Governator seeks federal bailout

Schwarzenegger is looking less and less like an action hero and more like a panhandler.

Facing another huge deficit, the governor wants $8 billion or threatens massive cuts in social services. He also plans to renew push for offshore oil drilling.
Reporting from Sacramento - Facing a budget deficit of more than $20 billion, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to call for deep reductions in already suffering local mass transit programs, renew his push to expand oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast and appeal to Washington for billions of dollars in federal help, according to state officials and lobbyists familiar with the plan.
If Washington does not provide roughly $8 billion in new aid for the state, the governor threatens to severely cut back -- if not eliminate -- CalWORKS, the state's main welfare program; the In-Home Health Care Services program for the disabled and elderly poor, and two tax breaks for large corporations recently approved by the Legislature, the officials said.
Schwarzenegger also will propose extending a cut in the state payroll that is scheduled to expire this summer. That cut has translated into 200,000 state workers being furloughed three days a month, the equivalent of a 14% pay cut. Lawmakers would have the option of extending the furloughs, imposing layoffs or some combination of the two.

Forum Categories: 

ya know, this is probably going to piss some people off...but

Supposedly there is about $10.5 billion per year spent on illegal immigration/immigrants in CA. Think at least they might consider deporting at least a few felons and enforcing the law where illegals are not supposed to be getting social services just a tad?

I mean I hate to say this and there is no doubt that state is just plain FUBAR, I call it the gouge ya state, but I mean $10.5 billion. That's huge!

If someone is all poed I'm pointing this out, give me another budget buster that is larger or some sort of other economic stupidity in that state to counter. Surely there are many!

Either that or just plain legalize marijuana and have a massive new cash crop (or do both).

Whether you have a point or not

I will always be suspicious of anyone who blames immigrants for our troubles.

All through history society has looked for scapegoats. You can always tell a scapegoat by the fact that they have no political power.

Infidels are bringing down the wrath of Gawd.
Jews are poisoning the wells and stealing the babies.
Immigrants are corrupting our culture, stealing our most menial jobs, and living off of welfare.

If you want to start pointing fingers, then point them at the people who created our political policies and leads our economy.
Pointing fingers at people who are locked out of the political process is a useless distraction. It reminds me of how the southern aristocrats would intentionally divide and cause friction between the poor white from the blacks during Jim Crow days.

you bring up an issue I need to address

if "immigration reform" comes up as a major agenda item..
EP is officially banning the use of keywords "racist xenophobe". The reason is to put the focus squarely on the stats, the economics of it, the data, the realities, wages, and so on for on this topic, like no other, does the focus get off on labor economics and onto a hell of a lot of name calling, misinformation.

Sure, we can point to illegal employers, lobbyists who strategically came up with this idea to import illegal labor to union bust, going back to the 1980's, the underground economy....all of it...

I'm just sayin' that's a whopping number! LA county is amazing, something like 48% are on social services along with the estimates that LA county has huge percentages of illegals...

Your comment proposes that nation-states should allow some sort of global input into policy....whereas nation-states are made up of you are implying citizens of other nations should determine U.S. policy...

If your comment is that other nations poop on their citizens....well, it's obviously true in Mexico where there were almost riots in the streets last election and mass accusations of rigging the elections...and the obvious metric of a 50% unemployment rate.

You're not understanding me

Your comment proposes that nation-states should allow some sort of global input into policy....whereas nation-states are made up of you are implying citizens of other nations should determine U.S. policy...

That isn't what I'm saying. Not even close.
I'm saying that immigrants aren't a significant problem, nor are they even the source of what little problem they might be.
You talk about social services they use. Well, they contribute far more than they use. Immigrants don't come to this country to sit on welfare. They come to work. Period. I respect that. And because they are illegal there is no possible way that they can utilize a significant amount of government services.

OTOH, by persecuting them you make it impossible for them to organize into unions. You might not know this, but immigrants from Europe were the most active and vocal unionizing sector back in the 19th Century.

But my largest point, the one you seem to be missing, is that blaming immigrants for our problems has a very, very long history.
Almost every time it was wrong and done on a purely racist level.
Almost every time it was used by the people in power, the ones that caused the misery in society, to divide, distract and exploit the working class.

So when you start echoing the talking points of the powerful, of the exploiters, you should step back and say to yourself, "Who do I sound like?" If you take that second step to think and work out it out for yourself and you still come to the same conclusion, then that's fine. Good for you. But if you don't make that extra effort then you are setting yourself up to be played the fool.

this is why I want objective stats

because the claim they add to the economy is not true. What is true when one floods the labor market you will lower wages for natives. That's been shown over and over and over, including the 1800's or just look at the Germany reunification or China, India or any nation which has a sudden influx.

This is labor econ 101, take any text, from Borjas to Samuelson and you will see that the law of supply and demand, all else static holds and it's held throughout history.

If you look at the Miami study, which is an anomaly, what you find is in certain conditions it will appear that way but it's actually other factors. The real estate boom and job boom in the 1980's, believe this or not, was fueled by drug money.

So, no we're not going there on this site, trying to claim that somehow the law of labor economics is false AND trying to claim any discussion of this is racist to obfuscate labor econ.

You know I am aware of union history but you forget the fact that first they had to be exploited and then it took almost 100 years to get somewhere.....and ignoring the fact that (wrongly obviously by the type of restrictions done of course) but they changed immigration in the 1920's which did limit labor supply.

We have on this site, everything from full bore open borders beliefs to full bore "deport 'em all" beliefs....

so there is no way I want these name calling things on the site. It is real, immigration does indeed affect wage levels, labor markets and even EPI, right at the moment is wrestling with these economic realities. As you know EPI is the think tank for the AFL-CIO.

Here is a proposals re: illegal immigrants

How about when captured at border - give them a choice - either sign up become 'documented' with a real social security number and w/some permanent immigrant status or face deportation. This only addresses those currently busted people.

It seems to me that having people documented would go a long way to addressing many issues regarding tax revenue and wage laws. As for impact on supply of labor - again it would help to have documented workers and giving them rights under minimum wage laws.

Just saying. - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

Would it help if

we increase our tax base and help with social security if we properly document many of the illegal immigrants? - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

well, again this issue is something I really want to be exact on

seriously cited with only credible labor economists, from Academia, every research paper thoroughly checked for accuracy. We have a real problem with objectivity on this topic with a lot of beliefs and little focus on real data.

So, please let's stay out of the politics on this topic because it could destroy the site, believe it or not....

With that caveat, here is what I know, you'll love it..

It depends.

Nice huh? The reason is labor markets are dynamic, not black and white issues. For example, if you have an illegal family living here for say 12 years.....working in the undergound economy, cash under the table (and this is huge, a major section of underground economy is fueled by illegal labor), and assuming they are just living, working here and so on, well, for that length of time odds are they are already integrated in many ways into the economy/society, so if you give them "amnesty" or whatever you want to call this crap, then....

that income could be taxed, plus removed from the underground economy.

So, because they have been here a long time, they are probably not displacing anyone as well as spending a reasonable percentage of disposable income into the U.S. I would guess they would pop up in the tally as a net economic benefit, but in this case.

Also, that would (assuming the DOL actually gets it together enforcing U.S. labor law and stops abuses) remove this 12 yr. present family from potential exploitation for someone here has no rights to complain for the most part, esp. on Workman's all things being equal, they would now have to pay taxes but....they would get other benefits....hard to determine if that helps out of not (when you get to low wages so much is taken out of your paycheck, it's often more profitable to work for cash under the table, underground economy)....but odds are that family would be better off overall economically.

Now if they had been using fake SS numbers of IDs or whatever....AND claiming earned income credit, yet using cash under the table .....well, it's probably going to be less profitable to be into the U.S. official tax system for them, better for us....

But on the other hand, if you have illegal labor being used to displace workers, undercut wages and so on...

well, for U.S. workers that hurts and odds are lower wages significantly....

Then you have the issue of a host of other social safety net benefits...I believe last I saw it's longer to qualify as a U.S. citizen than a Mexican citizen for SS...

so, in a nutshell, there isn't anything black and white in here, requires a lot of analysis and I haven't even gotten to remittances yet.

So, lots of data to look at, which is why I hope we put the focus on that and not on the screaming, flaming rhetoric.

This topic is such a cess pool for flaming screaming rhetoric as it is and then we have a situation where so often there is no black and white answer to determine the economic impacts. Awful huh!

I was raised up thinking

that immigration was a big problem. But then I was also raised up around racists, and that niggers were stupid.
It wasn't until I got older that I realized that the two concepts go hand in hand. What I am saying isn't controversial, or even really up for debate: the anti-immigration zealots are almost always racists.

Years after I got out on my own someone made the statement that really stuck with me - how can a person be illegal?
What in the Hell does it mean to say someone is illegal?
As an American we don't really think about it much. But put yourself in the place of trying to emigrate to another country. Let's say, Australia. Well, they probably don't want you, in the same way that we don't want Mexicans. The EXACT same way.

There is also the concept of how capital is free to move, but labor isn't. That's how the multi-national corporations play labor arbitrage against all of us. It's in the best interests of the rich and wealthy to make sure they all of us worker bees stay "illegal" if they should want to stray across a border.

not going there, seriously, please don't

I mean this. Not on EP. We're not going there on this name calling scream fest. That's your opinion, but I'm sorry, it's not labor econ fact.

Back to this idea that somehow anyone who doesn't believe in unlimited global migration is somehow a racist xenophobe (and yes, next comment implying this will be deleted!!)

The reason it won't work is because firstly, corporations control labor markets, secondly the world is a group of nation-states, each with it's own labor markets and laws and various immigration restrictions. 3rdly, each nation-state has a differing PPP. Some nation-states have huge labor forces and not a lot of domestic development. You simply cannot say the United States, with a labor force of about 150 million, should be the jobs market for a labor force of 1.8 billion and most of those are coming from nation-states with very low GDP/PPP.

Just look at the reunification of Germany. E. Germany had a much lower PPP and a much higher unemployment rate. What happened was it caused massive unemployment in both countries, lowered labor securities, reduced labor power, affected Germany's overall PPP/GDP for a good 10 years until better equilibrium could be achieved. They still have problems from this.

Same reason EU took so much time homogenizing their member countries so they would not have a sudden labor market flow....and only then did they liberalize their migration laws...and it's only w/in EU member states again for the reasons above and they all have pretty strong labor laws to begin with, very close GDP/PPP (in comparison to 3rd world).

Also, one can end up with forced migration. Now what economic model is this? Slavery.

We already have corporations routinely, just the other day they are recommending further reduction of labor costs to weather the storm due to slow economic growth. i.e. more layoffs, more job losses.

On the flip side to this, almost every other nation-state on Earth put's it's citizens first for jobs. i.e. an American cannot just walk into India, China, Germany, and esp. Mexico and get a job.

So, you are advocating for a massive supply influx and there is not a reciprocal out flux for Americans to escape the resulting race to the bottom on wages. On top of it, that implies Americans, would be forced to reduce their quality of life, standard of living as it would for most of the high PPP nation-states as this "came into equilibrium" (i.e. cheap labor everywhere)

Labor econ is a legitimate economics topic and it's massive because labor supply has a strong effect on an economy. So does population as well as global population.

These are just economic realities....this isn't some grand conspiracy to hate certain sectors of the global population and that's pretty absurd too, since America and Americans means, black, brown, purple, disabled, women, older, younger, etc. with all sorts of ethic roots.

So, while it seems grand the free movement of people's is precisely why MNCs want it, because they will control it....and some nation-states with labor oversupply want it....because once again, it helps their GDP by transferring entire market sectors as well as remittances.
Mexico is remittances, India is capturing services, China is capturing manufacturing....
They are not advocating that so people can demand more labor rights, higher wages, of course not. They understand they can manipulate labor supply on steroids with such an agenda.

So, if one wants to do such a thing there are a host of infrastructures that would need to happen first, else you will have a labor supply disaster...
i.e. global union with a lot of power, in every single labor market. Every nation, every single one, would have to have equal social safety nets, labor laws, minimum wage requirements to ensure corporations could not play nation-states against each other to find the cheapest exploitable labor. If one wanted to have a "guaranteed jobs" program (an idea running around) one would have to have this implemented globally, every country, else once again, one would create in one nation-state with limited resources, limited # of jobs that economy could support....and have 1.8 billion people demanding those jobs.

It's just like a Tobin tax. It won't work unless it's global....if one nation only does it...well, the flow just goes elsewhere.

It's like a bunch of cannot have "spigot off" around the globe and have "spigot on" in just one nation-state and not expect to have very serious consequences.

Then, firstly racism is just not an strictly econ topic, but even more this is rhetoric SCREAMED continually from special interest groups, so labor econ/migration flows/immigration related topics simply cannot be discussed rationally. It also implies that somehow only America can have that sort of characteristic, which currently and historically isn't valid.

But the biggest reason is the use of this to shut down any objective analysis, discussion, based on sound labor econ.

There are plenty of other sites which will scream this from the rooftops and that's yet another reason to not go there. We are an econ 24/7 site, not a screaming rhetoric devoid of objective, well founded analysis, which demands one at least crack a labor econ text.

I have a problem with this

We're not going there on this name calling scream fest. That's your opinion, but I'm sorry, it's not labor econ fact.

First of all, I haven't done any name calling or screaming, nor have I gotten anywhere close to it. So I take offense that you are implying that I am. I've been very measured with my responses. It was you that brought up immigration in this thread, not I.

But the big problem I see here is a more basic one - you are trying to take the politics out of the economics.
I understand that this blog is about economics, but it is also populist.

is a type of political-social thought which juxtaposes "the people" with "the elites"

Immigration is as much a political subject as an economic on. Racism is a political subject. You can't talk about immigration without addressing the subject of racism. At least you can't talk about it honestly.

Today's school of economics has the same problem. Economics today is taught like a math class. The whole idea of identifying and treating the productive part of the economy separate from the non-productive part of the economy is gone. Now all economic activity is treated the same, unlike how classical economics was once taught.
You can't be progressive in a math class. You can be progressive in an economics class, but you have to take politics into account.

I don't write all those labor history essays just because I enjoy history. I write them because there are lessons to be applied today.
The labor movement peaked and went into terminal decline when it decided that there was no room for a political movement.

I'm not interested in writing on a sterile economics blog. I want one with a progressive agenda.

well, EP is an econ site, always has been, non-partisan too

I just reread some of your last post and noticed you're talking about your own personal history and some sort of reactionary something to some sort of family background.

So, here's mine. Originally I believed one should have unlimited migration and didn't see the big deal....until two things happened...I was sitting in corporate board meetings with an agenda to labor arbitrage workers and yes, through immigration, as well as which I point, even then I kind of didn't really clue in...I still didn't really get it and just assumed these would be additional personnel....they didn't seriously intend on firing their over 40 PhDs with those kind of patent portfolios and offshore outsource their way! (oops, wrong!)

Then, in my professional area, this executive agenda started to become a pattern....corporation after corporation I started seeing and hearing this was a plan.... and I kind of said....hmmmmmm.....and started really studying....and then formal study, labor econ study....and realized what a variable labor supply actually is.

which is one of the points of EP, it's not to deny statistical reality because someone wishes it so.

So, the point is to focus in on these economic realities and simply not go by something one's parents did or some predefined belief one has.

So often deep analysis will challenge beliefs, even in scientific beliefs one can be challenged and must keep an open mind.

I simply am saying no, because someone doesn't subscribe, conclude or want or whatever some unlimited migration/immigration cannot name call them racist xenophobes. That's it and I'm pointing it out because this is a notorious political tool to advance a special interest agenda and on EP we don't do that name calling crap to people additionally or deny economic realities. We're not DK.

Claiming all are racist is not valid, I'm sorry and I personally work in an international community so I know it's just not valid.

So, just because your parents were racists (or determined to be in your mind) does not mean all folk who do not agree with unlimited migration/immigration are therefore racists.

See the logic flaw in that conclusion? I hope so.

Last I checked labor economists or those starting their first course study, didn't suddenly look at a few equations and graphs and somehow a magic spell was cast upon them and they grew white sheets with the eyes cut out and burning white crosses grew out of their asses.


Name-calling and independent variables

This dialogue on ‘name-calling’ dovetails with my dialogue with RO about ‘personalities’ over at “Instapopulist - GDP’s massive downward revision”.

It is interesting because it goes to the heart of the meaning of ‘social’ science. Since the rise of cheap mega computer power that has made enormous amounts of data available instantly and computation and graphics easy, there has been a propensity to make social science into a de facto natural science.

From time to time, as in these two dialogues, the reality that social sconce is not dealing with rocks and other inanimate objects flies into our face. What I and, if I under stand him correctly, midtowng are saying is that you cannot factor out the human factor in economics. If all you do is statistics, then all you will do is describe. So-called inferential statistics is nothing more than predicating future descriptions based on passed descriptions.

Economics is essential a behavior science. Economic statistics describe aggregate human behavior. Accordingly, if one wants to transcend descriptions, both observed and predicted, then one must introduce behavior (psychological) variables. In part this is difficult because of the inherit complexity of human behavior. Also, in part, language used to describe human behavior is equivocal and often laced with pejorative connotations; e.g. ‘illegal aliens.’

I certainly agree with RO's efforts to eliminate what he calls ‘slander’ and ‘racist’ discussion. But, I THINK he may have a tendency to ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’, so to speak. Emphasis on ‘think’! This is a complex problem and commenting in a blog does not lend itself to perfect expression of complex ideas.

Nevertheless, in general, I would say that any blog that’s limited to statistics will make for ‘an interesting read’, as they say in journalism, but will not rise to the scientific level of causality and social change. Any causal hypotheses that lacks behavioral variables is meaningless in social (behavior) science e.g. economics.

Having said that, my compliments and appreciation to Robert Oak: I know of no other place on the net or in print for that matter were this type of epistemological discussion can take place.


I'm done with this

I just reread some of your last post and noticed you're talking about your own personal history and some sort of reactionary something to some sort of family background.

Actually you really haven't read what I've written. It appears that what you read was:

Everyone that oppose unlimited immigration are racists.

Nowhere did I say that. Nowhere did I imply that.
More important, I addressed a number of other aspects involving class that were much more relevant to this blog and closer to my heart. You seemed to have completely missed those points.

I'm not going to rephrase or dumb-down everything. I know you are smart enough to understand what I am saying.

ok, I apologize and think I'm not being understood

This is what I want off of this site:

On DK and other sites that's what goes on, i.e. if you are not for "comprehensive immigration reform" as written you are....a racist xenophobe....if one is not for unlimited migration in the U.S., regardless of what else is are...
a racist xenophobe. It doesn't matter what's going on in U.S. labor markets, any mention on labor econ realities....
you are a racist xenophobe.

This same mind numbing information void mantra is front paged all over the place and you cannot even analyze a bill without attack.

It's a mind numbing mantra that's used to shut down any analysis, discussion or labor econ realities assuredly, on this topic.

Ok, so you weren't going there, good and I apologize.

That's the #1 thing I want to keep off of the site, that name calling and "troll hunting" misinformation campaign filled with fictional stats and well, they are really akin to lobbyists', both sides.

Same as I don't want lobbyists "white sheets" or think tank stooges papers on the site.

Maybe you misunderstand what I'm after, because I am aware this is just an agenda, these groups are inane in their name's that tactic specifically.

regarding the name calling, that sounds fair

The last thing that is needed is for the site to point fingers and call one a racist. Just opposing illegal immigration does not make one a racist in any one. That doesn't mean there aren't racists who oppose such a violation of the law (And that is where the term "illegal" comes from, breaking US border law).

It's easy to tag someone something. We get caught up in the situation. I, for example, oppose the transaction tax, yet I'm told I hate all taxes. That isn't true, and honestly we should be above such things. So Robert is right, let's try and keep things civil.

ok, correction

JV loves taxes....except for a transaction tax. (I can't remember if you live a VAT or not. ;) )

Glad someone sees my point.

I'm sorry, but you can't escape the politics.

Midtowng is right, the name "Populist" is part of the site's name. It's economics through a populist's perspective. There is nothing sterile nor purely economic in that term. Escaping politics from populism is nigh impossible.

Indeed, if I may play devil's advocate here, there has been politics influenced into the subject at had. The fact that economic think tanks belonging to a labor union could easily be construed as such. Are you saying there is no bias from the AFL-CIO or professors who are hold similar views? One could ask why not also utilize data from economic think tanks that are against the labor unions? As Devil's Advocate, I'm just saying.

The closest one has to "pure data" mainly (though not always) stem from the government, and even here that can be altered at times to suit political needs. Witness how unemployment is factored. As well, there are other sites that report other statistics that is not collected by the government. I guess the question begs, what kind of site does EP wish to be?

Populism is being used by both progressives and conservative folk. By having that title, you will, whether you intended or not, to invite politics. It's history is more political than economic and once more it has been used by the left and right. That isn't to say there isn't one of the latter, there is.

I'm not saying turn this site into DailyKos or what have you. Just that if the Economic Populist is going to be a site that provides stats and attempts to interpret them, through a populist lens, then you won't escape politics.

on this topic

frankly there is only politics and I'd like to escape to some facts.

We maybe called "Populist" but the site motto is also "when in doubt, use a calculator"...

and that's because from the mathematics itself in econ, the models themselves, it's clear to me that those equations when wrongly implemented, can indeed screw the U.S. middle class.

I'd say when one gets deep into Academic research, the good stuff, not the lame stuff, really the statistics, the research, the theory come much more to the forefront than "politics".

Look at Ralph Gomory, Baumol's work, it's loaded with mathematical that "politics" to show that trade is highly dependent upon implementation?

Or did they simply spell out a blueprint for implementing strategic trade that can also be in the national interest instead of what we have now?

Did they plan on that politically when they went about their mathematical proofs? I have no idea but the mathematics itself, well, it's pretty logical. ;)

To me, it's just math with that squeezed variable in those equations being the U.S. middle class it symbolizes when implemented incorrectly.

RO in denial

WOW! Man you are in denial. You live in a world of computer programs crunching numbers. The absolute verifiable fact is that PEOPLE constitute economic CAUSALITY. If you don’t know who the people are you do not know WHY the economy is the way it is. And those people are the very rich and their political hacks. Models will DESCRIBE for you how the middle class are get crushed but they will not tell you why. Politics is the most important fact in economics. It is the causal fact.
Science begins with descriptions and moves to mathematical relational models. But, ultimately the goal of science is to explain causality. In the social sciences (e.g. economics) CAUSE = PEOPLE. People create trade policy and implement it. If you do not know who they are and why they do it, then you do not know the cause of trade policy. Talking about the people who cause economic policy is not name calling it's identifying the cause of economic policy which is the goal of economic science. If you don't know the cause than you cannot make change. Change is the goal of Populistism.

excuse me?

Firstly, no name calling on EP or hostility please.

Secondly, all this thread is about is one cannot write on EP that anyone who disagrees with unlimited global migration or a particular legislation or whatever is....therefore a racist xenophobe.

It's ridiculous and also is a major agenda item,a strategy, a technique, a public relations/propaganda campaign, created by people will not look at labor economics or whatever actual detailed agenda is at hand.

Case in point this rhetoric is used on guest worker Visa demands by corporate lobbyists, esp. the BPO industry. (Business Process Outsourcing).

Secondly, the mathematics explain exactly how and why the middle class is getting screwed.

It's no mystery, multinational corporations make more money when they labor arbitrage their workers and they can do this by moving to the lowest cost areas of production, including labor costs.

I don't know why people are so afraid of mathematics and calculations, but contained within them, are "people".

Just because I am a strong math head and strong on economic theory, does not mean, contained within that math and theory are not "people".

That's the point of the site, because the theory itself, the statistics itself show the American people are getting screwed.

If you think I am saying you cannot name call Tim Geithner, Larry Summers or Tom Friedman, well, I hope some actual substance behind the deed is there and not just a bunch of name calls, the site should focus on policy, actions, substance.......but if you slip in a few things it's ok.

I think many do not understand what the issue is here but from the overreaction I think my original point, to keep that entire political name calling insanity of other people when it comes to immigration related of this site.

Remember the phrase of EP is "be good to each other".

Ruling class Fri night movie?

Hope you didn't think I was name calling when I use the word 'denial'. It's a characterization of how I perceive your philosophy of economics. Please note the last word in my comment 'respectfully'. I'm talking philosophy (epistemology) of social science in general and economics in particular.

Would you consider the following for Friday Night Movies "American Ruling Class"
I think it's dramatically brilliant and it goes to my point.
Thanks This is the only blog that this type of discussion can take place. It's like Socrates' market place. There's plenty of heat in Plato's dialogues.

consider it done!

Nice find too. Generally, links to recommendations for either FNV, or SMC are really welcome. I can spend hours hunting and digging and not come up with any fish!

/explanation on

On the rest of this, I guess I'm just very worried that the great immigration debate destroys our very cool site and space. I'm highly active in STEM labor issues on the side and so I already know the bill will cruxify U.S. STEM workers/professionals so I'm kind of "gearing up" for the war....and then on the rest of it, I do want the labor economics realized...hey, I don't like it, who would like some of the results but ya know, denial of reality ain't gonna help anyone craft solutions that actually do help all workers everywhere.

/explanation off

Back to our regularly scheduled class warfare fight, brought to you by working in the trenches stiff 1,230.222, 249.

Gotta love MTGM

He's got another amusing post, Greece is to California as....

California is practically a failed state.

Politically, there is schlorosis. Economic wise, you have businesses who wish to stay in the US leaving for places like Nevada. And those that do stay, are transforming their business to make do with a smaller workforce. Of course the biggest problem is the government's finances. They need to revisit that tax raising issue that they instituted over 20 years ago. Californians want everything, but don't have the tax revenue to pay for it. If they were a sovereign nation (that still had that prop tax thing), you'd see them print money in an attempt to solve their problem like the Italians used to do.

Happy holidays!

Happy holidays from the federal government:

What's $ 10 billion?

The money is spend inside the USA. Goods and services and payroll and taxes. Illegals or not, there is always the low end of the labor pool that will need these services.
What's the price of grape jelly? Take out the low end labor and recaculate the price.
That's not what worries me. California's economy falling into the Pacific Ocean does.
If Greece defaults what's our exposure? I don't hear Golum-Sacks screaming for more just in case they didn't have that hedged or counter partied. So, my best guess is pretty low.
If the wonderful left coast hits the skids? Then what? It will make Greece look like a Sunday walk in the park.
I don't think we have enough troops stationed in California to keep the peace when the debit cards for food stamps stop being accecpted. How many cops are going to come to work when they find themselves on a rotating furlough list to stop the looters?
For those worried about racism, start counting gangs in LA. That's what the Arnold sweats about.
That's what worries me.

Amnesty or economic reality will make the change

I personally think we should grant those who abide by the law and are contributing in some way, a chance through amnesty. There is no political will nor even the logistics to forcibly remove 20+ million illegal immigrants. And most work hard, integrate and culturally contribute. Sure they may not pick up the language, but their kids do. Do they take social services? Of course, they're economically on the bottom rung and in an exploitable position. Like midtowng said, we need to certify them so they can get the protections they rightly deserve. In a way, it would backfire on those employers if you think about it. Lastly, I think if there is a national health coverage system, they need to be included. To not do so would encourage a public health disaster.

That isn't to say we can't enforce our borders better, but that we must realize the situation at hand. What you have is the result of decades of irresponsible action/neglect on the part of government to control the borders. I fear, that ultimately, we may need a national identification card/network that can't be easily hacked or forged. Wow, even I get the chills thinking about that. But the current system with social security as tax ID isn't working either.

Of course all this is moot if the economy really tanks. Do not be surprised to see these "illegals" start heading home. You're already seeing news stories about this. No jobs means no jobs. We have a relatively high cost of living here, compared for example to Mexico. Each day that immigrant is looking for a job and not getting it is costing him.

If the fiscal situation deteriorates further, eventually you'll see more draconian policies put forth regarding welfare. It will be the male population of the illegal immigrant population that will be most adversely affected by this. Female mothers will not because of the children.

One other possible outcome could be intranational migration. California is a state that has a relatively high cost of doing business, business there could go to other states. One could see the migration of these immigrants to where the businesses go. But then they will be competing with the supply pool of labor (including illegal immigrants) in that new local. Eventually they will be discouraged and/or out of funds to survive much longer.

well regardless

My point is discussion has to be econ focused and based in real labor economics and that includes no special interest group, special agenda lobbyist spin papers. On this topic, ONLY established Academia level analysis.

It's too full of spin and fiction to not stick to the most objective analysis.

Also, the focus must be on legislation, the actual bills, as well as labor econ on this topic.

Just like the above, not only are the proposals not so simple, the solutions are by no means simple and the key element that is missing is....wages. Jobs, economy and if one really wants to get into it....I just put up a death notice of someone who "gets it" in many ways....and that is around the globe, one needs strong labor laws, minimum wages and so on. If all the world had strong labor laws of say Finland, France or Sweden, this would not be such an issue it has become.

But I hope my point is clear, this really is a major element of not only labor economics but also major initiatives to labor arbitrage, the infamous "race to the bottom" on wages, jobs and very much has major economic ramifications.

I don't want those masked by simplistic thinking and esp. the use of name calling things which are not that....
since it is a major corporate lobbyist initiative to claim it's all "racist" so the monetary impacts are obfuscated.

All of what I just say has no implications of "amnesty o no", which in reality is simply not what bills in Congress even are. Not even close, which is why one must be very exact on this topic....

Advancing offshore outsourcing, technology transfer, manufacturing transfer and displacing U.S. workers has nothing to do with "amnesty" yet it's all in these bills. No surprise since corporate lobbyists have written major portions of them.