The state of American society as 2015 begins
"While
the official unemployment rate has declined, the share of working-age men who are employed hit
its lowest level on record in November 2014. This figure has fallen from 86.7
percent in 1948 to 69 percent today. The share of employees working at temp agencies
has climbed during the economic “recovery.” More than 12 million people, or ten
percent of the labor force, worked for a temporary employment agency at some
point in 2013."
Report: Immigrant workers account for all employment growth since 2007 | WashingtonExaminer.com
"Meanwhile, millions of native-born Americans, especially men, have abandoned the job market altogether. The percentage of men aged 25 to 54 who are working or looking for work has dropped to the lowest point in recorded history."
THE SECRET AGENDA OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA TO SURRENDER
AMERICA’S BORDERS TO NARCOMEX and destroy the GOP with millions of looting
illegals voting DEM for more!
AMNESTY and the
UNEMPLOYMENT
CRISIS FOR LEGALS: 71% of all jobs go to
foreign born, both legal
and ILLEGAL!
Labor statistics show that foreign-born workers account for all net gains in U.S. employment in the past seven years, according to a group that advocates low immigration.
The Center for Immigration Studies issued a report Friday that found 1.5 million fewer U.S.-born workers employed in 2014 than prior to the recession in 2007. Foreign-born employment for both legal and illegal immigrants increased by more than 2 million workers during the same time period.
Low-Income
Workers Fleeing California
Wall Street Journal reporter Allysia Finley on low-income
people fleeing California, in
addition to the rich.
addition to the rich.
Most Illegal
Immigrant Families Collect Welfare… ALL GET AMERICAN JOBS???
April
05, 2011
Surprise, surprise; Census Bureau data reveals that most U.S.
families headed by illegal immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare programs on
behalf of their American-born anchor babies.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/02/amnesty-or-looted-under-obama-
one.html
THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: No Legal Need Apply!
ZUCKERBERG: AMERICA’S GREEDY LITTLE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HISPANDER!
ONE IN FIVE (LEGALS) STILL HAVE NO WORK AFTER THE RECESSION – Good time to hand 40 million looting Mexicans even more of our jobs???
THE WAY OUR GOVERNMENT AVOID THE BELOW IS WITH OBAMA’S OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS TO PERMIT HORDES OF ILLEGALS TO JUMP OUR BORDERS AND JOBS… then the American middle class gets the tax bills for the staggering cost of Mexico’s looting.
THE ENTIRE REASON BEHIND THE DEMS’
AND NOW GOP’S PLAN FOR AMNESTY IS TO KEEP THEIR CORPORATE PAYMASTERS HAPPY WITH
THE DEPRESSED WAGES THAT 40 MILLION OCCUPYING MEXICANS CAUSE!
Obama’s plan for long-term jobless: A teaspoon to bail out the ocean
By Patrick Martin
The heavily publicized meeting between President Obama and several hundred
corporate CEOs and other business leaders will do little or nothing to
alleviate long-term unemployment. Those out of work for six months or more, the
nominal beneficiaries of the effort, are only slightly more likely to get a job
thanks to the Obama administration than they are to be struck by lightning.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-many-dem-voting-illegals-will-get.html
NAFTA BORDERS and BILLIONAIRES
one.html
JOBS 71% GO TO FOREIGNERS.... but isn't that why we
have open borders?
have open borders?
Report: 71 Percent of New Jobs Go to Foreign
Born Legal, Illegal Immigrants in NH | CNS News …. THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS
STILL GETS THE TAX BILLS FOR MEXICO’S WELFARE
STATE IN OUR OPEN BORDERS!
ACROSS THE NATION
DEM POLS HAVE FOUGHT
E-VERIFY TO EASE MILLIONS MORE ILLEGALS INTO
OUR JOBS.
E-VERIFY TO EASE MILLIONS MORE ILLEGALS INTO
OUR JOBS.
THE DEPRESSED WAGES
ENDLESS HORDES OF ILLEGALS CAUSE KEEPS DEM PAYMASTERS HAPPY AND GENEROUS….
Amnesty… it’s all about keeping wages depressed and building the DEM LA RAZA
PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS!
OBAMANOMICS and OPEN BORDERS:
The
report found that the growth of global inequality has accelerated sharply since
the 2008 financial crisis, as the values of financial assets have soared while
wages have stagnated and declined.
THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS
ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!
ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!
"We could cut
unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal
workers," said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the
Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. "President Obama is on the wrong side of the
American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help
citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than
fail to enforce immigration laws."
Obama and Justice
Sotomayor Vow to Illegals to SABOTAGE E-verify!
VIVA LA RAZA SUPREMACY?
“What employers really want in many cases by hiring immigrants is to
hold down wage costs, experts say.”
UNDER OBAMA, TWO-THIRDS OF JOBS
GO TO HIS PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS!
“At
the hearing, Dr. Rakesh Kochar, Associate
Director for Research at the Pew Hispanic Center,
testified that in the year following the official end of
the recession (June 2009), foreign-born workers
gained 656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost
an additional 1.2 million jobs.”
Director for Research at the Pew Hispanic Center,
testified that in the year following the official end of
the recession (June 2009), foreign-born workers
gained 656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost
an additional 1.2 million jobs.”
"We
have a situation where the job market — the bottom fell out, yet we kept legal
immigration relatively high without even a national debate," he said.
"As a consequence, a lot of the job growth has been going to
immigrants."
Mr.
Obama did take action this year to grant many illegal immigrants up to 30 years
of age a tentative legal status that prevents them from being deported and authorizes
them to work in the United States.
Some
Republicans in Congress have criticized Mr. Obama's policy, saying it violates
his powers and will mean more competition for scarce jobs.
This report is another example of the obscene
concentration of wealth in America that has raised
inequality to a level not seen in more than a century.
Wages for workers in the United States are at their
lowest level since the 1950s.
AMNESTY and the
UNEMPLOYMENT concentration of wealth in America that has raised
inequality to a level not seen in more than a century.
Wages for workers in the United States are at their
lowest level since the 1950s.
CRISIS FOR LEGALS: 71% of all jobs go to
foreign born, both legal
and ILLEGAL!
WAL-MART: Their
assault on the American worker
Wal-Mart jobs have become synonymous with poverty wages and
poor working conditions. Hundreds of thousands of Wal-Mart workers rely on food
stamps, other public programs and food banks simply to get by, and American
taxpayers pay $6.2 billion annually to subsidize Wal-Mart's poverty wages.
LA RAZA SUPREMACIST
MARK ZUCKERBERG
MARK ZUCKERBERG
WANTS
OPEN BORDERS…. except for his!
Today, Sen. Jeff
Sessions (R-Ala.) blasted pro-amnesty billionaires whose fondness for open
borders ends at the doors of their "gated compounds and fenced-off communities,"
noting how Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg bought other four houses surrounding
his own just because he wanted "a little privacy."
ZUCKERBERG: AMERICA’S GREEDY LITTLE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HISPANDER!
his
one man war against the AMERICAN worker!
Today, Sen. Jeff
Sessions (R-Ala.) blasted pro-amnesty billionaires whose fondness for open
borders ends at the doors of their "gated compounds and fenced-off
communities," noting how Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg bought other four
houses surrounding his own just because he wanted "a little privacy."
BILL GATES FIRES
EMPLOYEES AND
THEN DEMANDS AMNESTY TO KEEP THE
MEX HORDES JUMPING OUR BORDERS!
THEN DEMANDS AMNESTY TO KEEP THE
MEX HORDES JUMPING OUR BORDERS!
ZUCKERBERG tech says no to hiring AMERICANS
OPEN BORDERS AND
ENDLESS HORDES OF IMMIGRANTS POURING IN IS ONLY ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED
To
cite just one example, if there is a shortage of U.S. engineers, are 1.5
million Americans with engineering degrees either unemployed or working in
other fields? In all too many cases, U.S. tech companies prefer foreign workers
on temporary visas because they are cheaper and more exploitable than
Americans.
HE
CONNED A NATION LIKE A CHICAGO HUCKSTER AND CALLED IT “HOPE and CHANGE” ONLY TO
BECOME BUSH’S THIRD AND FORTH TERMS ON STEROIDS!
A new ABC News
poll has nothing but heartache for Democrats and President Obama. By a wide
margin of 52-42%, voters see President Obama as a failed president. Americans
also see Obama as more of a divider than uniter. Only 38% believe President
Obama is uniting the country. A majority of 55% believe he's dividing the
country.
BILLIONAIRE BILL GATES:
Number One enemy of the American worker.
Number One enemy of the American worker.
He didn’t get rich paying legals a living
wage!!!
ONE IN FIVE (LEGALS) STILL HAVE NO WORK AFTER THE RECESSION – Good time to hand 40 million looting Mexicans even more of our jobs???
OBAMA AND
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY ARE WORKING ON JUST THAT!
TOP
IBM OUTSOURCES
Whether it’s through the exporting of jobs overseas or the
importing of foreign workers, the hiring and lobbying practices of big business
have big results. The relentless pursuit of the bottom line, whether through
offshoring or packing payrolls with immigrants eager for an American job at any
wage, lowers the living standard of all citizens.
H-1B VISAS – THE CONSPIRACY TO KEEP
WAGES DEPRESSED WITH ENDLESS
BOATLOADS OF FOREIGNERS IMPORTED
TO LOOT OUR JOBS
WAGES DEPRESSED WITH ENDLESS
BOATLOADS OF FOREIGNERS IMPORTED
TO LOOT OUR JOBS
tech says no to hiring AMERICANS
OPEN BORDERS AND
ENDLESS HORDES OF IMMIGRANTS POURING IN IS ONLY ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED
To
cite just one example, if there is a shortage of U.S. engineers, are 1.5
million Americans with engineering degrees either unemployed or working in
other fields? In all too many cases, U.S. tech companies prefer foreign workers
on temporary visas because they are cheaper and more exploitable than
Americans.
OPEN BORDERS AND
ENDLESS HORDES OF IMMIGRANTS POURING IN IS ONLY ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED
To
cite just one example, if there is a shortage of U.S. engineers, are 1.5
million Americans with engineering degrees either unemployed or working in
other fields? In all too many cases, U.S. tech companies prefer foreign workers
on temporary visas because they are cheaper and more exploitable than
Americans.
WALL STREET LOOTS!
THE STAGGERING COST OF OBAMA’S
CORPORATE WELFARE PROGRAM:
LIKE HIS CRONY BANKSTERS, Tech CEOs literally got access to the Oval Office
while the bill was being shaped, the New
York Times reported in those heady early days of Hope and Change,
while the CEOs’ lobbyists met down the hall with top economics aide Jason
Furman.
DEATH OF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE
CLASS
CLASS
OBAMA’S WALL STREET DRIVE CRONY CAPITALISM
The Great Recession should have put the victim-blaming theory
of poverty to rest. In the space of only a few months, millions of people
entered the ranks of the officially poor—not only laid-off blue-collar workers,
but also downsized tech workers, managers, lawyers, and other once-comfortable
professionals. No one could accuse these “nouveau poor” Americans of having
made bad choices or bad lifestyle decisions. They were educated, hardworking,
and ambitious, and now they were also poor—applying for food stamps, showing up
in shelters, lining up for entry-level jobs in retail. This would have been the
moment for the pundits to finally admit the truth: Poverty is not a character
failing or a lack of motivation. Poverty is a shortage of money.
“Tech tycoons like Larry Ellison and
Mark
Zuckerberg have gotten rich while wages in
the technology sector have
stagnated.”
THE WAY OUR GOVERNMENT AVOID THE BELOW IS WITH OBAMA’S OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS TO PERMIT HORDES OF ILLEGALS TO JUMP OUR BORDERS AND JOBS… then the American middle class gets the tax bills for the staggering cost of Mexico’s looting.
There are ample
resources to guarantee every worker and young person a job at decent pay, a
high quality education, decent housing and nutrition, access to culture, and a
secure retirement—the basic social rights which every person should enjoy.
THE ENTIRE BASIS OF AMNESTY IS TO KEEP WAGES
DEPRESSED.
DEPRESSED.
“Tech tycoons like Larry Ellison
and Mark Zuckerberg have gotten rich while wages in the technology sector have
stagnated.”
Tech firms fight hiring rules in immigration bill
Tech firms fight hiring rules in immigration bill
Americans
would "be shocked to know that most of the H-1B visas … are going to
outsourcing companies," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said during a recent
hearing.
America… NO LEGAL NEED APPLY!
One-way trips to U. S. frustrate immigration authorities
An estimated
4.4 million people entered the country on legal visas and have never left.
Officials often have no way of knowing whether they do.
THE ENTIRE REASON BEHIND THE DEMS’
AND NOW GOP’S PLAN FOR AMNESTY IS TO KEEP THEIR CORPORATE PAYMASTERS HAPPY WITH
THE DEPRESSED WAGES THAT 40 MILLION OCCUPYING MEXICANS CAUSE!
Obama’s plan for long-term jobless: A teaspoon to bail out the ocean
By Patrick Martin
1 February 2014
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-many-dem-voting-illegals-will-get.html
NAFTA BORDERS and BILLIONAIRES
AMNESTY: America’s death warrant
THE CONSPIRACY to DESTROY AMERICA’S BORDERS… Obama
and his Wall Street banksters
“This nation no longer is a democratic
republic...rather it has become a tool of the super-rich members of the above mentioned elite who
preselect our presidents based on their cooperation and complicity with the
elite’s ultimate goals. Obama has, in their opinion done superbly carrying out
the plans well laid out for him by his backers.”
BILLIONAIRES
partner with MEXICO, OBAMA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to assault the
AMERICAN WORKER…. Amnesty, it’s all about keeping wages depressed and passing
along the real cost of all that “cheap” mex labor to the American middle class.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/08/billionaires-for-la-raza-supremacy.html
LA RAZA-OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES: JOBS GO
ONLY TO ILLEGALS …. you wondered why the
Democrat Party made E-VERIFY ILLEGAL?!?
ONLY TO ILLEGALS …. you wondered why the
Democrat Party made E-VERIFY ILLEGAL?!?
As an example, the inspector general offers ICE’s Los Angeles
field office which has flouted federal policy by creating its own private
system of worksite enforcement. During the three-year period considered by the
watchdog the office conducted 147 investigations, with 7% resulting in fines
and 55% in warnings. Even in instances where more than half of a business’s
federal employee verification forms (known as I-9) had “substantive errors” the
federal agents in L.A. only issued warnings instead of fines. One business
mentioned in the report had its fine slashed an astounding 78%, from $4.9
million to a little over $1 million.
CRONY CAPITALISM and WEALTH INEQUALITY in AMERICA
How Barack Obama destroyed the American middle class and
built Mexico’s LA RAZA welfare state in America.
OBAMANOMICS
FROM
THE HOPE & CHANGE & LOOTING” BY CRONIES CLOWN
THE
ENTIRE REASON BORDERS ARE SABOTAGED IS TO INVITE ENDLESS HORDES
OF ILLEGALS INTO OUR COUNTRY TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED. THE AMERICAN
MIDDLE CLASS GETS THE TAX BILLS FOR THEIR LOOTING, WELFARE, ANCHOR
BABIES AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE!
OF ILLEGALS INTO OUR COUNTRY TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED. THE AMERICAN
MIDDLE CLASS GETS THE TAX BILLS FOR THEIR LOOTING, WELFARE, ANCHOR
BABIES AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE!
The US ruling elite has reached a historical dead end. It
staggers from crisis to crisis, trying to put out fires with gasoline. This
pragmatic, shortsighted and parasitic approach to the crisis of the US economy
is expressive of the basic physiognomy of the financial elite. This is a social
layer that has amassed its wealth not through productive activity, but through
the looting of society: raiding pension funds, slashing wages, shutting down
industrial facilities and laying off workers.
JEFF SESSIONS on the OBAMA ASSAULT on the
AMERICAN (Legal) WORKER:
“The President is providing an estimated 5 million
illegal immigrants with social security numbers, photo IDs, and work
permits—allowing them to now take jobs directly from struggling Americans
during a time of record immigration, low wages, and high joblessness.”
“The
President’s plan also calls for boosting foreign worker programs for IT
companies that experts tell us displace U.S. workers and keep wages low,”
Sessions said. “The President’s unconstitutional action is a direct threat to
our Republican system of government and will have catastrophic consequences for
the American people. It must be stopped. And the way to stop it is by using
Congress’ power of the purse.”
Does Immigration Harm Working Americans?
By
The job news is increasingly good: 321,000 jobs created in November. Yet the national economic mood remains grimly bleak.
Many Americans feel a sharp distinction between what’s said about “the” economy and what they experience in “their” economy. At the top of the income distribution, wages are rising. In the middle and bottom, wages stagnate. Jobs are created, yes—but native-born Americans are not hired for them.
Last month, the Center for Immigration Studies released its latest jobs study. CIS, a research organization that tends to favor tight immigration policies, found that even now, almost seven years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans are working than in November 2007, the peak of the prior economic cycle. Balancing the 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans at work, there are 2 million more immigrants—legal and illegal—working in the United States today than in November 2007. All the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants. Meanwhile, millions of native-born Americans, especially men, have abandoned the job market altogether. The percentage of men aged 25 to 54 who are working or looking for work has dropped to the lowest point in recorded history.
Labor Force Participation Rate Among Men Aged 25 to 54, 2004-2014
It's said again and again that immigrants do not take jobs from natives. Here’s National Journal, reporting just last year, under the headline "Left and Right Agree: Immigrants Don't Take American Jobs":
Before deciding whom to trust on this issue, the economists or your lying eyes, it helps to understand how the economists reached their conclusion.
Since the time of Adam Smith, economists have agreed that the secret of economic growth is specialization. Rather than everyone baking his or her own bread and sewing his or her own clothes, everyone chooses one occupation and then trades for the products others make. The more individuals specialize, the more productive everyone becomes. The more people trade, the more widely the benefits of productivity are shared.
Immigration economists apply this insight to the domestic labor market. One of the most eminent specialists in the field of immigration economics, Giovanni Peri of the University of California at Davis, offers this homely analogy:
So long as everyone imagines that low-wage immigrant workers are paired off with high-wage natives, such assurances seem credible. The foreign-born nanny enables her college-educated employer to return to the workforce earlier, raising wages for both nanny and employer. The foreign-born gardener mows the lawn, freeing his accountant employer to spend Saturday morning billing clients.
Even as the encounter between low-paid immigrants and highly paid natives becomes more distant and abstract, the complementary relationship of their labor seems to hold. Immigrant labor enables middle-class Americans to buy a roasted chicken and pre-washed salad at the supermarket or to check a box and have their holiday presents arrive at their door already gift-wrapped. Upper-income Americans live easier and more efficient lives thanks to millions of low-paid immigrant workers they never see and whose names they never know.
But what about everybody else? The promise of the immigration economists is not that some Americans, the already successful, would be enriched even further. The promise is that all Americans would be made better off, even if they don’t employ nannies, even if they mow their own lawns, even if they can't afford the rotisserie chicken, even if they shop at the thrift store rather than Amazon. How can that be possibly be true?
The answer embedded in the economic models is that immigration prods even less affluent natives to shift away from immigrant-dominated economic niches and find new work that pays better. The immigrant groundskeeper can’t speak English very well, so the lawn service hires a bilingual Mexican-American to supervise him. The rising numbers of immigrant nannies call forth specialized payroll firms that hire native-born workers to process checks and pay taxes. More supermarkets operating more chicken rotisseries causes local governments to hire more health officers to confirm the chicken meets sanitary standards. More immigrants wrapping presents in L.L.Bean’s warehouses mean more native-born UPS drivers delivering presents.
Everybody wins!
Yet three things have to be said about the above story.
First: The story about immigration benefiting all (or almost all) native workers could be true. But that doesn’t mean it is true. Economists prove their claims about immigrant law by drawing regression curves that compare ratios between data sets based upon the number and the pay of immigrant and native workers. Have they drawn their data sets correctly? Did they choose the correct basis for comparison?
These technical decisions at the beginning of the calculation have huge impacts on the final conclusion at the end. Between 1990 and 2006, the wages of non-college-educated Americans declined. The less education the worker had, the steeper the decline. How much was immigration responsible? The data the economist chooses to look at will determine the answer.
Let’s go to the fine print, relying on a critique of Giovanni Peri’s work by George Borjas, of Harvard’s Kennedy School. Aggregate high-school dropout and high-school graduates together, and immigrant labor accounted for 13.2 percent of the increase in hours worked between 1990 and the onset of the Great Recession: big, but not cataclysmic. But if you take more care to compare like with like, you begin to see huge supply shocks. Among high-school dropouts only, immigrants accounted for 23 percent of the increase in hours worked between 1990 and 2006. Among high school dropouts in their 30s and 40s, immigrants accounted for over one-third of the increase in hours worked.
Here’s what that means for economic modeling. If you assume that all low-education workers are potential substitutes for each other—the 23-year-old recent arrival from Guatemala with the 53-year-old who proceeded from high school to the Army—then your model will show a less dramatic effect of immigration on wages. If, however, you assume that the 23-year-old Guatemalan is competing with 20- and 30-something native-born workers who lack diplomas, then your model will show a very big effect.
A model based on unrealistic assumptions can still achieve perfect internal consistency. It just won’t describe the real world very accurately. Which seems to be precisely what is happening with immigration economics.
Second: If the economists are right about the complementarity of immigrant and native labor, it’s important to understand how and why. Back in the 20th century, there were presumably many accountants who would have preferred to spend Saturday mornings finishing their work rather than mowing the lawn. There were many new mothers who would have returned to work if nanny services had been more widely available. What changed between, say, 1970 and 2005? The short answer is that the cost of employing people in these immigrant-dominated niches plummeted, in real terms. Because the cost plummeted, more hiring occurred in those niches, enabling the mothers to return to work, the accountants to spend Saturday mornings at the office.
Economic popularizers passionately deny that immigration causes wage declines and job displacement. From the point of view of several actual economists, however, these reassurances are so much uninformed propaganda. As the technical economists understand, wage cuts and job displacement are the exact and only ways that immigration confers any benefits on native workers at all. It is wage decline and job displacement that drives natives to shift to higher-paid sectors. No wage cuts, no job displacement. No jobs displaced, no benefit to natives. Here’s Peri saying just that: "Large inflows of less educated immigrants may reduce wages paid to comparably-educated, native-born workers. However, if less educated foreign- and native-born workers specialize in different production tasks, because of different abilities, immigration will cause natives to reallocate their task supply, thereby reducing downward wage pressure.”
When economists minimize the impact of immigration on wages, they aren’t denying that immigration pushes wages down in the jobs that immigrants take. They concede that immigration does do that. They celebrate that immigration does that. Instead, they join their celebration of immigration’s wage-cutting effects with a prediction about the way that the natives will respond.
But what if the prediction is wrong? What if natives respond to immigrant competition by shifting out of the labor market entirely, by qualifying for disability pensions? The proportion of the population receiving disability pensions doubled between 1985 and 2005 and jumped by another 20 percent during the Great Recession. 14 million Americans now receive disability pensions. The evidence is compelling that disability applications rise when the job market weakens.
Why? Economists talk too blithely about natives shifting to more skilled and remunerative work. Up-skilling costs time, effort, and money. It can oblige a worker to move away from family and friends. It forces older workers to begin again at a time in their lives when they felt settled, to risk failure at a time in life when risk is not appreciated. It’s not highly surprising that many displaced workers would opt to give up on work altogether instead.
The exit of native-born men from the workforce—at least arguably because of immigration—has the curious side effect of tilting the immigration models in a pro-immigration direction. Remember, the models are based on ratios of hours worked and wages paid. If a native-born janitor earning $18 an hour is displaced by an immigrant and then shifts to a $12 an hour retail job, the models capture that change as a harm to native-born workers. But if the displaced native-born janitor exits the labor force, he disappears from the model altogether, and with him, the evidence of the harm. It may seem crazy, but it’s the way the model is built.
Third: Economists habitually regard the free movement of investment, goods, and people as the natural order of things. They don’t feel much need to explain such movements, any more than lawyers ask why people violate contracts or doctors ask why people fall off ladders.
Yet immigration is inescapably a political act. Nations can regulate immigration, can make choices about which immigrants they allow and how many, about how strictly labor laws will be policed and what will be done with lawbreakers.
Theoretically, a nation could determine that high-skill labor is complementary to low-skilled labor and make decisions such as the following:
“If we admit a lot of foreign-born surgeons, we could hugely drive down the cost of major medical operations. American-born doctors would shift their labor to fields where their language facility gave them a competitive advantage: away from surgery to general practice. This policy would hugely enhance the relative purchasing power of plumbers and mechanics, enabling them to eat out more often and buy more American-made entertainment, increasing GDP and creating jobs.”
Or: “The ratio of CEO pay to other workers has skyrocketed. Obviously we are suffering from a glut of workers and massive CEO scarcity. We should issue work permits automatically to any executive with a job offer that pays more than $500,000 a year. Americans with organizational skills will be pressed to shift to the public sector, improving the quality and lowering the cost to taxpayers of government services.”
But that’s not how things are done. In the United States, the hypothesis of native-immigrant complementarity is deployed to justify policies that intensify competition for the lower and middle echelons of the society, rarely near the top. Perhaps it doesn’t have to be that way, yet somehow it always is.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/does-immigration-harm-working-americans/384060/
Tech firms fight hiring rules in
immigration bill…. NO AMERICANS NEED APPLY!!!
Story Highlights
Many Americans feel a sharp distinction between what’s said about “the” economy and what they experience in “their” economy. At the top of the income distribution, wages are rising. In the middle and bottom, wages stagnate. Jobs are created, yes—but native-born Americans are not hired for them.
Last month, the Center for Immigration Studies released its latest jobs study. CIS, a research organization that tends to favor tight immigration policies, found that even now, almost seven years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans are working than in November 2007, the peak of the prior economic cycle. Balancing the 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans at work, there are 2 million more immigrants—legal and illegal—working in the United States today than in November 2007. All the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants. Meanwhile, millions of native-born Americans, especially men, have abandoned the job market altogether. The percentage of men aged 25 to 54 who are working or looking for work has dropped to the lowest point in recorded history.
Labor Force Participation Rate Among Men Aged 25 to 54, 2004-2014
It's said again and again that immigrants do not take jobs from natives. Here’s National Journal, reporting just last year, under the headline "Left and Right Agree: Immigrants Don't Take American Jobs":
That immigrants take the jobs of American-born citizens is “something that virtually no learned person believes in,” Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said at a Thursday panel. “It’s sort of a silly thing.”
Most economists don’t find immigrants driving down wages or jobs, the Brookings Institution’s Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney wrote in May. In fact, “on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans,” they write. Foreign-born workers don’t affect the employment rate positively or negatively, according to a 2011 analysis from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. And a study released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress suggests that granting legal status to undocumented workers might even create jobs.So there you have it. Experts say it’s impossible. Can’t be happening. And if actual observed data from the real economy seem to suggest that the impossible is happening—well, Albert Einstein himself answered that one. If the material universe doesn’t support the theory: “Then I’d feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct."
Before deciding whom to trust on this issue, the economists or your lying eyes, it helps to understand how the economists reached their conclusion.
Since the time of Adam Smith, economists have agreed that the secret of economic growth is specialization. Rather than everyone baking his or her own bread and sewing his or her own clothes, everyone chooses one occupation and then trades for the products others make. The more individuals specialize, the more productive everyone becomes. The more people trade, the more widely the benefits of productivity are shared.
Immigration economists apply this insight to the domestic labor market. One of the most eminent specialists in the field of immigration economics, Giovanni Peri of the University of California at Davis, offers this homely analogy:
An extreme example of this would be if you have an engineer and you add a construction worker. With the engineer by himself you’re not going to do much. But with an engineer plus a construction worker, you can build a building. Therefore, the productivity of the engineer goes up a lot. And the wages for both workers increase.The technical term for the situation Peri is describing is “complementarity.” The labor of the engineer and the labor of the construction worker each complement the other. Immigration economists argue that immigrant labor likewise complements native-born labor. As Peri assured readers in a 2010 paper for the San Francisco Federal Reserve, "Immigrants expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity. Consistent with previous research, there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.”
So long as everyone imagines that low-wage immigrant workers are paired off with high-wage natives, such assurances seem credible. The foreign-born nanny enables her college-educated employer to return to the workforce earlier, raising wages for both nanny and employer. The foreign-born gardener mows the lawn, freeing his accountant employer to spend Saturday morning billing clients.
Even as the encounter between low-paid immigrants and highly paid natives becomes more distant and abstract, the complementary relationship of their labor seems to hold. Immigrant labor enables middle-class Americans to buy a roasted chicken and pre-washed salad at the supermarket or to check a box and have their holiday presents arrive at their door already gift-wrapped. Upper-income Americans live easier and more efficient lives thanks to millions of low-paid immigrant workers they never see and whose names they never know.
But what about everybody else? The promise of the immigration economists is not that some Americans, the already successful, would be enriched even further. The promise is that all Americans would be made better off, even if they don’t employ nannies, even if they mow their own lawns, even if they can't afford the rotisserie chicken, even if they shop at the thrift store rather than Amazon. How can that be possibly be true?
The answer embedded in the economic models is that immigration prods even less affluent natives to shift away from immigrant-dominated economic niches and find new work that pays better. The immigrant groundskeeper can’t speak English very well, so the lawn service hires a bilingual Mexican-American to supervise him. The rising numbers of immigrant nannies call forth specialized payroll firms that hire native-born workers to process checks and pay taxes. More supermarkets operating more chicken rotisseries causes local governments to hire more health officers to confirm the chicken meets sanitary standards. More immigrants wrapping presents in L.L.Bean’s warehouses mean more native-born UPS drivers delivering presents.
Everybody wins!
Yet three things have to be said about the above story.
First: The story about immigration benefiting all (or almost all) native workers could be true. But that doesn’t mean it is true. Economists prove their claims about immigrant law by drawing regression curves that compare ratios between data sets based upon the number and the pay of immigrant and native workers. Have they drawn their data sets correctly? Did they choose the correct basis for comparison?
These technical decisions at the beginning of the calculation have huge impacts on the final conclusion at the end. Between 1990 and 2006, the wages of non-college-educated Americans declined. The less education the worker had, the steeper the decline. How much was immigration responsible? The data the economist chooses to look at will determine the answer.
Let’s go to the fine print, relying on a critique of Giovanni Peri’s work by George Borjas, of Harvard’s Kennedy School. Aggregate high-school dropout and high-school graduates together, and immigrant labor accounted for 13.2 percent of the increase in hours worked between 1990 and the onset of the Great Recession: big, but not cataclysmic. But if you take more care to compare like with like, you begin to see huge supply shocks. Among high-school dropouts only, immigrants accounted for 23 percent of the increase in hours worked between 1990 and 2006. Among high school dropouts in their 30s and 40s, immigrants accounted for over one-third of the increase in hours worked.
Here’s what that means for economic modeling. If you assume that all low-education workers are potential substitutes for each other—the 23-year-old recent arrival from Guatemala with the 53-year-old who proceeded from high school to the Army—then your model will show a less dramatic effect of immigration on wages. If, however, you assume that the 23-year-old Guatemalan is competing with 20- and 30-something native-born workers who lack diplomas, then your model will show a very big effect.
A model based on unrealistic assumptions can still achieve perfect internal consistency. It just won’t describe the real world very accurately. Which seems to be precisely what is happening with immigration economics.
Second: If the economists are right about the complementarity of immigrant and native labor, it’s important to understand how and why. Back in the 20th century, there were presumably many accountants who would have preferred to spend Saturday mornings finishing their work rather than mowing the lawn. There were many new mothers who would have returned to work if nanny services had been more widely available. What changed between, say, 1970 and 2005? The short answer is that the cost of employing people in these immigrant-dominated niches plummeted, in real terms. Because the cost plummeted, more hiring occurred in those niches, enabling the mothers to return to work, the accountants to spend Saturday mornings at the office.
Economic popularizers passionately deny that immigration causes wage declines and job displacement. From the point of view of several actual economists, however, these reassurances are so much uninformed propaganda. As the technical economists understand, wage cuts and job displacement are the exact and only ways that immigration confers any benefits on native workers at all. It is wage decline and job displacement that drives natives to shift to higher-paid sectors. No wage cuts, no job displacement. No jobs displaced, no benefit to natives. Here’s Peri saying just that: "Large inflows of less educated immigrants may reduce wages paid to comparably-educated, native-born workers. However, if less educated foreign- and native-born workers specialize in different production tasks, because of different abilities, immigration will cause natives to reallocate their task supply, thereby reducing downward wage pressure.”
When economists minimize the impact of immigration on wages, they aren’t denying that immigration pushes wages down in the jobs that immigrants take. They concede that immigration does do that. They celebrate that immigration does that. Instead, they join their celebration of immigration’s wage-cutting effects with a prediction about the way that the natives will respond.
But what if the prediction is wrong? What if natives respond to immigrant competition by shifting out of the labor market entirely, by qualifying for disability pensions? The proportion of the population receiving disability pensions doubled between 1985 and 2005 and jumped by another 20 percent during the Great Recession. 14 million Americans now receive disability pensions. The evidence is compelling that disability applications rise when the job market weakens.
Why? Economists talk too blithely about natives shifting to more skilled and remunerative work. Up-skilling costs time, effort, and money. It can oblige a worker to move away from family and friends. It forces older workers to begin again at a time in their lives when they felt settled, to risk failure at a time in life when risk is not appreciated. It’s not highly surprising that many displaced workers would opt to give up on work altogether instead.
The exit of native-born men from the workforce—at least arguably because of immigration—has the curious side effect of tilting the immigration models in a pro-immigration direction. Remember, the models are based on ratios of hours worked and wages paid. If a native-born janitor earning $18 an hour is displaced by an immigrant and then shifts to a $12 an hour retail job, the models capture that change as a harm to native-born workers. But if the displaced native-born janitor exits the labor force, he disappears from the model altogether, and with him, the evidence of the harm. It may seem crazy, but it’s the way the model is built.
Third: Economists habitually regard the free movement of investment, goods, and people as the natural order of things. They don’t feel much need to explain such movements, any more than lawyers ask why people violate contracts or doctors ask why people fall off ladders.
Yet immigration is inescapably a political act. Nations can regulate immigration, can make choices about which immigrants they allow and how many, about how strictly labor laws will be policed and what will be done with lawbreakers.
Theoretically, a nation could determine that high-skill labor is complementary to low-skilled labor and make decisions such as the following:
“If we admit a lot of foreign-born surgeons, we could hugely drive down the cost of major medical operations. American-born doctors would shift their labor to fields where their language facility gave them a competitive advantage: away from surgery to general practice. This policy would hugely enhance the relative purchasing power of plumbers and mechanics, enabling them to eat out more often and buy more American-made entertainment, increasing GDP and creating jobs.”
Or: “The ratio of CEO pay to other workers has skyrocketed. Obviously we are suffering from a glut of workers and massive CEO scarcity. We should issue work permits automatically to any executive with a job offer that pays more than $500,000 a year. Americans with organizational skills will be pressed to shift to the public sector, improving the quality and lowering the cost to taxpayers of government services.”
But that’s not how things are done. In the United States, the hypothesis of native-immigrant complementarity is deployed to justify policies that intensify competition for the lower and middle echelons of the society, rarely near the top. Perhaps it doesn’t have to be that way, yet somehow it always is.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/does-immigration-harm-working-americans/384060/
Tech firms fight hiring rules in
immigration bill…. NO AMERICANS NEED APPLY!!!
Americans would "be shocked to know that most
of the H-1B visas … are going to outsourcing companies," Sen. Dick Durbin,
D-Ill., said during a recent hearing.
Story Highlights
- Bill provision that would require
firms to post jobs for Americans is targeted
- Technology firms have spent millions
on lobbying on immigration
- Judiciary Committee set to start
working on bill
WASHINGTON
– Technology firms, exercising new political clout on Capitol Hill, are lobbying
against a measure in the leading Senate immigration bill that would make it
harder for them to recruit workers from abroad without first taking steps to
hire Americans for highly skilled jobs in programming, engineering and other
fields.
The
measure, part of a sweeping compromise bill drafted by a bipartisan group of
eight senators, would require job openings to be posted on a new government
website for 30 days and order companies to first extend job offers to
"equally or better qualified" U.S. workers. It would give the U.S.
Labor Department the power to review and challenge those hiring decisions.
Proponents
say the measures are needed to curb abuses by companies who they say use the
visa program to hire cheaper labor. Technology companies say the proposed rules
would cripple their ability to hire the best employees from a global workforce
and represent inappropriate government intrusion in internal hiring decisions.
The
fight over hiring practices is part of the massive lobbying campaign underway
on the immigration measure and will offer a fresh test of the technology
industry's growing influence in Washington. The companies involved in the
computer and Internet sectors spent nearly $140 million in lobbying last year
-- more than twice the $69 million the industry poured into influencing
Washington a decade earlier, according to data compiled by the Center for
Responsive Politics, which tracks political spending.
The
Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin work on the bill Thursday.
The
hiring battle centers on the program that grants H-1B visas, which go mostly to
college-educated foreigners in science, technology, engineering and mathematics
fields. Technology companies say they face a chronic shortage of qualified
workers in these fields. The United States sets an annual limit of 85,000 visas
for these companies, and the competition for them is intense: This year, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services opened up the application process April 1,
and the cap was reached within a week.
Industry
groups have made big gains in the Senate's immigration proposal. The bill, for
instance, Would increase the H-1B cap to 205,000 annually. However, tech
officials warn the new recruiting requirements could drive companies to move
their skilled jobs overseas, rather than comply. A commonly cited example:
Microsoft's decision to open a software center in Vancouver, British Columbia,
after Congress failed to pass immigration legislation in 2007 that would have
significantly increased the number of H-1B visas.
Under
the bill, "employers are going to have an arbitrary government standard
imposed on every hiring decision," said Robert Hoffman, the top lobbyist
for the Information Technology Industry Council, a trade group. The proposed
rule, he said, ignores subjective factors that influence hiring. "A
perfect example: How does one define whether or not someone has the personality
to fit into a corporate culture?" he said.
"We
are not trying to change any of the fundamental policy goals that they are
trying to achieve" in the Senate, Hoffman said. "We are just trying
to tweak it, so that these goals and other goals, like retaining the best and
brightest and growing in the United States, so that those types of goals are
advanced as well."
Ron
Hira, an associate professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of
Technology, has criticized the visa program, saying it allows firms to hire
"cheap indentured labor."
"The
technology industry is asking the government to come in and intervene in the
normal functioning of the U.S. labor market, specifically on their
behalf," Hira said.
Bruce
Morrison, a former Connecticut congressman who lobbies on behalf of a group
that represents American engineers, said the organization will object to any
effort to "dilute worker protections" as the measure moves through
the Senate. "The arguments from the companies is that there aren't any
Americans to take these jobs," he said, "so there shouldn't be any
problem."
The
biggest users of H-1B visas are not brand-name companies, but little-known
staffing companies that provide foreign workers on a temporary basis to U.S.
companies — including banks, health insurance companies and big retailers.
Cognizant, a New Jersey-based company that employs 27,000 people in the USA, is
the top user of the temporary visas, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
records show. Most of its workers come from India.
In
addition, three India-based outsourcing companies rank among the top five
recipients of H-1Bs, according to the federal data.
Americans would "be shocked to know that most
of the H-1B visas … are going to outsourcing companies," Sen. Dick Durbin,
D-Ill., one of eight senators who drafted the immigration bill, said during a
recent hearing. "They're going to these firms, largely in India, who are finding
workers, engineers, who will work at low wages in the U.S."
Durbin
is a driving force behind the hiring requirements in the Senate proposal.
The
measure would make business harder for staffing companies dependent on foreign
workers. It would impose higher fees on firms that rely on overseas employees
for more than 30% of their workforce. Starting in 2016, the bill would bar
granting any new temporary visas for foreign workers at companies with more
than half their workers on the visas. Both measures apply to companies that
employ more than 50 people.
Cognizant
spokesman John Procter said he did not have a breakdown on the percentage of
the company's workers in the USA on H-1B visas. He said the bill imposes an
"arbitrary, detrimental restriction on the number of skilled
immigrants."
"It
would really change the way America does business," he said. "The
company is very focused on educating legislators and making sure this language
doesn't make its way into any final outcome."
Cognizant
hired its first federal lobbyist in 2010 andby last year, it had spent nearly
$1 million on federal lobbying, congressional records show. Its team includes
Democratic power broker Heather Podesta, who did not return a telephone call.
Other companies also have stepped up their political activity.
Last
month, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Netflix's Reed Hastings, Google's Eric
Schmidt and other technology executives teamed up to underwrite an advocacy
group to promote their views on immigration. Two of its subsidiaries began a
seven-figure advertising campaign to shore up voter support for key senators in
the immigration debate.
The tech
industry "has clearly come of age," said Ellen Miller, executive
director of the Sunlight Foundation. "In the last decade, we've seen this
tremendous recognition from Silicon Valley of the need to play in the power
circles — to both protect their bottom line and to alter the political scene to
their advantage."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/06/tech-firms-lobbying-against-labor-immigration-measure/2137837/
US wealth gap largest on record
US wealth gap largest on record
By Joseph Kishore
Wealth inequality in the United States is at its highest on record, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center. The analysis confirms previous reports documenting the immense transfer of wealth to the top during Obama administration’s “economic recovery.”
As a measure of wealth inequality, Pew compares the median net worth of upper-income families with the median net worth of middle-income and lower-income families. Upper-income families are defined as those with more than twice the overall median income, adjusted for family size.'
In 2013, upper-income median net worth was 6.6 times more than median net worth for middle-income families, up from 6.2 times in 2010 and 3.4 times in 1983, when the Federal Reserve began keeping such records. It is nearly 70 times more than the median net worth for low-income families, also the highest on records going back to 1983.
The data on median household net worth documents a sharp diversion of fortunes over the past 30 years.
In 1983, the median net worth of lower-income families was $11,400 (in 2013 dollars). This had fallen to $9,300 in 2013—down nearly 20 percent. Between 2007 (just before the economic crash) and 2013, median net worth for this layer of the population fell nearly 50 percent, down from $18,000.
In contrast, the net worth of high-income families more than doubled between 1983 and today, rising from $318,100 to $639,400. Since 2007, the wealth of this layer has fallen slightly.
For middle-income families, median wealth is flat over the past 30 years, while it has fallen nearly 40 percent (from $158,400 to $96,500) since 2007.
By the definition used by the Pew report, 21 percent of families are categorized as upper-income. One third of families are categorized as low-income (those with less than two-thirds of the overall median net income), and about half of families are middle-income (between two-thirds and twice the median income).
Thus the Pew report actually underestimates the growth of wealth inequality, since the greatest concentration of wealth is actually accrued to the top one and even the top 0.1 percent of the population.
Earlier this year, a report from economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found that “virtually all the increase in the top 10 percent and top 1 percent shares over the last three decades is due to the rise in the top 0.1 percent share, from 7 percent in the late 1970s to 22 percent in 2012.”
A separate report from researchers at the University of Michigan found that wealth inequality had doubled since 2003, with households in the top 5 percent now having a wealth that is 426.5 times the average wealth of households in the bottom 25 percent.
The stock market has been a principal mechanism for the transfer of wealth from the working class to the corporate and financial aristocracy. Particularly since the crisis of 2008, Obama administration and Federal Reserve policy has been focused on bolstering the nominal value of shares, which are overwhelmingly owned by the richest segments of the population.
The rise in share prices has been accompanied (and is to be paid for) by the continual driving down of wages, along with the attack on social programs and other restraints on corporate profitability.
Fueled by trillions of dollars through “quantitative easing” programs and near-zero interest rates, the Dow Jones Industrial average has more than doubled since 2009 and has surged nearly 40 percent since the beginning of 2013.
On Thursday, encouraged by the statement from Chairman Janet Yellen that the Fed would be “patient” in considering interest rate increases, the Dow surged 421 points, its largest point gain in three years.
WAGES
US wealth gap largest on record
US wealth gap largest on record
By Joseph Kishore
19 December 2014
Wealth inequality in the United States is at its highest on record, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center. The analysis confirms previous reports documenting the immense transfer of wealth to the top during Obama administration’s “economic recovery.”As a measure of wealth inequality, Pew compares the median net worth of upper-income families with the median net worth of middle-income and lower-income families. Upper-income families are defined as those with more than twice the overall median income, adjusted for family size.'
In 2013, upper-income median net worth was 6.6 times more than median net worth for middle-income families, up from 6.2 times in 2010 and 3.4 times in 1983, when the Federal Reserve began keeping such records. It is nearly 70 times more than the median net worth for low-income families, also the highest on records going back to 1983.
The data on median household net worth documents a sharp diversion of fortunes over the past 30 years.
In 1983, the median net worth of lower-income families was $11,400 (in 2013 dollars). This had fallen to $9,300 in 2013—down nearly 20 percent. Between 2007 (just before the economic crash) and 2013, median net worth for this layer of the population fell nearly 50 percent, down from $18,000.
In contrast, the net worth of high-income families more than doubled between 1983 and today, rising from $318,100 to $639,400. Since 2007, the wealth of this layer has fallen slightly.
For middle-income families, median wealth is flat over the past 30 years, while it has fallen nearly 40 percent (from $158,400 to $96,500) since 2007.
By the definition used by the Pew report, 21 percent of families are categorized as upper-income. One third of families are categorized as low-income (those with less than two-thirds of the overall median net income), and about half of families are middle-income (between two-thirds and twice the median income).
Thus the Pew report actually underestimates the growth of wealth inequality, since the greatest concentration of wealth is actually accrued to the top one and even the top 0.1 percent of the population.
Earlier this year, a report from economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found that “virtually all the increase in the top 10 percent and top 1 percent shares over the last three decades is due to the rise in the top 0.1 percent share, from 7 percent in the late 1970s to 22 percent in 2012.”
A separate report from researchers at the University of Michigan found that wealth inequality had doubled since 2003, with households in the top 5 percent now having a wealth that is 426.5 times the average wealth of households in the bottom 25 percent.
The stock market has been a principal mechanism for the transfer of wealth from the working class to the corporate and financial aristocracy. Particularly since the crisis of 2008, Obama administration and Federal Reserve policy has been focused on bolstering the nominal value of shares, which are overwhelmingly owned by the richest segments of the population.
The rise in share prices has been accompanied (and is to be paid for) by the continual driving down of wages, along with the attack on social programs and other restraints on corporate profitability.
Fueled by trillions of dollars through “quantitative easing” programs and near-zero interest rates, the Dow Jones Industrial average has more than doubled since 2009 and has surged nearly 40 percent since the beginning of 2013.
On Thursday, encouraged by the statement from Chairman Janet Yellen that the Fed would be “patient” in considering interest rate increases, the Dow surged 421 points, its largest point gain in three years.
SERVING THE 1%... AMNESTY, IT’S ALL ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED
Income inequality grows FOUR TIMES FASTER under Obama than Bush.
In the two advanced countries with the greatest income inequality, Spain and the United States, job losses and wage cuts accounted for nearly all the increase in inequality.
AMNESTY: The solution to keep wages depressed
“A more recent national survey by the Federal Reserve, based on 2013 data, suggests the problem has not only persisted as the economy recovered but may even have worsened. More than 30 percent of Americans reported spikes and dips in their incomes. Among that group, 42 percent cited an irregular work schedule; an additional 27 percent blamed a span of joblessness or seasonal work.”
“In the two advanced countries with the greatest income inequality, Spain and the United States, job losses and wage cuts accounted for nearly all the increase in inequality.”
WAL-MART: Their assault on the American worker
Wal-Mart jobs have become synonymous with poverty wages and poor working conditions. Hundreds of thousands of Wal-Mart workers rely on food stamps, other public programs and food banks simply to get by, and American taxpayers pay $6.2 billion annually to subsidize Wal-Mart's poverty wages.
No comments:
Post a Comment