|
Post by redwolf on Jul 16, 2007 20:20:51 GMT -6
"The meatpacking industry has become dependent on an unauthorized labor force, and it is not good government to destroy an entire industry. In some way, there is going to be a meeting of the minds," said Mark Reed, a former immigration regional director who now runs his own consulting business, Border Management Strategies, in Tucson, Ariz.
Every labor-intensive industry -- the hotel industry, the construction industry, agriculture -- will be similarly affected, he said. wcco.com/crime/local_story_349113523.htmlThis article is a bit dated, but still relevant to the current immigration debate. It seems that the Midwestern meatpacking industry almost collapsed in a matter of days. After the first raid, so many workers didn't show up at other plants for fear of being caught that it negatively impacted the market. I read somewhere that the state asked the feds to stop the raids. In my opinion, our economy is dependent on these workers. They are hard workers performing jobs that many of us would never consider (i.e., slaughtering and processing meat). They are not in direct competition for jobs requiring high-skilled labor. It is unrealistic to think about rounding them up. I think the best solution is to tax their labor by issuing temporary worker permits and put a program in place to allow them to earn citizenship. I hate to say it, but this is one area that I agreed with Bush.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jul 16, 2007 23:11:20 GMT -6
Union scale in the packing plants has dropped from $20 an hour to $12, thanks to illegal aliens. These are not jobs Americans won't do, just jobs that don't pay what they're worth. Paying a competitive wage would force the packing plants to improve conditions.
Illegal alien workers are subsidized by the rest of us, as the employers push their fair costs onto the taxpayers.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 17, 2007 3:21:39 GMT -6
Union scale in the packing plants has dropped from $20 an hour to $12, thanks to illegal aliens. These are not jobs Americans won't do, just jobs that don't pay what they're worth. Paying a competitive wage would force the packing plants to improve conditions. Illegal alien workers are subsidized by the rest of us, as the employers push their fair costs onto the taxpayers. GB Exactly. And in some of the cases of the immediate "labor shortage" at these meat packing plants, American workers were hired almost immediately after the illegal aliens were removed-- at higher hourly rates. In this case, Bush couldn't be any more wrong. This is an industry where there are plenty of American workers who are both able AND willing to do the job-- just not for the low wages that Corporate meat-packers want to pay. The real targets of prosecution should have been the meat-packers' Corporate management, who are knowingly breaking the law by hiring illegal immigrants, and deliberately replacing American workers with lower paid illegal workers to increase Corporate profits by reducing labor costs. There are NO cases where there is a shortage of American workers. There are only dishonest, self-serving employers who unlawfully hire illegal immigrants because they'll work for less. It's time this confabulation about "jobs no Americans will do" is put to rest for good. There is no such thing, and never has been.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 17, 2007 4:07:23 GMT -6
Exactly - not that I am adding anything that hasn't already been said but the complete sentence should always read - "jobs Americans won't do - at the wages employers wish to pay"
If the meat packers were paying 20 or more bucks an hour we wouldn't even be talking about this.
This canard of "jobs Americans won't do" is a direct offshoot of the "lazy worker" argument often professed by whiny employers in the so called labor shortage argument - which of course is a complete myth. And of course since American workers are the most productive in the world bar none the lazy argument is also a lie.
And we can also forget about the scare stories of prices "doubling or tripling" at the check out counter - which is also patently false - even the most generous cost analyses only add up to pennies of product cost increase if wages were not suppressed.
Like UC says - its time to put these ridiculous memes to rest - the facts and statistics simply do not support these arguments - its all part of the open border, pro global, supply side neo liberal/CONservative agenda to suppress wages and shift wealth to the wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by redwolf on Jul 18, 2007 20:49:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 18, 2007 22:10:33 GMT -6
Thanks for posting Edwards' positions on Immigration. They're from 2004, however, and I can only hope that he's changed his tune some.
I completely disagree with Edwards on immigration, as well as Clinton and Obama, who both favor full Amnesty and open borders.
Though I'm registered as a Democrat, I won't vote for either Obama or Clinton. Both are free traders and Amnesty/Open Borders advocates. Both are strongly supported by big money Corporate interests, especially Clinton. Both have done nothing but run their mouths about leaving Iraq. Both waited until the results of the Iraq funding bill were already known, before they cast their votes against it.
Edwards has done little to garner my vote, either. He has refused to take any position against free trade, and had a mixed voting record on free trade when he was in the Senate. His latest statements on immigration suggest he's pro-Amnesty. Out of the top 3 Dems, he's the least objectionable.
The only Democratic candidate who really champions workers and the middle class is Dennis Kucinich. Though I don't like his pro-illegal immigration views, I very much like the rest of his positions.
Kucinich is the only Democrat I could vote for.
As it stands now, my number 1 choice for President would be Ron Paul. Paul opposes illegal immigration and unrestricted free trade, and has voted accordingly every single time. Like Kucinich, he believes we should withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA. Unlike Kucinich, he opposes open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Kucinich's chances of winning appear slim.
Ron Paul's chances are indeterminate. He's hated by the Corporate-owned Republican (and Democratic) establishment. He's discounted by the Corporate media. However, "un-scientific" polls show him to be a strong favorite with voters, often garnering more votes than all the other candidates combined. Whether the median and other Republican candidates can successfully marginalize him remains to be seen.
It certainly seems like someone who appears popular with voters should have a good chance. The fact that voters seem to be of lesser importance, is a testament to how our media and government have been taken over by Corporate plutocrats. And how candidacies, and even elections, are determined by big money interests instead of voters.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 20, 2007 18:51:28 GMT -6
I'm going to post the link to economist George Borjas's article on wage suppression here. Note that Borjas estimates that immigration (both legal & illegal), have suppressed average American wages by 4%, or about $1700/year, between 1980 and 2000. With 146 million Americans employed, this amounts to an aggregate American wage loss of $248 billion per year. Below is the link to Borjas's paper. ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/cis504.pdf
|
|
|
Post by judes on Jul 20, 2007 21:45:39 GMT -6
.... The fact that voters seem to be of lesser importance, is a testament to how our media and government have been taken over by Corporate plutocrats. And how candidacies, and even elections, are determined by big money interests instead of voters. Truer words were never spoken.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 21, 2007 0:30:37 GMT -6
The media has already elected Hillary for president
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 21, 2007 2:32:04 GMT -6
The media has already elected Hillary for president Isn't that the truth. Maybe we could just save the expense of elections and have the media pick our next dictator President. After all, it's the media that picked Bush in the last election, by immediately informing us that the exit polls showing Kerry as the winner were all wrong, and that there had been no foul play in Ohio or Florida. And anyone who thought otherwise was just a nut-job or a conspiracy theorist. I'm still voting for Ron Paul, even if my vote doesn't count. And I'm voting on a paper ballot, so my vote doesn't just automatically go to Clinton (or Ghouliani or Romney) due a rigged voting machine.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 21, 2007 11:38:46 GMT -6
Of which a significant chunk of would have been spent back into the economy, saved thus relieving the negative savings rate, paying down debt, invested towards retirement, thus relieving the social security crunch.
|
|