How many people would quit arguing against immigrant rights in the absence of a welfare state? Discuss.
Question
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
I would think that it is more of a cultural concern than a monetary one for many.
Just a gut level feeling with no data to support.
Just a gut level feeling with no data to support.
I would. Its not practical as no modern country doesn't have some measure of a welfare/safety net, but that's a major issue I have with open immigration. I recognize that resources are finite and thus I'd rather see them spent on the disabled veterans, the chronic poor, and improving our education system rather than focusing on the needs of the poor from other countries who get here.
Did you know over 50% of the elementary school kids in Houston cannot speak English. Speaking Spanish is a requirement for school teachers in that district. Its not politically correct to talk about things like this, but this more than anything else is the root of our educational failings. And the most impacted individuals are the inner city American youth. The poor immigrant family isn't attending Charter school. He isn't attending Wylie High School. He's attending NW Classen. He's living in the Dallas ISD. These districts which already don't have enough money, now have to allocate funding to handle students who have zero language foundation. That takes away from the other students. And this is just one example of where illegal immigration takes away from our future.
I highlighted in another thread where universities wave college tuition for Dreamers, meanwhile the average American family has what 30-40K in student loan debt?
And finally, these immigrants take the jobs that could be going to the under-educated and more poor among us. Would things cost a bit more? Yep. So be it. But their cheap labor availability drives down the value (and thus the incentive) of the high school dropout to become a roofer, or to clean houses, or do lawn service. Are there success stories about how a poor migrant family came over and was a service to the US? Absolutely. Just ask MSNBC, they have their examples lined up. But the costs to the average American to achieve those few immigration successes is simply too great in my opinion, and unfortunately are glossed over by the politicians and media in the name of political correctness.
Did you know over 50% of the elementary school kids in Houston cannot speak English. Speaking Spanish is a requirement for school teachers in that district. Its not politically correct to talk about things like this, but this more than anything else is the root of our educational failings. And the most impacted individuals are the inner city American youth. The poor immigrant family isn't attending Charter school. He isn't attending Wylie High School. He's attending NW Classen. He's living in the Dallas ISD. These districts which already don't have enough money, now have to allocate funding to handle students who have zero language foundation. That takes away from the other students. And this is just one example of where illegal immigration takes away from our future.
I highlighted in another thread where universities wave college tuition for Dreamers, meanwhile the average American family has what 30-40K in student loan debt?
And finally, these immigrants take the jobs that could be going to the under-educated and more poor among us. Would things cost a bit more? Yep. So be it. But their cheap labor availability drives down the value (and thus the incentive) of the high school dropout to become a roofer, or to clean houses, or do lawn service. Are there success stories about how a poor migrant family came over and was a service to the US? Absolutely. Just ask MSNBC, they have their examples lined up. But the costs to the average American to achieve those few immigration successes is simply too great in my opinion, and unfortunately are glossed over by the politicians and media in the name of political correctness.
i want to address your comments on labor as it relates to the original question about welfare state as i believe one directly impacts the other.
first their labor is not cheap anymore, but "they" are willing to do the work that those in the welfare state now support.
that is the problem...
no hispanic labor?
the hospitality industry shuts down period
the demographics for service changed never to return supported by the handout not handup.
I disagree. If the market can only find Hispanic labor at the rate given, then they need to look at increasing the labor rates. If noone wants a job, then its not paying enough. This is supply and demand. The fact that that culture is willing to accept such low-paying wages for such work deflates the true value of the position. Like I said, costs will go up, but that would be better for the Americans. It would also cause a rise in other wages as the opportunity of individuals moving to these better paying jobs would lead to increases to maintain those individuals worth keeping. You wouldn't need to increase the minimum wage, the market would do it automatically. Instead, we continue to import labor who due to their limited legal status choose to work for less than what the labor market would normally require and thus deflate the value of those as well as equivalent jobs.
Not sure how you think my statements correlate to anything the liberals state. In fact its about as anti-liberal as it gets, as it basically states to stop immigration (which is anti-liberal) and the wage market will take care of itself.
In your opinion who "owns" the job? Whose job is it, the employer's or the employee's?
Last edited:
Probably more text book and logic oriented. I clearly stated that the costs for these businesses and thus the costs passed to consumers would need to increase to offset the increased wages. I don't argue that point. But I would argue that if a business can only exist through the usage of near-slave labor (immigrants with little to no legal standing working for depressed wages isn't far off from slave labor) then maybe that business shouldn't be in business.
I don't get this question, but I'll try to answer it. The employer owns the job and gets to set the wages, benefits and other criteria for that job. However, its presumed (otherwise why have the opening) that the owner wants that job filled by an individual.
You're right, I asked the question poorly. The point I was angling at is that it is the employer's job to give. He owns it. What does it mean to "own" something? I think it ultimately means the owner is the one who gets to decide how he's going to utilize it. If the employer owns the job (as I think he does) then he gets to hire anyone he wants at any rate of pay at which the employee agrees. It's like any other transaction, a trade of values at a profit for each participant. You may call it slavery wages, but the guy who takes the job is probably glad to have it, or else he wouldn't have accepted it in the first place. Let's say I sell you a used lawn mower at a price higher than someone else thinks is appropriate. In what way is it any of his business? I traded a product (the used lawnmower) to you which you valued more than the money you paid me. I valued the money more than the lawnmower; you valued the lawnmower more than the money. We exchanged values and we both felt we profited from the transaction. The same principle applies to employment transactions. A job is like any other commodity: it is worth what someone is willing to take for it, and not a penny more. You may think it should pay more, but, in all honesty it's not for you to interfere.
so you aren't in a service business
and "probably" more text book
as for logic, try dealing with my ex...
i'd encourage you to get out more and read less
Why post if you have no intention of actually debating the topic? I don't mind if you have a different opinion. I'd be glad to hear it. But if I follow your logic above, you are saying that unless service can be provided at 'slave labor' wages via illegals there will be no hospitality industry? I find that hard to believe. it will change. But it won't go away.
I completely agree. My statement doesn't refute this principle at all. But to use your analogy of the lawn mower:
You want to sell your lawn mower at 50 dollars and thats probably a fair price. However, because Juan illegally shipped in 50 lawn mowers from Mexico that he is selling for 25 dollars, you can't sell yours, unless you also come down to 25 dollars. Thus the illegal activity (the immigration of lawn mowers) deflated the value of the object. This works the same for wages. Because Juan who is illegal and thus has limited prospects is willing to work for $10/hr, the job of ditch digging becomes a $10/hr job. Whereas to actually hire a legal, you'd have to offer $20/hr. Would the cost of building the ditch go up? Absolutely. Would that cost get passed to the consumer? Absolutely. But I don't think that's a bad thing. In addition to this, by eliminating the continual influx of new labor, the impact of your wage increase gets felt throughout that entire bracket of wages. At some salary point, the guy flipping burgers for $10/hr becomes the guy that takes the $20/hr ditch digging job and if McDs wants to keep its employees from straying, then it too has to increase its salaries. Not necessarilly to $20, because I'd rather flip burgers than dig ditches and there is a value in preference. But that value is finite (although different for each individual). But because you hired an illegal at $10/hr, McDs wasn't threatened with losing its own labor, and the bottom of the market wasn't elevated.
This is my entire premise behind being against illegal immigration. In my opinion, its the number one enemy of the poor of our country. Illegal immigrants depress the wages of the minimally educated within our country.
Oh, I understand what you're saying. We're talking past each other a little bit. I would argue that Jusn's lawnmowers should not be considered illegal (unless they were stolen, or some such). His importation of the lawnmowers dramatically drops the market value of lawnmowers. As a seller that pisses me off no end. But the 50 people who get to buy a lawnmower for $25 instead of $50 are that much better off. They either had the shell out $50 or they would have to go without a lawnmower. Let's assume they had the $50. They had $50 and no lawnmower. Thanks to Juan now they have a lawnmower and $25. Juan profited from the transaction. The buyer profited from the transaction. I have neither profited nor lost. I still have the lawnmower. I doubt the people who now have the left over $25 are going to just pocket it or bury it in a can in the back yard. No, they'll buy something else with it, profiting that seller. And who knows, I may be able to persuade a potential buyer that my lawnmower is worth $50.
Its a critical component that the lawnmowers were brought here illegally. Otherwise the analogy to illegal immigration doesn't stand. If they were just priced cheaper then its just capitalism.
because i took the time to respectfully inquire as to your life view and perspective on the topic,
which comes from a place of capitalistic economic principles.
and logic
you took your time to tell us what you know and what it's based on
i encouraged you to get out more
i'd be debating with someone who has zero practical experience, what is there to debate?
so start by simply asking the next ten owners of service businesses if they could survive without hispanic labor. ask them if there's any amount they could pay non-hispanic labor and have a competent staff put together.
my first modicum of practical experience is a landscaping company that imports 100 mexicans a growing season by the book at 85k a pop because there ain't no local labor.
to do the import you have to advertise the work at prevailing wage, housing medical blah blah blah
we can go on from there, but you're going to quote smith or keynes and i'm gonna get aggravated
so for my purposes of this debate you have zero practical experience
game over
Exactly! If I am a business owner that wants to hire Juan from Mexico to come work for me, and Juan from Mexico wants to come work for me, why is it of interest to anybody else? The original question centered around welfare. If there is no welfare for Juan to use, and he wants to come anyway, and I want him to come, what is the problem?
You're employing 100 Mexicans at 85k a pop?
What's the full compensation to the individual when benefits are accounted for? How much of that 85K is expenses accrued to do it "by the book?"
I want to make sure I'm reading those numbers correctly.
I would agree on the premise that there is zero welfare, but you an I both know that's not even remotely realistic.
i don't employ them a guy i know does
85 a head is the total expense
i think the paperwork runs 10k
Yes, unfortunately it's unrealistic. But the premise of the original question was strictly hypothetical, precisely because it is unfortunately unrealistic. What a world we allow ourselves to live in!
Am I wrong in assuming that if you cannot attract labor at the offered wage, then you aren't offering enough. But I find it hard to believe that if you offered $50K salaries w/ $35K in benefits (85K) that you wouldn't have hundreds of able bodied Americans beating down your door for those jobs particularly given that Oklahoma's median salary is only $45K or so.
I would note though, that my original post highlighted other concerns beyond simply their depressing of the labor rates. The fact is, when half a school can't speak or read english, the educational process has to slow down. And that drags down the whole school. In the old days (you know, back when we walked to and from school uphill both ways) the slowest students got tudors to assist but it was on the students to keep up. But when half the class (or more in some areas) are slow, (due to lack of language skills not intelligence) it bogs down everything. And the teachers can't just teach in Spanish. The American kids (what few are left) need the lessons in English. So in effect lessons have to be taught twice. I truly believe this as much as anything is what brings down our overall education ratings and handicaps the poorest districts.
that's the irony, it is unbelievable
and that's exactly why i asked that you gain some practical experience
see now i put energy into a debate with someone who doesn't know shit, who's outpitch is calling bullshit
so you do your own work, the facts are there and thank you for the validating my thought process as to outcome previous to engaging with you
And I think you're full of shit too. See how easy that is. I thought we were having a civil debate but apparantly not. I do have experience hiring people for manual labor jobs although its not related to yard services. My family ran an oil company for years. Our findings were that once you got over about $18/hour, you could attract labor without problem. The hardest issue was avoiding the meth heads, which are an accident waiting to happen on an oil derrick. You telling me that you can't attract unskilled labor at $25/hour just sounds like poo to me. Maybe you should fire your hiring manager and find someone who actually knows how to market your company and its job offerings.
first as to your last point
i told you it's not my company, it's a guy i know who owns it.
second
i asked you way back up in the thread if you had any sort of practical experience and you declined to mention your family oil business and their hiring practices
third
the guy i know who imports labor his issues are exactly as you describe but he would rather pay the $7 differential to import a sure thing labor wise
any sort of malfeasance and his workers go home. he says every year first weekend someone inevitably finds trouble and gets made an example of there is no strike two,
there are no personal injury lawyers, there is no oklahoma employment security commission blah blah blah
with quality labor hard to find in the oil patch maybe it's a process your families company could consider?
lastly there is no need for further debate with you. you disregard facts, you withhold information upon questioning til it's suits you
just say you don't like effin mexicans, and if US workers were paid the $25 all our countries problems would be solved.
but practically you aren't willing to pay $50 a pound for ribeye or $250 a night for motel 6, when you can simply blame mexicans.
deuce
So in short, Mexican's who can be sent home and have no other recourse show better work ethic than American's who have options and won't put up with slavery-type labor tactics. Got it. As for what I'm willing to pay, I posted in multiple posts that I recognize that costs would go up. I don't believe costs will go up 5x (as you hypothesize above), but if they were too, then its truly indicative that we use imported labor as the modern equivalent to slavery or at least indentured servitude.
so in one post you lament the meth heads employers have to deal with
in the next post it's the employers slave labor tactics and indentured servitude
got it
Definitely but one informs the other. If you aren't bought in to the legal immigration process and thus accepted and assimilated into American culture on the competitive prioritized basis of the skills and talents you bring, you are more likely to be an economic net loss than gain.
I don't give a shit about preserving the white race or anything but I do care about preserving American individualism. You don't do that when you aren't prioritizing who is coming in to people who add something and want to pay the price of admission.
Bingo, prioritizing immigration potentially dilutes the d-lemmings voting impact; it won't produce the desired results.
Thus, the end goal. More welfare tit, more votes. Bring us your uninformed and compliant. The emails were very clear.
