In the last ten years a large number if illegals have taken jobs in the construction industry, this fact is undeniable. Did the price of homes go down? Or just the profit of the home builders go up? Since the benefit was mainly to the home builders, how then can you justify the tax increases to the general public to pay for the social services consumed by the illegals in that industry? The biggest drop in consumer prices come from discount stores buying goods from overseas.

Please show us your statistics on the price reductions related to illegal immigrants supplying low cost labor.

The numbers don't pencil out, do you have different ones?

__________________
China uses more coal for power than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.

My People Did Not Come Here On A Boat But Instead Met It At Plymouth Rock,my People Were Promised Riches And Were Let Down So Cheap By The Same Goverment That Now Gives Hand Out To Every Imagrante That Ask.it Is Very Hard To Destroy A Country Of Trust And Help To The Free World When That Country Has Destroyed The Trust It Presented To The Very People, The Native Americans That Started It With Help From A Soveriegn God.

The home price you meant was the combination between the construction price and the real estate price. The illegal immigrants are involved in the construction. Therefore, it'd be better to look into the construction data.

"If, hypothetically, wage levels rose by a third, that would either add around $1,600 to the cost of the typical house or shave half a percentage point off the builder's 12 percent average profit margin."

From this data, didn't the homeowners benefit a $1,600 dollars per unit. Moreover, by lowering the cost of production of a few thousand dollars, the construction firms can increase profit. This increase in profits will translate into larger tax revenue and expansion of the company, generating more jobs and profits.

In a way, the explicit benefit of the illegal immigrants, in this case, was the lowered price in house construction and increased profit for the firms.

Moreover, from the source you gave me

"With labor costs averaging around 30 percent of operating costs, passing on that kind of increase might raise the cost of a meal anywhere from 3 to 6 percent."

"The MIT study, by researcher Patricia Cortes, estimated that the low-skilled immigration wave of the 1990s — much of it outside the bounds of immigration law — raised the "real wages" of college graduates by 0.71 percent, and of high-school graduates and people with some college by 0.59 percent."


One study to be considered:

Illegal Immigration and Resource Allocation
Slobodan Djajić
International Economic Review, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 97-117

http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-...3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

The study found that an increase in the employment of illegal immigrants in the short-run had positive impact on high-skilled workers. However, it might have positive or negative impact on low-skilled workers depending whether they were employed in the industries that the illegal immigrants compete.

In the long-run, with interoccupational mobility of native workers, an increase in the inflow of illegal foreign workers had no effect on the wages of the natives. In addition, all native workers enjoyed an increase in real wages: skilled workers benefited from the reduction of price of intermediate goods employing illegal immigrants, low-skilled workers benefited from the expansion of the economy leading to an increase of demand for unskilled workers.

You have some proof that the $1600 was passed on to the consumer instead of being pocketed by the builder? I'd like to see that please. To compare hypothetical analysis to the real world is a lot like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Ideally, the savings would be passed on to a happy consumer...only in utopia world. Do you have a study that proves that the use of cheap labor domestically correlates to lower consumer prices? And those savings outweigh the overall increase in the cost of the illegal labor being here? I love to read, so feel I'd like you to back up your statements with data.

__________________
China uses more coal for power than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.

Slobodan Djajic


* Phone: +41 22 908 5934
* Fax: +41 22 733 30 49
* Email: djajic@hei.unige.ch
* Address: HEI, 11A, avenue de la Paix, CH-1202 Geneva
* Office Hours: Tuesday 14:00-15:30 (when classes are in session), or by appointment.

Teaching Experience
1987- Professor of International Economics,
Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva

So exactly what qualifies a Swiss Professor to comment on on the inner workings of Illegal Immigration and the United States economy?

__________________
China uses more coal for power than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.

The first landing at Plymouth Rock was Dec. 11th 1620. Wow! Your in good shape for being 388 years old. Unless you were there and heard those promises, you can't possibly know what if any promises were made. Only what has been said and that is what's commonly known as hearsay.

__________________
China uses more coal for power than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.

The fact that the construction industry is a fairly competitive market, meaning there are quite a few firms selling identical products, dictates that the price will be driven to equilibrium of supply and demand. In another word, the firms are price-taker, not price-maker. If the input cost reduced by $1,600, then firms will be driven to lower their price charging the customers toward equilibrium because if they don't, other firms will do so and they will be driven out of business - firms can't charge whatever they want.

This is a simple principle that every student of microeconomic would understand.

Take some principle economics class since you don't understand how supply and demand works.

So you judge one's merit based on his status rather than the quality of his work?

The study includes the research question, concept clarification, literature review, methodology and data sources, which qualify it as an academic paper. How about judge the merit of the argument based on the study?

A College graduate making $50,000 a year who's real wages went up .71% would enjoy an additional $.17 cents per hour or $6.80 per week or $27.20 per month or $326.40 per year pre taxed. Over $49,999 a year is in the 15% tax bracket. $326.40 X 15% tax = $48.96. $326.40 - $48.96 = $277.44 additional income per year after taxes or $23.12 per month or $5.78 per week. Now this will buy you 1.44 gallons of mid grade gasoline once a week. The high school grad would get substantially less.

Seriously livefor, do you feel this is worth the additional taxes spent?

__________________
China uses more coal for power than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.

I am questioning his abilities to apply his knowledge to the United States vastly different economy than Europe. It's comparing apples to oranges.

Please answer my previous question:

You have some proof that the $1600 was passed on to the consumer instead of being pocketed by the builder? I'd like to see that please. To compare hypothetical analysis to the real world is a lot like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Ideally, the savings would be passed on to a happy consumer...only in utopia world. Do you have a study that proves that the use of cheap labor domestically correlates to lower consumer prices? And those savings outweigh the overall increase in the cost of the illegal labor being here? I love to read, so feel I'd like you to back up your statements with data.

__________________
China uses more coal for power than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.

How about look this way.

There are about 27% of the working population have college degree. The % of population that has high school degree is about 90%. The working age in America is about 170 million people.

Let's assume as you say the average income of college degree holder is 50,000.

.71% in "real wages" (meaning adjusted for inflation) for the college degree holders in America means:

170 million x .27 x 50,000 x .71% = $16294.5 million = $16.3 billion real income to the income of college holders. I don't know the base year for this study, so the gain in nominal term will be much greater.

Now, the high school degree holders: 90% - 27% = 63%. Let's assume their average income is $30,000

170 million x .63 x 30,000 x .59 = $18956.7 million = $19 billion real income to high school degree holders. Again, if adjusted for inflation, the number would be greater.

The fact that the construction industry is a fairly competitive market, meaning there are quite a few firms selling identical products, dictates that the price will be driven to equilibrium of supply and demand. In another word, the firms are price-taker, not price-maker. If the input cost reduced by $1,600, then firms will be driven to lower their price charging the customers toward equilibrium because if they don't, other firms will do so and they will be driven out of business - firms can't charge whatever they want.

This is a simple principle that every student of microeconomic would understand.


Take some principle economics class since you don't understand how supply and demand works.

If you are right I guess the entire economic discipline is without merits, since economists can't make things happen to experiment their theories, thus they rely on data from around the world to test their hypotheses, called "natural experiments".

American economists study hyperinflation in Bolivia during the 80s, British economists study the prolonged Japanese recession during the 90s. Their findings were judged based on the quality of their work, not where they are from. Same with this case.

Therefore, how about read his work, and judge it based on the study's content rather than the author's national origin?