![]() |
Query
Quote:
|
Query
Quote:
Cut through all the bullshit and get to the meat of the argument here. A whole lot of American workers who don't have skills want to get paid a lot and can't compete with foreigners, so they want laws enacted sticking it to businessmen and hard working immigrants. Thats what this dispute is - people who can't survive are trying to work a wealth redistribution scheme against business and people from other countries who desperately want to come here and make a better life for themselves. Call me nuts, but I say give the ambitious foreigner a chance, and don't fuck business because workers didn't see the writing on the wall years ago. That you didn't take the time to enlighten yourself to the fact that your job was not secure in an emerging world economy is not an immigrant's or your boss' fault. If you think its unfair that your CEO downsized you and paid himself handosmely, go hire yourself a Lerach and sue him. |
Query
Quote:
But I don't buy this "taking jobs that americans don't want anyway" argument. If we stopped lettuce farmers in the Imperial Valley from hiring illegals to pick their lettuce crop, they will either have to increase wages (and, thus, prices) enough to attract legal residents to pick the lettuce, or they will have to let the crop rot. I suspect that most would choose the former. Nor do I think McDonald's franchises will shut down if they can't hire illegals. They may have to pay more, but tough shit. Again, I see lots of reasons to hate at least the harsher proposal that's been floated recently, and possibly the other proposal (proposals??? I can't even keep track lately). But those reasons, in my view, have to do with cost and humaneness, not with making sure low-end jobs are filled. |
Query
Quote:
|
Query
Quote:
Put differently, you're assuming that the jobs filled by many illegal immigrants would, absent that labor pool, be economically viable jobs from an employer perspective at the current minimum wage or market-clearing wage (if higher). I think neither is the case. |
Query
Quote:
|
Query
Quote:
|
Query
Quote:
Think of how much law firms could save. |
Query
Quote:
Quote:
|
Query
Quote:
|
Query
Quote:
|
Query
Quote:
1) Mexico, and central america, will start growing lettuce and exporting it to the US at lower prices, because they can pay lower wages, putting the california farms out of business. 2) We will have to subsidize further the lettuce farmers of california so that they can compete. 3) We will realize that it would be cheaper to slap a tariff on lettuce imports, resulting in a trade war. 4) Meanwhile, someone will come up with a "grown in america" label for lettuce, and you'll be able to buy it at whole foods, paying $9.99 a head, instead of $1.29 a head at Safeway/Giant/etc. for the foreign lettuce. The problem that you and Ty have (and others) is not the economics. In principle you're right. But in practice, as sebby points out, americans aren't going to fill those jobs at wages that make the business economically viable. So you end up sending teh business to a place where it is economically viable. Ask anyone in Pittsburgh. In a few years you can ask anyone in Detroit (if not already). |
Query
Quote:
|
Query
Quote:
I fully realize this would by extension drive my taxes up and drive my wages down, but globalization has to happen. Protectionism is a fool's solution. By design, its just deferring an adverse economic event. You're arguing to protect people now at greater cost to future generations. Kinda contrary to your views on global warming and fiscal responsibility isn't it? Are you on the left always the ones screaming "what about the children?" Well guess what pal... You push off the pain in the labor market with some dipshit democratic short term salve now and your kids will feel some serious motherfucking pain later. |
Query
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:28 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com