Immigrants Account for All Job Gains Since 2000: Native-Born Workers’ Employment Has Fallen

But not as much as you have to pay a free citizen.

That isn't necessarily true (in the logical sense of necessary), depending on the deal you strike with the slave's owner, you could pay more or less than you would for a free citizen. Just because the worker is a slave it doesn't axiomatically follow that his services are cheap.

GenericID wrote: Just because the worker is a slave it doesn't axiomatically follow that his services are cheap.

just because you type a sentence, doesn't axiomatically follow that you understand what you're saying.

it's common sense, the whole purpose of having a slave is to not have a free, thinking individual who can complain about benefits, packages, healtcare, and raises.

i don't know why you keep defending mexican illegal immigrants. i bet you've never even been outside of america. you don't know how most countries are nationalistic with pride, and their own citizens view foreigners with a certain amount of cynicism.

i bet you've never even been outside of america.

Really? That's too funny!

America has become a service based economy. For that economy to grow (or hold steady) it needs more people to provide services to.

Congress is and has encouraged immigration for decades now.

US population 1967 200 million; 2007 it passed 300 million.

2050 is expected to be 600 million.

brownsmith76 wrote:

it's common sense, the whole purpose of having a slave is to not have a free, thinking individual who can complain about benefits, packages, healtcare, and raises.

Slaves can't think?! You're racist!

If you've got anything to do with it, probably not.

If you own a slave, and use him for your own purposes, this is true. But if you own a slave who you are going to hire out to others, and you know the market rate for the job (which is the rate that the employer would have to pay a free employee) why would you take less money? As a business person, common sense dictates that you maximise the value of your asset.

And I don't know why you think I'm defending Mexican illegal immigrants? It IS a simple fact that, if there were no jobs for immigrants, there would be no immigrants (but that's just common sense - something you have demonstrated that you lack to any measurable degree).

Have you worked out why that's funny yet?

Generic ID: "The remedy is simple; refuse to do business with companies who employ immigrants; once the companies see their incomes falling then they will either hire Americans or go out of business."

What a ridiculous statement to make. You clearly don't understand how the market and capitalism works then. If two people can do the same job, esp skilled, the company will hire the cheaper one every time. Especially given that hiring legal foreigners has a host of other advantages to the company, including ease of laying off, less in terms of benefits etc.

Would you say the same of companies that have moved overseas, because they are saving tons of money..Apple etc? Afterall they are using foreign labor too.

Its a silly as saying you are only going to be American cars..frankly there is no such thing.

You clearly don't understand how the market and capitalism works then.

This is clearly an unnecessary and, given your patently false follow up, erroneous statement.

If two people can do the same job, esp skilled, the company will hire the cheaper one every time.

This is, as already mentioned, patently false - companies frequently make business decisions based on pressure from consumer groups (exempli gratia: Nike sweatshops campaign

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2012/jul/06/activism-nike

).

Companies, especially big ones, are especially sensitive to bad publicity and the effect it might have on their bottom line (remember how in 2009 AIG changed the name of its insurance arm to Chartis even though the insurance business had absolutely no involvement in the credit default swaps scandal?)

If you are too stupid to realise that any company faced with an effective boycott campaign would take the financial hit rather than go out of business, then you are the one who doesn't understand how the market and capitalism works.

Your stupidity continues to shine through clearly.

Would Nike have done anything without "pressure groups" pushing them? Would Walmart and Target et al in Bangladesh have done anything if factories hadn't burned down?

Get a clue: the bottom line is profits..end of story.

And while we are on the story of immigrants getting all the jobs, when do you think we should look forward to red blooded native born Americans running to get in line for those thousands of farm jobs available throughout the country?

Or, using your sound logic, should we not be eating our fruits and vegetable, since they are "foreign" picked?

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

Get a clue: the bottom line is profits..end of story.

I think that's the point GenericID has been making.

Would Nike have done anything without "pressure groups" pushing them? Would Walmart and Target et al in Bangladesh have done anything if factories hadn't burned down?

Wow, just .. wow! I'm not even sure what your point is; you admit that what I'm saying is completely, 100% right, then you call me stupid?

I've been arguing for 4 pages that, if the other poster wants to see an end to immigration and Americans in every job in the USA, then forming a pressure group and campaigning for this goal is the best way forward, because businesses need to protect their reputations in order to protect their profits.

You admit in the quoted sentence that threats to damage the reputation of a business by boycotting its products has altered the direction and actions of businesses in the past (and even offered a couple of examples of this yourself), yet you seem unable to connect those good results to the possibility of utilising this methodology in future campaigns.

So where am I wrong? If businesses are all about profits, as you claim (and with which I agree), wouldn't they be more likely to protect those profits by acceding to the poster's demands if a coordinated campaign against that business's reputation looked like it would threaten those profits?

Perhaps you should take a break from the name-calling and take a moment to read the thread; you clearly haven't a clue about the topic under discussion.