Off Topic Poker Forums

It is necessary to look at the arguments made for illegal immigrants.
"They do jobs that no one else will do etc."

I do not believe this. I believe that if the illegals are removed (accountability and responsibility), someone will do the work (and businesses will pay) -- provided the workers are not already being subsidized by the government. AND....if we do need more immigrants -- they should come legally (green card, workers permit, etc)

An argument against the minimum wage (libertarian?) is that it keeps entry-level workers from getting work. If an employer has to pay X amount of taxes/permits/fees on top of $10/hour for someone who doesn't know anything, the employer is less likely to hire that entry-level worker.
(a little off topic, but in regards to entry-level worker disadvantage)

In short, people will do the work -- unless the government interferes with subsidies (cradle-to-grave welfare etc).

i don't know how closely you've been following this thread, but go back to the worries put forth by medic in the beginning of this thread in regards to wage stagnation. if you take the underlying sentiment in his posts--that the working man should progressively grow richer as a nation grows richer--you can see how this will rise median income to a point where it's no longer feasible to have low-wage workers in the economy doing menial work.

if this is the sentiment held by all citizens in a country, it follows that it won't be long before there isn't anybody wanting (maybe willing but not wanting) to do the menial work. so i think illegal immigration is not the politician's doing, but something we need as a nation to grow, compete globally, and work around these stupid minimum wage laws put into the system by the "fair" proponents.

EDIT: it is also a false picture of illegal immigrants to believe they are all farm-workers toiling in the fields like slaves. Not true. They work in most manual-labor industries -- including home construction. A Hispanic owner with a bunch of illegals, can definitely take market-share from a law abiding owner of a construction business.
It is an invisible economy (that slips by the tax system).

as long as the Hispanic owner is not doing anything unethical in regards to construction saftey, i have no moral dilemma with him doing this. the reality is that when the laws of a nation stop having clear relationships to an already inherent moral code we already possess, people will break the law.

The failure of the drive for equality is not because the wrong measures were adopted; not because they were badly administered; not because the wrong people administered it. The failure is much more fundamental. It is because that drive goes against the most basic instinct of all human beings.

In the words of Adam Smith, the uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition, to improve his own lot and to make a better world for his children and his children's children. When the law interferes with that pursuit, everyone will try to find a way around. He will try to evade the law. He will break the law or he will emigrate from the country. [...] There is no moral code that justifies laws fixing prices or fixing wages, or preventing a man from earning a living unless he joins a union and submits himself to the disciplines of the union, or forcing you to buy more expensive goods at home when cheaper goods are available from abroad. When the law prohibits things that most people regard as moral and proper, they are going to break the law. Only fear of punishment, not a sense of justice will cause them to obey the law and when people start breaking one set of laws, there's a strong tendency for the lack of respect for the law to extend to all.
- Milton Friedman, Free To Choose Volume 5, Created Equal

i think your point was that a stream of poor, uneducated people into a country works to progressively lower wages and increase inequality, and i pointed out a time period when there was a stream of poor, uneducated people into the country whereupon something exactly the opposite happened.

of course, correlation is not causation, and the prosperity of the US during this past period could have been in spite of the immigration.

The big difference is that America isn't a manufacturing powerhouse like it used to be. Basically now unskilled/uneducated work is primarily fast food, walmart, mall type jobs. None of which you're ever going to have a really decent standard of living.

In the first half of the 20th century when we generally think of all of the European immigrants coming here, they basically all got jobs in the factories,mills,etc.

Prior to the unions and labor laws those guys didn't make livable wages either, and had absolutely abysmal working conditions. There's a reason the "captains of industry" from that era are also called "robber barons". That's also a trend I think would resurge with the total deregulation of business.

so i think illegal immigration is not the politician's doing, but something we need as a nation to grow, compete globally, and work around these stupid minimum wage laws put into the system by the "fair" proponents.

EDIT: i agree with some of what you wrote -- accept the idea we "need" illegal immigration.
We do need to be competitive. 100% with you on this, and it is why I rebel against Government interference. It is very difficult for US companies to compete -- without outsourcing.
==============
We veer off in totally different directions, when you say you believe we NEED ILLEGAL immigration. No country can handle unbridled immigration.

I invite you to study other countries, and you will see what I mean. Mexican Immigration Law (as most countries) is much stricter laws than in the US. Only in the US, is it Politically Correct to believe ILLEGAL immigration is necessary. If this is true, then we should help out a poor country (or Denmark lol), and send them some illegal immigrants -- economic stimulus? Their answer will be from a glass-house, and it will always be "not in my backyard, but thanks".

And you have hit on one of the reasons for decline. Not being brave enough to defend the laws on the books -- and dogpiling current law with more laws.

BTW, I never ever heard Milton Friedman talk about the need for ILLEGAL immigration. It is not logical. We need illegals? (oxymoron?)

EDIT: As far as not seeing a problem with an illegal business the hispanic owner is running. Try imagining that you have a competing business (paying taxes, unemployment, and doing everything legal.) I am certain you would not agree that it is okay.
Where do you draw the line, without it financially hitting you at home directly?
This may go to that video you linked, regarding scaling. If we are not directly affected, we are more apt to turn a blind eye. Accountability and Responsibility.

i think your point was that a stream of poor, uneducated people into a country works to progressively lower wages and increase inequality, and i pointed out a time period when there was a stream of poor, uneducated people into the country whereupon something exactly the opposite happened.

My point was that the economy was different and that immigrants succeeding in the past does not mean immigrants will continue to succeed in the future. It's a slow turn. People still come here for opportunity, but I think they find less opportunity than they did in the past, and eventually (if income inequality stagnates like it has been) people will stop coming here unless they are fleeing persecution.
medic makes a point demonstrating some past conditions that don't exist anymore.

Sneakers wrote:
Another WTF statement. Does anyone really believe this?

Sneakers, never change man. You are too amusing.


Illegal immigration is one of the free market 'solutions' to income inequality. If the illegal immigrant workforce did not hold down costs, the large majority of Americans whose wages have stagnated would not be able to buy the things they buy now. if their food bill goes up 30%, that's going to impact a lot of businesses who would otherwise have received that money. Illegals keep us from being more of a subsistence society than we are. Without them, millions of Americans drop to subsistence living.

Sneakers, never change man. You are too amusing.


Illegal immigration is one of the free market 'solutions' to income inequality. If the illegal immigrant workforce did not hold down costs, the large majority of Americans whose wages have stagnated would not be able to buy the things they buy now. if their food bill goes up 30%, that's going to impact a lot of businesses who would otherwise have received that money. Illegals keep us from being more of a subsistence society than we are. Without them, millions of Americans drop to subsistence living.

That is a silly and perverted Interpretation , ahhhh but it came from Razor. Understandable. lol

"Free Markets" do not mean illegal immigration or Open Borders. No country can handle unbridled immigration. It is a fallacy to believe the US is special in this logic.

"Free Markets" mean the ability to work and trade -- without government's boot holding the LEGAL citizen or company down.


Always amazing to me, that some individuals do not understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL. But it does demonstrate that they have no boundaries for their real agenda of "fairness" and "equality".

......Today, the argument goes, that FDR "did not spend enough", and that he should have spent more -- for a faster recovery. Same goes for Communist failures. The argument goes that, "They did not do it right (or spend enough)".
......I disagree with both of these arguments above. It is Keynesian Economics, that claims government can manipulate the economy in its ups-and-downs (and print money freely). Unfortunately, an economy with trillions and trillions of daily transactions can not be controlled -- and should be unleashed for full potential.

In Summary, I am a very strong believer in US productivity. Tear down the bloated government (bureaucracy) and nanny-state -- and allow the people to create businesses without demonizing them. I truly believe that there is no country that has more productive workers than the US. No one can stop the US -- except itself. That is why so many people want to go to the US. The opportunity for self-fulfillment without government harrassment (which is changing with the social experiments).

we're on the same page then except for the impact of illegal immigration. i too think a decline will come from within, when it happens. but i think the current income inequality in the US is a sign that the "fair" crowd have yet to achieve their goals, and hopefully have a long, hard, road ahead of them still.

we're on the same page then except for the impact of illegal immigration. i too think a decline will come from within, when it happens. but i think the current income inequality in the US is a sign that the "fair" crowd have yet to achieve their goals, and hopefully have a long, hard, road ahead of them still.

LOL I am okay with that. Illegal immigration is a long thread by itself......and I do not believe it is the main culprit for the decline. I just believe it is a tell-tale of the twisted logic in economics today.


Unions are another paradox I think. They are part of the "fair" crowd, that are having a negative impact on the economy without any sign of letting up. Thugs?

I am not sure how to explain this (or what term to give it). IMO, Labor Unions started off as a very very good thing. It did help the worker get more of his due.
.......However with that said, (I need a term here), it seems that most good things come in moderate measures. Unfortunately, we will never hear the "fairness" crowd talk about the "UN-fairness" that Unions push for -- extremes.

I believe that is where most Unions are today -- and they could care less about the US economy -- as long as they get their nut.

Take a look at the United Auto Workers deal with GM. Evreryone, including the taxpayer (you and me) got screwed -- but not the UAW. Their pensions were taken care of by us -- even though they hold part of the blame for the failure of the companies. Now, they own a big chunk of the company that we paid for. Fairness? lol


Iacocca was a good book. He went to congress for a bailout for Chrysler (around 1980). He took a $1 salary, plus stock. The Unions would not budge on their salaries. Finally, he told them, "I've got a gun to your head. Join in saving this company......." (short paraphrase). Great Story.

The Unions I detest the most, are the Government workers. Leeches sucking on government's teat (your and my taxes).

But Unions are a great idea -- gone to the extreme most often (I think).
Good things, go to the extreme (when permitted).

EDIT: FWIW, I was a Union member, during college years.
Local 185 Laborer's Union (mainly concrete work: bridges, stadium, precast)

Sneaks,

I kind of go both ways with unions as well.
I think like many things they're currently a product of their own making.

Companies DO in fact have recourse for unions, they generally however don't choose to go through with them.

However as someone that's worked for government I will say that I think unions have MORE place in government jobs, then most people think. Nepotism is rampant in ALL levels of government. The unions do provide a safeguard against "Jimmy getting fired, so my cousin Bobby can have his job" type things.

Sneakers wrote:
"Free Markets" do not mean illegal immigration or Open Borders. No country can handle unbridled immigration. It is a fallacy to believe the US is special in this logic.

"Free Markets" mean the ability to work and trade -- without government's boot holding the LEGAL citizen or company down.


Always amazing to me, that some individuals do not understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL. But it does demonstrate that they have no boundaries for their real agenda of "fairness" and "equality".

I reply to you mainly in case someone who reads these posts accidentally thinking you've actually addressed anything I've said.
A free market solution =/= a free market. What it means is that the free market has come up with an answer to a problem. In the case of illegal immigration, what has happened is that illegals are a cost saving measure for companies, which use such labor to keep the prices of their goods and services just in line with what the American consumer can afford. If Americans have to pay $5 for a single peach, many many Americans will stop buying peaches. The more stagnating Americans, the less people who can afford peaches. Thus the illegal picking the peaches - keeping peaches within the reach of the consumer, allowing the peach grower to survive. This is why business hires illegals, for without the need to keep their goods within reach for stagnating Americans, they simply wouldn't feel any pressure to hire illegals.

Take a look at the United Auto Workers deal with GM. Evreryone, including the taxpayer (you and me) got screwed -- but not the UAW. Their pensions were taken care of by us -- even though they hold part of the blame for the failure of the companies. Now, they own a big chunk of the company that we paid for. Fairness? lol

Why do you say, 'Fairness? lol'? Aren't you the one mocking fairness? Please tell me also why the union should not protect the interests of its members, when management protects its own interests. Why is it ok for management but not ok for labor? Labor negotiated pensions and management agreed. It seems to me that management is to blame for its shortsightedness. When you negotiate for a job, I don't blame you for trying to get the most salary or best benefits, or relo bonuses or whatever. That;s what you're supposed to do, right? Why exactly is it ok for you but not for unions?


Ultimately, on unions I agree with Sneakers that they started out as a good thing. I also agree that for the most part they are a perversion of what they should be. Unions were good, until they decided to follow the Teamster model. They have been bastardized by greed. It worked in the auto industry because management was making so much money, they just gave labor whatever they wanted.

but i think the current income inequality in the US is a sign that the "fair" crowd have yet to achieve their goals, and hopefully have a long, hard, road ahead of them still.

good lord, please tell me you're smarter than that.

I reply to you mainly in case someone who reads these posts accidentally thinking you've actually addressed anything I've said.
A free market solution =/= a free market. What it means is that the free market has come up with an answer to a problem. In the case of illegal immigration, what has happened is that illegals are a cost saving measure for companies, which use such labor to keep the prices of their goods and services just in line with what the American consumer can afford. If Americans have to pay $5 for a single peach, many many Americans will stop buying peaches. The more stagnating Americans, the less people who can afford peaches. Thus the illegal picking the peaches - keeping peaches within the reach of the consumer, allowing the peach grower to survive. This is why business hires illegals, for without the need to keep their goods within reach for stagnating Americans, they simply wouldn't feel any pressure to hire illegals.

No other country lives under this type of belief. It is twisted to your ideology. Razor, your arguments always demonstrate to me, that you have no regard for laws. Your ideology will always look for excuses to NOT stop what is illegal.....and the burden is carried by the law-abiding.

"Fairness" for US Citizens and LEGAL immigrants? NOT at all.
It is pandering for votes, not real economic thinking.

Ronald Reagan signed an Anmesty Bill for a few million ILLEGALS in the 80's. However, it resulted in about 3x more immigrants (via chain immigration papas, abuelos, hijos etc). He wrote in his autobiography that it was a big mistake. Why? Because the original agreement was that the border be controlled. Stop the inflow of more illegals, who jump the line of LAW-ABIDING immigrants waiting in line.
This has not happened.....and it will not happen, until citizens (and legal immigrants) realize that this argument is phony. It is perpetual anmesty and favoritism of ILLEGALS over LEGAL law-abiding immigrants who come to our country.

When you claim ILLEGAL immigration is necessary, you are just talking CrackerJacks Economics. No other country on the planet believes ILLEGAL immigration is good -- regardless of their ideology. But then again, we are talking to Razor, right? "Fairness", "Equality" to the world, and it is the US's job to handle the overflow of other countries.



Just in case anyone is not paying attention. The current administration has basically given a FIAT that ICE (la migra) stand down for any illegals coming accross the border. Today, brand new illegals coming across the border have more rights that US citizens. Criminals? Let them go. No joke. Look it up. The Unions representing Immigration Law Enforcement Officers are complaining.....that they are not allowed to do their job....and that their jobs/pensions are at risk for doing their job.

REPEAT: no other country on the planet believes illegal immigration is good or sane. It is twisted logic.


=============UNIONS (UAW)=============
Emails: Geithner, Treasury drove cutoff of non-union Delphi workers’ pensions -- Aug 7 news
20,000 non-union workers lost their pensions. Decision by Obama Administration to protect Unions. Anyone surprised?

Delphi was a GM company.
This is what happens when the government picks winners and losers.
Favoritism. Cronyism. Political payoffs.

Is this what "fairness" looks like? Like I keep trying to explain.....the govt picking winners and losers, is a very messy game. The govt picks the losers, by protecting their own friends in the economy.


.

When you claim ILLEGAL immigration is necessary, you are just talking CrackerJacks Economics. No other country on the planet believes ILLEGAL immigration is good -- regardless of their ideology. But then again, we are talking to Razor, right? "Fairness", "Equality" to the world, and it is the US's job to handle the overflow of other countries.

Nobody, especially me, has said any of this.

Why do you think illegals are able to find jobs?

......No other country on the planet believes ILLEGAL immigration is good -- regardless of their ideology......

Nobody, especially me, has said any of this.

Why do you think illegals are able to find jobs?

OK. You didn't say any of that. Jeez Yes you did.
You are claiming that the US economy would crumble (inflation etc) if we stopped the inflow of ILLEGALS.
If you are back-tracking, I do not blame you. I also wisened up a few short years ago.....when I realized the gravity of the ongoing situation. It is actually a part of the narco business getting illegals across the border (like professionals).

Who gives them jobs?
People from their own cultures.
My brother-in-law (Mexican) is getting wealthy working in the states. LIves very well in Mexico and in the US. What he does, is hide behind a hiring agency -- so that he can claim ignorance.
I am going to laugh my ass off, when he gets busted. I have already warned him, that it is best to hire LEGAL immigrants. His business: delivery service for Mexican food products.

Have you ever been to a Home Depot?
I actually hired some of them in the past -- until I realized that I was contributing to a problem. Why aren't they arrested? The jobs should go to LEGAL immigrants.
BTW, they charge like $15-25/hour in Silicon Valley (tax free).

People like yourself (and myself in the past)....who prefer cheap labor over hiring legitimate businesses/workers.

Another part of the equation that is totally silly.
-1 pay welfare to those who do not work
-1 pay unemployment to those not working
+1 hire ILLEGALS instead? (silly economic principles)


But, it is not just a Hispanic thing. Be sure about that.

EDIT: gotta run. arguing with Razor is always circular. Blinding ideology for "fairness" without boundaries, and backwards economic fundamentals to support it.


.

BTW, I never ever heard Milton Friedman talk about the need for ILLEGAL immigration. It is not logical. We need illegals? (oxymoron?)

EDIT: As far as not seeing a problem with an illegal business the hispanic owner is running. Try imagining that you have a competing business (paying taxes, unemployment, and doing everything legal.) I am certain you would not agree that it is okay.
Where do you draw the line, without it financially hitting you at home directly?
This may go to that video you linked, regarding scaling. If we are not directly affected, we are more apt to turn a blind eye. Accountability and Responsibility.

i don't think he worded it as "need," that's my interpretation of the situation. he only said "the nation benefits" from illegals.

and if i was competing with the Hispanic owner, i would probably turn to hiring illegals myself to compete, as many other people have done.

Free To Choose Volume 8 - Who Protects the Worker?
http://www.freetochoose.net/media/broadcast/freetochoose/detail_ftc1980_transcript.php?page=8

Illegal Mexican immigrants are not cheap labor around here. Many earn more than the minimum wage law demands. They can do so because farmers need many extra hands during the harvest season and there is a shortage of domestic labor available. Jill Hammond and her partner run a farm that produces plump California raisins.

Jill Hammond: There's pending legislation which would make it illegal for farmers to hire undocumented workers. And supposedly it would impose a $1,000 fine per worker on the farm, I can't imagine that it would actually go through. If it did there'd be a full scale farmers revolt around here.

Victor Bedvian: Matter of fact, last year there was quite a bit of activity in the Kermin area which is about 15 miles west of Fresno. Many of the farmers banded together and as much as we warned the boarder patrol to stay off their property. They were going to back that up with guns I'm afraid. They were very upset about it and because their situation was desperate. They needed the workers and they needed the work to be done now. And the boarder patrol was interfering with that as they saw it.


and from the discussion portion of the program:

W. WILLIAMS: Now, those who would say, you know, I hear a number of people saying that, well the immigrants are contributing to our unemployment problem. And I point this out to some people, I said, "look, you know, this is the same rhetoric that the Irish used when the blacks were coming up from the north, " you know, they're using blacks as scapegoats. They're saying, "get those people back where they came from so that our members can get jobs, " you know. Unions were as well doing this, you know, they called them scabs, strikebreakers, etcetera, etcetera. So I do not wish for Mexican-Americans to become the new scapegoats of our particular national problems. They are not the problem, and our nation benefits to the extent that these people come here and work. And to that extent __ to that extent__ so it's kind of good for them to remain illegal aliens as opposed to being legal aliens where they're subject to our welfare programs, so that we don't want them to come here to __

FRIEDMAN: They do and the tragedy of the situation, as what Walter Williams point out, that as long as they are undocumented and illegal they are a clear net gain, the nation benefits and they benefit. They wouldn't be here if they didn't. The tragedy is that we've adopted all these other policies so that if we convert them into legal residents it's no longer clear that we benefit. They may benefit, but it's no longer clear that we do.

The big difference is that America isn't a manufacturing powerhouse like it used to be. Basically now unskilled/uneducated work is primarily fast food, walmart, mall type jobs. None of which you're ever going to have a really decent standard of living.

In the first half of the 20th century when we generally think of all of the European immigrants coming here, they basically all got jobs in the factories,mills,etc.

do you think those first-generation European immigrants were getting rich or even achieved middle class status working in sweat shops? these were not high paying jobs. but they saw the opportunities here. they saw that if they sacrificed, saved up their pennies then started their own business and take that gamble (with no upside caps, this is America, get rich or die tryin'), they too might own a sweat shop one day (or in today's terms a McDonald's or a string of mall shops). then they pass on that burning desire to their heirs and they turn a little shop into a big business and a new American business empire is born. business is business.

so many natural-born Americans are so complacent and spoiled and don't even believe in the American Dream anymore. they spit on it and whine all day while working at their office jobs waiting for The Shit To Hit The Fan. starting a business is not easy, it's not fun, it's not glamorous, most likely not very profitable in the beginning, and you'll most likely end up broke and in debt. but somebody has to try. that's the spirit this nation was founded on, a nation of immigrants looking for a better life, and it's the spirit found greatly in the immigrant population in the past as well as today and we desperately need that as a nation.

but i think the current income inequality in the US is a sign that the "fair" crowd have yet to achieve their goals, and hopefully have a long, hard, road ahead of them still.

good lord, please tell me you're smarter than that.

i don't believe someone sweeping the floors at McDonald's should have an artificially high income or get raises every year. if he thinks that's not fair, he can go home to his impoverished shack and play with his Xbox on his HDTV while he cries to his girlfriend on his cell phone.

do you think those first-generation European immigrants were getting rich or even achieved middle class status working in sweat shops? these were not high paying jobs. but they saw the opportunities here. they saw that if they sacrificed, saved up their pennies then started their own business and take that gamble (with no upside caps, this is America, get rich or die tryin'), they too might own a sweat shop one day (or in today's terms a McDonald's or a string of mall shops). then they pass on that burning desire to their heirs and they turn a little shop into a big business and a new American business empire is born. business is business.

I acknowledged that they didn't, you didn't quote enough!

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you that many of them went into business for themselves, I don't think they did.

However that era had several MASSIVE differences:
1. Women's rights didn't come about until later. The majority of women during that day were homemakers. Many families (which were larger) were totally supported by single incomes.

2. Suburbs weren't really around until post WW2. Prior to that just about everyone lived in the inner cities.

3. America didn't take over as a major manufacturer until AFTER WW2 as well. Prior to that we were still pretty jacked up from the great depression. Following that however, the majority of Europe was in shambles.

FRIEDMAN: They do and the tragedy of the situation, as what Walter Williams point out, that as long as they are undocumented and illegal they are a clear net gain, the nation benefits and they benefit. They wouldn't be here if they didn't.

Maybe now that it is a Friedman quote, Sneakers will actually understand what he reads.
The only thing I added here was a bit more explication. The net gain is the ability of more Americans to purchase goods they would not be able to purchase if illegal labor was not keeping costs within reach. I don't understand how anyone could think the income inequality has no effect on this.

i don't believe someone sweeping the floors at McDonald's should have an artificially high income or get raises every year. if he thinks that's not fair, he can go home to his impoverished shack and play with his Xbox on his HDTV while he cries to his girlfriend on his cell phone.

Who said he should have an artificially high income? And that he has an xbox and HDTV? Have you ever met or know any of the people you assume are living high on the hog of poverty?
As for me, all I'm saying is that he shouldn't die of cancer because all he does is sweep floors. His life isn't worthless because he doesn't have enough money for treatment.

I acknowledged that they didn't, you didn't quote enough!

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you that many of them went into business for themselves, I don't think they did.

However that era had several MASSIVE differences:
1. Women's rights didn't come about until later. The majority of women during that day were homemakers. Many families (which were larger) were totally supported by single incomes.

2. Suburbs weren't really around until post WW2. Prior to that just about everyone lived in the inner cities.

3. America didn't take over as a major manufacturer until AFTER WW2 as well. Prior to that we were still pretty jacked up from the great depression. Following that however, the majority of Europe was in shambles.

then i think we're on the same page when referring to increases in income, but let's set aside small businesses for now. i may be getting too romantic (from reading Outliers) and can't provide good evidence for this being a major factor. so let's go back to when you said increases in income came about due to,

Prior to the unions and labor laws those guys didn't make livable wages either, and had absolutely abysmal working conditions. There's a reason the "captains of industry" from that era are also called "robber barons". That's also a trend I think would resurge with the total deregulation of business.

this is just another myth. businesses competing for labor increases wages, not regulations. when businesses are free to be profitable, other people start their own businesses to get a piece of the action. when these new businesses need labor, now it's a worker's market. otoh, artificial wages and too much regulation (not all regulation, only "too much," but i am not smart enough to know where to draw that line) hurt businesses and lower productivity and has a tendency to lower total wages since less people are working.

but i have nothing original to add. it's already been said better than i can:

FRIEDMAN: The crucial issue is whether governmental measures which have the effect of favoring union organization of giving them privileges and immunities that are not accorded to other organizations in the society, benefit the society as a whole, or harm the society as a whole. The proposition I tried to make in this film was that the source of the prosperity of this country was freedom of enterprise, freedom of employers to hire, of workers to work for whom they wanted to; and insofar as unions have played a role, they have protected some workers at the expense of others, and have retarded the prosperity of this country. I think that Lynn Williams' statements to the contrary cannot be supported by any empirical or other evidence that he has, understandably, I'm not blaming him for this, he would be faithless to his job if he did not believe sincerely in what he's saying. I'm not questioning his sincerity, but sincerity is a much overrated virtue in our society. The plain fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that either unions or minimum wages have made positive contributions to the prosperity of this country. Some unions have, of course, some unions have done great harm. It's not an open and shut picture in which you can make a sweeping statement. But on the whole, the growth of this country __

VOICE OFF SCREEN: I'd like for you to make a sweeping statement.

FRIEDMAN: I do. The sweeping statement I make is that the prosperity of this country derives primarily from freedom of enterprise and freedom to hire, to employ, to work, and not from restrictive measures imposed by trade unions.

Free To Choose Volume 8 - Who Protects the Worker? (transcript)

and i agree it was a tragedy that mysogynists held back the labor market. maybe those first few generations wouldn't have been so poor otherwise.

i don't understand what suburbs have to do with this unless you're referring to an increase in cost of living. but not everybody moved to the suburbs mind you, and this only happened well after the industrial infrastructure was in place because of the war. and whether or not war was a "good thing" is getting to another myth. it definitely helped the US in some ways; however, at what cost to the world?

and this is why i keep talking about a regression to the mean. we had a significant event in the past that altered the playing field in favor of the US economically. great for us, but not sustainable (not to mention something we absolutely do not want again).

and to back up that last post, i go back again to Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson, Chapter 19, Do Unions Really Raise Wages? (page 121).

i blame it all on the schools. how come i have to learn this stuff when i'm 35? i could have saved myself a bunch of time and done something constructive in my 20's rather than listening to RATM, smoking pot, and bitching about The Man.

The problem with Friedman there is that he does not account for the exploitation of workers. That is why Sneakers said that unions were a good thing at the beginning. Unions are terribly flawed now, but they don't have to be. Even the critics of unions such as Friedman make a basic assumption about unions based on what they are now. Hazlitt is better, but still can be easily argued against.

The problem with Friedman there is that he does not account for the exploitation of workers. That is why Sneakers said that unions were a good thing at the beginning. Unions are terribly flawed now, but they don't have to be. Even the critics of unions such as Friedman make a basic assumption about unions based on what they are now. Hazlitt is better, but still can be easily argued against.

i know you like arguing, man, but this is really kind of pointless if you have no interest in digesting the material i'm using to back up my arguments and instead resort to making flippant ad hominem remarks about one of the greatest minds of this past century in his field of expertise (tho it's nothing too bad, you basically assume Friedman is incompetent). if i was referencing some random economic paper by Dr. nobody, sure, tear that down all day. but do you think someone as eminent as Friedman has not thought through this 1000x deeper than you or i?

i mean, if it's just like "fu man i'm not reading a whole book and watching a 10 hour documentary to argue about it in a thread, i know this already," then fine. you know what you know and it's been nice talking to you. but if you want to convince me of something, you have to do more than make these weak rebuttals constantly without providing any references for why you believe what you believe or give me something which i can sink my teeth into on my own time. what great mind (other than your own) has influenced you?

frankly, i don't know why you're in threads like these. but for me, i want to learn new things and constantly examine my beliefs for biases and weaknesses. if i have weak beliefs, i'll dump it without a second thought and i'll proclaim that i was a retard for having believed in it. whatever, i've been wrong in the past and ill be wrong again in the future.

anyways... i reserve the right to not reply further in this thread.


L. WILLIAMS: Can't we get some __ can't we get some perspective in this, Walter. Talking about unions down through the ages makes no sense at all in terms of where we're at now in this century at this time. This business of trying to relate where unions come from to the, to the medical profession and Hippocratic oaths, Hippocratic oaths or hypocritical oaths, however one looks at that, back in the Greek aeons really have very little relevancy.

W. WILLIAMS: Yes it does.

L. WILLIAMS: The violence, see hear me out a minute , I waited patiently.

W. WILLIAMS: Okay, okay.

L. WILLIAMS: The violence it's associated with __ well, not so patiently, but I waited. The violence associated with the labor movement and so on have been minimal and was a reaction in this century, not over the ages, a reaction in this century to the violence done workers by corporation and powerful economic groups when there was no workers' organization to protect them and no way to deal with their greed and with their power __

MCKENZIE: Okay. Now, now I'm turning to Milton because he's heard the flavor of the discussion.

FRIEDMAN: Sure. What Lynn Williams is now saying is utter nonsense. There's no other __ no two ways about it. The conditions of the worker in this country before there was labor unions were very important __ improved very greatly. You cannot tell me the millions of people, my parents, your parents, for all I know, parents of many people around, came to this country from Europe in order to be exploited and in order to be subjected to violence. Of course, there were incidents of violence.

[...]

FRIEDMAN: If we __ if we go back, the violent __ there was violence, of course, there always has been violence. It's not excusable, I'm not excusing violence on the part of anyone, but I agree with Mr. Green and with Walter Williams that people should be free to organize. Of course they should be free to organize. What I object to is the special privileges that have been given by government to labor unions which are not available to other groups at all. When labor unions have used violence in industrial disputes they are not subjected to the same sanctions as people ordinarily are. When cars are turned over in the course of a labor dispute, how often do people go to jail as a result of it?

one of the greatest minds of this past century in his field of expertise

He was smart and one of the most controversial economists. Even Greenspan was more pragmatic and today no mainstream economist supports classical monetarism.

It is ironic that Friedman's greatest success is the idea of tax withholding.

Samuelson and the MIT economists have left a far bigger and more important footprint.

He was smart and one of the most controversial economists. Even Greenspan was more pragmatic and today no mainstream economist supports classical monetarism.

It is ironic that Friedman's greatest success is the idea of tax withholding.

Samuelson and the MIT economists have left a far bigger and more important footprint.

improva delivers.

i know you like arguing, man, but this is really kind of pointless if you have no interest in digesting the material i'm using to back up my arguments and instead resort to making flippant ad hominem remarks about one of the greatest minds of this past century in his field of expertise (tho it's nothing too bad, you basically assume Friedman is incompetent). if i was referencing some random economic paper by Dr. nobody, sure, tear that down all day. but do you think someone as eminent as Friedman has not thought through this 1000x deeper than you or i?

lol, sorry I found a flaw in your great hero's argument. it doesn't mean I think he's incompetent. It means I think he is shaping his argument. He makes, as your quoted off screen voice asks him to, a lot of sweeping statements.

As for me, I also agree with improva on Paul Samuelson. I also am interested in James Buchanan (not the president) and other public choice guys (he taught at my alma mater so I picked him) and Paul Krugman even though like Friedman, Krugman makes his points non-objectively.

Samuelson and the MIT economists have left a far bigger and more important footprint.

i'm not so sure about that. the obituaries are probably as balanced an assessment of a man's life as any.

Paul Samuelson's obit
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/economy/14samuelson.html?pagewanted=all

Milton Friedman's obit
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/business/17friedmancnd.html?pagewanted=all


i think Samuelson has had a wider academic influence in teaching economics while Friedman has had a wider popular influence in teaching economics. though the two were opposed throughout their lives, as Samuelson said, “Economists are said to disagree too much but in ways that are too much alike: If eight sleep in the same bed, you can be sure that, like Eskimos, when they turn over, they’ll all turn over together.”

there is a good bit of overlap between the two:

If government gets too big, and too great a portion of the nation’s income passes through it, he said, government becomes inefficient and unresponsive to the human needs “we do-gooders extol,” and thus risks infringing on freedoms. - on Samuelson

As nations became locked in global competition, and as the computerization of the workplace created daunting employment problems, he agreed with the economic conservatives in advocating that American corporations must stay lean and efficient and follow the general dictates of the free market. - on Samuelson

It was not that Mr. Friedman believed in no government. He is credited with devising the negative income tax, which in a modern variant — the earned income tax credit — increases the incomes of the working poor. He also argued that government should give the poor vouchers to attend the private schools he thought superior to public ones. - on Friedman

“The boom that lasted from 1982 to 1990 was engineered by the Reagan administration in a straightforward Keynesian way by rising spending and lowered taxes, a classic case of an expansionary budget deficit,” Mr. Solow said. “In fairness to Milton, however, it should be said that one of the reasons for his wanting a tax reduction was to force the spending cuts that he presumed would follow.” - on Friedman

lol, sorry I found a flaw in your great hero's argument. it doesn't mean I think he's incompetent. It means I think he is shaping his argument. He makes, as your quoted off screen voice asks him to, a lot of sweeping statements.

in my hero's defense, quoting from NYTimes obituary again, "Once, when accused of going overboard in his antistatism, [Milton] said, 'In every generation, there’s got to be somebody who goes the whole way, and that’s why I believe as I do.'"

go big or go home, baby. that's my boy!


but seriously, it's not shaping the argument if there's empirical evidence that conditions in factories were getting better before widespread unionization in the workplace.

from the book version of Free to Choose:

A myth has grown up about the United States that paints the nineteenth century as the era of the robber baron, of rugged, unrestrained individualism. Heartless monopoly capitalists allegedly exploited the poor, encouraged immigration, and then fleeced the immigrants unmercifully. [...] The reality was very different. Immigrants kept coming. The early ones might have been fooled, but it is inconceivable that millions kept coming to the United States decade after decade to be exploited. They came because the hopes of those who had preceded them were largely realized. The streets of New York were not paved with gold, but hard work, thrift, and enterprise brought rewards that were not even imaginable in the Old World.
[...]

Despite the image often conveyed that labor unions protect low-paid workers against exploitation by employers, the reality is very different. The unions that have been most successful invariably cover workers who are in occupations that require skill and would be relatively highly paid with or without unions. These unions simply make high pay still higher. [... ] The oldest traditional unions in the United States are the craft unions—carpenters, plumbers, plasterers, and the like—again workers who are highly skilled and highly paid.
[...]

The most reliable and effective protection for most workers is provided by the existence of many employers. As we have seen, a person who has only one possible employer has little or no protection. The employers who protect a worker are those who would like to hire him. Their demand for his services makes it in the self-interest of his own employer to pay him the full value of his work. If his own employer doesn't, someone else may be ready to do so. Competition for his services—that is the worker's real protection.


however, if by "shaping the argument" you mean laying out some basic historical facts and making logical inductions based on those facts, then yeah, he shaped the crap out of that argument.