Politcal Correctness (FBI/DOD could have stopped Fort Hood)

[Phatscotty]

Major Nidal Hassan gave some speeches in his classes that were highly incendiary and offensive, so much so that the instructor needed to interfere. He was supposed to be talking about mental health and soldiers, but instead went off on a Jihadist rant.

A Senate report on the Fort Hood shooting is sharply critical of the FBI’s failure to recognize warning signs that an Army psychiatrist had become an Islamist extremist and amounted to a “ticking time bomb.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/04/turns ... z1D4HNO6Xw


Is this guy still not a terrorist and just a crazy person?

[BigBallinStalin]

[ You see, what I'm talking about is this comment of yours:
"But, becuase the businesses are making money, you decide to target folks who are as much victims of this as the rest of us, not the businesses who create the situation from the start"


You place blame on the businesses for creating this situation, yet you ignore other factors (like incentives, unintended consequences, failures of the law and enforcement). You've yet to clearly defend your assertion.

No. I say that the illegal aliens are as much victims because if the opportunity were here for them to come legally, they would. The jobs are here. In the past, quotas have been expanded to encourage folks who were needed. In this case, the quotas were not changed. A change was not "needed" because the folks were coming here, from Mexico anyway and since they were illegal, it saved first agriculture and then other businesses a lot in pay, conditions, etc. It resulted in a situation that was so negative, a "universal amnesty" was offered. This resulted in several things, among them a nice voting block for Reagan, etc, and even liberal "points" for being "humane".

And, when I say that this change was made to benefit business, its because it was the busines owners, then largely big agriculture, who went behind the scenes lobbying.

Its you who is making assumptions. I am telling you what actually happened.

For the sake of clarity, what do you think I'm assuming?

This is what I've been addressing: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=101980&start=240#p2995187

But, becuase the businesses are making money, you decide to target folks who are as much victims of this as the rest of us, not the businesses who create the situation from the start

Besides, making them legal isn't beneficial to businesses because the main incentive for businesses to hire illegals was to take advantage of the cheaper labor costs. When they become legalized, it's in the companies best interests to hire new illegals.

Businesses are acting on their best interests and will continue to do so regardless of the monopolized legal system's decrees. It's a failure of the current legal system in accommodating this country's demand for cheaper labor to maintain those businesses' competitiveness. They set up laws, and everyone who doesn't want it, will find away around it. For example, take the guy who shot and murdered the man who kidnapped and raped his child. That's the father's form of justice, which was unacceptable under any means by the current monopolized legal system.


Oh, here's a positive externality that you forgot to mention: When companies hire illegals to reduce their labor costs, they'll drop the prices of their good (assuming they're efficiently running other parts of their business, and there's good competition). Guess what happens to the consumers' real wages? They go up.

[PLAYER57832]

Besides, making them legal isn't beneficial to businesses because the main incentive for businesses to hire illegals was to take advantage of the cheaper labor costs. When they become legalized, it's in the companies best interests to hire new illegals.

#1 its mostly the smaller businesses, not the big guys that hired illegals.
#2 most of the people who were legalized kept working for the same employer.
#3 Offering amenesty provided more incentive for yet another wave of illegal aliens.

Businesses are acting on their best interests and will continue to do so regardless of the monopolized legal system's decrees. It's a failure of the current legal system in accommodating this country's demand for cheaper labor to maintain those businesses' competitiveness. They set up laws, and everyone who doesn't want it, will find away around it. For example, take the guy who shot and murdered the man who kidnapped and raped his child. That's the father's form of justice, which was unacceptable under any means by the current monopolized legal system.

My argument was in reference to Phatt's ideology that the Arizona law is some kind of "fix" for the problem. It isn't. Yes, not making the employers responsible for who they hire is a legal problem. However, it is one that will be best fixed through penalties and taxes (real ones, that go to help fund the local communities, replace taxes and fees the non-citizens would otherwise pay).

Oh, here's a positive externality that you forgot to mention: When companies hire illegals to reduce their labor costs, they'll drop the prices of their good (assuming they're efficiently running other parts of their business, and there's good competition). Guess what happens to the consumers' real wages? They go up.

Not a true externality, more of a direct result. However, no, I did not "forget" this. Its just not a valid argument. It is one of those things that seems good for a time, but isn't in the long term.

I will say that hiring illegals is arguably better than outsourcing to other countries, but that's arguable.

[Baron Von PWN]

Major Nidal Hassan gave some speeches in his classes that were highly incendiary and offensive, so much so that the instructor needed to interfere. He was supposed to be talking about mental health and soldiers, but instead went off on a Jihadist rant.

A Senate report on the Fort Hood shooting is sharply critical of the FBI’s failure to recognize warning signs that an Army psychiatrist had become an Islamist extremist and amounted to a “ticking time bomb.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/04/turns ... z1D4HNO6Xw


Is this guy still not a terrorist and just a crazy person?

A crazy person motivated by islamic rethoric. In my opinion terrorists are from some kind of organisation. This attack seems totaly self motivated, why do you think it was political correctness and not just lack of judgement from the relevant officals that allowed this to happen?

[PLAYER57832]

the gov't interference I often rail about is related to business and economic freedom. Where you go wrong is projecting that to think you can use my position on something specific and plug it into a different topic with different circumstances.

No, your failure to see any connection is your hypocrisy.
You are an elitist, plain and simple. In the past, elitists supported the monarchy or, in other countries authoritarianism (even political communism was, in fact, elitist). Today, it is corporations that have become the new, dominating elite. Part of that elitism is to favor any step that discourages any new group from competing. In this case, it is the Latin Americans (mostly Mexicans). Elitism of that type is generally classified as "racism". Sure, you use other terms to justify it because looking down on people of another color or culture is no longer "acceptable", but for all your talk of being "anti PC", your arguments are white-washed racism, none the less.

That folks like you and much of the Tea Party have succeeded in convincing people the threat is some kind of "liberal elite" is the result of failures in education. I say none of that is accidental.

[Phatscotty]

I'm telling you you're wrong. Gov't interference has nothing to do with this, nothing to do with my thoughts here. Race has nothing to do with it either. You are barking up the wrong tree.

OK, then explain why this is "different" than other examples of government interferance?

Police do not go around pulling people over for no reason. An air freshener that is hanging off your rear-view is a reason. Like I said, it doesn't matter how flimsy it is.

LOL... this is why I say you are utterly and completely naive as well as hypocritical.

Because in other contexts, particular carrying guns, etc you assert essentially the opposite.

the gov't interference I often rail about is related to business and economic freedom. Where you go wrong is projecting that to think you can use my position on something specific and plug it into a different topic with different circumstances.

and, again, as for my example of the air freshener, I don't see how carrying guns is a related response.

Nice artificial "boxes" you like to draw. The connection is that police in other areas use the excuse of guns to crack down on all sorts of people. The threat of gun violance is most often used as a legitimate reason to limit gun ownreship, particularly as put forward by police.

Here, you seem to think that someone having an air freshener deserves to be put in jail if they don't carry their citizenship papers on their person.

And... yes, we are all aware that you support big business over all. Like I did say earlier, that myopia is part of why you find it OK to target hispanics in Arizona. The REAL problem is not people jumping the border, it is businesses that hire those folks. But, becuase the businesses are making money, you decide to target folks who are as much victims of this as the rest of us, not the businesses who create the situation from the start. AND, if you think economic gain has nothing to do with why illegal immigration hasn't ever been seriously countered, then you ARE truly naive... and ignoring facts.

Whoa whoa whoa, just slow down a little bit. You see I have finally got you to state what the hell you are talking about. Now I have to go back and plug all this in over the last 10 posts, since you are unable to talk correctly.

[Phatscotty]

Major Nidal Hassan gave some speeches in his classes that were highly incendiary and offensive, so much so that the instructor needed to interfere. He was supposed to be talking about mental health and soldiers, but instead went off on a Jihadist rant.

A Senate report on the Fort Hood shooting is sharply critical of the FBI’s failure to recognize warning signs that an Army psychiatrist had become an Islamist extremist and amounted to a “ticking time bomb.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/04/turns ... z1D4HNO6Xw


Is this guy still not a terrorist and just a crazy person?

A crazy person motivated by islamic rethoric. In my opinion terrorists are from some kind of organisation. This attack seems totaly self motivated, why do you think it was political correctness and not just lack of judgement from the relevant officals that allowed this to happen?

are you discounting his contacts with that one cleric, who is al-qada?

second, I think it's political correctness because the army did not want to be seen as anti-Muslim in a prioritous kind of way. That order came straight from the Commander-in-Chief.

It's the same at my work. Every year we have to fill out a piece of paper saying what race we are. My boss feels pressures to keep his staff diverse (colbert spoofs Kasichs all white cabinet) So we do have one black staffer. His only black staffer. Do you know how important this guy is to my boss, simply because he's black? Guess how much shit he gets away with too!?

Likewise, Hasan, because of his religion, was able to get away with all kinds of shit, because nobody wanted to "make a judgement call" on a Muslim. Fear of the leftist reaction to "discrimination based on religious beliefs" is included here as well

[PLAYER57832]

Whoa whoa whoa, just slow down a little bit. You see I have finally got you to state what the hell you are talking about. Now I have to go back and plug all this in over the last 10 posts, since you are unable to talk correctly.

Yeah, when all else fails, insult... seems to common a fallback in these threads.

[Phatscotty]

Whoa whoa whoa, just slow down a little bit. You see I have finally got you to state what the hell you are talking about. Now I have to go back and plug all this in over the last 10 posts, since you are unable to talk correctly.

Yeah, when all else fails, insult... seems to common a fallback in these threads.

yeah, well I do not do insults until I have been insulted at least 7 times, and only then, maybe.

Player, you are notorious for your insults. Wait a second, WHO IS THIS! Get Player back here asap. This sober imposter pretending to be Player has to go!

[BigBallinStalin]

Besides, making them legal isn't beneficial to businesses because the main incentive for businesses to hire illegals was to take advantage of the cheaper labor costs. When they become legalized, it's in the companies best interests to hire new illegals.

#1 its mostly the smaller businesses, not the big guys that hired illegals.
#2 most of the people who were legalized kept working for the same employer.
#3 Offering amenesty provided more incentive for yet another wave of illegal aliens.

#1 That's a good point, but is there any evidence?
#2 provide evidence... It's weird for a company that had the need to hire an illegal won't do so later.
#3 Agreed, because companies needed that cheaper labor, and illegals want to get paid better.

But let's look at what you said earlier:

But, becuase the businesses are making money, you decide to target folks who are as much victims of this as the rest of us, not the businesses who create the situation from the start

If you want to use this logic, then are not the illegal immigrants, who seek better pay, also creating the situation from the start?

They do contribute, but we have to step back and see why this problem even exists in the first place (I'll expand on that below).

Businesses are acting on their best interests and will continue to do so regardless of the monopolized legal system's decrees. It's a failure of the current legal system in accommodating this country's demand for cheaper labor to maintain those businesses' competitiveness. They set up laws, and everyone who doesn't want it, will find away around it. For example, take the guy who shot and murdered the man who kidnapped and raped his child. That's the father's form of justice, which was unacceptable under any means by the current monopolized legal system.

My argument was in reference to Phatt's ideology that the Arizona law is some kind of "fix" for the problem. It isn't. Yes, not making the employers responsible for who they hire is a legal problem. However, it is one that will be best fixed through penalties and taxes (real ones, that go to help fund the local communities, replace taxes and fees the non-citizens would otherwise pay).

Are employers really not penalized for hiring illegals? I'd assume they already are after they've been caught. The problem still is enforcing a law that's difficult to enforce. You can have the laws for penalties and taxes, but you need to catch them first. The US has dumped billions into that service (and related ones), yet is it overall an achievable goal? Is it really worth it? Or is this really a way for certain government agencies to continue justifying their budgets at the people's expense?

The US is combating a problem that it created in the first place by creating a price control in the form of minimum wage, which incentivizes businesses to seek cheaper sources of labor through illegal means. Essentially, this is similar to the prohibition of alcohol. The price control inadvertently prevents market forces from reaching equilibrium (since the price control is a price floor and labor itself is an inelastic product), thus people themselves will find alternatives, which results in these terrible unintended consequences that we're both concerned about.

Oh, here's a positive externality that you forgot to mention: When companies hire illegals to reduce their labor costs, they'll drop the prices of their good (assuming they're efficiently running other parts of their business, and there's good competition). Guess what happens to the consumers' real wages? They go up.

Not a true externality, more of a direct result. However, no, I did not "forget" this. Its just not a valid argument. It is one of those things that seems good for a time, but isn't in the long term.

I will say that hiring illegals is arguably better than outsourcing to other countries, but that's arguable.

This should get us to mutual understanding of this term: Positive externality.

In conclusion, the main problem with that for the long-term is due to the reasons why companies are hiring illegals. Those companies do so because of the US's continued persistence combating a problem that they've unintentionally instigated and can't defeat with the same strategy. (see above at "The US is combating...").

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW4AZLCtDzY

[PLAYER57832]

Besides, making them legal isn't beneficial to businesses because the main incentive for businesses to hire illegals was to take advantage of the cheaper labor costs. When they become legalized, it's in the companies best interests to hire new illegals.

#1 its mostly the smaller businesses, not the big guys that hired illegals.
#2 most of the people who were legalized kept working for the same employer.
#3 Offering amenesty provided more incentive for yet another wave of illegal aliens.

#1 That's a good point, but is there any evidence?

Yes, but at some point, if you cannot even be bothered to investigate what you are claiming, why should I.

[#2 provide evidence... It's weird for a company that had the need to hire an illegal won't do so later.

I don't know of a single instance where an employer layed anyone off because they decided to pursue citizenship. In fact, I know of more than a few farmers who went out of their way to assist those folks in becoming legal. Among other reasons, they preferred to hire legal citizens, but citizens just would not take the jobs (not, I am not speaking hypothetically, we would see "town" folks come and take jobs.. most would last barely a week. The exceptions were the upfront short term jobs picking and such. A few housewives made extra cash picking for a week or so. Even that was limited to a few. The work was hard, the hours long and the pay not very good by US standards.
Again, I already told you I am telling you what I have seen. I did not say I have been involved in these isssues since I was a teenager, but I have.

#3 Agreed, because companies needed that cheaper labor, and illegals want to get paid better.

Begin with agriculture, a couple of other isolated industries and this is true. People don't want to pay more for food and the working conditions on farms are irregular and difficult. Its not solely illegals who take those jobs, but it is primarily immigrants. In recent times, immigration is so heavily oriented toward western countries and the more highly educated (some minor exceptions like the Hmong from Vietnahm, Somali youth, etc.) that farmers have plain not been able to find workers.

I would like to see more folks on welfare forced to take these jobs. However, I know full well that would mostly be a failure for the farmers. Farm work is not for the lazy! And, while not everyone on welfare is lazy by a long stretch, many of those who are not have conditions or circumstances that would make them picking up and moving to a farm difficult (kids, health conditions, attending school themselves, etc.) Particularly when the work is only temporary.

HOWEVER, what began as a legitimate need in a few industries has now become a "need" to keep up profits. Illegals have absolutely taken carpentry jobs, butcher jobs, etc. Those are not beneficial changes, except where they keep the jobs here instead of outsourcing. However, the solution to that problem is not to allow illegals, it is to eliminate the illegal tag, tax the non-citizens who come here more highly than citizens, thus using the market to encourage (but not force) employers to hire citizens. If an employer has to pay even 25 cents more to hire a non-citizen (and the increase would be higher for more highly skilledpaid jobs), then they will only do so if the non-citizen is truly willing to work that much harder. Often that is the case and I say the one who works harder should get the job, citizen or not.

But let's look at what you said earlier:

But, becuase the businesses are making money, you decide to target folks who are as much victims of this as the rest of us, not the businesses who create the situation from the start

If you want to use this logic, then are not the illegal immigrants, who seek better pay, also creating the situation from the start?

Not quite a "chicken and egg", because you can take it as a given that people who are starving and so forth will seek better. Any of us would. However, unless there is someone willing to hire them, they won't benefit from coming here. I don't have a problem with people from Mexico coming here. The problem is that we have this huge need, but have not changed quotas to allow for it. Instead, the "powers that be" (not just Democrats and not just Republicans, though Reagan was about the first to truly set the current "track" and has since been lauded mostly by conservatives) have decided to play games with the "illegal question". By keeping the illegals coming they essentially get to "have their cake and eat it too". They get to decry increases in immigration, point to laws limiting them coming here... and still benefit from the labor all the immigrants provide.

They do contribute, but we have to step back and see why this problem even exists in the first place (I'll expand on that below).

Businesses are acting on their best interests and will continue to do so regardless of the monopolized legal system's decrees. It's a failure of the current legal system in accommodating this country's demand for cheaper labor to maintain those businesses' competitiveness. They set up laws, and everyone who doesn't want it, will find away around it. For example, take the guy who shot and murdered the man who kidnapped and raped his child. That's the father's form of justice, which was unacceptable under any means by the current monopolized legal system.

My argument was in reference to Phatt's ideology that the Arizona law is some kind of "fix" for the problem. It isn't. Yes, not making the employers responsible for who they hire is a legal problem. However, it is one that will be best fixed through penalties and taxes (real ones, that go to help fund the local communities, replace taxes and fees the non-citizens would otherwise pay).

Are employers really not penalized for hiring illegals? I'd assume they already are after they've been caught.

In the past, hardly at all. An employer might (and only might) get a small fine. Initially, even illegals themselves faced little real penalty, mostly just being shipped back home. However, now they are more and more detained for long stretches. Ironically, those detained the longest are those trying to get legal status. This includes kids, though recent outcries have changed some tactics.

Also, the Immigration officers have used extremely draconian tactics. In one notable case, parents were not even allowed to contact daycare providers to let them know the kids would not be picked up or to arrange for someone else to get the kids. Kids who were citizens, I might add. One child, nursing, wound up in the hospital because he would not eat (nursing kids often refuse bottles). You can say what you want about the parents shouldn't be here, etc. But even the most henious of criminals get a phone call.

Note, I am not denying that illegal status causes problems, but the real solution is to allow more legal means for them to come here, not keep up this fiction of "fighting the border", while benefitting so highly from these folks' labor.

[The problem still is enforcing a law that's difficult to enforce. You can have the laws for penalties and taxes, but you need to catch them first. The US has dumped billions into that service (and related ones), yet is it overall an achievable goal? Is it really worth it? Or is this really a way for certain government agencies to continue justifying their budgets at the people's expense?

The US is combating a problem that it created in the first place by creating a price control in the form of minimum wage, which incentivizes businesses to seek cheaper sources of labor through illegal means.

No. Minimum wage did not create this problem/ Nice try, but no.

[Essentially, this is similar to the prohibition of alcohol. The price control inadvertently prevents market forces from reaching equilibrium (since the price control is a price floor and labor itself is an inelastic product), thus people themselves will find alternatives, which results in these terrible unintended consequences that we're both concerned about.

No. achohol prohibition was about imposing morals on others. This is about economics. An ecomic solution to an economic problem does make sense. That said, again, you want to focuse purely on a limited set of statistics and, yes, some false information.

As I said above, when I spoke of why Reagan did what he did, why businesses supported him, I was not making guesses. I was telling you what happened and why. Whether you think it made sense or not is irrelevant.


Gotta go, will tackle the wikki article later. If its worth tackling, anyway.

[PLAYER57832]

It's a bad thing when it impedes free speech, which it almost always does. Just another example of how modern liberals differ from classical liberals...

You confuse political correctness with how people try to distort political correctness. Political correctness is really just "manners".

It used to be OK to call anyone black a "nigger", then "negro" became the accepted term. Now neither are OK. Similarly, we don't refer to Native Americans as "injuns". (calling them "indian" is a bit less offensive, but a lot of that depends on the context) If you find that limiting, then I would suggest you study a dictionary or thesaurus for other terms you might use.

Some of political correctness is really just about being sensible. At a time when only men were firefighters or police officers... or many other jobs, it was quite appropriate to refer to "firemen" and "policemen",etc. Now, pretending those terms make sense is idiotic, or more often a tactic used by people who really don't think women should be in those positions. (which is why people do find the terms offensive)

Ignoring real problems with someone who happens to be a Muslim is not "political correctness". Of course, some people use any excuse they can to justify their actions.

HINT.. if you want to know how to look past superficialities, try talking to a parent. Kids are masters at twisting words. Too bad some adults think they can get away with the garbage.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh, here's a positive externality that you forgot to mention: When companies hire illegals to reduce their labor costs, they'll drop the prices of their good (assuming they're efficiently running other parts of their business, and there's good competition). Guess what happens to the consumers' real wages? They go up.

Not a true externality, more of a direct result. However, no, I did not "forget" this. Its just not a valid argument. It is one of those things that seems good for a time, but isn't in the long term.

I will say that hiring illegals is arguably better than outsourcing to other countries, but that's arguable.

This should get us to mutual understanding of this term: Positive externality.

In conclusion, the main problem with that for the long-term is due to the reasons why companies are hiring illegals. Those companies do so because of the US's continued persistence combating a problem that they've unintentionally instigated and can't defeat with the same strategy. (see above at "The US is combating...").

LOL.. the problem is that you still want to look at just the positives and ignore too many of the real negatives.

This is a classic trick of economists. If its too difficult to quantify or just doesn't tell them what they want, they ignore it (as in calculating the real and true long-term costs of destroying species quickly leads to the understanding that it is better not to do so... the "wrong" conclusion, so its ignored as "unreasonable" or just "unquantifiable").

In this case, the solution, which would allow employers to hire lower cost workers when warranted, but not cause allt he various social problems, is to allow the employers to hire whomever they want legally, but place an additional tax on hiring any non-citizen, taxes that would directly go to support local services and such normally supported by citizens taxpayers.


Look, you began your whole set of discussions by claiming that I disagreed with you because I "did not understand economics". The truth is, I just disagree with much of what you have been taught and with very good reason. That reason is most of what you have been taught is artificial and bogus.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, here's a positive externality that you forgot to mention: When companies hire illegals to reduce their labor costs, they'll drop the prices of their good (assuming they're efficiently running other parts of their business, and there's good competition). Guess what happens to the consumers' real wages? They go up.

Not a true externality, more of a direct result. However, no, I did not "forget" this. Its just not a valid argument. It is one of those things that seems good for a time, but isn't in the long term.

I will say that hiring illegals is arguably better than outsourcing to other countries, but that's arguable.

This should get us to mutual understanding of this term: Positive externality.

In conclusion, the main problem with that for the long-term is due to the reasons why companies are hiring illegals. Those companies do so because of the US's continued persistence combating a problem that they've unintentionally instigated and can't defeat with the same strategy. (see above at "The US is combating...").

LOL.. the problem is that you still want to look at just the positives and ignore too many of the real negatives.

This is a classic trick of economists. If its too difficult to quantify or just doesn't tell them what they want, they ignore it (as in calculating the real and true long-term costs of destroying species quickly leads to the understanding that it is better not to do so... the "wrong" conclusion, so its ignored as "unreasonable" or just "unquantifiable").

In this case, the solution, which would allow employers to hire lower cost workers when warranted, but not cause allt he various social problems, is to allow the employers to hire whomever they want legally, but place an additional tax on hiring any non-citizen, taxes that would directly go to support local services and such normally supported by citizens taxpayers.


Look, you began your whole set of discussions by claiming that I disagreed with you because I "did not understand economics". The truth is, I just disagree with much of what you have been taught and with very good reason. That reason is most of what you have been taught is artificial and bogus.

I never said that was the only externality. The rest you based on that assumption.

[BigBallinStalin]

If there was no minimum wage, then businesses could set their own prices for labor.

They can't, so one of the unintended consequences is to hire cheaper labor (namely illegaly in the form of illegal immigrants).

If they could set their own prices, they wouldn't have to hire only illegals. Therefore, the current minimum wage incentivizes companies to hire illegal immigrants.

[PLAYER57832]

I never said that was the only externality. The rest you based on that assumption.

No, I base it upon what economists do.

[PLAYER57832]

If there was no minimum wage, then businesses could set their own prices for labor.

They can't, so one of the unintended consequences is to hire cheaper labor (namely illegaly in the form of illegal immigrants).

If they could set their own prices, they wouldn't have to hire only illegals. Therefore, the current minimum wage incentivizes companies to hire illegal immigrants.

No, some employers will always try to cut corners. They are mostly dishonest and not much above outright criminals, though society tries to pretend "white collar" crimes are somehow less harmful to society than the more outwardly violant crimes.

MOST employers, though are honest. They are able to function and do business paying decent wages, etc. when the market is not skewed. However, when the dishonest folk are given no or only slight penalties, then even the more honest folks are forced to do things like hire illegals.

The problem, as I said before, is not the minimum wage. That may or may not be a problem but is irrelevant to the illegal worker issue. In fact, many illegals make above the minimum wage for their profession, though they may work under poorer conditions and so forth. The problem is in some areas that there are jobs which citizens will not fill, but no avenue for employers to hire anyone else (this is primarily true in agriculture). In other cases, it is plain old-fashioned greed driving then hiring of illegals. Greed and the idea that certain safety regulations are a "nuisance" that can be ignored. This is true in the construction trades. BUT, that doesn't mean everyone who hires illegals is greedy. A few begin the trend who are greedy and then, when nothing is done to correct the situation, others wind up having to hire illegals to compete.

Pretending this is about minimum wage is no different thant he basic argument that there should not be a minimum wage. The problem is, without one, too many employers will hire peopel for wages that do not support them. In fact, our minimum wage is so low that is already the case. So, again, we artificially support those businesses by propping up the wages of the workers through our tax dollars.

That is the bottom line. Subsidies to workers are really and truly subsidies to businesses. Ignoring problems with hiring is, similarly, a boon to businesses. THAT is why those things continue... because in the end, the benefit business, no matter how much they may be "crying all the way to the bank".

[BigBallinStalin]

I never said that was the only externality. The rest you based on that assumption.

No, I base it upon what economists do.

facepalm.jpg

If there was no minimum wage, then businesses could set their own prices for labor.

They can't, so one of the unintended consequences is to hire cheaper labor (namely illegaly in the form of illegal immigrants).

If they could set their own prices, they wouldn't have to hire only illegals. Therefore, the current minimum wage incentivizes companies to hire illegal immigrants.

No,

Let's start here.

Which part do you disagree with, and why?

[PLAYER57832]

I never said that was the only externality. The rest you based on that assumption.

No, I base it upon what economists do.

facepalm.jpg

If there was no minimum wage, then businesses could set their own prices for labor.

They can't, so one of the unintended consequences is to hire cheaper labor (namely illegaly in the form of illegal immigrants).

If they could set their own prices, they wouldn't have to hire only illegals. Therefore, the current minimum wage incentivizes companies to hire illegal immigrants.

No,

Let's start here.

Which part do you disagree with, and why?

I have explained. You refuse to consider that much of what you have been taught is just not true. That's understandable. But, your continued insistance that you know of what you speak without bothering to verify... you are wasting my time.

Let's recap a few bits to explain why I say this.
Begin with "you [disagree with me, with what I have been taught in my traditional economics classes, therefore you cannot possibly have any understanding of economics]"... except, as I explained, economists ignore essentially all the data from my entire field of study. We, to contrast have to learn some economics just to survive in this world and communicate.

then you bring out such gems as claims that "food deserts [just don't exist]", followed by "well, I can ride a bike".. "so why can't they' {ignore explanations of why} and clearly these people just need education (again, ignore multiple explanations of why this is a very complex issue without simple solutions).

[BigBallinStalin]

Double-facepalm.jpg

If there was no minimum wage, then businesses could set their own prices for labor.

They can't, so one of the unintended consequences is to hire cheaper labor (namely illegaly in the form of illegal immigrants).

If they could set their own prices, they wouldn't have to hire only illegals. Therefore, the current minimum wage incentivizes companies to hire illegal immigrants.

Consider the argument itself. Tell me if it's valid, tell me which part is false, tell me something other than going off on another PLAYER crusade to god knows where.

_______________________

Ask BVP about our food deserts conversation, and I explained all of that very well. And I further expanded upon my riding a bike example and how knowledge and awareness is the main influencer in such a scenario. And, I never claimed that food deserts don't exist.

Obviously, you didn't read it, or you filtered it out, and then you respond in once again a hostile manner. Therefore, you're a bigot.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, I already answered you. If you don't like my answer, that doesn't mean "I did not read". in short, you begin with assumptions I refute from the outset, then bring in more assumptions. Stop with the assumptions. I have told you again and again I am not talking esoterics, I am telling you what happened and the decisions that WERE made, not theories.. reality. I am sorry if it does not corrospond with what you believe should be true, but that is how life is sometimes.

Oh, here is one article I just found on one food desert. It definitely disputes some of your claims about markets coming in, etc.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133506101 ... od-options

[Phatscotty]

Actually, I already answered you. If you don't like my answer, that doesn't mean "I did not read". in short, you begin with assumptions I refute from the outset, then bring in more assumptions. Stop with the assumptions. I have told you again and again I am not talking esoterics, I am telling you what happened and the decisions that WERE made, not theories.. reality. I am sorry if it does not corrospond with what you believe should be true, but that is how life is sometimes.

Oh, here is one article I just found on one food desert. It definitely disputes some of your claims about markets coming in, etc.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133506101 ... od-options

but this neighborhood, surrounded by freeways, train tracks, and industrial warehouses, is isolated from all that.

sounds like a shitty place to live. I wonder what the trade-off are in paying lower rents?

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, I already answered you. If you don't like my answer, that doesn't mean "I did not read". in short, you begin with assumptions I refute from the outset, then bring in more assumptions. Stop with the assumptions. I have told you again and again I am not talking esoterics, I am telling you what happened and the decisions that WERE made, not theories.. reality. I am sorry if it does not corrospond with what you believe should be true, but that is how life is sometimes.

Oh, here is one article I just found on one food desert. It definitely disputes some of your claims about markets coming in, etc.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133506101 ... od-options

Los Angeles is a food lover's paradise — unless you happen to live in the Ramona Gardens housing project.

The housing project. A government-designed project... there's no market forces being allowed to properly rein there. The local government stupidly decided to build houses in a terrible place. That's government failure right there, which from the beginning already makes difficult what I was advocating.

Also, where's the information on that environment coming from? ONE person: Olga Perez... :/

Bearing that in mind, let's continue.

The problem is crime and the low income of the residents. For the current crime levels, that's due to the ineptitude of the government's monopolies on police, zoning laws, and the legal system.

The neighborhood has just one local street vendor who brings a few fresh fruits and vegetables.

You know why there's so few street vendors and guys on trucks selling produce? The merchant license is expensive, and without one, it's illegal to be such an entrepreneur. Also, there are plenty of additional costs in setting up such a shop. Once again, government has exacerbated the problem by preventing market forces from saving the day.

So she and the others depend on the nearest supermarket, which is a bus ride away.

How long does that take? Not reported... But next there's:

Nearly three miles away, at the Superior grocery store, Perez finds better choices.

Notice the difference between "nearest supermarket" and "nearly three miles away, at the Superior grocery store." They're not saying that the Super grocery store is the nearest supermarket...

"I had to buy a scale that goes up to 500 pounds because we had three children come in that exceeded the 250-pound weight limit of our clinic scale," says Resnick. "When you have a 9-year-old who weighs 150 and when you have a 14-year-old that weighs over 250, you know you have a problem."

Fat kids. Attributed to access to fatty foods, or is it really due to their parents deciding to feed their kids fatty foods? And if so, why do they decide to do so? Because they typically don't know any better (which brings us earlier to what I was saying about the importance of knowledge and those education campaigns).

Now, with help from a community group called LA Voice PICO, Perez and some of her neighbors are speaking out and lobbying politicians to help them get more healthful food options.

And here's the idiocy. "Give us more healthy food! LEGISLATE THAT!" When none of them realize that the government itself is responsible for this entire mess to begin with.

They recently won a small victory when Superior grocery store district manager Marco Sosa brought back free shuttle van rides for customers, something he dropped last year because of cost.

No wonder the costs are so high currently.

"It doesn't matter if we live in a low-income area," says Perez. "We all deserve to eat the fresh fruits that nature provided for us. We shouldn't be divided."

And I fully support this. Obviously, the prices are high in that local store, so there's the opportunity for arbitrage here. Most likely, that truck vendor doesn't have a merchant's license and/or will be hit with a fee pretty soon.

The best way to let entrepreneurs (or market forces) correct this problem is by lowering the costs in letting them operate. Therefore, let people set up shops from their own trucks. Large supermarkets obviously won't do so, and they can't be mandated to do so (otherwise, they'll fail).

In conclusion, this whole problem was brought about by the government and further exacerbated by the government, yet people still look to the government for further solutions. The government intervenes in the market process, and creates its own problems.

[Phatscotty]

Guiliani: Hearings on Radical Islam May Have Prevented Ft. Hood Shooting

In praising Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and this week’s congressional hearing which examined the radicalization of American Muslims, former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani suggested that such an investigation should’ve happened three years ago.

“Maybe there wouldn’t have been an attack like the one at Ft. Hood if we’d have had a hearing like this,”

Maybe we are making progress in the area of "being able to even talk about it"