Strong Words (Alwyn Cosgrove)

Off Topic
41

[quote]Leafblighter wrote:

  1. Comparing gasoline to strawberries to asinine. Anyone remember inelastic vs elastic demand? Yay, basic economics for the win. The oil companies have you bent over the the barrel, but there are lots and lots of alternatives to strawberries. If strawberry price goes up, the quantity demanded goes down. So if labor got more expensive, the vast majority of companies would NOT be able to pass off their costs to the consumer if they want to keep their total profits high. Most likely other costs would be cut in ways that are “invisible” to the consumer: ie, using cheaper insectides that may be harder on the environment (assuming they’re not doing so already).

[/quote]

Bent over the barrel:) That’s funny. I used strawberries as an example, to better illustrate my point. The same ideas apply to the entire agribusiness industry.

Only a moron would think I was ONLY talking about strawberries. No, you don’t have to buy strawberries, per se. But you do have to buy food, right? That demand is not nearly as elastic. Yay, basic human needs for the win. Besides, growers routinely pass off increased costs to consumers, with no apparent ill effect. Every time a hurricane or drought wipes out some orchards/crops, you pay more. That’s a fact. Yet, you still eat. Hmm.

42

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Bent over the barrel:) That’s funny. I used strawberries as an example, to better illustrate my point. The same ideas apply to the entire agribusiness industry.

Only a moron would think I was ONLY talking about strawberries. No, you don’t have to buy strawberries, per se. But you do have to buy food, right? That demand is not nearly as elastic. Yay, basic human needs for the win. Besides, growers routinely pass off increased costs to consumers, with no apparent ill effect. Every time a hurricane or drought wipes out some orchards/crops, you pay more. That’s a fact. Yet, you still eat. Hmm.[/quote]

Well obviously I knew you weren’t talking about ONLY strawberries, neither was I. I was simply trying to demonstrate the futility of comparing a product w/ many substitutes w/ a product that has virtually none.

Hurricane/drought is a very different situation, because natural disasters decrease the amount of the good available, so the entire demand curve shifts. Scarcity shapes the market.

I’m by no means an economic master here, so let me get quickly to my point: All other things being equal, if strawberry producers raised prices, consumers would buy fewer strawberries. The same rule applies to any other product that doesn’t have a strangehold on the market the way oil or, say, electricity does.

It’s not a legitimate argument to compare any normal product to oil.

Glad you liked my pun, though :wink:

43

[quote]Leafblighter wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
Well obviously I knew you weren’t talking about ONLY strawberries, neither was I. I was simply trying to demonstrate the futility of comparing a product w/ many substitutes w/ a product that has virtually none.

Hurricane/drought is a very different situation, because natural disasters decrease the amount of the good available, so the entire demand curve shifts. Scarcity shapes the market.

I’m by no means an economic master here, so let me get quickly to my point: All other things being equal, if strawberry producers raised prices, consumers would buy fewer strawberries. The same rule applies to any other product that doesn’t have a strangehold on the market the way oil or, say, electricity does.

It’s not a legitimate argument to compare any normal product to oil.

Glad you liked my pun, though :wink:
[/quote]

Right, but if the price of produce, in general, went up, would people stop buying it? I doubt it, especially after the initial shock wore off. The demand for food is always there. It would just increase the cost of living, which defeats the whole point, because then the entire curve shifts again and those in the fields still aren’t making a living wage. So, their willingness to do the work decreases and we’re back to square one, except everything is now more expensive than it was and a price DROP is unlikely. My point is that companies are not going to just eat the excess production costs. If they did, it would be a first.

44

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Right, but if the price of produce, in general, went up, would people stop buying it? I doubt it, especially after the initial shock wore off. The demand for food is always there. It would just increase the cost of living, which defeats the whole point, because then the entire curve shifts again and those in the fields still aren’t making a living wage. So, their willingness to do the work decreases and we’re back to square one, except everything is now more expensive than it was and a price DROP is unlikely. My point is that companies are not going to just eat the excess production costs. If they did, it would be a first.[/quote]

No it wouldn’t, at least not completely. Some companies will simply go out of business allowing their competitors to preserve a larger consumer base. Yes there will be price hikes and negative effects but over time it would even out to a more acceptable level. Of course there’s no smooth ride out, nobody’s arguing - there would be consequences.
And again, not everyhting relies on cheap immigrant labor. A large portion is resolved by technology and outsourcing.

45

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
I’ll concede #s 1-5 on your list, even though they don’t ALL apply to ALL illegal immigrants. That was the couple dollars a paycheck I was talking about.

As for the others:

Illegals don’t exactly have a lock on the uninsured driver category. Damages done by uninsured drivers are absorbed, then passed on, by insurance carriers, in most cases. They’re passed on so that profit margins remain the same(I’m seeing a trend).

7&8 - Wouldn’t these costs actually go WAY up if we heavily increased our border security?

Yes, I live in AZ. Yes we have a lot of Mexican residents. Hispanic culture is part of Arizona culture, and that’s OK. Yes, we have a lot of illegal Mexican residents. NO, it’s not exactly ruining our state. The Phoenix metro area is one of the top 2 fastest growing housing markets in the country. The average price of a home here is approx. $250K. Who’s buying all these houses? I bet it’s not the uninsured illegal farm workers. Sure, there’s some economic cost to sharing a border with Mexico, but in the end, we’re doing fine.
[/quote]

No, illegal aliens do not have a lock on uninsured driving. American citizens do that as well. However, they are AMERICAN CITIZENS we “pay for”. Not citizens from some other country. Let’s send Mexico the bill ok?

As for expensive border security and the cost going up… Well no, the costs would drop if the borders were physically closed and immigration was controlled. And the closed borders should be patrolled by our military. And even if the cost did NOT drop, there would be NO COST if there was no illegal immigration in the first place. And THAT would be why I am so against it. It doesn’t matter why it costs so much, just that it DOES and it’s not Americans fault… It’s the illegals fault.

Can you not see the damage that is being done?

Again, I welcome all those who play by the rules and want to kick out those who would break them. Simple.

46

Didn’t see this thread until today.

Re : my quote – I am NOT talking about illegal immigration. That’s a WHOLE other topic. I didn’t even mention it.

What I am talking about is a VERY strong anti-ALL immigration attitude that I have experienced. You’d be suprised at the extent of this undercurrent.

Most of you here are not anti-immigration but anti-illegal immigration – NOT the same thing AT ALL. There are a large number of people out there who think it’s all the same thing -immigration = evil!!!

Please DO NOT put words into my mouth based on a “snippet”.

Anti-immigration advocates and anti-illegal immigration advocates are NOT one and the same. But just be aware that there are SEVERAL people who are against immigration in any and all way, shape or form. THAT’s who I was talking about.

Just wanted to clear that up.

–
AC

47

[quote]derek wrote:

Well, that is the whole point here. Where are the purely anti-immigration groups he’s talking about then? The only “anti” movement is anti-ILLEGAL immigration. I haven’t heard from any anti-immigration groups in the news or otherwise. [/quote]

I’m not going to argue with you over what I’ve experienced. These groups do exist. Do a search for VDARE for example. This is one such group. There are several. The VDARE site has 143 links to other sites.

For you to say that the only “anti” movement is anti-illegal immigration is short sighted at best.

These people call themselves “immigration reductionists or restructionists”, and not anti -immigration per se. But that’s really what these groups are. They claim they still believe in immigration but they would like to see LEGAL levels reduced to about 5% of what they are.

And that is ONLY who I am referring to.
I am not referring to anyone who is against anti-illegal unchecked immigration. Anyone who is PRO-illegal immigration needs their sanity checked.

[quote]
I wonder if Alwyn knows the difference between anti-immigration and the desire to have only documented, legal, productive immigrants within our borders?[/quote]

I am well aware of the difference. Please.

And you’ll get no argument from me there. But there are strong anti-immigration groups and attitudes out there. I’m guessing you haven’t experienced it, but it doesn’t make it any less real.

Do you really think that there are NO anti-immigration groups?

You and I agree on pretty much everything Derek.

The only thing we disagree on is that there are “groups of Americans that have a distaste for legal, controlled immigration” that you clearly haven’t experienced. Racism is real. So is this. Are they the majority? No. But they exist.

Sidebar: (I have handed over a driving licence and SS card for a job and been told I had to provide a copy of my green card. This is actually illegal to ask for if you have a licence and an SS card).

In my opinion all attempts to reduce illegal immigration, just end up making LEGAL immigration a longer, slower, more expensive, more difficult process. It really hasn’t done anything to reduce illegal immigration.

But I’m not going to repsond any further here. I’m not a politician. And I’m not yet a US citizen.

I’m just a guy who has come through the system the legal way, and can assure you that I know the difference between anti-immigration and anti-illegal immigration.

Again - please understand that these ARE NOT the same thing. My point from the original post still stands. I am NOT talking about anti-illegal immigration.

Thanks for your input.

–
AC

48

Alwyn, I guess we agree after all. I am aware that there are anti-any-immigration folks out there. I also know that with Google, you can find just about any opinion on just about any topic.

Concidering America’s media which has by-and-large shown itself to be largely liberal, I’d think we’d see these anti-immigration racists types splattered all across the TV as if they were a driving force.

When given the chance to group radical assholes with us anti-illegal immigration people, I believe they would jump at the chance.

I now know that you are also anti-illegal and that does change a lot. But if you haven’t been reading the papers or watching the TV, there are more pro-illegal-immigration types than anti-any-immigration types by FAR.

Who had bigger and more publicized rallies across the U.S., the anti-immigration people or the pro-illegal people?

49

[quote]derek wrote:
Alwyn, I guess we agree after all. I am aware that there are anti-any-immigration folks out there. I also know that with Google, you can find just about any opinion on just about any topic.

Concidering America’s media which has by-and-large shown itself to be largely liberal, I’d think we’d see these anti-immigration racists types splattered all across the TV as if they were a driving force.

When given the chance to group radical assholes with us anti-illegal immigration people, I believe they would jump at the chance.

I now know that you are also anti-illegal and that does change a lot. But if you haven’t been reading the papers or watching the TV, there are more pro-illegal-immigration types than anti-any-immigration types by FAR.

Who had bigger and more publicized rallies across the U.S., the anti-immigration people or the pro-illegal people?[/quote]

We agree completely Derek. I just didn’t want you to misunderstand my points.

I am anti-illegal immigration. But (obviously) I am pro-immigration. I have unfortunately experienced some “immigration reduction” theorists in my eleven years in the USA. They may not be publicized but they are out there. And the numbers might suprise you. Trust me - I didn’t do a google search to experience these “opinions” sadly.

But again - bottom line: you,I, and most are in agreement on this.

Glad we got it “Straightened out”.

AC

50

Are we still friends? Sorry for misrepresenting you back there.

51

[quote]derek wrote:
Are we still friends? Sorry for misrepresenting you back there.[/quote]

Absolutely :slight_smile:

I don’t get mad about internet posts :slight_smile:

AC

52

The Bottom Line is that the nation’s immigration system needs to change. It needs to change in a way that creates incentives for illegal immigrants to become legal documented workers. Building a giant fence won’t work, and making them all felones won’t work either. This country needs their labor and in my opinion I rather have my tax dollars pay for their health care then support this nations welfare system.

53

[quote]derek wrote:
And those cancer specialists at UCLA were ILLEGAL immigrants I suppose? They were on welfare and food stamps? They were driving without car insurance? They are all getting free health care and not paying taxes?

What do you not get about people wanting ILLEGAL immigrants to play by the rules or get the hell out? We ALL have to, immigrant or not.

To paraphrase; “It’s the ILLEGALITY, stupid!”

Stick THAT up your arse![/quote]

Yeah.

Fuck those people who are trying to cure cancer.

Good call.

54

[quote]Anthony Roberts wrote:
derek wrote:
And those cancer specialists at UCLA were ILLEGAL immigrants I suppose? They were on welfare and food stamps? They were driving without car insurance? They are all getting free health care and not paying taxes?

What do you not get about people wanting ILLEGAL immigrants to play by the rules or get the hell out? We ALL have to, immigrant or not.

To paraphrase; “It’s the ILLEGALITY, stupid!”

Stick THAT up your arse!

Yeah.

Fuck those people who are trying to cure cancer.

Good call. [/quote]

Clearly you have not been paying attention AT ALL! Good call yourself.

Legal immigration= Good, made/makes USA what it is, I WANT these productive immigrants to come here and ADD to the greatness that “we” are.

Illegal immigration= Bad, ruins our economy, allows in the lowest common denominator in along with the “good ones”. Allows in those who do NOT want to assimilate.

Way to pay attention!

55

I think (hope) Anthony was being sarcastic.

56

[quote]Neuro Muscular wrote:
I think (hope) Anthony was being sarcastic.[/quote]

If that’s the case (and it may be) I’ll have to eat (some of) my words once again and appologize for misunderstanding. That being said, I don’t “hear” anything from Anthony’s post but an unfounded, unimformed attack on my views in this thread.

57

[quote]Neuro Muscular wrote:
I think (hope) Anthony was being sarcastic.[/quote]

I was.

But on the other hand, I was looking to get a low paying, minimum wage job, preferably breaking my ass with physical labor in the hot sun or freezing cold all day.

If these damn illegal immigrants would stop snatching up all the sweet jobs like the ones I just described, then I’d be set!