Attention ALL PF intellectuals, this is your thread

BINGO!

BLS Statement; ''It is likely that both surveys include at least some undocumented immigrants''

LOGIC........

REVERSE CALCULATIONS.......

According to BLS;

Civilian noninstitutional population; 261,210,000 May 2021

U.S. Population; 332 million

Minus age 0 to 15 = 63 million
Minus Active Military Personel; 1.4 million
Minus Incarcerations; 2.1 million
Minus Nursing Homes/LTF/; 1.5 million
Minus Psychiatric Institutions; 38,000

Total; Approx. 68 million

332 million - 68 million = 264 million Civilian noninstitutional population VERSUS BLS 261.2 Million

Differential; 3 million divided by 261 Million = 1.1%

Number of undocumented immigrants, age 16 and up; According to migrationpolicy.org; 10.4 million

Good News; 99.9% of BLS Civilian noninstitutional population.......DOCUMENTED!

Thus, U.S. 332 million population, 99.9% DOCUMENTED!

 

They wouldn't? Are people hiring the little children? No. Parents send them here hoping they will have a better future in the U.S. until all the illegals make the U.S. a new third world country. And, people come illegally anyways. They aren't working from where they come from. So, come on in and get some welfare.

 

Of course illegals are people. Why do you think you need to point that out? To show you aren't racist? They are here illegally. They take jobs of people who are here legally. They don't create jobs. The employers who hire them do and should be in jail as well.

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Illegals are here illegally and should be arrested and prosecuted, sent back to their place of origin. Illegals take jobs away from other Mexicans who are here legally. The Mexican majority don't want illegals here because of this. As to whether citizens will work in the fields, they have in the past. Before the Mexicans and South Americans came in to work, it was white and black people working the fields. Check your history. You are assuming white and blacks won't work in the fields.

 

Nope, sorry.

 

Oh boo hoo we both know your reason for posting on this subject.

 

Who has claimed that? As far as requiring illegals to pick the vegetables, there are work visas. Coming here illegally allows all sorts of undesirables to come across the border because they are not adequately screened.

 

I need to point that fact out because jobs ULTIMATELY come from people, and the last time I checked, illegals are people, too

Yes, it's true they are here illegally, but this idea they take away jobs is false.

Three Reasons Why Immigrants Aren't Going To Take Away Your Job.
https://www.cato.org/blog/three-reasons-why-immigrants-arent-going-take-job


We need more immigration, NOT less:

In California farm country, growers struggle with labor shortage
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-shortage-other-challenges-column/2941779001/

Labor shortage ‘hitting ag community hard’
https://www.pantagraph.com/agricult...cle_a6817e3b-9234-5913-8999-1ebfa768d42a.html

Another Year of Farm Labor Shortages
https://www.fb.org/viewpoints/another-year-of-farm-labor-shortages

Continuing farm labor shortage brings concerns for 2021
https://www.kfyrtv.com/2020/11/26/continuing-farm-labor-shortage-brings-concerns-for-2021/

 

This starting statistic wrong and bogus. At the very, very low end there are 20 million illegal immigrants. At the high end, there are 30 million. Tag on Biden opening the flood gates and we're looking at about 40 million illegal immigrants on the upper estimate.

 

Well, if the, "employment rate," is affected by different factors than the unemployment rate, such as people who choose not to work, in lieu of being home with the kids, or of pursuing full-time education, or whatever, the obvious question is why do you place such emphasis on this number, as it would seem to be less sensitive to job competition from illegal workers, than unemployment figures?

 

This is an example of what I have described as poorly EXPLAINING your argument (as to people who do not do most of their communication through statistical equations). I have no trouble following your math-- by the way, would it have killed you to, once, have identified, "BLS," as the (U.S.) Bureau of Labor Statistics, for anyone just wanting to get a brief sense of your argument, before trudging through all your links?-- to get from the total U.S. population (for which you cite no source) to your idea of what should then be the civilian noninstitutional population. What you don't explain is WHY your figure differs from that of the BLS. In English, without need of numbers. The natural assumption is that your figures are not all from the same date, both among themselves and compared to the numbers being used by the BLS, or that there is something missing from your formula. To where did those 3 million, from the total population, disappear? Could this discrepency not be chalked up to inexactitude in any of the various figures you are using-- prisons, nursing homes, psych hospitals (not to mention the BLS's C.N.P., and the, unattributed, total U.S. population numbers)?And what about the number of people who are in regular hospitals, from their psyche units to the surgical beds, and medical floors? Or, though they are not in a psychiatric hospital, those unable to work because of a mental disability? Or those medical outpatients who are rendered out of commission, due to a disease (or from undergoing debilitating cancer treatment, etc.)? Or those not in nursing homes, but who are essentially bedridden, at home, who should be considered in the same manner as those in actual institutions? Or what about those who are absent from the labor force because they are the primary caregiver for one of these mentally disabled, terminally ill, or aged & bedridden individuals? Nor do you mention those not in prisons, but in jail cells; is it really logical to differentiate these, when some jails hold prisoners significantly more than a few days? But I guess we are to assume that all these population percentages are identical in all countries, so can be discounted?

Doesn't this greatly undermine your argument?

 

I'd meant to point out: 100% - 1.1% = 98.9%.

(Additionally, if we are concerned about accuracy, it would be better to round to 2 decimal places, so really a 1.15% differential, and 98.85% documented. Even just 5 hundredths of a percent, of 261 million, is still 130,000 jobs).

 

If the Bureau of Labour Statistics were to add the following estimated illegal Civilian population, and working population......

a. 10, 20, 30, or 40 million illegal immigrants

b. 5, 10, 15, or 20 million employed

.........our labour market indicators would significantly change, whereas if Canada's Bureau of Labout Statistics were to add their estimated number of illegals, their labour market indicators would not significantly change. In other words, domestically and internationally, our labour market indicators do not illuminate a reality.

In fact, we actually have two labour markets, one official, and the other one, unofficial.

 

You do??? Why not say it then?

 

The illegal argument has gotten old and pathetic. Especially when the all know that illegality does not bother conservatives. Four years of the Trump has made that abundantly clear.

 

You did not answer the question you responded to.

 

Lol...I doubt 'intellectuals' will be impressed by the incoherent grammar in the question.