alicemacher: Lisa Winklemeyer from the webcomic Penny and Aggie, c2004-2011 G. Lagacé, T Campbell (Default)
[personal profile] alicemacher posting in [community profile] scans_daily

I don't normally post political cartoons, but this one is, I hope you'll agree, especially relevant to this community for more than one reason. It's from the blog of Brian Fies, creator of the graphic novels Mom's Cancer and Whatever Happened to the World of Tomorrow?

Here's a link to the blog post itself.

Date: 2016-09-29 06:24 pm (UTC)
byc: (Default)
From: [personal profile] byc
As soon as I saw the preview panel, I knew what was coming.

I thought it would be more of a direct attack on Trump, but glad to see it tries to rise about that.

Date: 2016-09-29 07:21 pm (UTC)
icon_uk: (Default)
From: [personal profile] icon_uk
That's reassuringly upbeat!

Makes me think of the old comparison between pre and post Crisis Supeman.

Pre Crisis Superman is Kal-El occasionally wearing a collar and tie

Post Crisis Superman is Clark Kent occasionally wearing a Superman costume.

Date: 2016-09-29 08:52 pm (UTC)
balbanes: (Default)
From: [personal profile] balbanes
Somewhat on topic, I wish someone would make a YouTube video using MCU's Spider-Man's character defining moment: "When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen? They happen because of you." And it would look like this:

"When you can do the things that I can"
[images of voting]

"but you don't, and then the bad things happen?"
[Trump victory followed by scenes of immigrant families being ripped apart, mosques being firebombed, etc.]

"They happen because of you."
[Show from movie of Tom Holland saying this part of the line]

Date: 2016-09-29 10:00 pm (UTC)
cyberghostface: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cyberghostface
That sounds kind of hilarious in an ott and melodramatic way.

Date: 2016-09-29 09:07 pm (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
Would Clark Kent support unlimited immigration during a period of long-term structural labor surplus, even if it meant that ninety percent of the population saw no increase in their real incomes for fifty years? Is crushing the American working class really what it means to defend "truth, justice, and the American way"?

Date: 2016-09-29 09:27 pm (UTC)
mesmiranda: (bloody hell)
From: [personal profile] mesmiranda
Clark Kent probably wouldn't toss immigrants out on the basis of their creed or skin colour. I mean, I'm guessing.

Date: 2016-09-30 02:38 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
Since no one is actually advocating that (people are advocating not letting in more immigrants of a given creed), I'm not sure that that's relevant.

Date: 2016-09-30 06:57 am (UTC)
sadoeuphemist: (Default)
From: [personal profile] sadoeuphemist
Who is advocating 'unlimited immigration', how is banning Muslims from the US supposed to benefit the American working class, how is any of this relevant to the comic?

Date: 2016-09-30 05:53 pm (UTC)
mesmiranda: (flames)
From: [personal profile] mesmiranda
The whole comic is a rather unsubtle jab at Trump and his policies, which I took [personal profile] richardak to be supporting (and which I don't).

Date: 2016-09-30 11:03 pm (UTC)
sadoeuphemist: (Default)
From: [personal profile] sadoeuphemist
My point being, how are Trump and his policies supposed to do anything to increase incomes for the American working class?

Date: 2016-10-03 05:19 pm (UTC)
mesmiranda: (jump)
From: [personal profile] mesmiranda
They're not really, but try telling that to his supporters.

(Not sure if this is veering too off-topic; I apologize if it is.)

Date: 2016-09-29 10:09 pm (UTC)
balbanes: (Default)
From: [personal profile] balbanes
Isn't Clark Kent an illegal immigrant himself? Definitely wasn't born here, and I'm pretty sure he was never naturalized given his cover identity as "Clark Kent."

Date: 2016-09-30 01:32 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
Depends which version of the character. The post-Crisis John Byrne version was born here, since his birthing matrix did not open until after the ship landed. I seem to recall that they also used that origin in the Man of Steel movie.

Date: 2016-09-30 01:43 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] lego_joker
Even that probably wouldn't save him, given the GOP hardliners' hatred of "anchor babies".

Date: 2016-09-30 02:15 am (UTC)
hotfoot: THOR DEMANDS PIE! (Default)
From: [personal profile] hotfoot
Kara Zor-El, however, is absolutely an illegal immigrant, as is Power Girl, Martian Manhunter, Matrix, some versions of Hawkman and Hawkwoman, and several other super heroes.

That said, the birthing matrix thing is a dodge and really always has been, it was just a convenient one most people are willing to let slide because having Superman be a natural born citizen of the United States is generally pretty great.

In Man of Steel one of the major plot points is that Kal El was a natural birth. There's even a scene of Lara giving birth, so no, they didn't use that there.

Date: 2016-09-30 02:44 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
That's fair. But do a few exceptional cases invalidate the rule?

Date: 2016-09-30 02:43 am (UTC)
balbanes: (Default)
From: [personal profile] balbanes
Wait... the "birth" from the birthing matrix is metaphorical, right? I don't recall him being *grown* in the birthing matrix, in vitro style. Kal was born when he came out of Lara, then placed as a newborn/baby/toddler/whatever in the birthing matrix and sent off to Earth.

It's like claiming to be a natural-born citizen because you were baptized in the U.S. In some sense baptism is a "birth," but it's not the biological birth required for citizenship.

Date: 2016-09-30 03:06 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
No, in the post-Crisis version, Kryptonian babies were conceived and gestated within, and then born from, birthing matrices. In fact, there was even a Supreme Court case about that subject in a possible-future story: As it says, he was conceived artificially within the matrix and born when it opened.

Date: 2016-09-30 03:15 am (UTC)
balbanes: (Default)
From: [personal profile] balbanes
Huh. That kinda nudges Krypton from "advanced future society" to "dystopian future society." I'm reminded on the sex scene from Demolition Man:

Date: 2016-09-30 04:42 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
Yeah, that was the pretty much what Byrne was going for, but to an even greater degree. Post-Crisis Krypton was a dystopian "paradise", where everyone was completely isolated from everyone else by technology. Jor-El and Lara barely knew each other. It was decided that they would produce a child together because of their genetic compatibility and for dynastic reasons.

Date: 2016-09-30 11:57 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] jlbarnett
that was the intent, Pre-crisis Superman fell from heaven, post-Crisis Superman rose from hell

Date: 2016-09-30 05:28 pm (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
That might be taking it a little far. Post-Crisis Krypton was a far cry from hell. Part of the problem was that life there was pleasant enough to anesthetize most of the population to the danger. And Pre-Crisis Krypton was still far from heaven. Heaven does not need the Phantom Zone, nor does it have such blind and short-sighted leadership.

I think it was more that sixties-era sci-fi was very optimistic about the power of advancing technology to improve our lives (think Star Trek), and eighties-era sci-fi had become much more pessimistic about the power of advancing technology to alienate and dehumanize us (think Neuromancer).

Date: 2016-09-29 10:14 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] locuatico

Date: 2016-09-29 11:10 pm (UTC)
hotfoot: THOR DEMANDS PIE! (Default)
From: [personal profile] hotfoot
Are you discussing hypotheticals, or do you believe that those are accurate historical statements?

If it's hypotheticals, I think he'd want to see actual harm being done by the situation at hand, and see about creating a way to solve the problem so that everyone benefitted. Because, you know, Clark Kent isn't about ruining people's lives on a whim, and people who work for a living deserve a decent life.

For historical statements, do you think Clark Kent would have supported Operation Wetback, or the Mexican Repatriation which deported ~1.2 million American Citizens? What about current immigration courts who have deported tens of thousands of legitimate American citizens under their existing mandates?

More to your points, If there was a labor surplus, why did the government support the Bracero program, which offered incentives for Mexicans to come to the united states to work at jobs during World War 2?

As for wage stagnation, why is it that you would attribute that to a worker surplus and not, say, the stagnation of the minimum wage? The efforts of one worker today generates more wealth than did fifty years ago by a considerable margin, but their compensation for that work is far less than it used to be. Is that due to an overflowing labor market, or is that due to another factor, perhaps lobbyists for large corporations spending a few million dollars so that they could gain several billion dollars at the expense of their workforce?

Just some food for thought.

Date: 2016-09-30 02:36 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
I want to apologize in advance for the lengthy reply. I thought your points merited a reply in some detail.

First, I can assure you that these are not hypotheticals, but rather the actual facts from the real world.

To address your point about World War Two, that ended seventy-one years ago. There was a labor shortage then, during the war, but there has been a structural labor surplus in this country since before the current wave of mass immigration began in the mid-sixties.

As for Operation Wetback, that was a completely legal program, conducted in cooperation with the Mexican government, to deport illegal immigrants. Apparently, among the millions of illegals deported, there were several hundred American citizens, although the source for that was behind a paywall, so I have to confess that I have not actually checked it. That being said, while that would have been an injustice, I don't know of any way to enforce any law with perfect justice. That does not seem like a good argument to me not to enforce our existing immigration laws, nor a good argument not to tighten our existing laws.

As for the Mexican Repatriation, I have to confess that I had not heard of it before. I looked it up online, and found the wikipedia entry on it,, which did indeed cite a figure of approximately 1.2 million citizens being removed. It also said, however, that estimates of the total number of people removed range from five-hundred thousand to two million, and one of the two sources cited by that article for the 1.2 million figure gave an estimate of "[t]ens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000" people removed in total. Here is the link to the source itself: That same source also says that in 1930, which was right around when the Repatriation began, there were "1.42 million people of Mexican ancestry, and 805,535 of them were U.S. born" in the entire United States. That same source does also cite the two million and 1.2 million figures, but cites as a source for those numbers the co-sponsor of the House version of the Senate bill which is the wikipedia article's other source for those figures. That piece of legislation does not itself cite any sources for the numbers it cites. So I am dubious of the 1.2 million claim, to say the least.

I would likewise like to see a source for your claim that current immigration courts have issued deportation orders against American citizens. First, immigration have no legal authority to deport citizens. You cannot deport a citizen as a matter of law, and there is an extensive legal process involved in deportation proceedings. Second, something like half of all deportation orders that are issued are not carried out, and total deportations are at their lowest level since 1973:

But again, is your argument that because the legal system sometimes makes errors, and no system of law enforcement completely avoids injustices, we should not enforce our immigration laws at all? Would you apply that same reasoning to abolish all law enforcement, or all laws?

As for your question about why I attribute wage stagnation to immigration, I do so because it is basic economics: when you increase the supply of something, in this case labor, you drive down the price, which with labor is called wages. You cannot import tens of millions of mostly unskilled immigrants, mostly from poor countries, without driving down wages.

As for the possibility that it might have something to do with the stagnation of the minimum wage, in real terms the minimum wage is higher now than it was in the nineties or early aughts: More to the point, though, the minimum wage cannot really affect anyone's wages to any significant degree, and that is, again, just basic economics. The price of anything, including labor, is a function of supply and demand. If the supply of labor exceeds the demand, wages will stagnate or drop, and if the government makes it illegal to pay the market rate for labor, employers will either eliminate the jobs in question or hire people off the books. When you increase the minimum wage, people making slightly less than the new minimum may often get a slight increase up to the new minimum. People making significantly less than the new minimum just get laid off, or their hours get cut back, or they get employed off the books. You cannot make something worth more by making it illegal to pay less.

As for the contention that it has something to do with lobbying by business, it clearly does, but that is not at all contradictory to the proposition that it is because of mass immigration. Rather, business interests have been lobbying intensely and successfully for mass immigration precisely because they want cheap labor. Whom do you think donated a hundred million dollars to the Jeb Bush campaign? That money came from business interests that wanted a pro-immigration Republican nominee. It is precisely that lobbying by business interests that has led to political collusion by both parties in favor of immigration, at the expense of American workers. I have a problem with that. Anyway, I apologize again for the lengthy reply.

Date: 2016-09-30 03:14 am (UTC)
hotfoot: THOR DEMANDS PIE! (Default)
From: [personal profile] hotfoot
There is no need to apologize for the length of your reply. I did, in this case, start it, but thank you for the consideration, and I appreciate the effort you put into the response.

1. Legal does not mean right, and I will not bend on that point, and neither, I will point out, would Clark Kent. I could cite any number of horrific acts that were legal from history and I doubt that is a road you would like to go down. The point of me bringing it up (aside from the ludicrously racist code name of the thing, thanks history), was that it helps illustrate a major issue in the United States. We straight up stole land from Mexico, made it our own, then tossed out a bunch of people because we didn't like Mexicans, even though many were American Citizens (which, by extension, makes a number of Mexican born children American Citizens by law, though good luck tracking down the paperwork for that). Then we begged Mexicans (and Americans of Mexican descent) to come back to help with our war effort barely a decade after throwing them out after blaming the Great Depression on them, by the way, which is rich. Then we threw them out AGAIN, after they were of no more use to us. It's a horrific sort of thing for a nation that is supposed to take pride in its Melting Pot, and it is, start to finish, incredibly unjust.

2. As for Immigration Courts, Vice did a story on it earlier this year:

Here is the study referenced in the article:

From 2003 to 2011 over 20,000 US Citizens have been deported.

There are under 60 Immigration courts with over half a million cases in backlog, no representation for the defendants, and Judges who have to meet quotas or be fired. It's horrifically underfunded, overworked, and a violation of constitutional rights of thousands of natural born American citizens, to say nothing of the immigrants who deserve a fair trial.

The standard of Justice should be balanced that the innocent suffering false conviction should be an absolute aberration, not that we are willing to accept collateral damage of innocent people suffering punishment for things they did not deserve. Something I will point out, Clark Kent would absolutely agree with. For years he knew Lex Luthor was doing terrible things, but he knew he could not prove it in a court of law. Even if people would be willing to take his word for it, that would be a corruption of Justice.

3. The purpose of the minimum wage, as intended when originally created, is to create a fair wage that allows a standard of living that is decent. Pew's graph, if correct, is missing information from its analysis, and I will roundly disagree with you on the point of the minimum wage not affecting general wages, because that has been disproven each and every time the minimum wage increases.

Moreover, even by the Pew graph, the value of the minimum wage has gone down in the time period you specified, 50 years. That it's gotten better very recently doesn't change the fact that there is very much a different reason for that drop than immigration, which, I will point out, from the 80's on has been a major issue that has had many people trying to secure the borders, starting with Ronald Reagan.

In fact, according to Pew, illegal immigration has been up since the 90's, during which time the value of minimum wage has gone up, which runs rather counter to the argument that illegal immigration has caused wages to stagnate.

So, no, I don't believe that cheap labor has stagnated wages. In fact, it seems to have done the exact opposite, based on the Pew data.

Date: 2016-09-30 04:14 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
Are you claiming that cheap labor has not stagnated wages because the minimum wage has gone up? Do you not see the logical contradiction inherent in that position? To the extent that many people believe as you do, that raising the minimum wage increases actual wages, political pressure to increase the minimum wage, which tends to precede and cause increases in the minimum wage, is likely to occur precisely when actual wages are stagnant or decreasing. We do not have to speculate about this, however: As you can see, the vast majority of Americans have seen no increase in their hourly wages for the past fifty years.

As for the claim that the minimum wage does not cause unemployment, the source you cite to itself just cites to a letter from a group of economists, who in turn just cite to "important developments in the academic literature". That should be setting off your BS detector. Of course the overall unemployment rate is unlikely to be affected noticeably by the minimum wage, since most workers make more than the minimum wage already, and if you look in detail at the studies that purport to show that unemployment is unaffected by increases in the minimum wage, they often arrive at that result by looking at the overall unemployment rate. The other trick they pull is to look at the statistical correlation between changes in unemployment rates and the minimum wage without allowing for the fact that the effect, unemployment, occurs after the cause, and does not always register right away, so there is often a gap in time between cause and effect. But if you look at these data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, youth unemployment--the young being the most likely to be affected by changes in the minimum wage--has at least correlated quite well with increases in the minimum wage within the last few years: More practically, ask any business owner what he or she plans to do if the minimum wage is increased to fifteen dollars, as some have been advocating.

I don't disagree with you at all that legal does not mean right. But I don't think it was wrong to deport illegal immigrants, even though the program had a racist name. The claim that we stole land from Mexico is at least debatable, although I do not think that it is really relevant to this debate. What may be relevant is that the way that happened was that Mexico invited in a large number of Americans to settle what was then an underpopulated Mexican Texas; those immigrants, unsurprisingly, saw themselves as Americans, not Mexicans, and broke away from Mexico to join the US at pretty much the first opportunity. That seems like a good argument against unrestrained immigration.

I also agree that there are all kinds of problems and iniquities with our immigration enforcement system. Many of those problems exist or have been exacerbated because the system has been deliberately starved of funds in order to sabotage immigration enforcement overall. Paradoxical as it may seem, the solution to the iniquities in our enforcement system may be more enforcement, not less.

Date: 2016-09-30 05:42 am (UTC)
hotfoot: THOR DEMANDS PIE! (Default)
From: [personal profile] hotfoot
The Pew data from the 90's on shows wages going up, does it not? It also shows illegal immigration going up. Now, correlation is not causation, but it seems difficult to me to make the claim that it's gone down when even the most recent graph you're using shows an upward trend. Do you have a source that clearly shows that illegal immigration lowers wages? Because so far you've only shown sources that show the opposite. There is something critical missing here.

The source I cited was the Department of Labor itself, if you'd like to question their methodology, by all means, then I will bring up the fact that is run by a staunchly anti-immigration group with questionable leadership to say the least, and I suspect of the two the department of labor will come out looking far better of the two. One should not reject sources because something feels off about them.

As for stealing land from Mexico, we did, rather openly and quite brazenly, and it's shaped our relationship with Mexico and Mexicans ever since. I mean, again, blaming Mexicans for the Great Depression to justify deporting our own citizens? It leads directly into everything that follows. To ignore that is like to ignore the effects of slavery on modern day race relations.

As to who is responsible for the defunding, I honestly have no idea who or what is responsible for that, but the simple fact of the matter is that our judicial system is massively overburdened in general, in part because of this overwhelming desire to increase "law and order" that has resulted in many, many injustices, but that is a bit of a diversion, but it does come back to the point that we have, as a nation, abandoned the idea of innocent until proven guilty in far too many cases, and our willingness to allow mass injustices in the name of security is, bluntly, terrifying to me.

Date: 2016-09-30 06:26 am (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
The Pew data do show a very slight rise in wages in the nineties, but only a very slight rise. Wages in real terms were still below where they were in the mid-seventies. And the nineties were a time of enormous economic growth, which normally leads to high wage growth. The fact that the economic boom of the nineties barely increased wages at all is pretty telling evidence in itself. Trying to use it to argue that immigration has not kept wages down is the opposite of what it actually indicates.

You ask for a source that increasing the supply of labor suppresses the price of labor, but later on, you also dismiss the Center for Immigration Studies as a source because it is an anti-immigration group. (I agree with you that one should not reject a source just because something feels off about them to you, but do you understand the distinction between "question[ing a source's] methodology" and "bring[ing] up...[who a group] is run by"? The former is rational skepticism; the latter is pure ad hominem.) But who else do you think is going to do the study to demonstrate this point? In any case, here is just such a study:

I should note that there are any number of quite sophisticated (that is not a compliment) studies that purport to show the exact opposite, that is, that immigration is a benefit for the economy and for American workers. But if you want to talk about the bias of those doing the studies, take a look at who is doing those studies and who is funding them. Here is one such study from the Cato Institute: Here is another from the American Enterprise Institute: But I urge you to read all three studies for yourself, examine their methods and their evidence, and make up your own mind.

For that matter, why do you think that a government source is the better source? Do you generally assume that people in positions of authority are more trustworthy than their critics? Do you think the government has no ideological agenda of its own, or that it is not subject to capture by lobbying groups? That being said, the source you cited was not a study done by the Department of Labor that explained its methodology and cited its evidence. It was a "mythbusters" page that simply appealed to authority, referring to a letter signed by a bunch of economics professors, incidentally without even naming them. That's pretty weak even for an appeal to authority.

What I can tell you is this: to argue that one can radically increase the supply of labor without suppressing the price is to abandon sense.

Date: 2016-09-30 05:31 pm (UTC)
balbanes: (Default)
From: [personal profile] balbanes
"What I can tell you is this: to argue that one can radically increase the supply of labor without suppressing the price is to abandon sense."

We have a much greater supply of labor now than we did in 1900 or even 1950. Yet wages have gone up. So we've radically increased the supply of labor without suppressing the price.

The additional laborers aren't just laborers. They're also consumers, which drive up the *demand* for goods and services, which drive up the demand for labor. Thus even though the supply for labor increases with population, the demand for labor increases as well.

I have no idea whether immigration is good or bad for wages. I've looked at lots of studies and found nothing definitive. What I do know is that the impact is not as straight-forward as you've posited.

Date: 2016-09-30 07:10 pm (UTC)
richardak: (Default)
From: [personal profile] richardak
If the economy grows fast enough, yes, it can outpace the supply of labor. But growth has not been fast enough for a long time to keep up. And the additional consumption provided by immigrants does not generate enough demand to improve lives for the workers who are already here.

Date: 2016-09-30 08:09 pm (UTC)
balbanes: (Default)
From: [personal profile] balbanes
Huh? We're talking about the U.S. and not somewhere like Japan, right? GPD per capita has been steadily increasing since at least 1960 (slight exception for the Great Recession), even when adjusted for inflation. That's an economy that's more than keeping pace with population, by definition.

Speaking of Japan, it's worth noting that the U.S. has a negative rate of natural increase. In other words, more Americans die every year than are born. Our population growth is exclusively due to immigration-- both the immigrants themselves and their relatively larger families. Close the immigration doors and we're a couple decades behind Japan: a looming grey-heavy demographic nightmare.

Date: 2016-10-01 01:49 am (UTC)
hotfoot: THOR DEMANDS PIE! (Default)
From: [personal profile] hotfoot
There are lots of things that seem to "abandon sense". Like giving homes to the homeless for basically nothing, or giving poor people money. However, it turns out that in practice, these things work. If your only argument is that something obvious, you need a better argument. You need to explain why, if illegal immigration goes up, and wages go up, what was the X factor that is involved, because it otherwise is a direct contradiction to the point that illegal immigration lowers wages.

As far as governmental agencies having agendas, yes, they can, but so do critics looking to fund research to influence policy. Most people in government jobs have pretty decent job security one way or the other, and have oversight to make sure they are doing things properly from both sides of the aisle. But if you'd like, we can throw out all the information from the Census Bureau as well, which will largely invalidate this entire discussion. Given also that they are using academic sources, which have tenure and thus little reason to skew things one way or another aside from personal biases (which everyone suffers from), I'm not sure what your objections are. I'm not throwing out your data from despite it being very clearly biased, but I am pointing out that if we're going to start throwing out sources, the one that has a major official making statements about how immigration reform is "a plot against America" and that any Republican that supported it was "Psychotic" and that Muslim Immigration should be banned outright because "Muslims believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution" might come before the department of labor because they cited some university professors doing independent research. If you'd like me to cite several of the studies in question, I'd be happy to. You may judge their findings on your own regarding how minimum wage has affected unemployment.

Selected Research in chronological order

Lawrence F. Katz and Alan B. Krueger, “The Effect of the Minimum Wage on the Fast Food Industry,” Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, February 1992.

David Card, “Using Regional Variation in Wages to Measure the Effects of the Federal Minimum Wage,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, October 1992.

David Card and Alan Krueger, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).

David Card and Alan B. Krueger, “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Reply,” American Economic Review, December 2000 (in this reply, Card and Krueger update earlier findings and refute critics).

Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt, Economic Policy Institute, Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-97 Minimum Wage Increase, 1998.

Jerold Waltman, Allan McBride and Nicole Camhout, “Minimum Wage Increases and the Business Failure Rate,” Journal of Economic Issues, March 1998.

A Report by the National Economic Council, The Minimum Wage: Increasing the Reward for Work, March 2000.

Holly Sklar, Laryssa Mykyta and Susan Wefald, Raise The Floor: Wages and Policies That Work For All Of Us (Boston: South End Press, 2001/2002), Ch. 4 and pp. 102-08.

Marilyn P. Watkins, Economic Opportunity Institute, “Still Working Well: Washington’s Minimum Wage and the Beginnings of Economic Recovery,” January 21, 2004.

Amy Chasanov, Economic Policy Institute, No Longer Getting By: An Increase in the Minimum Wage is Long Overdue, May 2004.

Fiscal Policy Institute, States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level Have Had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth, March 2006 (update of 2004 report).

John Burton and Amy Hanauer, Center for American Progress and Policy Matters Ohio, Good for Business: Small Business Growth and State Minimum Wages, May 2006.

Paul K. Sonn, Citywide Minimum Wage Laws: A New Policy Tool for Local Governments, (originally published by Brennan Center for Justice) National Employment Law Project, May 2006.

Liana Fox, Economic Policy Institute, Minimum Wage Trends: Understanding past and contemporary research, November 8, 2006.

Paul Wolfson, Economic Policy Institute, State Minimum Wages: A Policy That Works, November 27, 2006.

Arindrajit Dube, Suresh Naidu and Michael Reich, “The Economic Effects of a Citywide Minimum Wage,” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, July 2007.

Jerold L. Waltman, Minimum Wage Policy in Great Britain and the United States (New York: Algora, 2008), pp. 17-19, 132-136, 151-162, 178-180.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 28, 2008.

Michael F. Thompson, Indiana Business Research Center, “Minimum Wage Impacts on Employment: A Look at Indiana, Illinois and Surrounding Midwestern States,” Indiana Business Review, Fall 2008.

Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley, "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 47, no. 2, 2009.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Spacial Heterogeneity and Minimum Wages: Employment Estimates for Teens Using Cross-State Commuting Zones, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 25, 2009.

Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester and Michael Reich, Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, August 2008.
Published by The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 2010.

John Schmitt and David Rosnick, The Wage and Employment Impact of Minimum‐Wage Laws in Three Cities, Center for Economic and Policy Research, March 2011.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? Accounting for Heterogeneity and Selectivity in State Panel Data, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 21, 2010.
Published by Industrial Relations, April 2011.

Anne Thompson, What Is Causing Record-High Teen Unemployment? Range of Economic Factors Drives High Teen Unemployment, But Minimum Wage Not One of Them, National Employment Law Project, October 2011.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube, Michael Reich and Ben Zipperer, Credible Research Designs for Minimum Wage Studies, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, IRLE Working Paper No. 148-13, 2013

John Schmidt, Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?, (Important overview of years of research), Center for Economic and Policy Research, February 2013.

Michael Reich, Ken Jacobs and Miranda Dietz (eds.), When Mandates Work: Raising Labor Standards at the Local Level (Berkeley CA: University of California Press) 2014.

Michael Reich, The Troubling Fine Print In The Claim That Raising The Minimum Wage Will Cost Jobs, (Response to CBO report), Think Progress, February 19, 2014.

Michael Reich, No, a Minimum-Wage Boost Won’t Kill Jobs, (Response to CBO report), Politico, February 21. 2014.

Michael Reich, Ken Jacobs and Annette Bernhardt, Local Minimum Wage Laws: Impacts on Workers, Families and Businesses, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, IRLE Working Paper No. 104-14, March 2014.

Dale Belman and Paul J. Wolfson, The New Minimum Wage Research, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Employment Research 21:2, 2014.

Dale Belman and Paul J. Wolfson, What Does the Minimum Wage Do?, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, (book) 2014.

Center for Economic and Policy Research, States That Raised Their MinimumWage in 2014 Had Stronger Job Growth Than Those That Didn't, April 2014.

Center for Economic and Policy Research, Update on the Thirteen States that Raised their Minimum Wage, August 2014.

Daniel Kuehn, The Importance of Study Design in the Minimum Wage Debate, Economic Policy Institute, September 2014.

Justin Wolfers and Jan Zilinsky, Higher Wages for Low-Income Workers Lead to Higher Productivity, Peterson Institute for International Economics, January 13, 2015.

Peterson Institute for International Economics, Raising Lower-Level Wages: When and Why it Makes Economic Sense, April 2015.

David Cooper, Lawrence Mishel and John Schmit, We Can Afford a $12.00 Federal Minimum Wage in 2020, Economic Policy Institute, April 2015.

National Employment Law Project, City Minimum Wage Laws: Recent Trends and Economic Evidence, Updated May 2015.

Alan Stonecipher and Ben Wilcox, Minimum Wage Policy and the Resulting Effect on Employment, Integrity Florida, July 20, 2015

Paul J. Wolfson and Dale Belman, 15 Years Of Research on U.S. Employment and the Minimum Wage, Tuck School of Business Working Paper No. 2705499, December 2015

National Employment Law Project, Raise Wages, Kill Jobs? Seven Decades of Historical Data Find No Correlation Between Minimum Wage Increases and Employment Levels, May 2016

And no, it's not ad hominem to point out that the research done by an organization purporting to be independent is, in fact, funded and structured by an organization that has a clear bias in the matter at hand. It's pointing out that skepticism is needed more than usual because there is clearly an agenda at work within the organization. Studies funded by gatorade to prove how good gatorade is for you do not deserve the same critical reception as an independent study. The reasons for that should be obvious, but to be clear, it is because there is an inherent bias to try and find data that supports the desired hypothesis, rather than honestly testing that data and finding the truth, regardless of what one's expectations or desires are.

That being said, I'm NOT dismissing the data out of hand like you have been doing. I'm simply pointing out that if you want to go down this road, it's going to end up being likely quite worse for your sources than mine. Do you really want to flip that switch? I do, however, take extreme exception to you using "sophisticated" as some sort of insult. I'm certain you're referring to massaging of data to get desired results, but that comment smacks of anti-intellectualism, as does rejecting numerous independent studies in favor of political think-tanks funded by individuals or groups with obvious agendas.

The simple fact of the matter is that this is a far more complex issue than you initially presented, there isn't solid evidence to support the claim you initially made, and you're resorting to "common sense", which is itself a fallacy. As far as a radical increase, let's remember that the United States is a nation of over 300 million people, of which we're talking about ~12 million illegal immigrants, more like 11 million right now, up from around 3 million in 1990. That's 1% to 4%, a 3% total increase, give or take. It's actually less than that, because it's 3.5 to maybe 11 now, and that's also not taking into account the total population growth of the United States in that time, but it's a good upper limit. Meanwhile, by your own numbers, again, provided by Pew, wages went from roughly $6 (rounding up) to $7.25, which is about a 20% (a low end value) increase in wages in the same time we saw a 3% increase in the overall workforce.

For sake of argument, the US population in 1990 was 248,709,873. The US population at the beginning of 2016 is estimated at 322,762,018. This means that if you take into account the ~9 million (upper limit) illegal immigrants, they account for at most 12% of the population growth in that time period, as the total increase in population was 74,052,145. Realistically, it's probably closer to 10%, given the actual numbers, but there you go. That also means that they make up a small portion of the increased workforce, even if one were to assume that each illegal immigrant was of working age, which is likely not the case.

Your argument thus far has, it seems, been that illegal immigrants are responsible for American wages stagnating. But where does that money go? If it were to go to the immigrants, it would either go back to the economy as they purchase things, as Balbanes notes below, or back to their home country. It certainly wouldn't go into the pockets of the ultra-rich, because it would be either leaving the economy entirely or going back to it on a low-end level, right? So why has CEO Compensation risen over 900% since 1978?

See, that's what I don't get. You're talking about Illegal Immigration like
it's this huge cause, when both wages and immigration go up and there's no obvious link between the two. There's no obvious place the money is going in that example, but a very clear place it's going when you consider the ultra-rich CEOs and so forth who only care about maximizing profits. A few million spent to delay raising minimum wage can result in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of extra revenue.

In short, I see Illegal Immigration as an increasingly minor issue with regards to wages, unemployment, and so on. This isn't to say it's not at all related, or that it doesn't affect things, but I think there are far more important factors to consider in this field that are more immediately concerning, more easily correctable, and, bluntly, more relevant than trying to ruin the lives of people who are coming to this country to try and have a better life than they had where they came from.

All of this is relatively moot, however, because even by the Pew data, illegal immigration in the United States has been stagnant and, in fact, dropping for the last decade.

But for all of this talk, the core question is would Clark Kent be okay with illegal immigration? Given that you have not made a compelling case to it being obviously harmful to the American Workforce, I am going to have to say yes, he would be, and, rather amusingly, it looks like Lex Luthor, business tycoon, would remain his arch-nemesis.

Date: 2016-09-30 08:38 pm (UTC)
raspberryrain: (raised eyebrow)
From: [personal profile] raspberryrain
Surplus of labour--that is, excess labourer supply--is driven primarily by high birth rates and low childhood mortality.

Some countries have higher labour surplus than others, and migration is a natural response to the job market. Working-class persons will naturally migrate to a new country, rather than have more of a labour surplus and a weakened worker class in their country of origin. Addressing that will take family planning education, not walls and fences.

The USA is large enough that working-class people may have reason to emigrate from one region while immigrating to another. Border controls that sound sensible in rural Indiana or a profoundly depressed region of Appalachia don't necessary seem sensible in South Florida or along the Rio Grande.

Also, some of the migration we see now is actually refugees from violence in Central America and Syria. For geographical reasons, I'd expect the USA to take many of the Central American refugees. The Syrian refugee problem is bad enough that the USA could easily help their European allies a lot by taking a larger share of them. But I see US politicians trying to close the gates to both of those groups!

Date: 2016-09-29 09:18 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] tcampbell1000
I like the restrained approach.

Date: 2016-09-29 09:33 pm (UTC)
reveen: (Default)
From: [personal profile] reveen
Eh... to me it sounds like it's talking about America's status as a superpower with Superman as a metaphor, so it's too American exceptionalism for my tastes. In the future this kind of rhetoric will be outdated because the world's nations are going to look more like the avengers than the Justice League.

Date: 2016-09-30 01:45 am (UTC)
burkeonthesly: (Default)
From: [personal profile] burkeonthesly
I hold out hopes for Themyscara and Mars joining the international community.


scans_daily: (Default)
Scans Daily


Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, [community profile] scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.

Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, [community profile] scans_daily is probably not for you.

Please read the community ethos and rules before posting or commenting.

October 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags