As for getting off topic, everything seems to come down to NAFTA, slave labor and Tom Price’s “race to the bottom” with John. Look at the first reply on this thread. You thread kick-off was destined for hijacking from the start.

FWIW, I agree with your friend Craig on his main points – i.e. that we need to improve the process for legal immigration, including for seasonal or temporary workers, as well as to focus enforcement more on employers of illegals if we ever hope to gain control of illegal immigration. Building 700 mile fences and increasing border patrols won’t do the job.

I’d add that even adding the employer crackdown (which we’ve tried before, BTW) on top of boosting all kinds of enforcement spending won’t actually stop the flow without great economic cost to Americans – costs well beyond the direct tax-funded enforcement costs. Enforcement is only part of the solution. The other part is a legal means for farm workers, landscape and construction laborers, and the like to immigrate when there is demand for their labor.

Unless, of course, you WANT heavy taxation to pay the huge enforcement cost AND to simultaneously shrink the labor supply in the US, raising labor costs so that jobs disappear while our cost of living rises, all so more Americans can drop out of high school to pick lettuce and mow lawns.

Nope, haven’t done that either. John claims I said I was a “former bank economist.” He is mistaken. I am a former banker. I was never a bank economist and never said I was.

“Wages for the vast majority of working Americans have been relatively flat for years and are now falling… Here’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics:”

1) Your link doesn’t work.
2) it’s not to the BLS.
3) “Relatively flat” and “falling” are not the same thing. Real wages being flat means wages are keeping up with inflation. Falling, as they did throughout the 1980s, means they are not. “Relatively flat” is meaninglessly vague.
4) Here’s the latest BLS nominal and real wage data: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

This report shows real wages up very slightly in the last year while nominal wages have risen by 3.4%. Real wages do fluctuate up and down on a short term basis, but that does not establish a trend.

It is also worth noting that real wages are often flat to even down slightly during a recovery. They rise only later in the cycle as labor markets tighten. They are nearing that point now, I think. At least, that’s what the market and the Fed seem to think as the unemployment rate falls.

Longer term, where one can identify genuine trends, real wages are up 9% in the last ten years while nominal wages are up 39%. You can verify that at the BLS website as well.

And remember, these are wages for production and non-supervisory workers, so they are not distorted by executive pay or anything else that John has ridiculously suggested.

“nitpicking about the inception date of the Maquiladora plants doesn’t alter the fact that mass quantities … of American manufacturing facilities and jobs have been moving to Latin America and overseas”

First of all, it isn’t nitpicking to say that a major premise of Perot’s argument – i.e. that NAFTA-created Maquiadora programs would attract workers into the US illegally – is false. Even if Maquiadora programs did do that – a ridiculous notion on its face – that has NOTHING to do with NAFTA, which is what he was arguing against. In addition, he was saying that NAFTA would “suck jobs” out of the US. If that were so, then how is it also going to draw workers TO the US? It’s just not logical – it’s pure political doubletalk.

“job statistics are evidence enough of that.”

Oh? You mean the statistics that show 20 million more Americans working on private, non-farm payrolls since NAFTA was passed? That’s 113 million Americans working in private sector, non-farm jobs – an all-time record.

BTW, the civilian labor force participation rate is pretty much exactly what it was before NAFTA and the percent of population employed is higher than it was then.

So tell me, what job statistics are you referring to as “evidence” that Ross Perot was right about either side of his doublespeak argument?

This is what you posted on your background.

Finally, re “what [I] do”, let’s just leave it general – my background over the last couple of decades is banking, corporate finance and economics. And right now, I’m spending way too much time following this discussion from one change of subject to another with no end in sight. Good luck with your business endeavors.

And now you say the following.

Author: Bob
Comment:
“If you really are a former economist in the banking world like you claim…”

Wrong again, John. I claimed no such thing.

I am confused, by your answer. You represented yourself as a knowlgeable person on banking, corporate finance and economics in a post.Now when you are caught ,not knowing or refusing to recognize basic concepts ,which anyone would know in your industry ,you suddenly forget your resume.

Bob please read Bruce Bartlett article again. You will see this is not a political issue it is about integrity. This is why so many conservative business and economic experts, like Warren Buffett, Alan Greenspan,Paul Craig Roberts,Lou Dobbs,Pete Peterson,Paul O Neal, Bruce Bartlett… are all speaking out. “THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE”

Bob, you have vigorously defended yourself against the charge of being an economist, but that really wasn’t necessary. Your tedious tactic of denying well-established realities by requesting more and more evidence tipped us off.

Wages for the vast majority of working Americans have been relatively flat for years and are now falling. Just accept it and get on with your life. If you really need more evidence, try doing a search on “America wages falling”, or I’ll save you some time. Here’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeat_econindicators_wages_20060131

And, nitpicking about the inception date of the Maquiladora plants doesn’t alter the fact that mass quantities (to quote the Cone Heads) of American manufacturing facilities and jobs have been moving to Latin America and overseas because of cheap labor and lower costs of doing business (i.e. weaker environmental and labor standards). The trade deficit, dearth of “Made in America” labels, and job statistics are evidence enough of that.

John, you’ve obviously got the facts on your side, but you are hereby forbidden to copy-and-paste anymore long articles for at least 48 hours.

You have both violated the unwritten but all-important rules governing the maximum reasonable number of comments under one blog diary. Get back on topic (Increasing the Border Patrol is Pointless) or better yet, do us all a favor, and move on. Thanks.

Wrong again, John. I claimed no such thing.

“the lack of investment in America of major corporation after record profits. This is called a key indicator…

Yes, it is a key indicator, John. That’s why it has its own NIPA table. 5.3.6 to be exact.

Now, how does an increase every quarter since Q1 2003 in domestic non-residential private investment – a 25.5% increase over that time – constitute a “lack of investment”, much less mesh with your “economy in crisis” hypothesis?

PS: Engaging in personal attacks on a public blog is not a good campaign strategy. Why don’t you leave me out of it and stick to the issues?

The above arlicle is from a good economic blog. Good Luck