Hafar1014
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 14,081
- 12,541
- 2,278
So move to Canada and experience reality youll come crawling back her so fast the bears wont catch you
Congratulations to the President. Trump's tariffs are winning...
- Thread starter Mac1958
- Start date
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 121,120
- 127,652
- 3,645
Vrenn
Platinum Member
- Feb 24, 2021
- 9,611
- 5,084
- 938
Tell you what, since you seem to think you have the power to tell me to leave my home, that means I have the power to tell you to leave America. Hell, I'll even pay for the one way Uhaul.
Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 91,434
- 83,136
- 3,615
Another economically illiterate Dimwinger.
WelfareQueen
Diamond Member
I'm not sure what you are expecting. We are looking at historical trends and trying to see patterns.
We aren't going to get a pile of memos from employers stating that they decided to hire cheap third world labor, to save a few bucks. Or NOT.
CLEAR, is likely not going to happen.
"Draw a clear line"? How would that be done?
My point is that the flooding of the labor market depresses wages. If that is true, it is true. That other factors may or may not be in play, doesn't change that being accurate or not.
If we create a labor market where the rich are forced to raise wages, that will be money flowing from the rich to the workers.
IF Trump deportation policy increases worker's leverage to demand more raises, but at teh same time tariffs raise prices by more than that,
that would NOT invalidate my premise. It would just mean that the negative effect of the one policy outweighted teh positive effect of the other policy.
Indeed, in that scenario, the immigration policy is still very good, because otherwise the American workers would be dealing with higher prices WITHOUT the benefit of higher wages. As has been the norm for the last 50 years.
Your higher taxes argument assumes that increased taxes paid by the rich translates to benefits for the poor/middle class and not the politicians, who actually would control that tax money.
Of course it went elsewhere. Higher profits for the employers. Why would you even mention the possibility of immigrants making absurdly higher wages?
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 34,764
- 28,293
- 2,820
New York Fed’s Williams says tariff burden falls ‘overwhelmingly’ on U.S. businesses and consumers
New York Fed's Williams says tariff burden falls 'overwhelmingly' on U.S. businesses and consumers
Williams said that not only were the tariffs being felt at home, but they also were keeping the Fed from reaching its 2% inflation goal.
www.cnbc.com
No "we" aren't. You are asserting a pattern exists, and claiming that suggesting that such a pattern needs to be established before it's claimed to be true is somehow an ureasonable demand.
While at the same time claiming that me establishing a pattern of wages not keeping up with inflation during Covid isn't valid because I didn't include "printing of money" in the equation.
Altough I mentioned what I considered undisputable documented factors, that I'm willing to back up when asked.
In short I expect that you and me carry a similar burden of proof when challenged.
You are the one making the claim. So it's on you to support it. The fact that you are asking me is telling.
I will however answer. If you want to use the graph you showed to support the assertion that immigration reform in 1967 was a contributing factor to real wages starting to stagnate in 1975. You could try to look up immigration numbers for that period. If those numbers spiked in 1975 you could be onto something. Or you could look for spikes in your graph and see if you can corrolate those with mass deportations or mass migration years.
See the problem isn't that it can't be done. The problem is that the data provided doesn't support your premise. If it did I'm pretty sure you would present it as such.
No it's probably true that flooding the labor market depresses wages. The question is by how much and if those depressed wages cause deflationary pressure large enough to be a net benefit.
It's a question you don't even attempt to resolve no matter how many times I ask.
By what margin? Does it keep up with inflation? Not to mention that as your graph shows the rich don't have to do squat.
Your premise is that Trumps policies are beneficial to the middle class. Something that's invalidated if the negative effects of his policies outweighs your (perceived) beneficial policies.
To put it in an analogy. If a pickpocket steals your wallet that has a 1000 bucks in it. And a few days later he sends you a note saying " I felt bad for you so I bought a scratcher with a grand price of a 100 bucks and promise to send you the money if I win."
I'm betting your response won't be. "How generous"
The tax rates for the fifties, sixties and seventies were considerably higher than they are today. It was a time were the middle class could afford to support their family on a single income more often then not. Since "we" are talking historical patterns.
And yes, the government having more money is likely to benefit the poor and middle class. If for no other reason (and there are other reasons) that it helps them get elected.
In fact, it's kind of weird that the reason you question the rich paying more taxes is because you believe that politicians are selfish. It's like saying that you're against the fire department putting out a house fire because you fear water damage.
Last edited:
The pattern of high immigration and wage stagnation occurring together, is there. I am asserting it is there.
"Established"? The graph shows it.
We had been printing money like crazy before covid and then we printed money even more during covid. IMO it is likely that such a huge influx of money into the money supply was probably the primary contributor to inflation, at that time.
I could see why a spike with immediate or quick response would be more convincing, but my argument does not depend on it.
WHY DO YOU AGREE WITH ME ON THIS? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Because I don't care about the possible BENEFIT of deflationary pressure from lowered wages. I want HIGHER WAGES.
The goal is to EXCEED inflation, so that we get a real improvement in standard of living.
That makes no sense. My graph shows nothing of that sort. It says NOTHING about the actions or inactions of the rich.
Seriously, what are you talking about here?
That is just wrong. My CONCLUSION is that Trump's immigration policy is beneficial to the middle class and lower class. I have explained my reasoning. If you want to argue against my reasoning, that is valid. If you suspect that I am lying, you need to explain why you think that.
Would you like to return to a time when a single income could support a family, more often than not?
The government has been focused on helping blacks for generations. Untold billions hvae been poured into that cause.
You happy with the results?
Your graph shows that wages stagnated 8 years, AFTER immigration reform happened. One event does NOT corrolate witht the time frame of the other. So you need to establish that corrolation with more than your feelings.
If we printed money.before and during Covid and inflation went rampant after Covid you are again weakening the corrolation. In fact, it was the labor shocks and supply issues resulting from the pandemic that were unique.
For the record. I don't doubt the stimilus provided contributed to inflation. But I would go to the unique factors first.
Sure, it depends on it. What's the differemce between you blaming immigration for wages stagnating and me blaming Nixon? Both theories are equally vissible in your graph. That's to say not at all. Would you attribute any explanatory value to Nixon in this context?
I did in my very first post, when I gave you your steelman.
I agree, yet you seem to be, actually outright state that you are completely uninterested in examening if your chosen policy of immigration does. As long as wages go up, you don't care, were your words.
Please keep your story straight.
No your conclusion is that wages likely will go up. Avoiding the questionn of how inflationary it is completely.
I supported my wife and kid on a single middle class wage for about ten years, after my daughter was born. But then again, I live in a country that has high enough taxes to support such a lifestyle.
( my wife is.American , I'm Belgian)
This is a non-sequitor.
Last edited:
Not sure how to do that, especially to your satisfaction.
We could just do it, and see what happens. You have admitted that the flood of third world labor probably has put a downward pressure on wages. So, let's just do it, and see what happens.
you don't doubt that the stimilus contributed.... so,.... ok.
To me, that period was a mess, too confusing to draw lessons from. I can't make sense of it. Sorry.
My explanation for the blaming immigration is oversupply causing depression of wages. What mechanism explains blaming nixon? And make sure the nixon action is unchanged thus relevant for the entire time period since, since the trend has been continuing since.
As long as wages go up faster than inflation, so as to lead to a real improvement in quality of life.
I have clarified this repeatedly. The goal is real improvement in standard of living.
Explain how TAXES support a lifestyle.
It is not. YOUR premise seems to be that high taxes leading to high spending leads to a good result. So, I pointed to a place in this country where a lot of the spending went, ie the black community. And asked you if the results support your premise.
Then it would be better not to assert the correlation as if it already exists, or present the graph as evidence of your premise.
Yet you had no problem presenting a graph and claiming it demonstrates the consequences of a policy enacted eight years earlier.
For example, the U.S. leaving the gold standard devalued the dollar and contributed to the monetary instability of the 1970s. Nixon also opened trade relations with China, which helped accelerate long-term exposure of U.S. manufacturing to global competition. Both provide plausible mechanisms that could influence wages over a long period of time.
More importantly, notice that when I propose an alternative explanation you immediately ask for a clear mechanism and sustained relevance over time. That is reasonable. But it is the same standard that should apply to your own claim as well.
Which is precisely the point. Yet so far no evidence has been provided that the policy you are advocating actually produces that outcome.
Taxes can support a certain standard of living by funding services and institutions that reduce the costs individuals must bear themselves. Examples include healthcare systems, education, childcare support, infrastructure, and social safety nets that prevent households from falling below a minimum standard of living.
So now, in the interest of moving the conversation along. I decided to examine your premise. This isn't my job simce you are the one making the claim, but since you seem to be happy with "I don't know if what I say is true, but I'll simply assume it is." We've arrived at an impasse. I used AI to collate the data but the argument is mine.
The first issue is the graph being used. Real wages do not simply show wage growth. They show wage growth after adjusting for inflation. This means that when a graph shows real wages stagnating, it does not necessarily mean wages stopped rising. It could also mean that nominal wages were increasing but inflation was rising at roughly the same pace. Like the data shows was the case in the seventees.
If we look at nominal wage data, wages have in fact risen substantially over time. For example, average hourly earnings for U.S. production and nonsupervisory workers were about $2.90 per hour in 1965 and have increased dramatically since then.
Historical series: Table Data - Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, Trade, Transportation, and Utilities | FRED | St. Louis Fed
The next dataset we need is annual inflation for that same time period. Looking at inflation alongside wages helps determine whether wages actually stagnated or whether purchasing power was being eroded by rising prices.
Historical inflation series: Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average
When we examine the inflation data, a clear pattern emerges. During the 1970s inflation rose dramatically and remained elevated for much of the decade. U.S. inflation exceeded 10% in several years and ultimately peaked above 13% around 1980.
This matters for interpreting the graph you presented. Real wages are wages adjusted for inflation. If inflation rises rapidly, real wages can appear flat even while nominal wages are still increasing.
In other words, workers could have been receiving raises while their purchasing power remained largely unchanged because prices were rising at roughly the same pace. Looking at inflation alongside nominal wage growth therefore helps clarify whether what we are observing is true wage stagnation or primarily the effect of unusually high inflation during that decade.
Finally, we need to look at the actual immigration numbers for the same period.
U.S. immigration statistics: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/pro...annual-number-of-us-legal-permanent-residents
When we examine immigration levels during the period in question, the pattern does not match the claim being made. The 1970s do not show a dramatic immigration surge that would correspond to the inflation-driven flattening of real wages during that decade.
More importantly, when immigration data are viewed across the entire post‑1965 period, there is no clear point where increases in immigration correspond with sudden slowdowns in wage growth. The trends simply do not line up in a way that would support a straightforward causal relationship between immigration levels and the wage stagnation shown in the earlier graph.
Without that alignment in timing, the graph by itself cannot serve as evidence that immigration reform caused the wage pattern being discussed.
To make the comparison clearer, the three datasets can be visualized together in a simplified graph with time on the horizontal axis and annual growth rates on the vertical axis. The legend identifies the three lines as:
Inflation
Nominal wage growth
Immigration growth
When plotted together, the visual pattern is straightforward. Inflation shows large spikes, particularly during the 1970s and again more recently. Nominal wages broadly move in response to inflation over time. Immigration levels, by contrast, change gradually and do not display spikes corresponding to the periods where real wage growth flattened.
In other words, the most dramatic movements in the data are driven by inflation rather than immigration. If immigration were the primary driver of wage stagnation, we would expect wage slowdowns to coincide with immigration surges. The datasets do not show such alignment.
So when you ask. "Shouldn't we just try and see what happens." I'll simply invert the question.
Why should we try something that has no empirical historical evidence of actually having a meaningfull effect on wages, Likely causing inflation that has plenty of evidence that it effects them?
In fact, I didn't include it but the US has a long history of immigration waves. Waves that economists agree had a positive effect on the economy.
Trade is obviously a major factor in the problem too. The gold standard is a good point. What do you suggest to do about that? Return to the gold standard?
Such as you see in Europe and Canada. Yet most metrics I've seen show that the US has a HIGHER standard of living than these places, and if anything, seems to be leaving them FURTHER behind as we go.
Especially now that they have to increase military spending to deal with the... "resurgent" russian threat.
Obviously.
Yes.
Two points.
1. Limiting the data to LEGAL migration... weakens it. ILLEGAL migration would have very similar impact. If not MORE so, due to be "under the table" and thus possibly illegally low wages.
2. The gradual trend of increase is... still pretty large. Supply reducing cost is a real thing and that is a lot of supply.
Well, for one thing, we know that increasing supply decreases price.
Economists seem to generally focus on macroeconomic numbers, even when they hide costs, such as the wage stagnation of the 70s and 80s.
Let me thank you first for the civility off the conversation. It's both rare and appreciated.
However we have reached a for me very familiar position.
The way I see it, is that I gave you the opportunity to not just set the parameters of the discussion (success of Trump being judged on improved wages for the middle class AFTER INFLATION), but even the topic on wich those parameters would be applied (deportations of illegal immigrants and limiting legal immigration.)
Even then though you only wanted to discuss half of those parameters, and only when you didn't actually have to support them with any hard data.
Even more, when confronted with hard data, you simply came up with (equally unsupported) justifications why the data doesn't match your assertions.
And then reasserted your original conclusion as if all that came previously doesn't matter.
Holding on to an opinion despite the data not because of it, is called faith. And faith is unfalsifiable and therefor not subject to reason. And while my patience for bad reasoning is pretty good, it is finite.
Last edited:
Let's leave it here then, and wait for some results from the current policies.
Considering the scale of events, it should not be long before we see impact in the numbers.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Trump believed coming across as 'unstable and insulting' in controversial posts could 'bring the Iranians to the table'- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 2
-
-
Turkey plans to open the border with Armenia and launch the TRIPP route between Europe and Asia.- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
A humanoid robot sprints to victory in Beijing, beating the human half-marathon world record
- Started by Votto
- Replies: 0
