Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Let's not forget what started America down this dark path that led to a coup attempt; a Presidential candidate fearmongering about immigration. They spoke of "come back legally" (and then broke the law) but somehow making it easier to immigrate legally wasn't considered a legitimate option.

 

One thing that always struck me as odd about America's usual opposition to making it easier to come legally was the notion that they'd "take our jobs." (Which they can do anyway.)

 

A: Whatever happened to the idea that one isn't owed a job?

 

B: Why not just raise and/or better enforce the minimum wage, then? If they can afford to hire migrants at higher wages, they can afford to higher locals at those wages, unless the migrants are BETTER at those jobs, in which case T. S.

 

People always speak of how the minimum wage is an impediment to economic freedom. But in that case, isn't limiting WHO an employer can hire; or from where they can recruit employees; also a restriction to economic freedom? Why is it considered better to (supposedly) keep working class wages up by keeping out migrants; despite the myriad of other circumstances than being a migrant that could make you vulnerable to employers who would underpay you; than to raise and/or better enforce the minimum wage and force an increase in working class wages THAT way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important point about "the immigrants took the jobs" is that it's a lie.

It's one of the lies that the political Right use when they have to explain why so many people are struggling to get by in such a rich country.

The actual reason is "some white guy in a suit outsourced your job to China (or wherever) because that increases shareholder profit.

It's nonsense, of course, just like "trickle down" economics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, taking someone's job is just a PC version of why folks really do not want immigration (hint: there is a reason why certain folks are alright with immigration from Norway or Denmark, and it is not the better health care system).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where would countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA be without immigration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, beecee said:

Where would countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA be without immigration?

How would we know? We'd all still be in Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

 

One thing that always struck me as odd about America's usual opposition to making it easier to come legally was the notion that they'd "take our jobs." (Which they can do anyway

America’s? Did you mean “republicans’ “?

Quote

A: Whatever happened to the idea that one isn't owed a job?

I don’t think those who are in Trump’s orbit hold to this idea. They act like they are owed success

 

Quote

B: Why not just raise and/or better enforce the minimum wage, then? If they can afford to hire migrants at higher wages, they can afford to higher locals at those wages, unless the migrants are BETTER at those jobs, in which case T. S.

(some) Business owners: Pay workers? That’s money out of MY POCKET!

 

Quote

People always speak of how the minimum wage is an impediment to economic freedom. But in that case, isn't limiting WHO an employer can hire; or from where they can recruit employees; also a restriction to economic freedom? Why is it considered better to (supposedly) keep working class wages up by keeping out migrants; despite the myriad of other circumstances than being a migrant that could make you vulnerable to employers who would underpay you; than to raise and/or better enforce the minimum wage and force an increase in working class wages THAT way?

The folks who are against immigration don’t want to keep working-class wages up. They’ve had plenty of opportunity to do this, and yet...nada

I think you are proceeding from a false premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, beecee said:

Where would countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA be without immigration?

Australia ????
All the original immigrants to Australia WERE criminals.
It was a penal colony.

Just kidding ! :D
Good to talk to you again, Beecee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 8:41 PM, swansont said:

America’s? Did you mean “republicans’ “?

I don’t think those who are in Trump’s orbit hold to this idea. They act like they are owed success

 

(some) Business owners: Pay workers? That’s money out of MY POCKET!

 

The folks who are against immigration don’t want to keep working-class wages up. They’ve had plenty of opportunity to do this, and yet...nada

I think you are proceeding from a false premise.

I don't agree with the way they go about it, but I don't think there's adequate evidence to claim to know what their "real" intentions are either.

 

If it's supposedly business owners' disproportionate leverage holding minimum wage increases back, how did their disproportionate leverage also not hold anti-immigrant rhetoric back? They clearly depend heavily on migrant labour.

 

If it's not just Democrats sticking up for immigrants, it can't just be Republicans who have a problem with them either.

Edited by ScienceNostalgia101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

I don't agree with the way they go about it, but I don't think there's adequate evidence to claim to know what their "real" intentions are either.

We have to go by their actions, which all can observe.

 

6 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

If it's supposedly business owners' disproportionate leverage holding minimum wage increases back, how did their disproportionate leverage also not hold anti-immigrant rhetoric back? They clearly depend heavily on migrant labour.

Who is “they” in your scenario?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 7:58 AM, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

If it's not just Democrats sticking up for immigrants, it can't just be Republicans who have a problem with them either.

It's the people who don't seem to, understand the fact that a society needs people, even insignificant people, to thrive; the more people who feel significant, i.e. to good to shovel shit, (becuase of their god given, patriotic, rights) the more people they need to import. They seem to think some sort of tap will provide the correct number of insignificance to fill the gaps*.

* For insignificant, read grateful.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, swansont said:

We have to go by their actions, which all can observe.

 

Who is “they” in your scenario?

The "they" in question are business owners themselves. They do donate to political candidates, which obviously gives them somewhat-disproportionate leverage, the only question is how much of it.

 

As for the voters, their actions don't really tell you their intentions, when there are multiple explanations for the same set of actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The "they" in question are business owners themselves. They do donate to political candidates, which obviously gives them somewhat-disproportionate leverage, the only question is how much of it.

IOW They are racing them to the bottom, where society stops working properly; because it's not fair😣 that they have to repair/build the road they needed.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The "they" in question are business owners themselves. They do donate to political candidates, which obviously gives them somewhat-disproportionate leverage, the only question is how much of it.

Who are the business owners that hire undocumented immigrants?

There are a lot in farming (i.e. not run by "business owners", as such)

There are a lot in construction, which generally pays better than minimum wage

There are some in jobs that aren't subject to the standard minimum wage (i.e. tipped workers, e.g. waiters/waitresses)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrants-us-jobs-economy-farm-workers-taxes/

IOW, there's not a great overlap between the people desiring to suppress the minimum wage and those who benefit most from undocumented workers

Plus the underlying assumption that there is a logical connection in peoples' minds about the connection, rather than this being an emotional response

 

Quote

As for the voters, their actions don't really tell you their intentions, when there are multiple explanations for the same set of actions.

I was mainly thinking of elected officials. The ones who could vote for minimum wage legislation, or not. Their actions, or lack thereof, tells you their intent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

Who are the business owners that hire undocumented immigrants?

There are a lot in farming (i.e. not run by "business owners", as such)

There are a lot in construction, which generally pays better than minimum wage

There are some in jobs that aren't subject to the standard minimum wage (i.e. tipped workers, e.g. waiters/waitresses)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrants-us-jobs-economy-farm-workers-taxes/

IOW, there's not a great overlap between the people desiring to suppress the minimum wage and those who benefit most from undocumented workers

Plus the underlying assumption that there is a logical connection in peoples' minds about the connection, rather than this being an emotional response

 

I was mainly thinking of elected officials. The ones who could vote for minimum wage legislation, or not. Their actions, or lack thereof, tells you their intent.

But these officials, for the most part, are looking to get re-elected. As such there is a delicate balance between getting enough funding to campaign and getting enough popular support for their ideas to have something on which to campaign.

 

I didn't claim to know whether it was an emotional response or not, but I would rather err on the side of treating rationality as the default. Treating a given group of people as irrational by default risks ending pretty badly if popular opinion disagrees with you.

 

If construction pays better than minimum wage, they haven't a leg to stand on in complaining about their wages going down. Just because you're lifting a bunch of heavy scaffolding doesn't mean you're working any harder than some kitchen prep worker lifting a heavy tray of potatoes. The minimum wage should be high enough for anyone to live off of. Period.

 

If tipped workers are making less than minimum wage, we need to fix that ASAP. They don't call it a "gratuity" for nothing; that word itself implies you're supposed to be making that on top of what your employers pay you. I'm not sure how there are voters to whom that isn't obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The minimum wage should be high enough for anyone to live off of. Period.

And the business owners who are the ones required to pay this higher wage recognize it comes out of their own profit margin and so rather consistently fight against and attempt to block it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

But these officials, for the most part, are looking to get re-elected. As such there is a delicate balance between getting enough funding to campaign and getting enough popular support for their ideas to have something on which to campaign.

And their constituents are all for reducing immigration without making the connection (or depite the connection) to economic issues.

People have been voting against their economic self-interest for years.

Just now, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

I didn't claim to know whether it was an emotional response or not, but I would rather err on the side of treating rationality as the default. Treating a given group of people as irrational by default risks ending pretty badly if popular opinion disagrees with you.

Again, you have to go with the available data. We've had four years of massive lies coming from the administration, and people believed them, despite their obviousness, which is not rational behavior.

The republicans have done a better job of appealing to emotion, and this irrational behavior. Case in point: watch how people react when a politician says "socialism." It's an emotional response, not a rational one.

Just now, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

If construction pays better than minimum wage, they haven't a leg to stand on in complaining about their wages going down. Just because you're lifting a bunch of heavy scaffolding doesn't mean you're working any harder than some kitchen prep worker lifting a heavy tray of potatoes.

Who is "they"?

Just now, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The minimum wage should be high enough for anyone to live off of. Period.

Yes, but that's not the republican position.

 

 

Just now, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

If tipped workers are making less than minimum wage, we need to fix that ASAP. They don't call it a "gratuity" for nothing; that word itself implies you're supposed to be making that on top of what your employers pay you. I'm not sure how there are voters to whom that isn't obvious.

Again, yes,  but that's not the republican position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, swansont said:

The republicans have done a better job of appealing to emotion, and this irrational behavior. Case in point: watch how people react when a politician says "socialism." It's an emotional response, not a rational one.

People used to say the same about myself, you know. Colour me a little skeptical of this kind of rhetoric, even when it's being used against people with whom I disagree.

 

The "they" in question refers to construction workers. Why should they bellyache at declining wages if they already made more than minimum wage, if they aren't willing to fight to increase it? Why should they be entitled to stay out of poverty if they're content to let people who work just as hard as they do wallow in it?

 

The voting public is not divided exclusively into Republicans and Democrats. I sympathize usually with the left on economic issues, but I've often found myself feeling very skeptical of them on gender issues, racial issues, animal testing, and hunting. Republicans used to claim they were against adultery, especially among public officials. Now tens of millions of them voted for a repeat adulterer for President, some of them because the most mainstream alternative was to vote for the same person endorsed by the so-called social justice warriors they mistrust even more.

Edited by ScienceNostalgia101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The voting public is not divided exclusively into Republicans and Democrats.

But as swansont already pointed out to you, our elected representatives very much are (except a tiny marginal handful of others here and there), and those are the ones writing the legislation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

People used to say the same about myself, you know. Colour me a little skeptical of this kind of rhetoric, even when it's being used against people with whom I disagree.

Well, we can observe with our own eyes and ears that this is going on.

 

6 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The "they" in question refers to construction workers. Why should they bellyache at declining wages if they already made more than minimum wage, if they aren't willing to fight to increase it? Why should they be entitled to stay out of poverty if they're content to let people who work just as hard as they do wallow in it?

I don't believe I presented anything to suggest that they were "bellyaching" about declining wages, or not doing anything to increase wages (I think construction workers are more unionized than other sectors). Do you have evidence to present that this is happening, and relevant to the discussion?

6 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

The voting public is not divided exclusively into Republicans and Democrats. I sympathize usually with the left on economic issues, but I've often found myself feeling very skeptical of them on gender issues, racial issues, animal testing, and hunting. Republicans used to claim they were against adultery, especially among public officials. Now tens of millions of them voted for a repeat adulterer for President, some of them because the most mainstream alternative was to vote for the same person endorsed by the so-called social justice warriors they mistrust even more.

It seems that whenever I say something about elected officials, you talk about voters, and when I say something about business owners, you talk about workers. That's...not optimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, iNow said:

And the business owners who are the ones required to pay this higher wage recognize it comes out of their own profit margin and so rather consistently fight against and attempt to block it. 

The last study I read showed that, in the fast food industry at least, an increase to $15/hr in wages equates to a 4% increase, or an extra forty cents on your $10 combo meal. This would only come out of profit if not passed along to the consumer, so the business owners must have mistakenly convinced themselves that people won't pay it, or there's another reason for them to balk at a higher minimum wage. That industry has done it's best to reduce the training and intellectual requirements of the jobs they produce (remove the numbers from the register keys and replace them with pictures of the food, etc), in order hire more immigrants and young people, and I wonder if that hasn't given the average fast food business owner a jaded perception about what their workers deserve to be paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elected officials are answerable to their voters, and business owners are answerable to their customers... most of whom, unless the business in question caters primarily to welfare recipients, are employed. You cannot hope to get around the public's share of the blame.

 

Construction workers were invoked as an example of people who would be harmed by competition with migrant labour even if the minimum wage were raised. Well, the voting public has shown more support for anti-migrant politicians like Trump than pro-minimum-wage politicians like Sanders. If construction workers; and others like them; couldn't draw the "we don't want our wages suppressed" vote away from Trump and towards Sanders in 2016, what else is at play here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Elected officials are answerable to their voters

Not in gerrymandered districts, they're not.

38 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

business owners are answerable to their customers... most of whom, unless the business in question caters primarily to welfare recipients, are employed

What about companies like Walmart who employ more workers than nearly anyone else, yet rely most heavily on that same welfare you cite in order for their workers to survive? I don't see Walmarts profits declining... quite the opposite.

You really need to do a better job of rooting your comments in reality than in biased fictions. 

45 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The last study I read showed that, in the fast food industry at least, an increase to $15/hr in wages equates to a 4% increase, or an extra forty cents on your $10 combo meal. This would only come out of profit if not passed along to the consumer, so the business owners must have mistakenly convinced themselves that people won't pay it, or there's another reason for them to balk at a higher minimum wage.

This is very true and applies well to the massive / global chains of fast food, but is a more difficult argument to make for the smaller / local restaurants and mom & pop shops. If they are barely making ends meet and have 5 employees, paying each of them $15 instead of $10 (while the right thing to do) is very likely going to put many of them out of business. The same issue was felt more prevalently by them when healthcare coverage was required under ACA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Elected officials are answerable to their voters,

To a majority of the voters, and there is usually more than one issue in play that voters care about.

 

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

and business owners are answerable to their customers... most of whom, unless the business in question caters primarily to welfare recipients, are employed. You cannot hope to get around the public's share of the blame.

I'm sorry - your point is that customers don't like lower prices? Why do people shop at Wal-Mart? The ambiance?

 

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Construction workers were invoked as an example of people who would be harmed by competition with migrant labour even if the minimum wage were raised.

Except they probably won't since those aren't minimum-wage jobs, and it's an example of an industry where undocumented immigrants have larger-than-average representation. (also, do you think that undocumented immigrants won't be paid less, under the table?)

But you specifically referred to them bellyaching about low wages. Where is the evidence to back this up, and how is it relevant?

 

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Well, the voting public has shown more support for anti-migrant politicians like Trump than pro-minimum-wage politicians like Sanders.

You're confusing voting results with support for specific issues.

 

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

If construction workers; and others like them; couldn't draw the "we don't want our wages suppressed" vote away from Trump and towards Sanders in 2016, what else is at play here?

Again, where did this "wages suppressed" discussion come from, and what evidence do you have to support it?

Please: use the quote function to respond to specific points made in the thread, so we know exactly what point you're responding to, and use links to material that supports your claims.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

This is very true and applies well to the massive / global chains of fast food, but is a more difficult argument to make for the smaller / local restaurants and mom & pop shops. If they are barely making ends meet and have 5 employees, paying each of them $15 instead of $10 (while the right thing to do) is very likely going to put many of them out of business. The same issue was felt more prevalently by them when healthcare coverage was required under ACA.

Of course the counter to that is that mom & pop were barely making ends meet because minimum wage workers couldn't afford to eat at their place. Raise the wages and more people have the power to participate in their own economy. Yet mom & pop regularly vote down wage increases, hoping for new blood from old turnips.

If US healthcare costs were more aligned with the rest of the world, people would have even more disposable income. I've long felt that part of the reason why we won't even vote to give our own children better healthcare, education, and wage opportunities is because SOME folks don't think everyone deserves it. They'll cut off their own noses to keep immigrants and other undesirables from benefiting from public largess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.