it's a reasonable argument. However #2 is most likely to be chosen by a small business, #3 by a large manufacturing business. I guess my point is that #3 happens anyway. Concern over #2 could be answered with an exemption for very small businesses (though I don't think this particular measure has one). Let's face it, given that this is a system with more than one equation (a cost equation and a demand equation) Walmart is not going to go away though. It seems likely that demand will increase, possibly more than cost. So I think such employers will choose #1....
On 9/28/05, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > However, as far as I know, hiring someone to be your full-time gardener > > without asking his immigration status is illegal, but paying him twenty > > bucks to cut your grass is not. > > I guess my point was that given a living wage requirement and a > stricter legal worker program, many of those illegal jobs will result > in the 2nd option below, where manufacturing and some service > industires result in option 3. > > 1) Paying/eating the increase > 2) Paying zero dollars (doing the job him/herself or shutting down) > 3) Paying someone else somewhere else. > > Both 2 and 3 are a net loss for the multiplier effect and arguably for > the "American standard of living". > > -Cameron > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:175441 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
