Immigrant farm workers' challenge: Take our jobs

[nobodyknows]

its not just farm work they are takeing. We had a factory that would hire illiagals all the time. About every 6-9 months they would get busted and fire them all. then hire legal workers.

i got a job working there part time while in high school. i was makeing $8 an hour. the guy was there off and on over 5 years and makeing $4.45 (or whatever min rage was at the time).

why hire a legal worker for more when they can hire a illegal for min wage or less?

though. they eventually went out of business from fines or such i think.

It gets to be a situation where a business can't compete with another business because one can hire all the illegal labor they want with no problem and the other can't. That is why we need to make a system where it's easy to tell if someone is here legally and imprision the people who lknowingly hire illegals.

 

[theeedude]

We live in a global economy. If US companies don't have access to plentiful and cheap labor, they cannot compete with foreign companies who do.

 

[BoberFett]

We live in a global economy. If US companies don't have access to plentiful and cheap labor, they cannot compete with foreign companies who do.

So you advocate eliminating unions and minimum wage laws?

 

[bfdd]

So you advocate eliminating unions and minimum wage laws?

That's what it sounds like.

 

[theeedude]

So you advocate eliminating unions and minimum wage laws?

Unions, no, freedom of association.
Min wage, I guess I am open to repealing it. Can always just expand welfare programs like EITC to offset the income loss.

 

[bfdd]

Unions, no, freedom of association.
Min wage, I guess I am open to repealing it. Can always just expand welfare programs like EITC to offset the income loss.

It's not repealing the unions that needs to be done. It's the extra protections created for them that need to be done away with. The right to organize will always allow unions to exist, but extra measures to make sure they're "protected" is bullshit. If they can't accomplish what they need to with the amount of people they've united, then maybe they need to get more people or they aren't going to get what they want. The only protection needed is the 1st amendment.

 

[theeedude]

It's not repealing the unions that needs to be done. It's the extra protections created for them that need to be done away with. The right to organize will always allow unions to exist, but extra measures to make sure they're "protected" is bullshit. If they can't accomplish what they need to with the amount of people they've united, then maybe they need to get more people or they aren't going to get what they want. The only protection needed is the 1st amendment.

I am for equal protection under the law, no special protections for unions that are not extended to other groups of people.

 

[bfdd]

I am for equal protection under the law, no special protections for unions that are not extended to other groups of people.

I'd just rather do away with them period. I don't see a reason for them to be in place. The right to organize is extremely powerful all by it's lonesome.

 

[BoberFett]

Unions, no, freedom of association.
Min wage, I guess I am open to repealing it. Can always just expand welfare programs like EITC to offset the income loss.

Unions put upward pressure on wages through sanctioned monopoly power.

EITC does not exist in a vacuum. To pay EITC you need to take more in taxes from people who don't get it, to give to people that do. This puts upward pressure on prices so that those with higher income can maintain that income.

You failed to reduce wages either way.

 

[bfdd]

Unions put upward pressure on wages through sanctioned monopoly power.

EITC does not exist in a vacuum. To pay EITC you need to take more in taxes from people who don't get it, to give to people that do. This puts upward pressure on prices so that those with higher income can maintain that income.

You failed to reduce wages either way.

The problem is he keeps calling it income loss, but if you have 20k tomorrow that had the purchasing power of 100k today you haven't lost anything.

 

[theeedude]

I'd just rather do away with them period. I don't see a reason for them to be in place. The right to organize is extremely powerful all by it's lonesome.

People are free to organize into groups and bargain as a group. Whether you'd rather they not or see no reason for them to do so is irrelevant.

 

[bfdd]

People are free to organize into groups and bargain as a group. Whether you'd rather they not or see no reason for them to do so is irrelevant.

Huh? I'm not saying to do away with the 1st amendment or change it and I'm not saying unions aren't protected by our individual right to organize. I'm saying that the 1st amendment is all that is needed to protect the individual and their union. Any additional protections should be removed.

 

[Dekasa]

The problem is he keeps calling it income loss, but if you have 20k tomorrow that had the purchasing power of 100k today you haven't lost anything.

Let me just see if I completely understand your argument.

You want to eliminate the minimum wage, so that the bottom wages go down, but the goods those wages produce will also go down in price. So, $10 an hour turns into $5 an hour, but they both buy the same amount of groceries (goods).

But... the cost of goods produced isn't solely dependent on wages, so a 50% cut in wages paid can't come out to 50% cut in price of production (barring a pure service that requires to input other than labor). Also, many goods are produced oversees, which would still cost the same. So, what you really want is to drop the minimum wages of workers and give upper class people (who 'deserve' more than minimum wagers) more purchasing power, while absolutely dropping the minimum wagers purchasing power.

Or maybe your argument has something else to it.

 

[BoberFett]

Let me just see if I completely understand your argument.

You want to eliminate the minimum wage, so that the bottom wages go down, but the goods those wages produce will also go down in price. So, $10 an hour turns into $5 an hour, but they both buy the same amount of groceries (goods).

But... the cost of goods produced isn't solely dependent on wages, so a 50% cut in wages paid can't come out to 50% cut in price of production (barring a pure service that requires to input other than labor). Also, many goods are produced oversees, which would still cost the same. So, what you really want is to drop the minimum wages of workers and give upper class people (who 'deserve' more than minimum wagers) more purchasing power, while absolutely dropping the minimum wagers purchasing power.

Or maybe your argument has something else to it.

By encouraging illegal immigration and cheap imported labor with virtually no rights due to fear of deportation, that's exactly what senseamp is promoting.

Supporting illegal immigration while also supporting minimum wage laws is foolishness.

 

[Dekasa]

Supporting illegal immigration is wreckless. It basically creates a huge group of people who:
1. Aren't American and don't wish to be.
2. Are 'under the radar' and don't pay taxes and as such,
3. Waste lots of gov't dollars consuming schools, roads, needless ESL courses, healthcare, a very long list.

I still vote we ship them all out, there's enough unemployed people in the nation, currently, getting rid of them would be easy.

 

[bfdd]

Let me just see if I completely understand your argument.

You want to eliminate the minimum wage, so that the bottom wages go down, but the goods those wages produce will also go down in price. So, $10 an hour turns into $5 an hour, but they both buy the same amount of groceries (goods).

But... the cost of goods produced isn't solely dependent on wages, so a 50% cut in wages paid can't come out to 50% cut in price of production (barring a pure service that requires to input other than labor). Also, many goods are produced oversees, which would still cost the same. So, what you really want is to drop the minimum wages of workers and give upper class people (who 'deserve' more than minimum wagers) more purchasing power, while absolutely dropping the minimum wagers purchasing power.

Or maybe your argument has something else to it.

Of course 50% in wage decrease doesn't mean the product costs 50% cheaper. I'm saying if you had 20k tomorrow and it has the purchasing power of 100k today you didn't lose anything. How that is done is another subject, I'm just saying you're not losing money.

 

[Dekasa]

Of course 50% in wage decrease doesn't mean the product costs 50% cheaper. I'm saying if you had 20k tomorrow and it has the purchasing power of 100k today you didn't lose anything. How that is done is another subject, I'm just saying you're not losing money.

Except there's no way to do this. Well, barring a simulataneous, global reduction in wages with an equal cut in everything's cost, but, any rational person knows there are a LOT of things in the way of that. So many that most rational minds would deem it downright impossible.

So I must ask, why are you arguing this? It makes no difference and has no effect on the topic at hand (as it will never happen)?

 

[Zorba]

Modern day slavery....how nice.

That is exactly what I read.

 

[bfdd]

Except there's no way to do this. Well, barring a simulataneous, global reduction in wages with an equal cut in everything's cost, but, any rational person knows there are a LOT of things in the way of that. So many that most rational minds would deem it downright impossible.

So I must ask, why are you arguing this? It makes no difference and has no effect on the topic at hand (as it will never happen)?

So are you saying it's absolutely impossible to happen? Wages don't have to instantly become 50% of what they are now, things could happen gradually. Sure it would be hard I never said it wouldn't I was simply implying that if it happened you aren't losing any money.