It's not contentious, they leave the issue unsolved so they can use it later. It's essentially just two people pointing at each other for the blame when really it's all of them. Some want to take the first steps, but really it's just the most overused trump card and yet it does nothing. Really if either side actually figured it out they could finally hold it over the other, but oddly that motivation for such a thing just doesn't exist.

[Whiskyjack]

It's not contentious, they leave the issue unsolved so they can use it later. It's essentially just two people pointing at each other for the blame when really it's all of them. Some want to take the first steps, but really it's just the most overused trump card and yet it does nothing. Really if either side actually figured it out they could finally hold it over the other, but oddly that motivation for such a thing just doesn't exist.

I think they see it as more useful being unresolved. For Democrats immigrants who become legal or their descendants are more likely to vote democrat. For Republicans it can be used as a wedge issue and help draw the working poor to vote for them to "fix it". I honestly think nothing is done about it because it's a powerful political tool for both.

[Kaleredar]

I'm saying you can't increase the number of necessities like food and housing rapidly and if the demand outpaces the supply the prices will increase as they have been for decades...

I honestly don't know where I lost you... none of this is new or even contested as fact.

And there's no shortage of food in the US or land upon which to build houses.

[PosPosPos]

I honestly think nothing is done about it because it's a powerful political tool for both.

Actually, it's just political stonewalling by the side you apologize for.

[Elegiac]

And there's no shortage of food in the US or land upon which to build houses.

There are, however, perverse forces at play in both markets contributing to the perception of shortages in both areas.

By which I mean corporate practices that generate massive amounts of food waste, and the existence of the real estate market in general.

In the latter case I'm increasingly in the camp of "you can't have seconds until everyone's had a first helping".

[Kaleredar]

It's not contentious, they leave the issue unsolved so they can use it later. It's essentially just two people pointing at each other for the blame when really it's all of them. Some want to take the first steps, but really it's just the most overused trump card and yet it does nothing. Really if either side actually figured it out they could finally hold it over the other, but oddly that motivation for such a thing just doesn't exist.

I place the blame squarely at republican feet on this one. "The evils of illegal immigrants" has more and more wholly absorbed their platform. They do nothing but posit nonsensical strategies like "build the wall."

As for immigration reform, you had Obama try to do it with things like the DREAM act... which... guess which party tried to block at every pass and now is vehemently trying to disassemble?

[Whiskyjack]

And there's no shortage of food in the US or land upon which to build houses.

So your solution is instantaneous endless expansion and I am supposed to pretend to take you seriously?