This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I have an HD TV in my gas-powered vehicle.HTHSo I exaggerated a bit. New here?And no, I do not have an HD TV.Do you own a gas-powered vehicle?Total BS.First of all, look up "exponentially" in the dictionary.Second, look up "increasing."Third, look up "everything."Fourth, do you have a HD TV?And yet prices for eveything keep increasing exponentially
maybe he's a janitorOkay, blaming the decrease in the median household income on illegals is ridiculous.Let's be clear.This thread is about a decrease in the median household income, not the overall economy.
I'd be interested if you had a link to any study using your disposable real income metric over time(particularly interested in anything covering the 79-present period since that is what most studies using IRS income data use) that isn't using simply the average number you state. My problem isn't with the metric per se, it is just that it is irrelevant to use a mean with how that skews the numbers. I do think you touched on an important point though, wages have stagnated among the lower and middle classes but consumption has not declined. I think you are right that most of this consumption came from borrowing and credit and have seen data which supports that viewpoint. It is important to consider what role this played in the financial crisis which was proceed by massive growth in the finance sector and left investor searching for yield in the mortgage and MBS market. Perhaps income inequality played a role here as those with growing incomes at the top under consumed leading to a glut of savings just waiting to be funneled to those that were consuming above their means. I think we can see a similar history of income inequality leading up to the Great Depression. Of course causality is difficult to determine, but I think these are important topics to consider. It appears to me that when income growth in a society extremely uneven, financial instability isn't far behind.yeah -- i had a problem with that here just a few minutes ago as well.the problem wiht the income numbers is that there is no perfect measure for comparison. the broader measure of income is especially important for lower and middle-class households because of various support programs, but you can't view this by income strata. on the other hand, the median and family income measures are pretty narrow and miss a lot of income that households and families actually get. so everyone chooses the measure that meets their political or social viewpoints and there is no good way to actual determine who's right.some economists have tried to get around this by looking at the consumption patterns of households -- and doing that suggests that even lower and middle class households have generated significantly more income than the household or family income measures suggest. they just have much more stuff than the pure income measures suggest they should. the problem is that it's possible all of that stuff was bought using borrowing (future income) rather than current income. that's certainly possible -- and certainly was the case in some, perhaps many, cases -- but this consumption/income differential has been going on for a long, long time, so it's not something that grew out of the housing bubble (although that clearly made it worse).Sorry for the several postings, I was caught in Internet limbo where nothing would tell me it submitted so I kept trying and retyping my post.
You're right, I misworded my the first statement...should have said the percentage of counted illegals...my understanding is we weren't counting them.
Which raises very interesting questions. One being that if the data shows that our laws and economic systems are leading to outcomes where 2-3% of society is reaping an overwhelming share of the benefits of globalization and our financial systems are becoming destabilized due to income inequities, why in the world are ~ 50% of the population arguing that we need reform to benefit the top 2-3% even more?There is a lot of doubt around this subject where the research ranges from no to minor overall wage impact due to immigration. You know that though, and dismiss the studies that conflict with your preconceived notions and anecdotal evidence. I'll let you and LHUCKS have fun swapping opinions devoid of empirical evidence this time, it is pointless to argue with someone whose mind is made up.
our laws aren't the only thing killing the middle class, other factors such as globalization and increased global competition play a role as well.Create a more business friendly environment, capitalism will work better...push socialist tax and spend ideas onto that economy and it is going to stifle the growth.If I could have it my way:1) take the US govt. out of the mortgage business2) huge tax breaks on the middle class, keep upperclass tax rate near the same3) cut payroll tax, encourage businesses to hire4) cut govt. spending across the board, after budget is balanced and deficit is removed invest revenue in education and keeping the US as the world leader in innovationIt's not hard, it's just that politicians and Americans refuse to make the right decisions.The middle class will start getting its standard of living back when they stop electing idiot politicians...the tea party IMHO is a move in the right direction...we need more fiscal conservatives in office. No I'm not a tea partier.
No there isn't. I'll ask you the same thing we always ask Tim. Show us the studies. Tim has yet to do so. Let's see if you follow suit.There is a lot of doubt around this subject where the research ranges from no to minor overall wage impact due to immigration. You know that though, and dismiss the studies that conflict with your preconceived notions and anecdotal evidence. I'll let you and LHUCKS have fun swapping opinions devoid of empirical evidence this time, it is pointless to argue with someone whose mind is made up.
This is probably demonstratively false. Illegal aliens perform necessary labor at market rates - without them, you would have citizens performing the same labor, at the same market rates.We would, however, have higher wages without the unemployment problem.We should grant amnesty to the illegal aliens who are working, and deport the unemployed.
We've done this before and I've linked the studies which you roundly dismissed. I'm not interested in wasting my time rehashing this with and you can search this forum yourself if you want to see the studies again. I don't care if you disagree on this topic, people have differing opinions. I just commented because you said that there is absolutely no doubt with regard to this subject when I know you have read things that do indeed cast doubt.No there isn't. I'll ask you the same thing we always ask Tim. Show us the studies. Tim has yet to do so. Let's see if you follow suit.There is a lot of doubt around this subject where the research ranges from no to minor overall wage impact due to immigration. You know that though, and dismiss the studies that conflict with your preconceived notions and anecdotal evidence. I'll let you and LHUCKS have fun swapping opinions devoid of empirical evidence this time, it is pointless to argue with someone whose mind is made up.
I'm curious - we have data that shows historic income inequity as median income has deflated/stagnated over the past decade while the top 2-3%'s share of income and wealth has exploded. Your solution to growing inequities and the harmful effects that result from these type of societies (please correct me if I'm wrong - this is my interpretation of your political posts) is to extend policies like tax cuts for top earners, extend corporate tax breaks, and wash credit scores for mid-income folks who have defaulted on homes, all the while cutting social services that overwhelmingly benefit the poorest and least fortunate amongst us.Is that accurate?
Theoretically the market rates would go up since there would be a shorter supply of labor.
Some of that is right and some of it is accurate, overall it's a misrepresentation.A) You left out tax cuts to the middle classB) You left out payroll tax cutsC) You left out "across the board spending cuts"D) washing credit scores is oversimplification, one of the keys to getting employment levels up is addressing the housing market, the govt can do this but has epically failed at this over the last two years...Obama was too busy passing useless mandated healthcare coverage...I can't believe I voted for him. Never been so suckered in my life.
The Tea Party doesn't support #1, the 2nd part of #2, or #4. Democrats support just as many of your ideas as Tea Party folks - I have no idea why you're fooled by republican politicians who have wrapped themselves in "tea party" disguises in order to act as if they weren't part of the 2000-2008 debacle.
Um, they definitely support #1 and #4. #2 is debatable as they haven't clearly addressed tax reform IMHO.Democrats don't support any of my ideas that I'm aware of outside of middle class tax cuts.I'm not fooled by Republican politicans, talk about jumping to conclusions. I'm an independent fiscal conservative that formulates my own opinions.
Really? Tea Party politicians are pushing to abolish the mortgage interest deduction, cut social security and medicare/medicaid benefits?
yes to all, accept mortgage interest deduction...which I'm not sure about. And not necessarily cutting SS, just extending the age, which is what I am for as are most fiscal conservatives.
So really no to all, because I'm pretty certain I didn't see any Tea Party candidates running on a "I'll cut your medicare/medicaid" platform. And if some did, I seriously doubt they were supported enough to win.The Tea Party/Republicans are no different than democrats or mainstream republicans. They all want spending cut on the programs they don't support.
No we haven't. If we have post a link to the thread. I don't ever recall responding to you before. You sound a lot like Tim, and the illegal immigrant apologists. Talking points. No substance.We've done this before and I've linked the studies which you roundly dismissed. I'm not interested in wasting my time rehashing this with and you can search this forum yourself if you want to see the studies again. I don't care if you disagree on this topic, people have differing opinions. I just commented because you said that there is absolutely no doubt with regard to this subject when I know you have read things that do indeed cast doubt.No there isn't. I'll ask you the same thing we always ask Tim. Show us the studies. Tim has yet to do so. Let's see if you follow suit.There is a lot of doubt around this subject where the research ranges from no to minor overall wage impact due to immigration. You know that though, and dismiss the studies that conflict with your preconceived notions and anecdotal evidence. I'll let you and LHUCKS have fun swapping opinions devoid of empirical evidence this time, it is pointless to argue with someone whose mind is made up.
Great, so the rest of us have to pay more for stuff because Johnny didn't want to go to college.
I fail to see the correlation. Government spending improves the GDP. When politicians figured out that the primary thing keeping them in office is the state of the economy, they started spending money left and right, nevermind not having enough tax revenue to pay for it. Of course, a good chunk of that government spending was captured by the top 2%. But that just reinforces that its our political economic structures that are mostly to blame, rather than the overall level of government spending.
But look at all the jobs the rich created.
bg0546 said:No we haven't. If we have post a link to the thread. I don't ever recall responding to you before. You sound a lot like Tim, and the illegal immigrant apologists. Talking points. No substance.Slapdash said:We've done this before and I've linked the studies which you roundly dismissed. I'm not interested in wasting my time rehashing this with and you can search this forum yourself if you want to see the studies again. I don't care if you disagree on this topic, people have differing opinions. I just commented because you said that there is absolutely no doubt with regard to this subject when I know you have read things that do indeed cast doubt.bg0546 said:No there isn't. I'll ask you the same thing we always ask Tim. Show us the studies. Tim has yet to do so. Let's see if you follow suit.Slapdash said:There is a lot of doubt around this subject where the research ranges from no to minor overall wage impact due to immigration. You know that though, and dismiss the studies that conflict with your preconceived notions and anecdotal evidence. I'll let you and LHUCKS have fun swapping opinions devoid of empirical evidence this time, it is pointless to argue with someone whose mind is made up.bg0546 said:
Here you go.Yeah I remember looking at those last time. I just perused the first one again. It says that low wages persist over generations. It SUPPORTS what I posted here. And, here's a quote from one of YOUR own studies that I posted in that thread:
And where you basically admitted I was right about the low end and immigration:
And that's the thread where you suggested you should post links to studies that you know are false just to "prove" your point. So it's not that I dismissed your studies. They just don't prove what you say they do, and in many cases they support my contentions.
Again you are twisting what I said. I posted the one that showed the strongest impact first because you claimed the number to be much higher than even that showed. Personally, I am not sure where I fall on the spectrum as each of the studies that have been done look at the problem different ways and it isn't a question with a clear answer. Contrary to your assertions, there is a lot of doubt surrounding this subject. That doesn't mean that I thought other studies that show no impact were false. My goal was to show you that even the most favorable studies to your viewpoint don't show that large of an impact. When you responded by accusing me of being biased because I didn't include a study that showed a barely higher number I responded by saying I should have linked to the other studies if that is the kind of 'gothcta' game you wanted to play. That does not mean that I thought those studies were false, just that I thought it would be easier to discuss the issue with you if I showed the empirical study that, while very short of your number, was more favorable to your assumptions. Seeing that you were not interested in an honest discussion on what the data supports given favorable assumptions, I mentioned the studies that completely contradict you which you summarily dismissed. This shows how unopen you are to anything that contradicts your worldview, but it is incorrect for you to say that there is no doubt given that you have been show evidence that does place doubt.Yeah I remember looking at those last time. I just perused the first one again. It says that low wages persist over generations. It SUPPORTS what I posted here. And, here's a quote from one of YOUR own studies that I posted in that thread:And where you basically admitted I was right about the low end and immigration:And that's the thread where you suggested you should post links to studies that you know are false just to "prove" your point. So it's not that I dismissed your studies. They just don't prove what you say they do, and in many cases they support my contentions.
The article and study you link to deals with immigration. There is a distinct difference between immigration in general and illegal immigration. I have no desire to discuss the effects of general immigration as I'm a proponent of that and, done properly, think it's beneficial to our country. Illegal immigration is a different animal. I think my points re: illegal immigration are reasonable and proven, and nothing you've posted disproves them.
What?/Yes/interest deduction phased out or lessened over timeMatthias said:
You would have to phase these out, it wouldn't be a flip the switch type of decision.Australia should be the model that governments follow for govt. involvement with housing...they don't have housing bubbles...I wonder why.Matthias said:
unpack this?
Huh? The studies focus on the wage movements and unemployment of native born workers which are necessarily impacted by illegals even if no distinction is made in the study.
In this thread the discussion is about a decrease in household median income in the U.S.. My assertion is that this is partially due to illegal immigration. Your studies have nothing to do with that premise, either in support or in refuting it.
What? The wage movements have nothing do with median income? Even if wages were depressed somewhat on the low end, you have shown nothing that there isn't a corresponding rise elsewhere in the economy which is what many of the studies you ignore also talk about.Actually, never mind I am done with this. All you do is make blanket assertions and dismiss any data shown to you while providing none of your own, this isn't worth my time.
Illegal immigrants have ZERO effect on the upper or middle scale of wages. I don't know how you can even suggest such a thing. And if they don't, then clearly they bring the median down. Seems pretty simple to me.
Okay, wasn't sure where you were coming from.IMHO, the govt. needs to institute forgiveness for those that were foreclosed on BUT have still held jobs AND can put 20% down...basically strategic foreclosures or people that overbought, but are still financially healthy to buy again.Matthias said:
Illegal immigrants have ZERO effect on the upper or middle scale of wages. I don't know how you can even suggest such a thing. And if they don't, then clearly they bring the median down. Seems pretty simple to me.
They really don't...they effect low wage earners because there is more competition for those jobs, but it's not like they are competing for corporate middle management jobs such as mine which require a college degree and relevant work experience, not to mention good English.If anything cheap labor can sometimes benefit the upperclass and upper middle class wages in a very indirect manner....cheaper labor, better company margins, bigger company bonuses etc. etc.Illegal immigrants have ZERO effect on the upper or middle scale of wages. I don't know how you can even suggest such a thing. And if they don't, then clearly they bring the median down. Seems pretty simple to me.
They don't. The companies that hire them can offer lower prices to their customers. It doesn't create a windfall for those companies. It allows them to be more competitive. Great intelligent rebuttal though.Illegal immigrants have ZERO effect on the upper or middle scale of wages. I don't know how you can even suggest such a thing. And if they don't, then clearly they bring the median down. Seems pretty simple to me.
The original link doesn't work for me. What's the source of these median income data? Depending on the source, illegal immigrants may not even be in the numbers.
Illegals depress the wages of Americans in certain industries, regardless of whether they're specifically included in the source for the OP or not.
I would add:1) Fannie and Freddie, which contributed to #2Matthias said:
Oh, I didn't realize that's what you were arguing.
All of which ZERO effect on middle and upper class earners huh? And this isn't a very indirect manner, it is why the workers are were demanded here in the first place. Not to mention how the studies show how immigration often decreases outsourcing which helps the domestic economy as a whole grow. The pie is not fixed.They really don't...they effect low wage earners because there is more competition for those jobs, but it's not like they are competing for corporate middle management jobs such as mine which require a college degree and relevant work experience, not to mention good English.If anything cheap labor can sometimes benefit the upperclass and upper middle class wages in a very indirect manner....cheaper labor, better company margins, bigger company bonuses etc. etc.Illegal immigrants have ZERO effect on the upper or middle scale of wages. I don't know how you can even suggest such a thing. And if they don't, then clearly they bring the median down. Seems pretty simple to me.
I didn't say Zero...it's indirect at best, and applies more to small businesses than corporations.
They're not forecasting risk, they're helping banks more accurately assess risk. The current model doesn't work in these unique times.The concern is that we currently have 18% of the country not working. Correcting the housing market is one way to address this...a big way actually. Because of the disaster created by factors not controlled by consumers, there are a lot of people being shutout of the homebuying process because of the current credit assessment model, which doesn't take into account the unique situations this specific group of people are in.Matthias said:
