Article

2008-02-04 Home Front Economy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-02-04 07:17|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#1 They point out the obvious, but miss the obvious.

That is, if an employer hires an illegal, it means that they don't have to hire a low skill American, and that is obvious. But is it unfair?

From the employers point of view, they want to hire a better employee, and they don't care where that better employee comes from. Should just being a citizen entitle someone to a job, even if they are ignorant, lazy, indifferent, or have many other flaws?

Years ago, the federal government decided to subsidize the hiring of the moderately retarded by grocery stores, to use for jobs like baggers. But after a short time, grocery stores discovered that they *liked* hiring the moderately retarded.

Not because of the subsidy, though it was nice, but because the moderately retarded were good workers. They showed up on time, every day. They did the work they were supposed to do. Once they understood the instructions, they carried them out as requested. And they generally didn't whine, complain, argue, or play politics.

And this directly relates to American employment of ethnic groups as well. It has been noted that employers prefer to hire Mexicans, legal or not, instead of African-Americans. And they are very honest about why: the Mexicans are better workers.

Sure, there are lots of hard working African-Americans out there, but they are damned by the large number of worthless African-Americans out there. And interestingly, while there is some degree of loyalty among African-Americans, there is none among Mexicans. A bad Mexican employee will be singled out by other Mexicans, and they will try to have him purged.

Importantly, this usually only applies at the low end of the employment scale. The difference between Mexicans and African-Americans disappears in employment for better, more skilled labor. But at that level, *all* race loyalty has vanished, and African-Americans are freed up from the baggage of their worthless members.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-02-04 08:40|| 2008-02-04 08:40|| Front Page Top

#2 It was March 6, 1836.

On that fateful day, Davy Crockett woke up and rose from his bunk on the main floor of the Alamo.

He then walked up to the observation post along the west wall of the fort.

William B.Travis and Jim Bowie were already there, looking out over the top of the wall.

These three great men gazed at the hordes of Mexicans moving steadily toward them.

With a puzzled look on his face, Crockett turned to Bowie and said,

"Jim, are we having some landscaping done today?"

Posted by Besoeker 2008-02-04 09:05|| 2008-02-04 09:05|| Front Page Top

#3 It's just not 'uneducated low skilled' American employers want. H1B visa grew from 10,000 yearly in the 80s to hundreds of thousands today. They're a leverage over the head of employees not to complain to get their visa yanked. They get skills without the hassles. I recall reading the 'want' ads in Computerworld in the 90s. A page long column of technical dream requirements that no one had. All done so the company could validate it tried to get an American hire but couldn't find them. Bull. There is no follow up mechanism to check if the visa employee had those full skills. American corporations are loathe to spend the time and money to train their own. They hate to put people under contract obligating employment for resources invested because they have to treat them as an asset to corporation rather than liability. Their argument is that the employee will leave for a better paying job which they can do if there is no such contractual obligation, but that only emphasizes the underlying point - its not about skill or ability but about cost and control.

American business would bring back slavery if they could get away with it. As it is they've imported a new 'helot' class which then drains the good people of the society of their earnings by having it taxed as much the Donks can get away with to provide the support systems for those helots. In the end the cost of those products and services created by those helots is shifted from direct to indirect with additional governmental overhead.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-02-04 09:08|| 2008-02-04 09:08|| Front Page Top

#4 I am with Procopius2k. Some Democrat interests want massive illegal immigration partly for sentimental ideological reasons (let's be nice to poor people from elsewhere) and as a voting bloc either indirectly through the children of illegals or directly in those states which do not require voters to prove they are citizens. Some Republican interests want massive illegal immigration for the reasons Procopius2k outlines - illegal immigrants are effectively slaves, a helot class, who have little to no recourse in law against unsafe working conditions, pay which does not meet the minimum wage (where applicable), health benefits, pension, vacation, etc. In short, a class of people who are not subject to every advance by unions or legislation since the nineteenth century.

Senator McCain strikes me to be someone influenced by sentiment and possibly by the Rovian strategy adopted by President Bush intended to pry the Latino vote - largely social conservatives - away from the Democrats in big southern and western states. But there is a clear opportunity to instead make a bid for Reagan Democrats sickened by the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their party and angered that blue collar Americans have had their livelihoods and their way of life cut off at the knees by this bullsh*t. That would be a fine line for McCain to walk given his being a squish on amnesty and for Romney - also pro-McCain on this subject until he decided to betray his friend - and who has a hard time keeping the Mexicans from doing his landscaping.

Posted by Excalibur 2008-02-04 09:58|| 2008-02-04 09:58|| Front Page Top

#5 Anonymoose, the problem with your calculations is you forget about Welfare. As a society we pay for those uneducated low skilled American employees who get bypassed for a job. In effect we are hit twice because it's unlikely the illegal is paying a payroll tax or any kind of taxes beyond sales tax.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-02-04 10:55|| 2008-02-04 10:55|| Front Page Top

#6 Elements of all the above comments are true (possibly not the Alamo story).

The Dems want illegals for almost exclusively nefarious reasons. I dismiss their positions out of hand.

The most compelling reason to limit immigration in fact has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with limiting forces from other cultures from overwhelming the one we have. This tension has always existed from the early days of the republic. Right now, the nation needs to turn off the spigot, and spend some time and energy assimilating what we have. Also, the immigants need to spend some of their time and effort becoming fully American.

But in terms of economics.............

Certainly there is a real problem getting huge swaths of native-born Americans to work and work hard. Generous welfare (whether it is traditional or SSI "crazy money") is largely responsible for this - get rid of welfare, give people a choice between working or starving, and just watch them go back to work. This would be a good solution to the illegal problem.

OTOH, the issue becomes somewhat murkier when dealing with people with a little bit of education or training.

While there are employers who are ruthless, and they should be dealt with severely with enforcement, fines, and jail time, comments like "blue collar Americans have had their livelihoods and their way of life cut off at the knees " and "not subject to every advance by unions or legislation since the nineteenth century" and "American business would bring back slavery if it could" are way over the top and frankly, provably wrong. Not only is there no conspiracy to turn the middle class into slaves, the middle class has had a great deal to do with its own demise. It has been obvious for a long time now that even if business owners were completely ethical and decent, changes in the world's labor markets will require a ratcheting down of income (and income security) expectations for workers at all income levels. Yet most workers - factory employees, union guys, farm workers, even engineers - are stubbornly, even wildly, resisting seeing the log in their eye. The world's economic situation is changing, and it isn't ever going to be 1954 again, but a great many workers seem to prefer to tell themselves otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that when viewed in any meaningful historical perspective, so-called "middle class" lifestyle from about 1948 until recently is really more like wealthy lifestyle than anything middle class. As I've pointed out on the 'burg before, it was the lack of an industrial base combined with lack of an educated, trained populace anywhere else on the planet that allowed lower, middle, and even upper middle class people to demand compensation at the level that existed in the 1950's through recent times - a situation which never existed in history prior to that time and probably never will exist ever again. As soon as the rest of the world was able to produce factories and train workers and engineers the American worker had to compete, and the laws of supply and demand will not be denied. The free market is flawed, but to pass laws specifically to protect income streams at the expense of the consumer is more flawed. And the idolatrous pursuit of income stream security to the level at which it exists today has warped our society very badly.

I would venture to guess that with a few exceptions, everyone posting here has spent most or all of their work life during the extended postwar boom (1950-2000), which is now drawing to a close. We grew and lived at a time when there were certain expectations for income levels and security which we have been socialized (brainwashed?) to call middle class. By historical standards, they are not - they are elevated way above that, and to believe otherwise is to be engaged in deep self-dishonesty and ignorance of fact. Some of us have figured that out, and are preparing for a very different world going forward. Some are pissing and moaning that the government has to subsidize whatever it is that they do so that the myth can be perpetuated. In the end it cannot - better to wake up now.

P2K and Excalibur, I often read your posts and admire what you have to say. But on this issue I think you miss the point. I suspect that there would be far less perceived need to import helots, to use your word, if there were no welfare, and if ordinary Americans stopped thinking that being above ground, breathing, having some education, and showing up at a job 40 hours a week entitles one to a very comfy lifestyle. If there were even a little inkling that workers would bend on income stream, much of the demand for illegal labor would vanish.

Posted by no mo uro 2008-02-04 11:21|| 2008-02-04 11:21|| Front Page Top

#7 It's not just living breathing 40 hours issue. Look here.. They got caught violating existing labor laws with American workers. This major company got caught play loose and fast with definitions of hourly and exempt workers. It wasn't a 40 hour week for them. Those guys/gals weren't lazy expecting a free ride. They work their butts off in major overtime doing technical work. Meanwhile, the corp is posting big profits. Now they hide it by 'outsourcing' work to smaller businesses who'll do the same thing but not be subject to the scrutiny they're now under.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-02-04 12:43|| 2008-02-04 12:43|| Front Page Top

#8 A bad Mexican employee will be singled out by other Mexicans, and they will try to have him purged.

Ah nope. Never seen it happen.

And the only way to kill the illegal situation is to put Employers in jail. Something the Republicans REFUSE to do.

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2008-02-04 13:54|| 2008-02-04 13:54|| Front Page Top

#9 No, P2K, it's not always a living breathing forty hours issue. Certainly the example you gave cries out for severe penalties, no argument from me. After all, they violated the law, and should be prosecuted to the full extent.

However, this is only one incident. I could, with little effort, come up with specific counterexamples. And it doesn't address the whole picture. We can disagree about how badly the sense of entitlement I mentioned in my above post is a factor or not in the economic underpinnings of the immigration issue. Obviously you think it isn't that much of a factor, but in my own experience (which includes owning and running a business) the entitlement thing is endemic.

Posted by no mo uro 2008-02-04 16:52|| 2008-02-04 16:52|| Front Page Top

#10 Businesses will hire the best workers for the lowest wage from the pool of of workers available to them and consistent with the legal restraints placed on them. Amongst other things, public companies have a legal obligation to do this.

This won't change. It's capitalism 101.

What can be changed is the pool of available workers (by various means including restricting welfare) and the legal constraints.

Yes, employers hiring illegals should be thrown in jail. Other countries are waking up this fact, such as the UK

http://www.hrzone.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=178047&d=1064&h=387&f=388&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

Posted by phil_b 2008-02-04 17:05|| 2008-02-04 17:05|| Front Page Top

#11 A majority of illegal Mexicans coming to the US have a good work ethic. we're told they do the work that Americans won't do. In truth, they do the work poor whites and poor blacks won't do because poor whites and poor blacks would prefer to collect welfare and not work. Somebody needed to say it. Think not? Just go down to the local municipal or county courthouse. Ask the people in the dock for a show of hands: who here has a full time job and if not how many of you subsist on welfare. Oh, and those not on the welfare list...how many depend on someone who does. Oh...and those not on welfare or not depending on somebody who is on welfare...how many of you subsist on making a living at crime?

Posted by MarkZ 2008-02-04 17:22|| 2008-02-04 17:22|| Front Page Top

#12 Big bizz repubs want the cheap non-union labor.
Dems want the potential voting block based off the handouts from the public largesse.

My solution: 1. Build the wall.
2. Deport illegals. 3. Closed down corp's that hire illegals. 4. Restrict immigration to those w/a skill we need &/or an adv degree /or/ abled bodied illegals willing to serve in the US Mil for at least 5 yrs. 5. No more extended family of illegals getting in and then capping in on soc security. Enough is enough.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-02-04 17:51|| 2008-02-04 17:51|| Front Page Top

#13 One last thing - mow your own f*cking lawns you fat (60% of americans are fat) lazy pigs. My taxes shouldn't be subsidizing a cheap land scaping crew.

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-02-04 17:53|| 2008-02-04 17:53|| Front Page Top

#14 Years ago, the federal government decided to subsidize the hiring of the moderately retarded by grocery stores, to use for jobs like baggers.

Do tell, when was that?

Posted by Thomas Woof 2008-02-04 18:11|| 2008-02-04 18:11|| Front Page Top

#15 One last thing - mow your own f*cking lawns you fat (60% of americans are fat) lazy pigs. My taxes shouldn't be subsidizing a cheap land scaping crew.

From a protected bullet proof cocoon I'd love to enforce a statute with a Hickory Stick that forced the Lard Asses to mow their own lawns!

OR made them hire a local kid, like was done all over the USA before the Nation was hollowed out by Big Biz!

Posted by RD">RD 2008-02-04 20:24|| 2008-02-04 20:24|| Front Page Top

#16 Word RD....and whatever happened to the paperboy? hmmmmmm

Posted by Rex Mundi 2008-02-04 21:31|| 2008-02-04 21:31|| Front Page Top

#17 ...poor whites and poor blacks would prefer to collect welfare and not work.

A white person getting Welfare! What Planet do you live on? I went through a short period of dire need, almost became homeless (Thank God for family) and every effort I made at obtaining help, was met with a slammed door.

You need to get a taste of the real world. Whites are the new Blacks.

Posted by Snitch Grundy9700 2008-02-04 22:21|| 2008-02-04 22:21|| Front Page Top

#18 Do tell, when was that?
Posted by Thomas Woof 2008-02-04 18:11|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top

In the 70's. I remember it well, we had several at the store I bagged groceries at. They were not much good at bagging (depending on degree of retardation) but they were like machines when it came to stocking.

Posted by Snitch Grundy9700 2008-02-04 22:25|| 2008-02-04 22:25|| Front Page Top

#19 Proc - BINGO on the H1B.

Immigration is screwed up. And as long as there are unemmployed US programmers the H1B spigot should be SHUT OFF.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-04 23:16|| 2008-02-04 23:16|| Front Page Top

23:50 twobyfour
23:46 Besoeker
23:44 twobyfour
23:37 trailing wife
23:29 twobyfour
23:23 Charles
23:23 Alaska Paul
23:16 OldSpook
23:15 ed
23:14 OldSpook
23:12 OldSpook
22:59 rjschwarz
22:39 Junior Assistant Sock Puppet of Doom
22:37 Snitch Grundy9700
22:31 Brett
22:25 Snitch Grundy9700
22:21 Snitch Grundy9700
22:17 www
22:13 www
22:01 KBK
21:57 USN,Ret.
21:57 stupid old fool
21:55 McZoid
21:53 McZoid