Print

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

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Um, dude? Illegal immigrants are basically required for some farming operations - they have to compete with plants that can be mechanically collected, so if they paid their workers a decent wage, they'd be out of business.

Furthermore, I saw a statistic that 2.1 jobs are created for every job that an immigrant takes.

[Reelya]

Um, dude? Illegal immigrants are basically required for some farming operations - they have to compete with plants that can be mechanically collected, so if they paid their workers a decent wage, they'd be out of business.

Furthermore, I saw a statistic that 2.1 jobs are created for every job that an immigrant takes.

Also, like I said before even "exploitation" is a complex issue. The illegal immigrants are being exploited because farmers pay them below US minimum wage. But at the same time, they're here because they're getting more wages than they would without travel. If you send them home to stop them being "exploited" they would earn less, and increase labor competition, further driving Mexican wages down. So "exploitation" can mean giving someone more than they had, because it's still less than someone else expected to get. I think the "exploited" people and the farmers are actually both happy about the situation.

So "ending exploitation" in this sort of situation actually means increasing the wealth gap between rich and poor country.

[Neonivek]

Didn't the united states used to have a whole system that allowed Mexican workers to go to the USA in order to shore up labor shortages?

[Phmcw]

Um, dude? Illegal immigrants are basically required for some farming operations - they have to compete with plants that can be mechanically collected, so if they paid their workers a decent wage, they'd be out of business.

Furthermore, I saw a statistic that 2.1 jobs are created for every job that an immigrant takes.

Your first point is mine : it allow to have bellow minimal pay workers. Pay your goddam peach what they are worth and stop legitimating bellow-living wages.

That statistic is blatantly wrong, or Charleroi, where I lived, would have bellow 0% unemployment.

Um, dude? Illegal immigrants are basically required for some farming operations - they have to compete with plants that can be mechanically collected, so if they paid their workers a decent wage, they'd be out of business.

Furthermore, I saw a statistic that 2.1 jobs are created for every job that an immigrant takes.

Also, like I said before even "exploitation" is a complex issue. The illegal immigrants are being exploited because farmers pay them below US minimum wage. But at the same time, they're here because they're getting more wages than they would without travel. If you send them home to stop them being "exploited" they would earn less, and increase lobar competition, further driving Mexican wages down. So "exploitation" can mean giving someone more than they had, because it's still less than someone else expected to get. I think the "exploited" people and the farmers are actually both happy about the situation.

So "ending exploitation" in this sort of situation actually means increasing the wealth gap between rich and poor country.

It's far from being this simple. You're removing a lot of workforce from those countries and that's going to have a serious impact there.
If you need the labor, give them visa and pay them minimum wages. That's going to help their economy much more and solve a lot of other issues too.

[Reelya]

And you think what I wrote is simple?

Increasing wages is going to reduce the total number employed, raise the price of the commodity being produced, and price those farmers completely out of the market. What would be left is those farms closing, with all the farms going to Mexico where the wages are below what they're even paying illegal immigrants to the USA, let alone US minimum wage.

So no, enforcing the wages here would shift the operation to places which provably pay less than the wage those illegals travel to earn. They travel here because they can earn more, save more than they could in Mexico. So it's not so simple as "bellow-living wages" either. Those people are economically better off for taking those jobs. That's why they come back year after year.

[Phmcw]

And you think what I wrote is simple?

Increasing wages is going to reduce the total number employed, raise the price of the commodity being produced, and price those farmers completely out of the market. What would be left is those farms closing, with all the farms going to Mexico where the wages are below what they're even paying illegal immigrants to the USA.

So no, enforcing the wages here would shift the operation to places which provably pay less than the wage those illegals travel to earn.

Then put trade tariffs to preserve your economy and keep your farmers competitive. That's the one brilliant promise of Trump and the one I think he's the least likely to keep.

But if he keep it it means, against all my expectations, that he actually deeply believe at least part of what he's saying and then things will get interesting. Good or bad depend on which part he actually believes.


Without tariff, you basically cannot have fair wages, or any real environmental regulation. Companies would have to move or die, as you said. It's killing our economies, by the way, as it create a perpetual demand crisis.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Um, dude? Illegal immigrants are basically required for some farming operations - they have to compete with plants that can be mechanically collected, so if they paid their workers a decent wage, they'd be out of business.

Furthermore, I saw a statistic that 2.1 jobs are created for every job that an immigrant takes.

Your first point is mine : it allow to have bellow minimal pay workers. Pay your goddam peach what they are worth and stop legitimating bellow-living wages.

As Reelya said, it's more complex than that.

That statistic is blatantly wrong, or Charleroi, where I lived, would have bellow 0% unemployment.

Here it is, that damn paywall keeps me from reading it though. And it's 1.2 (net?), not 2.1.

Um, dude? Illegal immigrants are basically required for some farming operations - they have to compete with plants that can be mechanically collected, so if they paid their workers a decent wage, they'd be out of business.

Furthermore, I saw a statistic that 2.1 jobs are created for every job that an immigrant takes.

Also, like I said before even "exploitation" is a complex issue. The illegal immigrants are being exploited because farmers pay them below US minimum wage. But at the same time, they're here because they're getting more wages than they would without travel. If you send them home to stop them being "exploited" they would earn less, and increase lobar competition, further driving Mexican wages down. So "exploitation" can mean giving someone more than they had, because it's still less than someone else expected to get. I think the "exploited" people and the farmers are actually both happy about the situation.

So "ending exploitation" in this sort of situation actually means increasing the wealth gap between rich and poor country.

It's far from being this simple. You're removing a lot of workforce from those countries and that's going to have a serious impact there.
If you need the labor, give them visa and pay them minimum wages. That's going to help their economy much more and solve a lot of other issues too.

Reelya: "It's complex."
Phmcw: "No, it's not that simple."

wtf

[LoSboccacc]

What would be left is those farms closing, with all the farms going to Mexico where the wages are below what they're even paying illegal immigrants to the USA

and why is that bad?

for one it's the worst immoral form of subsidizing allowing the use of illegal immigrants paid below minimum wage, then again business getting used to any kind of subsidy never grown profitable, and even more those money/sunk costs do comes from somewhere else (usually the middle class that has not enough money for tax 'dodging' but enough to have all welfare denied)

and since you want to grow the profitable middle class, not the low margin farming, this basically goes anachronistically against anything that makes sense for a state to grow. see also: Republic of Ireland (not just the tax dodging, but for an example of a thriving middle class pumping the economy growth of all sectors).

[Phmcw]

Um, dude? Illegal immigrants are basically required for some farming operations - they have to compete with plants that can be mechanically collected, so if they paid their workers a decent wage, they'd be out of business.

Furthermore, I saw a statistic that 2.1 jobs are created for every job that an immigrant takes.

Your first point is mine : it allow to have bellow minimal pay workers. Pay your goddam peach what they are worth and stop legitimating bellow-living wages.

As Reelya said, it's more complex than that.

That statistic is blatantly wrong, or Charleroi, where I lived, would have bellow 0% unemployment.

Here it is, that damn paywall keeps me from reading it though. And it's 1.2 (net?), not 2.1.

Um, dude? Illegal immigrants are basically required for some farming operations - they have to compete with plants that can be mechanically collected, so if they paid their workers a decent wage, they'd be out of business.

Furthermore, I saw a statistic that 2.1 jobs are created for every job that an immigrant takes.

Also, like I said before even "exploitation" is a complex issue. The illegal immigrants are being exploited because farmers pay them below US minimum wage. But at the same time, they're here because they're getting more wages than they would without travel. If you send them home to stop them being "exploited" they would earn less, and increase lobar competition, further driving Mexican wages down. So "exploitation" can mean giving someone more than they had, because it's still less than someone else expected to get. I think the "exploited" people and the farmers are actually both happy about the situation.

So "ending exploitation" in this sort of situation actually means increasing the wealth gap between rich and poor country.

It's far from being this simple. You're removing a lot of workforce from those countries and that's going to have a serious impact there.
If you need the labor, give them visa and pay them minimum wages. That's going to help their economy much more and solve a lot of other issues too.

Reelya: "It's complex."
Phmcw: "No, it's not that simple."

wtf

Complexeption!!!!

Come in Wallonia if you want to see the result of excessive economic migration followed by delocalisation anyway. It could have been like Detroit but thanks Marx we were socialist and had a strong social safety net. Still not pretty though.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

And you think what I wrote is simple?

Increasing wages is going to reduce the total number employed, raise the price of the commodity being produced, and price those farmers completely out of the market. What would be left is those farms closing, with all the farms going to Mexico where the wages are below what they're even paying illegal immigrants to the USA, let alone US minimum wage.

So no, enforcing the wages here would shift the operation to places which provably pay less than the wage those illegals travel to earn. They travel here because they can earn more, save more than they could in Mexico. So it's not so simple as "bellow-living wages" either. Those people are economically better off for taking those jobs. That's why they come back year after year.

So deporting all the illegal immigrants would increase the job-loss-to-other-countries issue?

And you think what I wrote is simple?

Increasing wages is going to reduce the total number employed, raise the price of the commodity being produced, and price those farmers completely out of the market. What would be left is those farms closing, with all the farms going to Mexico where the wages are below what they're even paying illegal immigrants to the USA.

So no, enforcing the wages here would shift the operation to places which provably pay less than the wage those illegals travel to earn.

Then put trade tariffs to preserve your economy and keep your farmers competitive. That's the one brilliant promise of Trump and the one I think he's the least likely to keep.

But if he keep it it means, against all my expectations, that he actually deeply believe at least part of what he's saying and then things will get interesting. Good or bad depend on which part he actually believes.


Without tariff, you basically cannot have fair wages, or any real environmental regulation. Companies would have to move or die, as you said. It's killing our economies, by the way, as it create a perpetual demand crisis.

a trade war is not a good idea, bro

What would be left is those farms closing, with all the farms going to Mexico where the wages are below what they're even paying illegal immigrants to the USA

and why is that bad?

for one it's the worst immoral form of subsidizing allowing the use of illegal immigrants paid below minimum wage, then again business getting used to any kind of subsidy never grown profitable, and even more those money/sunk costs do comes from somewhere else (usually the middle class that has not enough money for tax 'dodging' but enough to have all welfare denied)

and since you want to grow the profitable middle class, not the low margin farming, this basically goes anachronistically against anything that makes sense for a state to grow. see also: Republic of Ireland (not just the tax dodging, but for an example of a thriving middle class pumping the economy growth of all sectors).

Dude, it would be worse for them if they didn't have the below-minimum-wage jobs. They would have even less money if they worked back in Mexico. You can't paint this as a clearly my-side-is-moral-yours-is-unethical kind of thing.

[Sergarr]

I'm still disappointed that the FSB didn't bug the voting machines. I fully expected that to happen, what with all the Red Scare that was going on in the media and the news about how easy it was to hack them...

Well, I guess it was just a pre-election set-up for Hillary to have a "casus belli" to go tough on Russia, after all... wonder what they're going to do with all the evidence ("evidence"?) and investigation of Russia manipulating USA elections now?

[Reelya]

for one it's the worst immoral form of subsidizing allowing the use of illegal immigrants paid below minimum wage, then again business getting used to any kind of subsidy never grown profitable,

Then put trade tariffs to preserve your economy and keep your farmers competitive. That's the one brilliant promise of Trump and the one I think he's the least likely to keep.

Subsidies like trade tariffs sound like the absolute worst thing to "preserve" jobs or increase competitiveness. Perhaps that will keep the farm itself inside the USA, but at every point in the supply chain downwind you lose jobs due to the higher prices.

[Phmcw]

for one it's the worst immoral form of subsidizing allowing the use of illegal immigrants paid below minimum wage, then again business getting used to any kind of subsidy never grown profitable,

Then put trade tariffs to preserve your economy and keep your farmers competitive. That's the one brilliant promise of Trump and the one I think he's the least likely to keep.

Subsidies like trade tariff sound like the absolute worst thing to "preserve" jobs and encourage companies to be competitive on a worldwide scale.

I don't think you're seeing the full picture here. The rule of the current game is : the player with the lowest wages, least environmental regulation and least social protection wins. That's called "being competitive".

I don't want to play that game.

[Reelya]

Well then you admit you're not taking the full range of variables into account here, you're just dismissing out of hand the negative impacts of your proposed policies on the people themselves because you have An Agenda you're trying to push which no amount of "details" can get in the way of.

For me, I support minimum wage laws, but I also understand that if you strictly enforce that in situations like the Mexican seasonal workers you're effectively making those people poorer by doing so, and meaning less money going into the Mexican economy (and increased competition among Mexican labor, pushing down on wages further), while replacing those with less jobs in the USA that pay a little more, but it also pushes up the price of produce, meaning less jobs for all related industries for other Americans. That's not the "simplistic" analysis you seem to be implying.

[LoSboccacc]

Dude, it would be worse for them if they didn't have the below-minimum-wage jobs. They would have even less money if they worked back in Mexico. You can't paint this as a clearly my-side-is-moral-yours-is-unethical kind of thing.

A) cost of living in mexico is quite lower
B) I don't see why poor of one country are a problem to another country

Refugees? I'm fine with that. Economic migrants? Get a visa and play by the rule like everyone else.

the moment you establish legality can be bent for special cases, a country comes apart (and you saw it quite clearly in this election cycle, so I don't know why there's more proof needed)