The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

What an insane amount of firing and shuffling people around so early.

 

Reminds me of the Redskins 2009 season.  Maybe Trump can hire a bingo-caller to replace the beleaguered Jeff Sessions.

[visionary]

 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[PleaseBlitz]

It's really amazing that the guy elected largely on the basis of his business acumen is entirely unaware of the economic benefits of immigrants.

[visionary]

 

[FanboyOf91]

Seriously.

[twa]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

It's really amazing that the guy elected largely on the basis of his business acumen is entirely unaware of the economic benefits of immigrants.

 

How can you say that with his wife and workers?

[Destino]

Trump is doing exactly what everyone knew he would do.  He's taking steps to deal with the  "demographics problem" (maintaining a white majority) by reducing the number of immigrants.  This was widely predicted during the last election by those aware of his ties to white nationalism.  This isn't about jobs or the economy.  

 

Not sure how he plans on getting white people to have to have more babies, but they'll need to encourage that somehow as well.  Outlawing abortion might help.  Expect them to try.  

[PleaseBlitz]

7 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

Not sure how he plans on getting white people to have to have more babies, but they'll need to encourage that somehow as well.  Outlawing abortion might help.  Expect them to try.  

 

Or stop dying.

[visionary]

 

[BornaSkinsFan83]

Stephen Miller is a virgin. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

5 minutes ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

Stephen Miller is a virgin. 

 

And a serial killer.

[No Excuses]

This bill is doomed from the beginning because it isn't getting 60 votes in the Senate.

 

I don't think it even gets 50 in the Senate or 218 in the House.

 

The people truly living in a bubble are not the "coastal elites". It is the bigots in closed-off communities who cheer this nonsense without ever experiencing the beauty and strength of America's diversity and multiculturalism.

Edited August 2, 2017 by No Excuses

[SkinInsite]

 

[Destino]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Or stop dying.

white walkers?

[FanboyOf91]

 

[Larry]

9 hours ago, Hersh said:

I don't quite follow here. There are countless examples these days of businesses not being able to fill jobs with American workers despite good pay. It's not feasible to say these business should simply keep raising pay in order for Americans to take the jobs and not quit. Now these same businesses aren't getting the same visas to bring in workers and are being forced to close early or not open at all which negatively impacts the American workers they do have.

This quest by the white power crew of Trump, Cotton, Kobach, etc, is a job killing/killing small business quest. This, along with Heath care is what will ultimately cause people to turn on the administration as these aren't just businesses run by liberals being negatively impacted.

 

I guess I just have a problem with the oft-repeated claim of "jobs that Americans won't do".  

 

I don't think there is such a thing.  

 

What there is, are jobs that Americans won't do at the prices that the industry has gotten used to paying  

 

Offer enough money, and Americans will be perfectly willing to do that job.  

 

I seem to remember this being referred to as "the market price".  

 

 "The market price" is a price which is negotiated at the bargaining table.  And (at least in my opinion) there ought to be (at least) two parties at that table (in this case, both employers and labor).  An (again, in my opinion) those two sides ought to be roughly equal in power.  

 

In short, at said negotiating table, the government shouldn't be standing at one end of the table, saying "if y'all don't take what the employer is offering, then we'll just step in and authorize the employer to hire foreigners, at a price that's cheaper than what you'll take."  

 

Unless there's some national-interest reason why the government should be interfering in that negotiation.  If somebody can make a case that

 

1)  The market wage, if the industry is forced to negotiate with American labor, would be $X.

2)  And a labor rate of $x will simply cause the industry to cease to exist in the US.

3)  And there is a national-interest reason why we must have this industry exist, domestically, at some level

 

. . . then maybe you've got a case for why the government needs to be intervening in this market.  

 

(For example, if you can demonstrate that America needs rural doctors, and American doctors want so much money, to practice in rural areas, that the hospitals will simply shut down, rather than pay them, and that it's in the national interest for those rural hospitals to remain in business, then maybe there's a case, there.)

 

But instead, what many of these stories consist of is statements from some industry which consist of "Foreigners will do this job for $X, and that's what I'm offering, and Americans want more, and if you cut off my supply of foreign labor (at the prices I'm used to paying), then it will hurt my business".  And to me, all that article says is "I've gotten used to paying my workers the 'foreign worker market price'". 

 

 

 

 

[LD0506]

[StillUnknown]

5 hours ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

Stephen Miller is a virgin. 

 

looks like the type to pay people to stand on his balls 

[Hersh]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I guess I just have a problem with the oft-repeated claim of "jobs that Americans won't do".  

 

I don't think there is such a thing.  

 

What there is, are jobs that Americans won't do at the prices that the industry has gotten used to paying  

 

Offer enough money, and Americans will be perfectly willing to do that job.  

 

I seem to remember this being referred to as "the market price".  

 

 "The market price" is a price which is negotiated at the bargaining table.  And (at least in my opinion) there ought to be (at least) two parties at that table (in this case, both employers and labor).  An (again, in my opinion) those two sides ought to be roughly equal in power.  

 

In short, at said negotiating table, the government shouldn't be standing at one end of the table, saying "if y'all don't take what the employer is offering, then we'll just step in and authorize the employer to hire foreigners, at a price that's cheaper than what you'll take."  

 

Unless there's some national-interest reason why the government should be interfering in that negotiation.  If somebody can make a case that

 

1)  The market wage, if the industry is forced to negotiate with American labor, would be $X.

2)  And a labor rate of $x will simply cause the industry to cease to exist in the US.

3)  And there is a national-interest reason why we must have this industry exist, domestically, at some level

 

. . . then maybe you've got a case for why the government needs to be intervening in this market.  

 

(For example, if you can demonstrate that America needs rural doctors, and American doctors want so much money, to practice in rural areas, that the hospitals will simply shut down, rather than pay them, and that it's in the national interest for those rural hospitals to remain in business, then maybe there's a case, there.)

 

But instead, what many of these stories consist of is statements from some industry which consist of "Foreigners will do this job for $X, and that's what I'm offering, and Americans want more, and if you cut off my supply of foreign labor (at the prices I'm used to paying), then it will hurt my business".  And to me, all that article says is "I've gotten used to paying my workers the 'foreign worker market price'". 

 

 

 

 

 

Your phase of "I've gotten used to paying my workers the foreign worker market price" is way off base. I don't mean this in a condescending tone at all, but have you been a business owner?

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Your phase of "I've gotten used to paying my workers the foreign worker market price" is way off base. I don't mean this in a condescending tone at all, but have you been a business owner?

I haven't.  Can you explain to me why it's wrong?  I get that if we didn't have foreign workers that we would be paying $20 for a ear of corn.  But that to me says something about our workforce.  But I also have never owned a business.

[twa]

Are import duties so high corn would be $20 a ear?

Eat some greens instead, they grow wild and are better for ya.

 

signed

         a business owner

 

Dog breeder: What do you feed your dog?
Turnip green farmer: Turnip greens
Dog breeder: My dog wouldn't eat those
Turnip green farmer: Mine wouldn't either, for a month.

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by twa

[Larry]

42 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Your phase of "I've gotten used to paying my workers the foreign worker market price" is way off base. I don't mean this in a condescending tone at all, but have you been a business owner?

 

My use of the phrase is completely accurate. Whether I've owned a business or not. 

 

Proof:

 

1). Foreign workers are willing to perform that job, for (whatever the price is). 

2). American workers want more money, to perform the same job. 

3). (The fact that, right now, foreign workers are performing the job, and Americans are not, proves that statements 1 and 2 are true). 

 

Now, again, there could well be a reason why we don't want this industry to be paying whatever it takes to get Americans to do the job. Just because importing foreign workers is a distortion of the market, (and one which reduces wages paid to American citizens), does not automatically made it a bad policy. 

 

But we do need to recognize that that's exactly what it's doing. 

[Hersh]

22 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

My use of the phrase is completely accurate. Whether I've owned a business or not. 

 

Proof:

 

1). Foreign workers are willing to perform that job, for (whatever the price is). 

2). American workers want more money, to perform the same job. 

3). (The fact that, right now, foreign workers are performing the job, and Americans are not, proves that statements 1 and 2 are true). 

 

Now, again, there could well be a reason why we don't want this industry to be paying whatever it takes to get Americans to do the job. Just because importing foreign workers is a distortion of the market, (and one which reduces wages paid to American citizens), does not automatically made it a bad policy. 

 

But we do need to recognize that that's exactly what it's doing. 

 

Do you think businesses have unlimited resources to pay whatever it would take for Americans to do the work? (I think you are off base here as well assuming that there is a reasonable price that would get an American to do a specific job) You said that there is a negotiation, two parties at the table, but now you are saying that businesses should just pay what it takes for an American to do the work. Small businesses, in particular, would not survive if that was the case. 

 

Some things you are overlooking: Many companies that get foreign workers also have many American workers. There are a lot of seasonal companies that need foreign workers, paying well over minimum wage, because Americans don't want to move for short term work while the seasonal work is too long for college kids. A big part of the problem with wages isn't simply on the business side, but on the consumer side with an unwillingness to pay more for products if there are less expensive options. 

 

Now, there are probably some cases in which companies are used to the foreign wages as they offer very little in the first place. That could be in the case in agriculture but I don't know enough about that sector to speak on it at all. That is certainly not the case everywhere. 

 

I would say that pressure on small businesses to survive has a bigger impact on salaries than foreign workers. That certainly could be different for larger, established companies. 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Hersh