Originally Posted by 05TurboS2k

Exactly.

Even on a state level I've mentioned MANY times.

#1 & #2 biggest spending in California are Healthcare & Education. Illegals use both of those.



Think logically people, if it made sense to do what they do, ALL of America would do it even legal citizens!!!! Obviously the gov't doesn't want that because THEY know that they will loose money very quickly. Use your heads people. How does evading taxes on the largest levels but still using the biggest main resources cancel each other out? It DOESN'T! Who cares if they don't pay into social security BTW, don't even consider that, for starters it won't be worth a dime by the time I retire. Furthermore it's not enough money to even matter. LASTLY on SS matter, so many work without even fake cards that it in no way is going to offset the workers being paid in cash under the table. People keep reaching for straws to legitimize it economically. It doesn't work out. If it did the gov't would support us all doing it.

Originally Posted by cvjoint

Sure is a lot of tshirts! Do notice that we went from one t-shirt per person per year to about 2.8 million in sales tax income. That is the power of 2.8 million people. Granted they won't buy $83k in taxable merchandise, but they might buy 8k in taxable merchandise. So we already covered 10% of the 5 billion in costs.

Exhibit 2

Labor is an input into production, just like capital and land. We hire illegals because they are cheap and the low paid jobs don't require skills. So let's say on average their work would net $10 hour if they were legal. Businesses would have a cost of $10/hour for labor. Let's say the average illegal supports one child, so in a family of four, 2 work 2 don't. We have 1.4 million illegals working per year. In average 40 hour a week job they save the business 160 hours x $5 (they get paid $5 hour, so $5 savings) per month.

1.4 million workers x $5 savings x 160 hours/month x 12 months = 13.5 billion. Of course illegals are not just employed by construction companies but also by individuals so the cost savings are spread over a wide array of beneficiaries.

We are at 14 billion in benefits vs. 5 billion in costs and we only exploited 2 avenues of benefits.

QED

Originally Posted by herrjr

Your "benefits" would make sense if the businesses were the ones paying for the costs of the illegals, but they don't. Simply because particular businesses benefit doesn't mean the state does. Yet, the state is the one that has to foot the bill. The state is the one with the budget shortfall. In the end, because the state is supported by revenue primarily from its citizens and not its businesses, citizens are the ones that cover the costs themselves.

Originally Posted by cvjoint

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."

"...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

It's one and the same really. I don't claim that the benefits and cost will be appropriated exactly, but some of us use car washes, some have gardening work, some go to grocery stores built by illegal immigrants. The benefits ARE spread very well, and even if they aren't if the benefits are greater than the costs it's a moot point. In the latter case it's not a zero sum game, but +, far more important than equity. California overall is benefiting from immigration.

Originally Posted by herrjr

Clearly, it's not, since the numbers reflect that. Ignoring facts and adhering to beliefs that have no reasonable foundation doesn't change the fact that this state is on the verge of receivership. You can misquote whatever you want that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand; the bottom line is that the economic situation in this state (as well as in the country) is unsustainable.

Originally Posted by cvjoint

And you are convinced that it's the fault of the illegals. One shoddy article later you found the budget problem.

Originally Posted by cvjoint

Then why would you bring it up in the context of this thread? You must think illegal immigration is costing the state money. ANYTHING costs the state money if you only look at COSTS. The article proves nothing. A true cost benefit analysis is a bare minimum. I imagine there is decent research out there arguing both sides and I sincerely doubt there is consensus. All the guy did was to throw out a large figure - 5 billion. From there I imagine if you hold his views take it and run with it. If you only look for media that confirms your beliefs that is an exquisite piece, but it's a poor excuse for supporting the article's conclusions. Why would I contact LA times? If I had an honest interest in this field I would look at professional research. You do realize that you can generate any numbers you want right? Make the right assumptions and you can have a model spit out anything you want. Numbers...the article is a joke.

We went from the benefits cannot offset the costs, to yeah they can but it's not equitable, now we're down to basically no context.

Originally Posted by herrjr

No, that's the conclusion that you've arrived at. I brought it up because it's relevant, since illegals cost the state something now, and providing more illegals more services will cost the state MORE. If you fail to understand that point, that's on you.

Originally Posted by cvjoint

So if the state provides you a service it will be doomed as well. Forget about education. Let's tear down highschools, CAL States and UCs. What's the point of any budget expenditure? Investment in human capital? What's that?