Actually, the number is pretty close to accurate.
Your article is citing people who want to include children as part of the workforce or future workforce.
FAIR included them ONLY as draining supply, not as future workforce or part of the workforce.
Quote:
While the study counts the cost of benefits such as Medicaid and English-language programs used by the citizen children of unauthorized immigrants,
they do not include the taxes those citizens pay once they become adults and move out of their parents' household.
**Why in the heck would I calculate children into this survey as part of the workforce at present? They are draining funds right now, and not producing any revenue yet.
Quote:
"If you throw out the impact of the kids, you are also sort of stacking the deck for your preferred outcome," said Gretchen Donehower a researcher from the University of California, Berkeley, and a consultant on the
National Academies of Sciences report.
The
libertarian Cato Institute, an organization which favors more open immigration policy, is critical of the FAIR estimate because it doesn't look at the total effect of immigrants on the economy.
"
They blame all the costs on the children, but ignore the taxes they will pay," said Alex Nowrasteh a senior immigration policy analyst for Cato.
**Again, the Cato Institute, being bias, since we know they openly support more influx of people
Why in the world would FAIR wish to report on people who cannot contribute to tax revenues? They are kids for heaven sake. All they are at this time is a "net drain".
If you have kids in your home, do they not cause a net drain on your finances? This question is not meant to be heartless to children, just factual. I have 2 little kids myself. They provide no income for the household. I pay for their every need. Why would I count them as a future income for the present, when they are at present not providing?
Cato is not thinking clearly. Understandable though since they clearly hold an open border policy.
Thanks for the read though.
So can we put you down as favoring Medicare for All so that you can receive those entitlements?
How in the world did you gather this from what I said? No I am not in favor of EVERYONE receiving free stuff. Only those that need it strictly. And I dont wish to pay for anyone that is here ILLEGALLY. They are breaking the law first of all, secondly, they show no respect for the native population by breaking the laws and taking our money.
I happen to be struggling by to make ends meet. I have no cable, no streaming, no pets, I dont even have a sofa for the living room. I haven't been able to replace one since the last one was worn out. I could go on, but the point is that I cannot receive any help. I am denied. I have a net income of 28k for my entire household (4 people) total before taxes. Why can I not receive at least a little help? I pay into it. How do illegals rate getting it and I cannot?
More importantly, though, is that illegal labor is totally worth every penny to US big business, which is why big business continues to employ it.
From a business standpoint, of course I would hire cheaper, less experienced labor. Especially if I could get away with it, and charge the same high prices. It's smart business.
The customer losses out though. Less experienced labor provides poor quality goods at virtually the cost as some high quality goods (other than name brands that automatically seem to skyrocket their prices above anyone else)
Those businesses just want to receive a higher profit margin. If I had a business, I would want my profits to be as maxed out as I could.
Any smart business person would do that. You would too, so don't get all hypocrite on me.
They are allowed to get away with it, and so they do it. Do you advocate for illegal labor? I dont. Thats why its called "illegal". There should be more restrictions and tighter grip on this matter I think. Illegal is illegal. Its breaking the law, which I would frown upon.