The Wall

[BananaStand]

Pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people willing to do all those shit jobs illegals are doing

There's just so many racist angles here. Why is it ok to take our shittiest occupations, staff them with brown people, and pay them a sub-standard wage, just so we can enjoy lower priced luxuries? 150 year ago, that was called slavery. You know America fought a civil war to end this exact practice right?

Out of curiosity, how would you handle enforce labor laws and workers rights? I read a story last week about a dude from Bangladesh who answered an ad and came over on some kind of work visa to be a cook. He was studying culinary arts in his home country. He was promised a salary and an apartment. When he arrived he was given squalid conditions, a wage far less than what was promised, and his duties were mostly janitorial, with some short-order cooking in a diner. When he complained, his employer threatened to revoke his visa sponsorship and send him home. And that dude was here LEGALLY!

Now imagine how much leverage an employer would have over an illegal immigrant! If everyone is turning a blind eye to illegal labor....how do you protect these people from exploitation?

You make good points but in the end the costs and benefits tend to wash out. There is a benefit to employers, there is a pool of labour that wouldn't otherwise be available, and it's cheap labour. Those benefits get passed on to consumers in lower prices for goods.

It's really convenient for your argument if they do indeed "wash out", but I haven't seen any accounting to that effect whatsoever. Even if you're right, and it's a wash, then there's no economic downside to doing things the legal way. Right?

Do you need a wall to do that? Or is it just there to keep drugs and criminals out?

Terrorist too. But no, you don't need a wall. And I'm not sure how I became the wall spokesperson here. I am on record as being opposed to the wall. I do agree with the motivations for it though, I just think it's an ineffective solution to those problems. Other arguments against the wall, in this thread, seem to be limited to "drugs are fine" and "illegal workers aren't bothering anyone". Both of which I find completely absurd.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There's just so many racist angles here. Why is it ok to take our shittiest occupations, staff them with brown people, and pay them a sub-standard wage, just so we can enjoy lower priced luxuries?

It's OK because no one's noticing their skin color, ITT.

...
These could be good points, but I'm not convinced this describes the positions represented here.

150 year ago, that was called slavery. You know America fought a civil war to end this exact practice right?

It's not slavery for many reasons. The predominant reasons being that they are there of their own volition, and are not property. Another reason is that they are free to negotiate their wage with their prospective employers, who are also free to negotiate.

[wufwugy]

It's not slavery for many reasons. The predominant reasons being that they are there of their own volition, and are not property. Another reason is that they are free to negotiate their wage with their prospective employers, who are also free to negotiate.

A+

[BananaStand]

It's not slavery for many reasons.

It's really fucking close. Use the term 'indentured servitude' if you like. In fact, I'm going to coin a phrase. If you employ a housekeeper off the books, for below market wages, you are guilty of a....micro-oppression.

The predominant reasons being that they are there of their own volition, and are not property. Another reason is that they are free to negotiate their wage with their prospective employers, who are also free to negotiate.

Seriously?? Employer says "work for 5 bucks an hour, or take your ass back to Juarez". End of negotiation.

They may be there under their own volition, but leaving is another story altogether.

Take the story I related of the man from Bangladesh. He was here legally. I'm sure it's much worse if you're here illegally and your employer has even more leverage to oppress you. How would you address that?

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's really fucking close. Use the term 'indentured servitude' if you like. In fact, I'm going to coin a phrase. If you employ a housekeeper off the books, for below market wages, you are guilty of a....micro-oppression.


Seriously?? Employer says "work for 5 bucks an hour, or take your ass back to Juarez". End of negotiation.

They may be there under their own volition, but leaving is another story altogether.

Take the story I related of the man from Bangladesh. He was here legally. I'm sure it's much worse if you're here illegally and your employer has even more leverage to oppress you. How would you address that?

I think you're really angrily agreeing with me, here. You admit there is a negotiation, and that no parties are property.
The fact that it's a one-sided negotiation has no effect on my point. Both parties are free to set their own value and free to be stubborn about it and free to walk away from the negotiation. Neither has to walk back to Juarez unless they personally want to, just to another business opportunity.

Poor quality of life is not the same as slavery. "Feeling trapped" is not the same as being property.

Indentured servitude is not going on either. Indentured servitude would be if the illegal employer gave a loan to the the illegal immigrant, and coerced the immigrant to remain under his employ, no matter the working conditions, until the debt is repaid. Granted, that can be going on, but that is not the premise of the conversation vis-a-vis immigrant labor options.

The employer in your Bangladeshi story was clearly acting in a criminal manner and I don't think transferring the blame onto the person he was oppressing sounds like justice.

[BananaStand]

You admit there is a negotiation.....The fact that it's a one-sided negotiation has no effect on my point.

A one sided negotiation is called an ultimatum. Look, we can split hairs over who has what leverage, but I'd rather not. The point is that the employers here hold enormous amounts of leverage, and the employees almost none. Maybe it's not quite "slavery" in the literal sense, but the relationship is extremely exploitative.

Employments are typically arranged ahead of time, either through human traffickers having arrangements with employers, or because of an existing relationship with another illegal worker who's already working there. I don't think they are in much of a position to negotiate wages when they arrive. You make it sound like they can just stroll on down the street to the next criminal enterprise and find work, or post their resume on borderjumperjobs.com.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Other arguments against the wall, in this thread, seem to be limited to "drugs are fine" and "illegal workers aren't bothering anyone". Both of which I find completely absurd.

Who said drugs are fine? Please re-read my position if you're referring to my stance on the drug issue.

If they aren't bothering anyone, then why is anything they're doing illegal?

Some laws are bad, and need to be changed.

Any law which criminalized good-willed people who are causing no harm is a bad law.
I mean immediate physical harm. Like terrorism. Not hypothetical harm like, "They're taking our jobs."

I mean... if you applied for a job and didn't get the job because an illegal immigrant negotiated a lower wage than you (even if your negotiated wage was the legal minimum), then I'll pay attention. Otherwise, I don't see any evidence that the jobs they're working have a huge drawing power to Americans. Even if they are... I blame minimum wage for altering Americans' freedom to negotiate a lower, competitive wage for those jobs.

[BananaStand]

Any law which criminalized good-willed people who are causing no harm is a bad law.
I mean immediate physical harm. Like terrorism. Not hypothetical harm like, "They're taking our jobs."

I mean... if you applied for a job and didn't get the job because an illegal immigrant negotiated a lower wage than you (even if your negotiated wage was the legal minimum), then I'll pay attention. Otherwise, I don't see any evidence that the jobs they're working have a huge drawing power to Americans. Even if they are... I blame minimum wage for altering Americans' freedom to negotiate a lower, competitive wage for those jobs.

Well you certainly won't find me supporting the concept of a minimum wage. So on that we agree. However, if one exists, it IS important to respect that law, whether you like it or not. Side note: I predict that over the next half decade most major municipalities and/or states in the US will be voting on various ordinances or referendums to increase minimum wage. Get the fuck out and vote! Side side note: Pay attention to Portland, OR.

In regards to 'taking our jobs'. To some degree they are. But there is a bigger picture. When Jose mows your lawn for $5/hr, he's helping to hold down the wages for the entire labor market. Perhaps a legal worker is making $10/hr, but if he didn't have to compete with Jose, he could demand $12.

I know what you're thinking...."But, Prices!!"

I reject that argument. It was very recently that the price of gas in the US was double what it is now. We took it on the chin. The world didn't stop spinning. Certainly we can absorb an extra 50 cents/lb for strawberries, or pay an extra $5/night for a hotel room. Seems like a small price to pay for the assurance of a fair labor market.

Plus, consumers paying higher prices will receive some benefit back. If the illegal jobs are made legal, there will be tax revenue.

[MadMojoMonkey]

In regards to 'taking our jobs'. To some degree they are. But there is a bigger picture. When Jose mows your lawn for $5/hr, he's helping to hold down the wages for the entire labor market. Perhaps a legal worker is making $10/hr, but if he didn't have to compete with Jose, he could demand $12.

I don't see whether this is a positive or a negative and for whom.
So long as all parties are free to negotiate their wage, then there is no problem, only some people getting all butthurt because the way they want the world to be is not the way the world is. I would love to make double or triple my current wage. If I try to demand that, then someone else will come along and offer to do my job for much close to my current wage and I'm cut out. That's the nature of negotiation.

Here, "legal worker" is free to lower his asking price or to admit that he can't live off of such a low wage and to seek employment elsewhere. "Legal worker" may find that he's being under-bid across the board. That's indicative of a disconnect between his perceived value and others perceived value of his abilities.

Ultimately this is the nature of supply and demand, and I don't see what/whom you're saying is at fault.

I know what you're thinking....

"But, Prices!!"

Nope. Not what I was thinking.

I reject that argument. It was very recently that the price of gas in the US was double what it is now. We took it on the chin. The world didn't stop spinning. Certainly we can absorb an extra 50 cents/lb for strawberries, or pay an extra $5/night for a hotel room. Seems like a small price to pay for the assurance of a fair labor market.

Plus, consumers paying higher prices will receive some benefit back. If the illegal jobs are made legal, there will be tax revenue.

Dude. I think you successfully refuted the point no one was making aside from some imaginary opposition in your head.
Congratulations! You've outsmarted yourself.


We took it on the chin?
Do you remember the outrage and public outcry over the increased fuel prices. People were losing their minds.

I'm all in favor of a fair labor market, but adhering to the current laws like they're some Bible is not compelling me to see the status quo as fair.

[BananaStand]

I don't see whether this is a positive or a negative and for whom.

It's a negative. For the whole economy.

I would love to make double or triple my current wage. If I try to demand that, then someone else will come along and offer to do my job for much close to my current wage and I'm cut out. That's the nature of negotiation.

Ok, now let's suppose you aren't demanding double or triple your wage. Let's say you're happy with the current 'market rate' for your position and experience. Now let's say someone else comes along and offers to do your job for 2/3 of your salary and you get cut out.

Then you hit the job market and find that the guy who took your job isn't alone. There are 11,999,999 just like him out there all willing to do your job for 2/3 of your salary. And they are willing to accept that lower wage because their own criminal behavior makes them more desperate for work. Now the whole market is dragged down and you can't find work unless you also accept 2/3 of your original salary.

Where in that scenario did you do any negotiating? Seems to me like you got fucked over.

In real life, the effect isn't that obvious. It happens slowly, over time. But illegal workers willing to accept a lower wage most definitely depresses wages for all workers. That's....wicked bad.

Ultimately this is the nature of supply and demand, and I don't see what/whom you're saying is at fault.

If there is an illegal manipulation of supply that affects demand for everyone, thus depressing the price of labor; then the fault lies with the illegal manipulators of supply. Namely, that would be the people hiring illegal workers.

Do you remember the outrage and public outcry over the increased fuel prices. People were losing their minds.

People lose their minds about something different every week.

[Jack Sawyer]

Well you certainly won't find me supporting the concept of a minimum wage. So on that we agree. However, if one exists, it IS important to respect that law, whether you like it or not. Side note: I predict that over the next half decade most major municipalities and/or states in the US will be voting on various ordinances or referendums to increase minimum wage. Get the fuck out and vote! Side side note: Pay attention to Portland, OR.

In regards to 'taking our jobs'. To some degree they are. But there is a bigger picture. When Jose mows your lawn for $5/hr, he's helping to hold down the wages for the entire labor market. Perhaps a legal worker is making $10/hr, but if he didn't have to compete with Jose, he could demand $12.

Why are you against a minimum wage?

[BananaStand]

Why are you against a minimum wage?

I disagree with the concept/theory of the gov't, rather than the market, deciding what things should cost. Especially at the federal level

I realize that a minimum wage is effective in preventing the exploitation of workers who don't know any better, and are willing to work for sub-standard wages. It corrects potential unfairness in the market. But for my money, I'd rather go after the forces that are creating that unfairness.

I think the implementation and use of the minimum wage laws have become totally perverted now too.

The minimum wage doesn't just apply to entry level workers. Let's say the minimum wage is $8 per hour, and you have 10 employees working at that rate, and 2 supervisors making $10/hr. If the minimum wage is raised to $9, you have to do more than just raise the 10 entry level employees. The supervisors want a raise too. Then so does their manager, and their manager, and so on. It moves the whole scale.

In effect, it becomes a way for the gov't to redistribute wealth, without technically raising taxes.

Finally this fight for a $15 minimum wage is positively absurd. It's an example of perverting the intent of a minimum wage law and demanding that it provide a "living wage".