Seeking Alpha

Business and union leaders have reached an agreement on pay levels for a guest worker program...

Business and union leaders have reached an agreement on pay levels for a guest worker program for low-skilled temporary jobs, thereby clearing the way for a bipartisan group of senators to introduce legislation that would allow 11M illegal immigrants to eventually gain citizenship. "This issue has always been the deal breaker on immigration reform, but not this time," said Senator Charles Schumer.
Comments (99)
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    Sounds great,but, this is not going to fly in the House ! The only issue in the House from day one is border security first ! Obama is using the Sequester to cut security at the border as a political move.He wants to try an take back the House in 2014.

     

    If he outsmarts the Republicans again we may not see another Republican President until G. P. Bush runs as the first Latino Republican.
    31 Mar 2013, 04:50 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9309) | Send Message
     
    Prescott...maybe...
    31 Mar 2013, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (833) | Send Message
     
    Obama and the Democrats are gutting border security and refuse to engage in workplace verification. Yes, this is political, either poison the well for reform so it doesnt happen and they demonize republicans or end up with de facto open borders. a win/win for the Democrats a lose/lose for America.
    2 Apr 2013, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • jhenn19630
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    And right they are to insist upon a secure border prior to any deal. For those of us old enough to remember, this is the third time we will do illegal amnesty and each time it was promised that the border would be secured. It never was and the seeds of a subsequent amnesty was sowed. We need permanent incarceration for violent criminals whose home countries will not accept repatriation. We need forced repatriation perhaps even throwing them over the wall at their embassy. We need to end the Caribbean heart surgery scam where patients go to NY, Boston, or Miami and immediately have chest pains. Surgery and rest care paid for by the taxpayers. We need to make identity theft a very serious crime with very serious jail time. We need to end the ACLU supported legal hassle to deportation and we need to remove all jailed illegals to their home country ASAP. If they don't want them, then throw them over the wall at any convenient embassy. We have been fooled before but not this time. Stand your ground House and make them do it right this time.
    31 Mar 2013, 06:30 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    "Business and union leaders "

     

    That's fishy, especially the union bit. The economics for a union is not worker solidarity, but worker minorities. A union has incentives to create unemployment by creating barriers to entry for individuals into employment. This is why unions are typically racist. They need to keep out low cost labor, which is often found in minorities. Immigration is definitely high on their list of groups of people they hate. So to have union leaders agreeing to a deal is peculiar.

     

    Unions and Democrats are bound together because the unions become a clandestine taxing mechanism to raise money for Democrats. So the deal must have something to do with keeping the immigrants on welfare and not working. If they were working that presents problems for unions, and again, unions have the economic incentive to keep people from working. Its the basic cartel strategy of restricting supply and increasing prices.
    31 Mar 2013, 06:59 AM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Barriers to entry like quality controls and regulated skill training as well as protections allowing a fair wage to the worker? Careful your rhetoric is showing, this seems a good example of business and union leaders actually agreeing on something....I applaud them for that

     

    Your logic is backwards as in my mind union leaders would prefer as many illegals on the roles as possible as it wouldn't hurt current members due to seniority and at the same time ballooning union coffers with dues.
    31 Mar 2013, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    "protections allowing a fair wage to the worker?"

     

    Translation - fewer employees and higher unemployment. The only logical definition of "fair" has to mean higher. As price goes up for cost, less supply is demanded. Its basically a minimum wage law, and like all price fixing, it leads to shortages the same way minimum wage laws lead to more unemployment. That's why there is typically no link between minimum wage laws (price fixing for wages) and inflation (the CPI kind). The additional unemployment induces people to bid up savings assets and not readily consumables.

     

    Unions always strive to keep out "different" color people, because the additional supply of labor would drive down the price of their labor. That's why there is probably something else going on here.
    31 Mar 2013, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Not here to argue with you on Easter I'm a blue collar guy (with a financial degree) that maybe has a viewpoint you white collar guys don't have, simple as that.

     

    "protections allowing a fair wage to the worker?"

     

    Translation - fewer employees and higher unemployment.
    An indirect result caused by business interests not by union desires as you implied above. I suppose we would be at full employment right now if everyone made $20 a day.....
    31 Mar 2013, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    regulated skill training
    ----------------------...

     

    What the heck is that? What regulated skill training do all those public union bureaucrats have? And to what good?

     

    Unions were useful a century ago. They deserve credit for establishing basic worker protections in the workplace and for eliminating child labor.

     

    But I fail to see what positive things they have done in the past thirty-forty years. I fully support unions in the private sector. Unskilled labor can often get better deals by negotiating together and having representation as one group. I'd also point out that too often their representatives are divorced from economic reality and end up harming their members but thats part of life I guess.

     

    This proposed bill is ridiculous. If we want to limit immigration start with all the extended family members that are admitted with zero job nor english skills. If there are talented English speaking people that want to come to the USA we should allow them in. We will continue to allow immigrants destined for public support while turning away talented people that have the skills and work ethic to help create even more jobs.

     

    If we are going to again grant amnesty to illegal immigrants it should contain a clause prohibiting any of their extended family members from applying for any type of visa for the next 30 years. Its time we started encouraging immigration of engineers and scientists and mathmeticians and turn back the uneducated and lazy. Canada and Australia are doing this with great success.
    31 Mar 2013, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    I meant of course the plumbing, electrical, pipefitters, and construction trade locals of course when I mention regulated skill training, don't know too much about public sector unions but I'd imagine there's some sort of regulated firefighter, and police training, although I'm not sure.
    31 Mar 2013, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    There's nothing wrong with unions or immigration. What makes them so bad, as is the case with everything, is their subsidization via gov coercion. If there were no Wagner Act and its concomitant constitutional violations, unions would be just fine. They would be part of the free market just like anything else. The would exist to the extent a market free of coercion would allow them. The same is true for immigrants. They are welcome to the extent they are not subsidized. The goal from current immigration isn't so that its good for the economy or even for the immigrants. The goal is to add them to the dependent classes so they vote for people that want to keep them dependent so they can get rich off their backs.
    31 Mar 2013, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    we definitely agree quite a bit there jhooper. Although I would argue that the mass negotiating body via unions in your example would provide still a slight coercive negotiating advantage.

     

    In the same way buying or selling a larger amount of any product (whether labor itself or nails) would give you a slight advantage.
    31 Mar 2013, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    "coercive negotiating advantage"

     

    How? Are you suggesting that volume allows you to shoot or imprison people for not buying your product (selling your labor is selling a product)?

     

    They may have bargaining power for lower or higher prices as the case may be, buts that's only when they are efficient at delivering value. That's not coercive. Its a free market. Only when someone has the option of threatening your body, the only capital that really counts, do the enter the world of coercion. Then you have the theft transaction. In the theft transaction the thief uses coercion to make the victim a slave. The thief transfers wealth and makes himself richer and the victim poorer. Only in the theft transaction can one party become richer while making another poorer, and the only way the theft transaction can occur is via the foundation of coercion.

     

    This is why unions often fall back on gov coercion. Unions work well for small highly trained groups, but they don't work well for large relatively low skilled groups. In the large groups its too easy to find a replacement, and a large concession is extremely expensive. In the small group replacements are hard to come by, and large concessions for small groups aren't very expensive. This is why the large groups need gov coercion to get their price (a gov minimum wage), or they need legitimate gov coercion to ignore the unions illegitimate coercion to threaten their replacements.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    You know as well as I do that I don't advocate shooting anyone. Coercion may have been the wrong word to use. I was simply saying there is pressure available when you have negotiating leverage. That leverage is skilled labor.

     

    On a spreadsheet you can determine efficiencies that don't exist in actual real life. Is working to receive your credentials in say plumbing efficient? Not necessarily because you have to ensure that you spend time learning every single type of system on the off chance that you happen to run into said system someday. Some systems that I may never come across in my life, was it a waste of time? Perhaps but it certainly was inefficient.

     

    The leverage is I have a skill that I offer for a price that you can pay less to have the job done but won't necessarily have the same skill level. Will you be willing to pay more to ensure the job is done right up to code the first time? My experience is that the average homeowner does. Yes you can argue that "up to code" is a form of govt coercion. In a way it is but it is the interest of the general public to have codes. I'm sure any member of The Station nightclub in West Warwick RI in 2003 wished govt codes had been enforced properly, that is what happens sometimes when "gov't coercion" is not put into effect.

     

    I find alot of what you say very interesting and I thank you for that although it appears to be alot of "book work" so to speak, alot of theory. A perfect system will not have any theft in a transaction but this is not a perfect world and there is always some slippage to expect less is to not be realistic.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Well in a general sense, I have no great objections to certified plumbers and electricians.

     

    But lets not kid ourselves. Certification is a racket - used often at the state level to limit competition. I am familiar with our local voluteer fire department. Its just what it says - voluteer. Now they have to comply with all the certifications and training standards as the paid departments do. And over the past 20 years the fire fighters unions have been pushing for more and more such standards and training and certifications. I don't believe its out of an altruistic nature. Its to try to make it more and more expensive for communities to have volunteer fire departments.

     

    So like most things - I'm a supporter of having training and equipment standards for our local fire department - but I'm adamantly opposed to the pile of nonsense put forth to try to coerse communities to give up their volunteer fire departments.

     

    The same type thing is true for hair stylists, taxi drivers, etc, etc - the real design is to limit competition.

     

    Government should regulate things that relate to public safety and the environment. However, it should not be the goal to limit competition and make the certification process a deterent to new entry in the market.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Interesting comments david especially about volunteer fire departments. Never really thought about it in that way though I do have quite a few friends that are currently union firemen from my military days and generally they aren't like grunt union thugs that they are sometimes portrayed. They are veterans that continued on in public service, can't fault guys for that. Perhaps fire union leadership is that way but I'll never fault a Marine who becomes a fireman
    31 Mar 2013, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    Well, I'm all for public service - but I view it as just that - service.

     

    In our country IMO - public service today is strongly correlated with personal enrichment. And I fully realize that many folks do it because they like to help others - but the unions have basically bribed their way into a situation where public union employees are now better paid than those they serve - and in an increasing number of communities - public services are being cut to the general population to pay pensions and benefits for retired "public servants".

     

    I'll use firefighters. In most cities that I'm aware of - there is an age cut-off of 45-50 for firefighters. At which time they are retiring with full pensions. To me that simply isn't public service. I mean no offense to anyone when I say that - but working for 25 years and then living off the taxpayers for another 25 isn't service. Service would be retiring at 45 and working at something else for another 20 and then getting a partial pension and full health benefits at age 65 for the service you performed when you were 25-45.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:43 PM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    I can't agree there because public service also includes our military who if someone joined at say 18 after September 11th (a very common theme) would already have 12 years under their belts and well on their way to a pension retiring from the military at 38. This would also include possibly (saying a deployment every 2nd or 3rd year which is common) say 8 years of actual trigger time in an actual warzone. Most come home different even if they are not diagnosed with anything. Do they not deserve to receive a dime until 65? I 100% say yes give em a pension for 50 years in my opinion they deserve it. Difficult to compare that to firefighting but I would also say its difficult to compare firefighting to some cubical job someone worked at for 30 years also.

     

    Just my opinion but at least we can communicate without throwing insults.

     

    To all my debators....good conversation but I'm off to sleep gotta get up early for work. Happy Easter
    31 Mar 2013, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    perfect system will not have any theft in a transaction but this is not a perfect world and there is always some slippage to expect less is to not be realistic. "

     

    It depends on what you mean by perfect. A perfect free market would be a market completely free of any coercion and its concomitant fraud. However, this theoretical extreme would not mean that everyone has perfect production knowledge which would mean people could convert matter for consumption without any labor. What you would get with a perfectly free market is a market that perfectly operates at the peak of the production possibility frontier for the given technology level of the market.

     

    That would mean the people in that market would all have the highest standard of living possible at that level of technology. Their would be huge income gaps, but everyone's standard of living would be higher in a coercion free market than it would be in a market with no coercion. The reason for this is that all human interaction would be voluntary, and since no one can rely on coercion, then they are as sensitive to mistakes as they possibly could be.

     

    Without coercion, you have to learn from mistakes to survive, because you can't steal. Thus you must produce, and its production that allows us to consume. Since survival is the goal of all humans, and consumption is the only way to survive, and consumption relys on production, and production relys on learning, and learning requires you to be sensitive to mistakes, an since coercion makes you blind to mistakes, then your goal as humans is to rid your economy (the collective actions of people in the quest for survival) of coercion.

     

    From this we dervive the only logical role for gov. We grant gov coercion to use against coercion. How that manifests itself and how much gov should cost is an unknown that can only be discovered by markets. That's why you want a Federal system for gov. It allows you to create a markets for gov, and people use their feet to vote for the one that does it best. That's why you want cities in counties, counties in states, and states in a Federal system. The Federal system only deals with issues among states, the states deal with issues among counties, and the cities deal with issues among individuals. That's how you create a system of checks and balances that makes coercion expensive, thus leaving people with only one option - voluntary cooperation.
    31 Mar 2013, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3141) | Send Message
     
    I agree completely that many come back from war zones as different people. And I gladly pay whatever taxes are required to provide any health care costs they may have as a result of their service. And I'm not saying they should not receive some financial help in making the transitition from the military to civilian life. And anyone sustaining injuries that prevent employment should certainly be supported for as long as needed.

     

    The problem with your solution is that it covers far far more people than just those on the front lines in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. It includes hundreds of thousands employed at bases throughout the world, those in logistics, employed at our training bases in the USA, support services etc.

     

    I know way too many 45 year olds that are "retired" after serving their 20 years in the military and were never near a warzone. I appreciate their service, but I don't believe that "service" means that you get paid for longer than you work!

     

    The other issue that occurs is that many of these folks go into a 2nd career - and as you say - often in public service. They work another 20 or 25 years and then get a 2nd taxpayer provided pension.

     

    As the income difference between the public sector and private sector widens (which I expect will continue as long as health care costs grow), we will face another problem. More and more of our best educated young people will seek out careers as bureaucrats. That will lead to less and less job creation in the private sector and make our country less competitive overall. I've seen this situation firsthand in Belgium and France over the past 20 years or so - and it makes a difference.

     

    IMO - public service is service. It should not be a way to live better than those you serve. I appreciate and respect those that want to give of themselves to help others - but I really question that the majority of our public bureaucrats fall into that category (I'd assert most of our military joins to serve as opposed to being drawn to financial incentives). More and more I deal with bureaucrats that have little to no interest in the public at large - they view that the public exists to serve them.
    31 Mar 2013, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (833) | Send Message
     
    Unions are cartels. They want membership. Unions have also been 'captured' by leftwing political activists more interested n political activity than what the worker members need.
    Companies want cheap labor. So the intersection of their interests it to import cheap labor that becomes unionized.

     

    To top it off, jhooper is correct that Obama's main agend here is creating more welfare state clients - Obamacare and massive medicaid and other subsidies are flowing to the illegal immigrants who obtain amnesties.The American worker get doubly screwed.

     

    Why do workers tolerate unions that are agents for the leftwing political agenda rather than their own interests? Well if you look at declining union membership you may get a clue.
    2 Apr 2013, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Spoken by a individual that never has been in a union and only knows them by what he hears. Union members don't vote with the leadership near as much as you think, they have their own interests in mind. People who have no idea have this odd belief that a guy who happens to be in a union spends every day eating, drinking and breathing politics.

     

    I, sir, spend my days working, like actual working, not behind a desk at a computer and care little for politics much of the time
    2 Apr 2013, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    "and care little for politics much of the time "

     

    But that just means the union loves that, because then you don't care how they waste your dues. So your dues could be a lot less, thus your return on your collective bargain would be much higher. Most likely, the union is ripping you off far more than any employer ever would.
    3 Apr 2013, 07:17 AM Reply Like
  • RSI Raistlin
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps.....although I find it hard to believe a business in the absence of collective bargaining would only be paying me very low double digits less in dollars, which are what the dues are. When I look at the big non union companies in my field paying guys low double digits IN PERCENTAGE less.
    3 Apr 2013, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    "although I find it hard to believe a business in the absence of collective bargaining would only be paying me very low double digits less in dollars, which are what the dues are."

     

    No, that's not the issue. The issue is, "are you overpaying in dues for the value that is created via the collective bargain".

     

    Collective bargaining is a product just like the one the company you work for produces. The market is a continuous voting process for prices for products. The subsidies unions get via legislation via the Wagner Act protects the union via the coercive power of the gov. As such, it gets shielded from those market forces. This allows the price to inflate, and causes incentives for the union to keep that inflation going. Thus, they spend more money on lobbying and who do they get that from? Why, they get it from the poor suckers not paying attention to politics. The result is the suckers wind up paying far more for the collective bargaining than they should, but because of the subsidies and the lack of competition, they don't know it, so they wind up being suckers.
    3 Apr 2013, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    Hoops, an union member just told you that the dues he pays is small compared to the relative wage benefit he gets from belonging in an union, and you still talk nonsense?
    3 Apr 2013, 09:51 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    MI

     

    You sound bitter. Why are you so angry? And besides, why are you here commenting when there are so many downtrodden people out there that you should be helpling. I guess you just don't care how many people you let die.
    3 Apr 2013, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    I am amused.
    3 Apr 2013, 10:09 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    The people you are too greedy to help, aren't.
    3 Apr 2013, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    I would love to help you, Hoops, as you keep calling out for help.

     

    But even I can't help you.
    3 Apr 2013, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • Robert Duval
    , contributor
    Comments (2897) | Send Message
     
    You sound upset. Are you losing money today?
    3 Apr 2013, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    Unions are way overcharging their clients. There oughta be a law. They are gouging the poor consumer of union services, and those practices need to stop. Unions should only be allowed to charge $1/month for their services. Anything over that shows that they don't care about the poor working stiff, and only reveals their greed. Union services aren't like other products in the market, and as such, they shouldn't be allowed to charge like other products in the market. By limiting what they charge, the exorbitant costs US workers pay for unions can be brought way down. Anyone that disagrees simply hates working people.
    3 Apr 2013, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    " You sound upset. Are you losing money today? "

     

    I am wiped out.
    3 Apr 2013, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    You hate unions, don't you? Well, I don't blame you. Unions make wages better for its members.
    3 Apr 2013, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    Unions hate their customers. All they want to do is overcharge their customers for their services, and then bully them into staying quiet about this abuse. Its time we had legislation that prevented unions from overcharging the poor, working class folks. I guess if you don't care about these people, then it will be up to me. Someone has to stand up to those that want to protect the price gouging unions from sticking it to the little guy. It time for legislation that sets fair pricing for unions, and legislation that restricts the speech of all those that want to oppose the reigning in of union price gouging.
    3 Apr 2013, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    Sad. Just sad.
    3 Apr 2013, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    It is. The rape of the working class by wealthy union leaders is an outrage. Until the inflated fees unions charge for their product are dealt with, the working people are just going to continually be raped.

     

    And the calousness of those that want to protect the rich unions will be the real crime. Its a sad day so many people that claim to care, are just saying they care. If they really cared they would voluntarily sign up to a list that will charge them an extra 30% for all union products they purchase. Of course they never do, so you know their money isn't where their mouth is.
    3 Apr 2013, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • JJA1594
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Another nail in our coffin.
    31 Mar 2013, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    What this really says is that we don't have an immigration policy.

     

    Here is a simple one. If you come to the US illegally and want citizenship it will cost you $500,000 to buy it. If you come legally the cost is $0.00.

     

    If there is no cost then abuse is rampant which is what we have now.
    31 Mar 2013, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • DaLatin
    , contributor
    Comments (1522) | Send Message
     
    Ha ! The real bargain is getting rid of US citizenship ! $ 560 bucks and worth a million times more !
    31 Mar 2013, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • Barn Al
    , contributor
    Comments (142) | Send Message
     
    Just move the U.S. "border" a little further south. Welcome the Mexicans as brand new taxpayers of the 51st State. Problem solved.
    31 Mar 2013, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (219) | Send Message
     
    The time to do that, Al, was back when we fought the Mexican War. If we'd held onto all that territory, today's Mexicans would have the per-capita GDP or Arizona and Texas. Now, however, we would mostly add more "citizens" who would receive far more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • omega
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    Or better yet, move the border a little further north and give that land we stole from the Mexicans nearly 200 years ago, Texas, back to Mexico! In fact, why not accede to the wishes of the Confederacy and let the South go -- let's sell all of Dixieland to Mexico. The remaining US would be a lot less reactionary and less schizophrenic! Besides, it would be fun, and we could the proceeds to retire some of the US debt!
    1 Apr 2013, 02:33 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    I like this idea a lot.
    1 Apr 2013, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (219) | Send Message
     
    It is amazing how politicians of both parties are falling all over each other to further undermine wages in this country with a new flood of foreign workers. You'd think we had unemployment of 4% or something, and not the current 7.7% (plus many, many more who dropped out of the labor force in despair of ever finding a job).

     

    Even the Chamber of Commerce types ought to understand that in the end they will lose big on this deal (if the overally bill passes). Bring in millions more largely unskilled foreign workers, make them (and all the illegals) citizens, and guess what? I'll give you Libertarian types a hint. Poor folks tend to vote for more government wealth redistribution, not less. What businesses save on wages in the near term will pale compared to what Demcoratic party dominance on the national level will cost them in the long term. The shortsightedness is truly breathtaking.
    31 Mar 2013, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    These folks are all going to vote Dem down the line. Republicans are toast!
    31 Mar 2013, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (219) | Send Message
     
    Yep. But that begs the question: why are Republicans so eager to create millions more Democratic voters?
    31 Mar 2013, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    What choice do they have? If they don't help here the Hispanic voters will continue to vote Dem. The Repos only hope is to become more like the Dems. The country is changing.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • Buddy Canuspare
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    Cheap labor, paid in cash, off the books. No minimum wage, no paid benefits or taxes. Just what the doctor ordered for a sick business.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    No wonder small/medium business owners are typically Repos.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (219) | Send Message
     
    Think about what you're saying Macro. Hispanics will continue to vote Democratic regardless, simply because Democratic economic policies are massively better for most Hispanics than are Republican policies. Don't forget that Reagan signed off on an amnesty in '86, and the Hispanic vote went more Democratic than ever in the '88 presidential election.

     

    A new amnesty will a) create 10 million or so more Democratic voters and b) demoralize the Republican base enough that many will stay home in future national elections. This is an insane course for the GOP leadership to be pursuing.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    What's insane, frankly, is that the Repos are becoming more right wing by the day because of the Tea Party Patriots. Did you see the budget Ryan put forward? The dude has learned nothing, absolutely nothing from the Presidential elections.

     

    GOP needs to become more like the Dems or perish. Gerrymandering can overwhelm demographics for only so long, and doesn't work anyway for the Senate or the Presidential Office.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    Indeed. We should continue to increase the yearly deficit and increase the national debt. All illegals should be given keys to mansions, and free everything for life. The nerve of Ryan for a desire to balance the budget.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    John, Did you know that the budget deficit has been steadily falling? Or is that not something that the right wing media likes to make public?
    31 Mar 2013, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • Freedoms Truth
    , contributor
    Comments (833) | Send Message
     
    A new amnesty will a) create 10 million or so more Democratic voters and b) demoralize the Republican base enough that many will stay home in future national elections. This is an insane course for the GOP leadership to be pursuing. "

     

    I agree completely with this, but the premise that Democratic economic policies are massively better for most Hispanics is false. The hispanic voters may favor bigger government but doesnt necessarily help most of them, unless they are on welfare.
    2 Apr 2013, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    Republicans need to be tougher on immigration from LatAm. That must win over Hispanic voters.
    2 Apr 2013, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (219) | Send Message
     
    But Macro, if the GOP has to become the Dems in order to survive, then why bother? What's the point of having the Dems, and the Dems-lite? Anyway, I agree that the GOP is in trouble; you cant trace their decline back to the '65 immigration act that created all the family preference categories. Immigrants haven't voted Republican since the Civil War, so why the GOP has so many open-borders members is beyond me.

     

    As far as Ryan's budget plan, yep, it's nuts. Mostly because he wants to lower taxes and protect defense. But Medicare does need to be massively cut. Current retirees are receiving something like $4.50 in Medicare benefits for every $1 they paid into the program over their working lives. This is not sustainable.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    Because the GOP is the party of the rich, and the rich love cheap slave labor. I don't think Medicare benefits need to be cut. Medicare payments to providers need to be cut. Price gouging is ridiculous in the US medical system. Hospitals should be non-profits, period.

     

    The GOP has to shed three platforms.

     

    1) They need to become socially liberal as that's where the youth are going
    2) They need to stop with this penchant to cut taxes for the rich
    3) They need to stop with this penchant to cut spending for the poor

     

    Then, it should keep the remaining platforms, like free trade for example. That would make it a party I could vote for. Well, they have to agree to cutting the military as well.

     

    The country is changing. GOP needs to change or become obsolete.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:32 PM Reply Like
  • Buddy Canuspare
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    "Immigrants haven't voted Republican since the Civil War, so why the GOP has so many open-borders members is beyond me."
    The answer is simple: Cheap imports. Been that way since before the Civil War. Planters relied on cheap imports of goods and slave labor (This became an impediment as the Confederacy had neither the means to manufacture nor the means to transport war materiel). Note that the GOP today is strongest in the old Confederacy.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • HPBunker
    , contributor
    Comments (219) | Send Message
     
    The problem, Buddy, is that once that imported cheap labor gets amnestied and starts to vote, they support policies that are at odds with the GOP economic platform. In the end, support for amnesty and open borders will kill the GOP.

     

    @ Macro: Let me be clear. I'm fine with slashing Medicare payments to providers (and drug companies), as well as reforming the fee-for-service system. But I also think we need to start "rationing" Medicare to some degree. It's an unpopular word, I know, but every other nation on earth openly does this (which is why they spend half as much per capita on health care, while achieving as good, or better results in terms of life expectancy). This idea we have currently that an extra day of someone's life is worth literally any cost to taxpayers is just not sustainable as the population ages. If you want to save up all your life for cadillac health care in your final six months, then go for it. But don't send me the bill.
    1 Apr 2013, 12:09 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    If that's the rationing you want then I am with you. Terminal care makes no sense. It should be palliative care at that point.
    1 Apr 2013, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • Aarchie Bunker
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    To all Ignorant Immigration "Lawyer " Wannabees. This is whats happening, buy CCA Stocks and then lobby with them.

     

    This is whats holding up Immigration Reform, The Lobbyists for CCA Corrections Corp of America, That makes Billions$$ on putting the poor food pickers in jail. They dont wnat reform since their beds will be empty. They get $120 / $ 145 a day for each poor undocumented food picker, CHECK IT OUT>

     

    Sen. John McCain has changed his views on immigration over the years. For instance, the Arizona Republican first supported and later opposed a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He is also the fourth-highest recipient of campaign donations from Corrections Corporation of America.

     

    House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both Kentucky Republicans, are other notable recipients of that company's campaign donations, according to Center for Responsive Politics data.

     

    "The private prison industry is responsible for 16% of federal prisoners in the U.S. and makes a substantial portion of its profits from detention centers for illegal immigrants," the group said.

     

    "Illegal immigration creates a pool of potential prisoners and there's some incentive to them wanting to have input on those policies," Gans said.

     

    In one case last year, lobbyists representing CCA were paid $60,000 to monitor "issues pertaining to the construction and management of private prisons and detention facilities," according a federal lobbying disclosure report.

     

    Corrections Corporation of America spent $970,000 last year to lobby Congress and the U.S. Marshals Service on a variety of issues.
    1 Apr 2013, 05:55 AM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (244) | Send Message
     
    Yep - the country is changing - for the worse. It will get really ugly before it ever gets better, and the leadership of both major political parties better stay behind armed guards in their little federal enclave, else they be tarred and feathered.

     

    Our only hope is bankruptcy and downsizing the federal government to the role it played around 1910, prior to the income tax, and prior to the Federal Reserve.

     

    The only other option is to break up the Union, and start over again. Either way, the United States of the first 200 years is finished, and being replaced with a vastly inferior entity.
    1 Apr 2013, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    You think 19th century USA was better than the country we have today? We had slavery then, women couldn't vote, standard of living was far worse, and that's what you prefer?
    1 Apr 2013, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    Slavery, as well as voting rights for women is covered in the Bill of Rights, and it's various amendments. You can reduce the role of government substantially without disregarding those rights.
    1 Apr 2013, 05:47 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    So you don't like 19th century USA, John?
    1 Apr 2013, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    Some of it yes, some of it no.
    1 Apr 2013, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    Which parts do you like? Let me guess - no social safety net, right?
    1 Apr 2013, 07:09 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    Social safety nets that do not go on in perpetuity are okay, I guess. Some of them need modification ("food stamps" should get you a sack of rice and a carton of dry milk once a week, S8 shot be a cot in a vacant federal building, EBT should be eliminated entirely, no free phones, zero additional benefits for more children, if you get unemployment past 26 weeks, you have to pick up trash on the highway a-la prison labor (but get paid min. wage in-lieu of a "welfare" check), means testing for social security/medicaid, real doctors determining SSI eligibility, etc., etc....)

     

    Best of 19th century would be no "smartphones", less urban sprawl, fewer restrictions on my freedom, people who worked hard, craftsmanship, etc.
    1 Apr 2013, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    The penchant to go back to an age where most people in the country lived like paupers compared to today simply amazes me. You think living like a pauper would grant you freedom, John? Read up on US history.
    1 Apr 2013, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    I don't think there's anything wrong with living like a pauper IF YOU DON'T WORK. Don't you get that part?
    1 Apr 2013, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    John, in the 19th century, the working masses lived like paupers. You would likely enjoy that, given your penchant for freedom and the 19th century. The right wing talk shows have brainwashed so many into thinking that our freedoms are going away, when the opposite is actually the case.
    1 Apr 2013, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    You dance around what I said. Don't you agree that you should work for your own sustenance? I don't think I would have lived as a pauper in the 19th century, because a bust my ass in the 21st to make a buck and get ahead.

     

    I forgot to mention personal responsibility as one of the things I admire about the 19th century.
    1 Apr 2013, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    People who bust their asses in the 19th century in trades lived like paupers John. Go look it up.

     

    I have better things to do than go chase around people to find out if they are working for a living. I am more interested in ensuring that the economy does well and I get richer. Social safety nets are wonderful towards that end.
    1 Apr 2013, 08:40 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    I do not chase anyone around to see if they are working or not. It's stuck in my face on a daily basis in real life AND in the news. Maybe if I had wool as thick as yours to pull over my eyes I would feel differently.

     

    But it's no surprise that you feel that people should not have to work to support themselves. You stick that in SA's collective face daily.
    1 Apr 2013, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps you need to stop watching Faux News and start listening to NPR? How are things stuck in your face in real life? People come up to you and taunt you that they are buying lobsters with food stamps? Stop being so nosy and stop watching how people pay in supermarkets. You will be happier that way.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    I have to work in their houses/apartments. If I want to get paid, I have to work in those shitholes. I'm not being nosy, but when the person in line in front of me (usually on an electric cart) can't figure out how to use the f'in card scanner and the cashier has to help them (spend taxpayer money), it becomes obvious when she says "Press EBT" what is going on. Then there's the fatass WIC recipients that have to get out of line and go get "real" juice instead of Hi-C or Kool-Aid because their big, over-sized WIC coupons say "no sugary drinks".

     

    Nosy I am not. Stuck in my face it is. Open your eyes.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:40 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    Nosy are you, young John. MYOB and stop snooping.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:50 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    A truly intellectual response to my comment. It's not about being nosy, but I don't close my eyes and pretend, either.
    1 Apr 2013, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    John, Next time when you go to the supermarket, take a good book with you. Read that when standing in line instead of being nosy about what the others are ordering and how they are paying. It's very rude and it is not serving you well either.

     

    When you are providing service to someone, don't ever criticize them. They are your boss. They enable your paycheck. Be grateful.
    1 Apr 2013, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    I'm glad you like writing their checks - I don't. Did you pay off the bullies when you were younger so they wouldn't give you a good ass-kicking after school, too?

     

    Pay away. I'll protest/and vote against it every chance I get.
    1 Apr 2013, 10:14 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    John, I get richer when there is a social safety net, because the economy does better too. Why would I want to be poorer instead? Where's the logic in that?
    1 Apr 2013, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    Wouldn't you want people to better themselves? I'd like that. I'm sorry that you want to trap people into a life of government largess just so you can make a buck off of their misery.
    1 Apr 2013, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    This is a free country last I checked. People can better themselves if they want to. Their business not mine.
    1 Apr 2013, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    It's not my business (or shouldn't be) to support them if they choose not to, either.

     

    Tell you what - send me a check for what I paid in federal taxes last year, and I'll be more than happy to preach the same empty rhetoric that you do.
    1 Apr 2013, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    It's society's business. Your business is to pay taxes to support society. If you don't like paying taxes, move to a country without them, like Somalia.
    1 Apr 2013, 11:15 PM Reply Like
  • Buddy Canuspare
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    JohnB,
    Do you wonder why Wall Street's still in Manhattan rather than Biloxi? Or why AAPL's still in Mountain View rather than Montgomery or Memphis, and yet seems to survive somehow? Or why Amazon, which could set up shop anywhere, set up shop in a high-tax city like Seattle?
    Explain to me why high-tax, high-public service cities such as these are prospering.
    1 Apr 2013, 11:17 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    It must be because they hate freedom and the American way of life.
    1 Apr 2013, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    Explain to me why Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Memphis, Cincinnati, etc., etc. are now the ass-ends of the planet? They are the welfare Shangri-la's of the current-day U.S. (once major economic forces), and they turned into 3rd world battlezones.

     

    Why did the government-sponsored gestapo come down so hard on Boeing when they wanted to get out of their union-infested cesspool? California, New York, Illinois, Colorado are experiencing a net DECREASE in population of 'legal' residents nowadays. I wonder why....

     

    Let me ask you this, as well... How come you entitlement proponents can't see that even after all this money we shovel to these indigent, lazy-ass people, they take their own neighborhoods and turn them into ghettos? I mean NASTY, stinky, condemnable PITS of filth. Check Memphis - look at street view on Mapquest anywhere on Parkway or Jackson Ave.'s. THAT'S what your 'welfare' buys you. As a matter of fact, ANYWHERE about a mile outside of the downtown area. Disgusting, deplorable, and dangerous. And yes, they're all on 'government assistance'. And you want to give them MORE?

     

    Where is the good that your 'entitlements' (give-aways, freebies, vig, pay-offs, etc.) do?
    1 Apr 2013, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    John, I already explained to you what good they do. You want a lower GDP? Move to Somalia.
    2 Apr 2013, 12:08 AM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    Got it. You judge the success of the US's 'social safety net' in terms of GDP... Would you "process" the people who receive 'entitlements', if there was money in it? I bet you would.

     

    For a lib dem, you are pretty cold-hearted.
    2 Apr 2013, 12:16 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    Not cold-hearted enough to cut hungry people off of food stamps.
    2 Apr 2013, 12:20 AM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    You just don't get it. They aren't hungry. Nor would they be if they didn't receive 'food stamps'. Take away the 'food stamps', and they would have incentive. Give them 'food stamps' and you incentivize dependency. You know I'm right, but you would rather mollify the 'poor' so you can live a sheltered life, closing your eyes to reality.

     

    (I use the terms 'poor' (they are not) and 'food stamps' (vote-buying stamps is more like it) loosely.)

     

    Keep 'em down on the farm, right Macro?
    2 Apr 2013, 12:29 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8393) | Send Message
     
    I do get it. You just don't want to help anyone.
    2 Apr 2013, 06:47 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    "Explain to me why high-tax, high-public service cities such as these are prospering. "

     

    Here are some interesting maps.

     

    http://bit.ly/X5QcTf

     

    http://bit.ly/YKTfQb
    2 Apr 2013, 07:13 AM Reply Like
  • Buddy Canuspare
    , contributor
    Comments (398) | Send Message
     
    jhooper,
    I see your maps. So when is AAPL moving to Mississippi?
    2 Apr 2013, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3580) | Send Message
     
    Maybe they will before they BK. ;)
    3 Apr 2013, 12:18 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5327) | Send Message
     
    "So when is AAPL moving to Mississippi? "

     

    Much of AAPL has already moved to China. Everyone else is doing this...

     

    http://bit.ly/YvkGQT

     

    Numbers are pesky things.
    3 Apr 2013, 07:21 AM Reply Like
  • Barn Al
    , contributor
    Comments (142) | Send Message
     
    Hats off Macro. Well done
    2 Apr 2013, 08:54 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|