Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

It makes economic sense to have Mexicans do that. It's seasonal, and if locals were tied up doing it, you'd have to pay them unemployment the rest of the time. So, just think if you want 100% American produce-pickers what are they going to do the rest of the year?

That explanation makes less sense than you think, because there's unemployed Americans who could be employed for a short time to pick crops rather than immigrant workers if there was enough infrastructure to transport them to and from the area affordably.

Except that those people don't want to do those jobs.

Yeah, what weird said.  I'm tempted to get angry...

Thing is, in America, we have minimum wage and various protections extended to workers.
Illegals DON'T
And that is why they get hired over us.  My little brother isn't part of some lazy fucker class, he literally can't get a decent job because they're taken up by people willing to work off the books.

I respect the hard work of people who come here for a decent wage and to live the American dream.
I really do.
I ALSO respect the hard work of people who, I'M SORRY, DESERVE to be here first, both legal immigrants and also natural-born citizens.

I still support full amnesty for pragmatic reasons but eh, I guess that's over now.  It was only a compromise to fucking criminals who skipped the line, anyway.

Hmm, what about repealing minimum wage, then? Or weakening its legal definition enough so that there isn't any de-facto? In Russia, there's a thing called "wage rate", which is a multiplier on your wage, and while your nominal wage technically cannot be lower than minimum one, the real one totally can.

I bet you can even get most Republicans on board with that proposition!

Cue companies paying the minimum possible wage.

The problem with removing the minimum wage is that there is a threshold where the wage is above the poverty line.

There's probably some other countries that don't use a minimum wage, but I don't know how it works there or whether it's consistently above the poverty line or is a livable wage.

[Grim Portent]

What is the penalty for an employer hiring illegals for less than minimum wage in the US anyway?

Is it just a fine/jail sentence for employing illegals in the first place, or do they have to pay compensation to the illegals for exploitation as well?

[wierd]

In theory, or in practice?

in theory, huge ass fines calculated on each and every infraction (see for comparison, absurd damages in copyright violation)

In practice? A "naughty naughty, but we understand how important you are to the local economy, so here's this token wrist slap."

Farmers lobbies do a LOT to encourage and enforce the latter.

[Reelya]

Minimum wage's necessity is debatable. Many well-off European countries don't enforce one at all. But I think they all have a better social security net than the USA. So I'd argue that you need either a decent welfare system or a decent minimum wage, but not necessarily both. Perhaps a Mincome system wouldn't need minimum wage because everyone is already covered for basic living.

[Sergarr]

Cue companies paying the minimum possible wage.

The problem with removing the minimum wage is that there is a threshold where the wage is above the poverty line.

There's probably some other countries that don't use a minimum wage, but I don't know how it works there or whether it's consistently above the poverty line or is a livable wage.

Germany and Finland IIRC don't have minimum wage, or didn't have them until very very recently. So it's definitely workable without putting large portion of population on the verge of poverty.

And, while there's definitely an incentive to lower your wages, there's also the fact that workers will tend to be attracted towards higher wages, so companies that pay too little may have the risk of running out of workers. So unless things are heavily monopolized, it should be fine.

Which means that you're probably screwed, because the only news from the business world that I've been hearing about were of constantly going monopolization on both global and local levels.

[Grim Portent]

Even without monopolies a lot of industries require low skilled workers and will have little trouble replacing workers who leave due to low wages.

[alway]

@Vilanat:
Lower population growth means lower economic growth (this link is pretty well known). Economic growth is often a monopoly proposition: Europe has no Apple or Microsoft, nor could one even arise now that the US has them and they can contribute sufficient software/hardware for the entire world. As a result, your country is significantly better off to have a large population with a large economy than a small population with a proportionally smaller economy. It also allows you to have more at-scale business and government: higher density means better infrastructure, as well as just generally better economies of scale. Furthermore, it's very naive to think all immigrants are picking tomatoes. Immigrants also include doctors, engineers, and other highly skilled labor when there is a shortage of workers in such positions. By correcting labor shortages, they boost economic growth, which is generally why all countries welcome those who can find a job in their country.

[Reelya]

It's also a lot more responsive to hire doctors from another country than to ramp up/down training to meet demand. The lead time on adjusting supply of doctors via changing the amount in training would be something like 10 years.

[smjjames]

I never said ALL immigrants were working on farms.

[wierd]

Reela--

Especially since with said hypothetical doctors, the AMA actively restricts the numbers allowed to be accepted for training, to keep demand high. (they are a Trade org, after all.)

There is a WAITING LIST to get accepted for NURSING-- which isnt even being a doctor!

Nurse AIDS, those they take off the street-- but actual RNs? Oh helll no.  Waiting list. Possibly several years before being accepted. Enjoy being an aid for several years while you float in the system.

[Grim Portent]

This is making me wonder if US farmers are a net contributor or drain on the country's money.

As I understand it they require a lot of subsidies to stay afloat and still need to employ workers for below minimum wage and with no extra financial costs like healthcare, in order to keep their produce cheap at the customers end.

I'd assume their viability as an industry varies by region and produce, but I wonder if anyone's ever done an analysis of their overall impact on the economy.

[Sergarr]

This is making me wonder if US farmers are a net contributor or drain on the country's money.

As I understand it they require a lot of subsidies to stay afloat and still need to employ workers for below minimum wage and with no extra financial costs like healthcare, in order to keep their produce cheap at the customers end.

I'd assume their viability as an industry varies by region and produce, but I wonder if anyone's ever done an analysis of their overall impact on the economy.

Agriculture, like military-industrial complex, can be in the red all it wants, but it'll still be supported by the government just because they're incredibly vital to the country, and it's better to overproduce on them rather than suddenly discover that you're going to starve/be conquered.

[wierd]

No, the farmers really arent the problem, just a symptom.

Here's the real problem:


Americans, while having more buying power than any other nation in the world, live in a world where everything is also rediculously expensive for them.  The monopolistic power brokers DO NOT WANT TO PAY THEM PROPERLY.

Instead, this drives down what americans are willing to spend for products and services. See the box of strawberries. Americans wont pay more for them. They will take the cheapest one every single time, because many are indeed living hand to mouth, depspite having more total dollars paid to them every year than other people in other countries.

Because of this, produce has to be kept at an artificially low pricepoint, otherwise people literally could not afford to buy food.

The government understands this, and gives the subsidies.

Even with the subsidies, there is not enough room for profit for a farmer to grow his operation. He seeks "creative" solutions to the artificially reduced pricepoint enforced by improper wages... Sadly, this involves... more improper wages.

[smjjames]

Speaking of farming subsidies, didn't one of the Republican candidates say that they'd get rid of farming subsidies? May have been Trump, but I forget which one it actually was.

Though Trump, if it was him, hasn't mentioned that since the debate where it was mentioned I don't think. Not aware if he ever said it more in his speeches.

[TheBiggerFish]

Speaking of farming subsidies, didn't one of the Republican candidates say that they'd get rid of farming subsidies? May have been Trump, but I forget which one it actually was.

Isn't that literally how you tick off a lot of your base as a Republican?  Huh.