Query
 

Exactly.

I've seen a plausible suggestion that professional services firms moved to lockstop promotions after some suits over sex discrimination and compensation.

Query
 

Three points:

(1) You're changing the subject. Or just babbling. I'm not talking about protectionism, or globalization. I'm talking about the interplay between immigration and low-end wages. Letting in more immigrants depresses low-end wages.

(2) I'm asking whether the country's laws should be set to benefit humanity, or to benefit Americans. I'm not sure what the answer is (which is why I prefaced my comment above, "If I were poor"), but it's a fair question.

(3) If immigration benefits society as a whole, but worsens the lot of a large category of people, I think it's fair to propose that as part of a change to open up the borders, we also do x, y and z to ensure that no one is left worse off. In other words, use government to redistribute some of the gains that are created to those who would be harmed.

Query
 

Really? I don't get that impression.

They wouldn't be filled by them because the wages are not high enough to make those jobs attractive, mostly because the employers need not pay real wages. Take away the illegals and someone is going to still have to do the job. Theoretically, that should cause wages to rise.

Query
 

2

George Bush, authorized Executive.
 

In other words, Bush leaked classified national-security information for political purposes.

Query
 

What those studies show is that small increases to the minimum wage do not have the predicted effect of reducing employment in the affected positions. But I'm not sure you can extrapolate those results to show that employers currently paying below minimum wage to illegal immigrants would employ the same number of legal employees at a much higher wage if forced to do so.

On the second point, it could at the point when employing anyone becomes economically inviable. Ask any former manager in Pittsburgh.

Query
 

So what? If the product of a business enterprise is not sufficiently valuable that the owner can afford to pay people enough to create that product, then the business is not worth pursuing.

Query
 

It seems like there could be a period of very, very painful adjustment. To wit: If we succeed in getting rid of illegal immigrants, I think we can assume that basic foodstuffs and housing will become more expensive (because of large immigrant presence in agriculture and construction). There may be shortages of some agricultural products as vendors have to search out alternative suppliers. The construction thing seems like there would be a longer term problem, since at least some training is necessary. To the extent people are locked into contracts whose pricing is based on an assumption of cheapass labor, businesses will be affected.

So, people will end up paying more for food. Food is something that both rich and poor pretty much *must* buy, so this increases the basic cost of living. Ditto with housing -- if it's already difficult for e.g. teachers to live in the SF area, how will it be when construction costs go up?

It just seems like poorer people will suffer more. But then, I guess they always do.

Mmmm, strawberries.

ETA I really don't get this logic. We're making it a felony to do X, but we really want most people who are doing X to continue doing it for a while, and kinda maybe taper off in an orderly manner. the article is on Yahoo! news. Yes, I know they are probably taking him a bit out of context, but unless he was playing opposite-land, it's just craziness.

Maybe he just wants to make it so illegal immigrants definitely can't vote, and are criminals and therefore not entitled to various rights, but stay here and work for cheap?

Query
 

I'm not sure you can either. For that point, I was relying on Krugman.

Query
 

I don't disagree with that.

But if you introduce the minimum wage into the equation, then you invalidate your own hypothesis. I think what you're inclined to say is that "If the product of a business enterprise is not sufficiently valuable that the owner can afford to pay people the minimum wage to create that product . . . " Because, in so doing, you're ascribing a normative value to "enough". But, perhaps I'm assuming too much.

Ty: I was refering to Card and Krueger, whose study on this has been challenged on a host of grounds.

you can start here, wiki, if econ 1 leaves you wanting.

George Bush, authorized Executive.
 

In other words, Bush fast-tracked the declassification of formerly classified evidence - that was going into the public record anyway - to refute much of the disinformation that was being spread by lefty icons like "Hack" Wilson.

And Miller thought so much of it that she didn't even run it.

Man, what a story!!!!!

George Bush, authorized Executive.
 

You consistently refer to Wilson as a liar, a hack, and probably a traitor and a criminal.

I have yet to understand why you have such a hard-on for him. Leaving aside, of course, your oft-stated view that he got this incredibly plum, lush assignment -- a trip to Niger -- thru "connections."

What is this horrible lie that Wilson told that disturbs you so much?

Query
 

The jobs would be economically viable at a market-clearing wage or the businesses would shut down. What that means is that you would see less mom & pop taquerias and the McDonalds franchisees would have to buy a new Cadillac or Lexus every five years instead of every three years.

Query
 

The unions also figured they could make a buck by restricting labor supply to increase wages. That worked.

George Bush, authorized Executive.
 

What I said.

He didn't "fast-track" anything, since what he did had nothing to do with usual procedures. And telling a single journalist is not usually the way things get into the "public record."

I notice that you don't even bother to dispute that Bush cherry-picked what he leaked. Information got declassified to support what the administration had already decided to do. You probably see nothing wrong with that.