I didn't read this thread, but did anyone else read the subject as *****?
Just me?
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- OWS Protest Full of Crooks!
OWS Protest Full of Crooks!Follow
How long have you been away from your husband?
I've been tired enough some days to read it as Prostate Full of *****.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Tired of labels being repeated that completely distort reality.
Use the word "liberal" a few more times, won't you...
I clearly defined exactly what I was talking about. If you wish, I'll post a several page long explanation of what I mean by "social liberalism". I suspect you don't want that though.
No you didn't; you talked about accepting assumptions then complained about "old liberals" and "young liberals". But, by all means, if you feel like typing up some more posts that make Stephen King look clear and concise...well we all know you're gonna do it anyways.
You leave SK out of this!
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I didn't read this thread, but did anyone else read the subject as *****?
Just me?
Just me?
Actual photo taken at Zuccotti Park.
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Nope. Really not. Why would you think so? You actually believe that more than an insignificant portion of our total agricultural output is picked by people being paid illegal under the table wages? While I'm sure there are a number of illegals working in those jobs, they get paid the exact same amount of money as the guys next to them who are not illegal immigrants. You've seriously bought some kind of fairy tale if you think otherwise.
The consequences of knowingly employing illegal labor and paying them illegal wages is significant for any large agricultural business (which is where the vast majority of our food comes form btw). If they're paying someone less than minimum wage under the table because the employee is an illegal, they can't hide this easily *and* when caught can't deny that they knew the worker wasn't legal (much less paying them illegally, violating tax laws, and a dozen other violations). They pay low wages, but it's the same for legal and illegal workers.
Uh, that is demonstrably false.
Then by all means, demonstrate away. Show me that when an employer hire a bunch of short term laborers to pick his fruit, that he separates them into legal and illegal categories and pays them differently. Cause that would be pretty darn amazing. While you can argue that the presence of illegal immigrants does drive wages in those labor fields downwards across the board, the resulting wages are similar whether one is actually in the country illegally or not. The individual farm owner does not look at each laborer and say "You're illegal, so I'll pay you $.50/hour less".
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I didn't read this thread, but did anyone else read the subject as *****?
Just me?
Just me?
Actual photo taken at Zuccotti Park.
Thats the biggest **** ive ever seen.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I didn't read this thread, but did anyone else read the subject as *****?
Just me?
Just me?
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Nope. Really not. Why would you think so? You actually believe that more than an insignificant portion of our total agricultural output is picked by people being paid illegal under the table wages? While I'm sure there are a number of illegals working in those jobs, they get paid the exact same amount of money as the guys next to them who are not illegal immigrants. You've seriously bought some kind of fairy tale if you think otherwise.
The consequences of knowingly employing illegal labor and paying them illegal wages is significant for any large agricultural business (which is where the vast majority of our food comes form btw). If they're paying someone less than minimum wage under the table because the employee is an illegal, they can't hide this easily *and* when caught can't deny that they knew the worker wasn't legal (much less paying them illegally, violating tax laws, and a dozen other violations). They pay low wages, but it's the same for legal and illegal workers.
Uh, that is demonstrably false.
Then by all means, demonstrate away. Show me that when an employer hire a bunch of short term laborers to pick his fruit, that he separates them into legal and illegal categories and pays them differently. Cause that would be pretty darn amazing. While you can argue that the presence of illegal immigrants does drive wages in those labor fields downwards across the board, the resulting wages are similar whether one is actually in the country illegally or not. The individual farm owner does not look at each laborer and say "You're illegal, so I'll pay you $.50/hour less".
gbaji wrote:
The individual farm owner does not look at each laborer and say "You're illegal, so I'll pay you $.50/hour less".
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Oddly enough, it was a bad sci-fi book from Piers Anthony that taught me most of what I know of the migrant labor system. In the first book of Bio of a Space Tyrant, Hope Hubris spends a while on the Jupiter migrant labor bubbles. At some point, the workers unionize and demand their pay go up from 10 cents a bucket to 25 cents a bucket, and the farmers complain that paying that much to illegal bubble refugees is going to break them. Riots ensue, etc etc. The union leader is killed and many of the migrants, including the main character, are forced to join the Jupiter army instead of going to jail.
Although the metaphor was stretched to extend to outer space, the dollar amounts were dead on for when it was written in the 1980s. Migrants are paid by the bucket, often as low as a quarter per bucket. A fast picker might fill a bucket in 15 minutes. So that's a dollar an hour at most....
Although the metaphor was stretched to extend to outer space, the dollar amounts were dead on for when it was written in the 1980s. Migrants are paid by the bucket, often as low as a quarter per bucket. A fast picker might fill a bucket in 15 minutes. So that's a dollar an hour at most....
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
[People getting paid under the table often times get paid a bit less, illegal immigrant or not. Are you really unaware of this practice?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
[People getting paid under the table often times get paid a bit less, illegal immigrant or not. Are you really unaware of this practice?
Depends on the wage. The laborer getting paid $5 an hour instead of minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is probably making about the same at the end of the day since no payroll taxes are deducted. The one getting paid a quarter a bucket is getting paid a lot less, even untaxed.
Agree completely. That's likely an exception, not a rule though in the US.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
We in the commercial landscape industry hire legal workers because we're unionized. So it makes no sense to (intentionally) hire illegals when we'd just have to pay them union scale anyway and take the risks. We fear the Local 150 guys more than the federal immigration guys.
I'm sure a percentage of the workers are illegal and using falsified documentation but that's different from looking for Mexicans to hire at $3/hr.
I'm sure a percentage of the workers are illegal and using falsified documentation but that's different from looking for Mexicans to hire at $3/hr.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Nope. Really not. Why would you think so? You actually believe that more than an insignificant portion of our total agricultural output is picked by people being paid illegal under the table wages? While I'm sure there are a number of illegals working in those jobs, they get paid the exact same amount of money as the guys next to them who are not illegal immigrants. You've seriously bought some kind of fairy tale if you think otherwise.
The consequences of knowingly employing illegal labor and paying them illegal wages is significant for any large agricultural business (which is where the vast majority of our food comes form btw). If they're paying someone less than minimum wage under the table because the employee is an illegal, they can't hide this easily *and* when caught can't deny that they knew the worker wasn't legal (much less paying them illegally, violating tax laws, and a dozen other violations). They pay low wages, but it's the same for legal and illegal workers.
Uh, that is demonstrably false.
Then by all means, demonstrate away. Show me that when an employer hire a bunch of short term laborers to pick his fruit, that he separates them into legal and illegal categories and pays them differently. Cause that would be pretty darn amazing. While you can argue that the presence of illegal immigrants does drive wages in those labor fields downwards across the board, the resulting wages are similar whether one is actually in the country illegally or not. The individual farm owner does not look at each laborer and say "You're illegal, so I'll pay you $.50/hour less".
The only way for it to make sense from a business owners perspective, is if the risk of hiring is outweighed by the value gained from hiring. If two laborers were being paid the same the business owner would always hire the legal worker. It would be a self correcting problem. A standard laborer might be paid $8/hr or so. If there is the option to purchase labor for $3-5/hr, from an illegal immigrant, the business owner then has an actual choice, and then must pay them under the table.
Just as Planned.
Paying them the same wage would be cheaper. You wouldn't be paying any payroll taxes, holiday pay, vacation pay or overtime rates.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Timelordwho wrote:
The only way for it to make sense from a business owners perspective, is if the risk of hiring is outweighed by the value gained from hiring. If two laborers were being paid the same the business owner would always hire the legal worker. It would be a self correcting problem. A standard laborer might be paid $8/hr or so. If there is the option to purchase labor for $3-5/hr, from an illegal immigrant, the business owner then has an actual choice, and then must pay them under the table.
This also requires that the owner know ahead of time which of his workers are legal and which are illegal and make a conscious choice to use that knowledge to pay them different rates. Which, incidentally, makes the whole thing more risky. If immigration descends upon his farm, he can always say "There are illegals working here? I had no idea! Honest!" and immigration is going to have a hard time proving that he magically knew that the name and social security number he was handed upon hiring the worker was false (doubly so since current law prevents him from having any way of determining whether it's false). But if he's paying different workers different amounts based on their legal status, he's pretty much nailed.
Obviously, the employer can also take advantage of the whole system and just pay all his workers a low wage under the table knowing that most of them will accept it legal or not. He's breaking the law and taking advantage of the high percentage of illegal workers in the workforce he's hiring, but for smaller farms and for shorter periods of work, he's more likely to do that.
I guess the point though, is that this really has a very very small effect on the overall price of the food you buy in your grocery store. Mostly we're talking smaller fruit producers hiring for seasonal needs, which makes up a pretty tiny percentage of the total costs involved in food production in this country. this site does a decent job dispelling the whole "If we eliminated illegals from our farm workforce, it would raise food prices" argument. While this site has a specific agenda, the base numbers also work if your argument is finding a way to allow existing illegals to work legally at a normal market wage, or want an "open border" approach (ie: it's not just about this groups agenda):
Quote:
An average household currently spends about $370 per year on fruits and vegetables. If curtailing illegal alien agricultural labor caused tighter labor conditions and a 40 percent increase in wages, the increased cost to the American family would be $9 a year, or about 2.4 cents per day. Yet for the farm laborer, the change would mean an increase in earnings from $8,800 to $12,350 for each 1,000 hours of work (25 weeks if the worker worked 40-hour weeks). That increase would move the worker from beneath the federal poverty line to above it.
Hardly a deal breaker or an economy buster IMO.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Yeah, but it increases labor prices across multiple industries causing a pricing cascade.
Which is technically not bad for the unskilled US worker, but the cost absorption hits more than once for the industry, as well as more than just one industry.
Which is technically not bad for the unskilled US worker, but the cost absorption hits more than once for the industry, as well as more than just one industry.
Just as Planned.
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
An average household currently spends about $370 per year on fruits and vegetables. If curtailing illegal alien agricultural labor caused tighter labor conditions and a 40 percent increase in wages, the increased cost to the American family would be $9 a year, or about 2.4 cents per day. Yet for the farm laborer, the change would mean an increase in earnings from $8,800 to $12,350 for each 1,000 hours of work (25 weeks if the worker worked 40-hour weeks). That increase would move the worker from beneath the federal poverty line to above it.
Hardly a deal breaker or an economy buster IMO.
This must be that American Dream everyone is talking about.
Apart from the questionable math, I notice the author leaves out the rest of the food industry such as meat/poultry (remember the Perdue chicken plant raids from some years back?). He quotes someone saying Americans spend more on alcohol than fruit which is sort of perplexing since, last I checked, alcohol production has a pretty significant agricultural component. I think more people are worried about the rising cost of "food" than the explicit price of strawberries.
Beyond that, it's amusing to see the author contradicts Gbaji's original claim that both workers are lumped together into one happy payroll:
Edit: He does briefly reference livestock production in paragraph seven but handwaves it away, apparently under the impression that it doesn't use any immigrant labor or something
Since we're just grabbing random sites these days with the caveat "He has an agenda, but this is good!", here's more information on the immigrant wage gap:
Forget quibbling over "per apple" prices -- You don't think a 13% change in payroll is significant? Aren't you the one who throws conniption fits when someone suggests raising the minimum wage sixty cents because it'll be too much of a burden for the businesses to handle?
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 9:55am by Jophiel
Beyond that, it's amusing to see the author contradicts Gbaji's original claim that both workers are lumped together into one happy payroll:
Immigration article wrote:
What is misleading about such claims is that they ignore that there is a visa program for foreign agricultural workers that allows an unlimited number of annual entries of legal workers if the employer first tries to find American workers, complies with protections for the foreign workers, and pays wages high enough to not undercut wages for American workers. [...] But, because it is cheaper for the employer to hire illegal workers, the program has been underused.
Edit: He does briefly reference livestock production in paragraph seven but handwaves it away, apparently under the impression that it doesn't use any immigrant labor or something
Since we're just grabbing random sites these days with the caveat "He has an agenda, but this is good!", here's more information on the immigrant wage gap:
Quote:
The IRCA reforms have proven to be a case of good intentions gone awry. Instead of a legal farm workforce, more than half—53 percent—of today’s farm workers are unauthorized. Cite. Although agricultural workers are a small part of the illegal alien population—estimated to be 12 million in 2006—the proportion of workers in agriculture who are illegal is among the highest in any occupation.
Clearly, the H-2A visa program never realized its goals; H-2As never accounted for a significant portion of the agricultural labor force. (Only 7,011 persons with H-2A visas were admitted in FY2005.) Farmers complain that the H-2A is “bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation.†Cite.
The most important explanation may well be the wage differential between legal and unauthorized farm workers. Hourly earnings for illegal alien farm workers were 8 to 9 percent below those of their legal counterparts for the periods 1989–1998 and 1999–2001, respectively. During the 2002–2004 period the gap grew to 13 percent.
Clearly, the H-2A visa program never realized its goals; H-2As never accounted for a significant portion of the agricultural labor force. (Only 7,011 persons with H-2A visas were admitted in FY2005.) Farmers complain that the H-2A is “bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation.†Cite.
The most important explanation may well be the wage differential between legal and unauthorized farm workers. Hourly earnings for illegal alien farm workers were 8 to 9 percent below those of their legal counterparts for the periods 1989–1998 and 1999–2001, respectively. During the 2002–2004 period the gap grew to 13 percent.
Forget quibbling over "per apple" prices -- You don't think a 13% change in payroll is significant? Aren't you the one who throws conniption fits when someone suggests raising the minimum wage sixty cents because it'll be too much of a burden for the businesses to handle?
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 9:55am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
wat
This is why we're fat.
(I estimate my husband and I pay closer to $1000 a year on fresh fruits and vegetables just for the two of us, but then again, we eat healthy, real food.)
Quote:
An average household currently spends about $370 per year on fruits and vegetables
This is why we're fat.
(I estimate my husband and I pay closer to $1000 a year on fresh fruits and vegetables just for the two of us, but then again, we eat healthy, real food.)
catwho wrote:
wat
This is why we're fat.
(I estimate my husband and I pay closer to $1000 a year on fresh fruits and vegetables just for the two of us, but then again, we eat healthy, real food.)
Quote:
An average household currently spends about $370 per year on fruits and vegetables
This is why we're fat.
(I estimate my husband and I pay closer to $1000 a year on fresh fruits and vegetables just for the two of us, but then again, we eat healthy, real food.)
If you buy frozen vegetables, or only what's on sale, you could eat plenty of "healthy, real food" at well under your $1000 estimated mark.
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 11:50pm by Spoonless
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 11:50pm by Spoonless
Oh, shut up, spoonless. Your idea of a healthy diet consists of switching to light beer.
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 11:54pm by Lubriderm
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 11:54pm by Lubriderm
Recent Visitors: 129
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (129)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- OWS Protest Full of Crooks!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC