Fixing a problem... Ideas on how...Immigration

Actually about 3%-4% of the workforce is typically unemployed simply because they are "between" employment even when we have "full employment" based upon available jobs. 3%-4% reflects voluntary unemployment as opposed to ecomomic unemployment such as we see currently based upon the 2008 recession. The 2008 recession, when the root cause is addressed, was the result of government interventionism in the economy and the actions of the Federal Reserve. It continues today because of government, or more specifically Federal Reserve, interventionism. The government, at least in this case, is responsible for the current high unemployment rates.

It's unlikely that the government will get out of the economy and so we're going to have unemployment problems such as we have today. We can also assume far less future employment because of the national debt which sucks money for jobs out of the economy.

So all things considered we still get back to the basic foundation that immigration should be based upon jobs and not quotas even if we eliminated any unemployment benefits (some of which are paid for based upon a workers prior employment but that does not include extended benefits) or government interventionism in the economy.

 

From my perspective, we could get more government out of the private sector by providing for recourse to unemployment compensation that conforms to our existing laws and a federal doctrine regarding employment at will.

We could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time through that investment in the general welfare of the United States.

 

Currently the laws require enterprise to pay a fee for unemployment insurance for every employee. This is State unemployment insurance and, to my knowledge, there isn't any federal unemployment insurance tax. The insurance has specific qualifications, limitations and durations specified. The federal government shouldn't be involved in this under current law.

There is a problem with the federal government providing welfare. Many like to mention the "multiplier" effect of spending but that does not create "wealth" per se. If we start with $1 in taxes and the government take that money from enterprise then it reduces investment by $1 that can create more wealth. The "mulitiplier" effect reflects transactions and not wealth creation. While it will create some wealth the wealth created is less than the original $1 in taxes whereas if that $1 is left in the private sector it will create more than $1 in wealth.

Overall taxation is parasitic and reduces the wealth creation of a nation. The most efficient means of expanding wealth, which leads to increased employment, is to lower taxation. The greatest single cause of reduced wealth production today are the embedded taxes imposed on enterprise and the overhead costs to enterprise to adminster these taxes. While estimates vary we know that this imposed cost raises the costs of goods and services between a low of 10% to over 20% which results in fewer sales. If these taxes were eliminated then the US would have a competitive advantage in international sales which would result in more employment.

The next greatest problem is the Federal Reserve intervening in the "cost of money" with Treasury notes. The fair market value of money is between 4%-6% and the Fed has reduced that to less than 1%. This has cut the income of retirees who are heavily invested in Treasury securities reducing their purchasing power. Instead of $40K to $60K per million dollars retirees are only receiving about $10K/yr in interest. That means they're spending far less than they would if they were receiving fair market value for their money. The Fed's interventionism is good for the banks, good for the government, but screws the economy.

Government interventionism and taxation is the problem and not the cure to our economy today.

 

From my perspective, there is no basis in equity why an employee should not pay half of any unemployment tax and receive that form of metric in our market based economy.

This form of public policy choice should be mostly self-funding, with the public sector making up for any shortfalls.

 

Individuals can purchase private unemployment insurance if they choose to do so but most do not. Private unemployment insurance is superior to government unemployment insurance and we don't require taxation to cover unemployment. Many seem to forget this simple fact.

http://www.bankrate.com/financing/insurance/private-unemployment-insurance/

We also find that most individuals don't have six months of liquid assets to cover expenses when they're unemployed for any reason.

The whole answer to unemployment is addressed by the private sector and all it requires is personal responsibility by the individual. Why do so many fail to understand this simple fact?

 

The last time I checked, it was not that well developed and is currently no form of permanent solution to structural forms of unemployment in a sector may be made obsolete by emerging technologies.

The philosophy I subscribe to on this issue is that a social safety net should be available until no longer needed, or it is not really a safety net.

 

Private unemployment insurace and existed for centuries long and existed before government unemployment insurance existed.

http://www.dol.ks.gov/UI/html/enhist_DBR.html

It does partially correct one statement I made as it is a "federal-state joint venture" and the federal government does collect a "FUTA" (Federal Unemployment Tax Adminstration) tax on the first $7,000 of an employee's annual earnings.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i940.pdf

Of course if this is an "insurance" program then when the benefits run out the benefits run out. We haven't seen that with current unemployment benefits that are now being paid for up to 72 weeks as I recall. This is pure welfare.

I do believe in some government "safety nets" but they should not be based upon individual irresponsibility.

This sort of takes us away from the topic which is ideas on fixing immigration. It appears that most would agree that tying immigration to employment in a free market economy as opposed to the quota system remains the most viable solution to the problem. It would eliminate any immgration problems except for those that would choose to illegally immigrate for nefarious criminal purposes.

 

Anyone who can afford it already can purchase that product in some form or another; it is not, however, very convenient for everyone else. It may be one reason why the State tried to secure that privilege and immunity for the rest of the citizenry.

From my perspective, there is no reason why foreign labor could not subsidize unemployment for US labor; with a market friendly work visa.

 

The premium costs are between 0.5% and 2% of salaries for private unemployment insurance and it is not cost prohibitive.

This still isn't addressing immigration which should be based upon employment in a free market environment.

 

It may be a matter of education; but, how do you actually solve any long term problem, with any short term income? UI can be mostly self-funding with the public sector making up for any short falls, as is the case now.

A market friendly work visa for foreign labor could solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States of the Union.

Some of the revenue from that form of public sector means of production could be used to defray the cost of government and unemployment compensation that conforms to our existing laws and an existing federal doctrine.

 

Yes, an employment based work visa program can basically solve about 95% of the illegal and undocumented alien problem in the United States.

As I noted above private unemployment insurance averages between 0.5% to 2.0% of salary resulting in a median cost of 1.25% but in checking the Washington State unemployment tax it averages 2.12% for 2012 but it varies year by years. It has been as high as 2.81% in 2004. In any case it is substantially higher for the government to provide unemployment insurance than it is for private insurers to provide unemployment insurance.

http://www.esd.wa.gov/uitax/taxreportsandrates/taxrates/tax-rates-determined.php

Why do so many people advocate government services when private enterprise provides the same services for substantially lower costs?

 

Because it could also function as a more cost effective social safety net that could solve for a poverty of money in our money based markets.

 

There is no such thing as "the poverty of money" but we do have poverty due to the failure of our banking system to redeem promissory notes in "lawful money" as required under US statutory law. We have the "poverty of promissory notes" which steals the wealth of the People.

This is off topic though as it does not address immigration where the consensus seems to be that immigration based upon market forces as they affect labor is the rational solution to the illegal immigration problem.

 

In a strictly market economy which uses any medium of exchange as a form of money; that is the only thing we need to solve for; a poverty of money.

I agree to disagree with your understanding of the excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention, with our federal Constitution.

We could be solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States, and generating tax revenue from that lawful Commerce to defray the cost of government.

 

The problem can't be solved, because the term "immigrant" is not resolved. Most governments, especially in the industrialized west, use the word "immigrant" to mean everyone who is not a member of the racial/ethnic group that their leading banks prefer.

For example in the UK, both the Irish as well as the Pakistanies are called "immigrants". In France, both the Celts as well as the Algerians are called "immigrants". In Lithuania, both the Polish as well as the Vietnamese are called "immigrants".

The word "immigrant" means only "undesirable", to prevent them access to the resources of the lands that they grew up on.

 

Exactly...the Turks in Germany are called immigrants too, and Cantonese people in Beijing are immigrants.

There are unwanted people in all countries I know of, except maybe North Korea, but the Chinese don't want the North Koreans migrating to China either.

It's more of a pocket-book issue, than an ethnic issue

 

From my perspective, what you claim cannot be true, simply because our Founding Fathers ordained and established our form of federal Government and provided all the political tools we need, to secure the Blessings of Liberty on Earth to ourselves and our posterity.

In the US, a market friendly work visa could solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States of the Union, instead of merely resorting to the coercive use of force of the State.

 

I see an awful lot of ineffective high wall, cost related and will just climb over points. Has ground stretched constantine type approach been fiscally analyzed. Army engineer built/maintained. Troop support in conjunction with laying of barrier wire at a certain breadth and distance sections for maximum deterence.

Height is then not the issue. Preparedness of the illegal, anticipated lengths of time to work through it (and subsequent patrols routes set to that) and rescues (and diversionary tactics) start being the issues.

I can't imagine this not having been tossed around previously, but not being from there or knowing the terrain etc.

 

Why not simply build the Great Walls of America, and charge a market friendly entry fee?

 

I think the discovery has been that even a much thinner/shorter wall than that would most certainly be at an incredible cost. JP5 cited some costs in an earlier post.

Entry fee...like air space travellers costs Mr. Obama put in place a while back?

 

No. Our Founding Fathers' minds were not contaminated by terms such as "immigrant". If America today was run exactly the way our Founding Fathers ran it, then we would have no problem, and we would even recognize our country.

The term "immigrant" is a liberal (even socialist/collectivist) invention, and it relies on the omnipotent "guiding force" of some (oppressive?) government. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent. Benjamin Franklin said it the best "... if you can keep it" and "those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both". We Americans started to give away our liberties inch by inch to a government, starting with the 2 world wars and now we are surprised that that government, and the corporations that run it, call anyone an immigrant as per the market mood of the day.

You have already destroyed the market you are talking about, including the concepts of the Founding Fathers, buy the "regulated" and "market friendly" visas across borders of protective socialist-style (united) state administrations, defeating the purpose.

 

The amusement park model has already been proved.

 

An ironic analogy to the Great Wall of China which bankrupted the Chinese empire and that never prevented any foreign invasions.

It has been demonstated that it takes less than five minutes for individuals to overcome the Mexico-US border fence and that it provides no deterant to those that seek to illegally enter the United States.

Many also ignore the simple fact that the vast majority of those that illegally cross the border, which only accounts for 60% of those that are undocumented in the country and the only ones that have committed a criminal act, come here for work. They are not here for nefarious purposes but instead to fill jobs that Americans refuse to work at. These are actually individuals we want to come to America because we benefit from their labor.

 

A market friendly work visa could solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via Capitalism instead of Socialism, and help fund a minimum wage that could simply pay US labor to not provide labor input to the economy during times of labor surpluses.

 

In the US that isn't much of a problem because anyone other than the Native-Americans are all hereditary immigrants.

The issue in the US relates to criminal aliens that cross the border illegally and to undocumented aliens that crossed the border legally but for whatever reason (predominately expired visas) are no longer in the country legally but that are not criminals.