Illegals

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>While that may well be true, it doesn't disprove either statement.

Agreed. So for now we'll consider the statement "Illegal aliens cost the federal government over ten billion dollars each year" unsupported.

Now you're ignoring information not to your liking?

How myopic,

[billvon 3,111]

>Now you're ignoring information not to your liking?

No, see, "ignore" means to not notice. I did note it, and also noted that it was an unsupported statement. www.dictionary.com is a good resource if you have trouble understanding what words mean.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Now you're ignoring information not to your liking?

No, see, "ignore" means to not notice. I did note it, and also noted that it was an unsupported statement. www.dictionary.com is a good resource if you have trouble understanding what words mean.

But you've done nothing to refute the linked report. Merely claiming it's findings are unsupported doesn't make it so.

[nerdgirl 0]

There are two (possibly more) issues at play:

(1) The cited CIS study on illegal immigration, which recommends that illegal immigrants not be granted amnesty based on its conclusion that legal, low-skilled workers are larger financial burden on the US than illegal ones. The CIS study goes through a couple different scenarios and determines that it costs $6,022 (low estimate) more for legal low-skilled, minimally educated workers to the US than illegal immigrants, i.e., the "nationally border challenged.”

(2) Legal immigrants and the science and technology workforce.

While globalization has benefits for the free market globally, there is a domestic national security component as well.

This was eluded to in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which emphasized the importance of entrepreneurialship and innovation.

How valid is the rhetoric that there aren’t available young scientists and engineers? (Maybe not available at the price Bill Gates, et al. want to pay.) I disagree with Gates; more H1-B visas is not the answer to “How to Keep America Competitive”.

Before globalization, the market would have adjusted (hypothetically) to raise the prevailing wage. One result of globalization is the wages can remain low if there is an available workforce to fill them.

American kids aren’t stupid … okay, the subset who might be likely to go into a science or engineering field aren’t completely stupid. They see and hear about “off-shoring,” labs closing, how much work you have to do compared to a business degree, etc.

A few folks recognized the connection between lack of available decent-paying jobs and decline in one subset of engineers when the Southern California aerospace industry seemed on the verge of collapse, e.g., #’s of jobs “decline[d] from 370,000 in 1988 to slightly more than 160,000 in 1996. Despite some modest gains since 1996, aerospace employment remains below 170,000, less than one-half the level of a decade ago,” (from Trends in the Southern California Economic Region). In 1987, aerospace engineering-related jobs accounted for 10% of the US manufacturing jobs (see Chapter 2 Life After Cutbacks: Tracking California's Aerospace Workers).

More recently, the National Academy of Sciences report Rising Above the Gathering Storm recognized the jobs connection.

The declining American science and technology workforce is a *major* issue for many of the federal agencies, including the DoD. The Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) charged the Defense Science Board (DSB) with looking back to the Cold War and the “technologies” (i.e., capabilities in DoD-speak) that gave the US strategic dominance and technological advantage over adversaries (i.e., precision, speed, stealth and tactical ISR) and identifying equivalent technological capabilities for the 21st century: 21st Century Strategic Technology Vectors

In addition to identifying 4 critical “capabilities,” the DSB found that there is a lack of career science and technology development – a “crisis” – for DoD activities. This is exacerbated by the decline in math and science education, which was seen as creating a national security problem. A major theme of the DSB study was that revitalizing human capital is essential for the DoD to realize the technology needed to dominate over adversaries of the 21st century. Both Ken Kreig then-(USD(AT&L)) and John Young (the DDR&E) repeatedly have spoken about this repeatedly, including acknowledging the lack of reasonably well-paying jobs as an issue.

From personal experience, which I hope does not reflect the behavior of most US companies, I had to deal with the CEO of a small company who wanted to hire successive foreign PhDs on H1-B visas for 6 months at ~30% the prevailing wage, fire each after the company had gotten all of their expertise, and repeat with someone new. The CEO also wanted me to sign all of the paperwork; he wouldn’t sign the INS forms. Nevermind, the questionable ethics of his strategy, because you can’t argue normatives. Hiring someone on an H1-B visa at less than the prevailing wage is illegal, (some of you might argue with that law, but it was the law). He proposed all sorts of creative schemes to get around the requirements; I learned more about the CFR than I ever wanted. It does happen.

Reference to the earlier altruism discussion, while I had many less than self-less motivators, such as not wanting to break the law, I ended up being ‘punished’ for not being a ‘team player.’ Not only were there no repercussions for the CEO for doing the wrong thing, but there were negative ramifications for doing the right thing for me. The 4 guys (all 10-25 years older than me) who remained silent took the easy path.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,111]

>Merely claiming it's findings are unsupported doesn't make it so.

So support it. You are the one who has made the unsupported claim; the only way to get any credibility at all is to point to the data that could support it.

[nerdgirl 0]

And waiting in my inbox – another NAS study:
Benchmarking the Competitiveness of the United States in Mechanical Engineering Basic Research

Abstract: “Mechanical engineering is critical to the design, manufacture, and operation of small and large mechanical systems throughout the U.S. economy. This report highlights the main findings of a benchmarking exercise to rate the standing of U.S. mechanical engineering basic research relative to other regions or countries, key factors that influence U.S. performance in mechanical engineering research, and near- and longer-term projections of research leadership. U.S. leadership in mechanical engineering basic research overall will continue to be strong. Contributions of U.S. mechanical engineers to journal articles will increase, but so will the contributions from other growing economies such as China and India. At the same time, the supply of U.S. mechanical engineers is in jeopardy, because of declines in the number of U.S. citizens obtaining advanced degrees and uncertain prospects for continuing to attract foreign students. (emphasis mine) U.S. funding of mechanical engineering basic research and infrastructure will remain level, with strong leadership in emerging areas.”

p. 55: “Mechanical engineers (with S&E degrees) are projected to have an average rate of employment growth through 2014 [9-17 percent]. Although total employment in manufacturing industries – in which employment of mechanical engineers is concentrated – is expected to decline.”

Furthermore, if the US wants a next generation Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) or DD(X) destroyer or Stryker vehicle or JCAD or Reliable Replacement Warhead Program (RRW) – even if I agree w/the JASONS assessment that the RRW is not needed – mechanical engineers are needed … including American citizens who can get clearances. [/unpaid DoD advertisement] The US does make a lot of money selling military equipment to other states.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[NCclimber 0]

Here you go.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

[billvon 3,111]

Thank you! Much more useful.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Here you go.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

Quote

Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002.

And that's what makes this study, and the puported calculation of the "net fiscal deficit", flawed: it's based upon insufficient data and, correlatively, incomplete analysis. It only (purportedly) compares projections of costs to taxes paid in. (And, mind you, "projections" are easily massaged; and junk science looks, sounds and quacks an awful lot like the real McCoy.)

The cohort of illegal immigrants people are most concerned with, principally menial laborers from Mexico and Central America (and let's face it: they're kinda brownish and just won't learn gosh-darned English), are here for essentially one reason: because there's a demand for them.

And there's a demand for them for a reason, too: because employers, when they get away with it (read: almost always), pay them below minimum wage; pay them under the table - and thus save on the administrative costs of deducting and disbursing withholdings; don't pay them any kind of benefits; sure as hell don't pay them extra for overtime; don't pay work comp insurance premiums for them; don't invest as much money in job safety on their behalf (since your average Gomez is far less likely to raise a stink about job conditions than a Real American would be), are far less likely to unionize (ref. "Gomez", above), etc., etc.

This translates into lower costs of doing business these employers have, and thus lower prices Americans pay for: food at the market, meals at all restaurants (due to lower prices on ingredients), and especially those where illegals work (due to lower labor costs), landscaping services (praise Jesus - the gardener), janitorial labor, packing fees at the DZ (couldn't resist); heck, just about any product produced with very low wage grunt labor supplied by illegals. And people who spend less on goods and services have more disposable income to pump back into the economy. Also, there are all the companies that thrive (and pay taxes on profits) thanks to lower labor overhead; plus all the other companies that thrive by using lower-cost materials/ingredients and/or by re-selling lower cost goods produced by low-wage illegals.

And all of this (plus more) has a raw upward effect on the economy; and most, if not all, of this seems to be largely ignored by these "studies" by "immigration reform" groups.

Now, I'm not saying ignore the other factors (increased costs, lost tax revenues, legal workers screwed out of jobs, etc.), for those are legitimate and very important, too. I'm just saying that if one is really going to do a reliable, comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the effects of illegal immigrants on the economy, one must consider ALL of the factors, and not just some of them. Otherwise, the analysis - no matter which side it favors - is incomplete, unreliable and good for little else other than providing talking points for a partisan agenda.