Does the United States really want to fix

[formerroomate99]

Quote:Employers who hire illegals aren't doing so because they like having deal with language barriers or INS raids. They do so because they can't find Americans who are willing and able to do the job for the pay they are offering.


I see it a different way. To say they "can't find Americans" is to imply that they are looking for them. They aren't. They are simple offering the lowest pay possible knowing that some poverty-stricken person is going to take it.

Yes, and we have plenty of empoverished Americans who could take those jobs, and until recently, these jobs were done by Americans. But thanks to our current welfare system, someone with no skills can get a similar standard of living by collecting welfare or working part time and collecting other benefits. Take away the government goodies, and you'll have no problem getting Americans to take these jobs.

And how many Americans are willing to do X job for $Y pay is heavily influenced by our social programs.


Perhaps it is more heavily influenced by what X job and $Y pay actually are.

Yes, let's pay everyone $100k for every single job and see what happens to the economy.

When I was a teenager, the best job I could get was on my feet in 90 degree heat being verbally abused by cranky amusement park guests and being stung by bees. It paid a little more than minimum wage, but I got a ton of hours. Now that I have a solid work history and can qualify for unemployment, if I lost my job tomorrow, a new job would have to pay more than twice that to compete with unemployment and the cost of working. If there were no unemployment, and I lost my job, I'd consider doing the same thing if nothing better was available. Social programs do matter. Yes, of course wages and work conditions also matter, which is why garbage men will always be paid better than grocery store clerks, but among the lower classes, social programs matter just as much.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 15, 2012 9:59:21 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Quote:Employers who hire illegals aren't doing so because they like having deal with language barriers or INS raids. They do so because they can't find Americans who are willing and able to do the job for the pay they are offering.


I see it a different way. To say they "can't find Americans" is to imply that they are looking for them. They aren't. They are simple offering the lowest pay possible knowing that some poverty-stricken person is going to take it.

Yes, and we have plenty of empoverished Americans who could take those jobs, and until recently, these jobs were done by Americans. But thanks to our current welfare system, someone with no skills can get a similar standard of living by collecting welfare or working part time and collecting other benefits. Take away the government goodies, and you'll have no problem getting Americans to take these jobs.

And how many Americans are willing to do X job for $Y pay is heavily influenced by our social programs.


Perhaps it is more heavily influenced by what X job and $Y pay actually are.

Yes, let's pay everyone $100k for every single job and see what happens to the economy.

please stop exaggerating. i am CEO of one business and CFO of another, and NEITHER of those jobs pays $100k.

the living wage law in SF is the richest in the country, and it pays $21,300/year. and, incidentally, living wage would be LESS in most other places, since the COL is much lower. so you are just being outrageous to be outrageous, and have no interest in the topic other than flaming, apparently.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 14, 2012 20:28:25 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Jun 14, 2012 17:29:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah, i have heard that one before, and i am somewhat sympathetic to that argument. moreover, the counterargument is atrocious. it basically goes like this:

"neener neener, we win"

An alternative scripting... Vae victis.

you say toe may toe, i say toe mah toe.

[formerroomate99]

DJ, the reason employers can't find Americans to do these jobs isn't because the lower class in this country has magically disappeared. Americans aren't willing to do these jobs because they can get a similar standard of living collecting goodies on the government's dime.

As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay for medicaid and public school for an American working a shyt job, than to pay for those things for a foreigner AND pay for welfare, medicaid and public schools for an American who refuses to work. Paying for one set of benefits is cheaper than paying for two, and if the price of failure is working in a chicken processing plant rather than sitting around watching TV all day, you'd see a lot more poor kids applying themselves in school.

[vandalshandle]

The original inhabitants of North America were Jews. I know it is true, because I read it in the Book of Mormon.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 15, 2012 13:03:29 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

DJ, the reason employers can't find Americans to do these jobs isn't because the lower class in this country has magically disappeared. Americans aren't willing to do these jobs because they can get a similar standard of living collecting goodies on the government's dime.

how much can one make on the government's dime? i am not being a dick, but i have yet to see an actual number from anyone. what i have seen is a max benefit from each program. but there is no summation of what one person can get that i have ever seen. oh, and i don't mean for 99 weeks- i mean FOREVER.

As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay for medicaid and public school for an American working a shyt job, than to pay for those things for a foreigner AND pay for welfare, medicaid and public schools for an American who refuses to work.

again, how much are they getting- and how?

Paying for one set of benefits is cheaper than paying for two, and if the price of failure is working in a chicken processing plant rather than sitting around watching TV all day, you'd see a lot more poor kids applying themselves in school.

again, i would really like to see a number that doesn't come off a right wing blog which defines how much a person who has never worked and has no intention of doing so is eligible to receive for continuing not to work. until i see that, i have a hard time believing anything you are claiming, here.

[formerroomate99]

again, i would really like to see a number that doesn't come off a right wing blog which defines how much a person who has never worked and has no intention of doing so is eligible to receive for continuing not to work. until i see that, i have a hard time believing anything you are claiming, here

Well, in most states, you can't get welfare forever, but you can collect medicaid, WIC, food stamps, subsadized housing, etc forever if your income is low because you choose to work part time or most retail jobs. So let's just talk about the benefits that people with low paying jobs get.

Whether someone is working 30 hours a week at some prissy retail job or working 40+ hours a week at the local meat processing plant, they are probably going to be eligable for government benefits, especially if they have kids. And since retail jobs can be filled by teenagers and retirees while meat processing jobs have to be done by able bodied adults, having a large number of Americans take the harder meat processing jobs won't necessairly mean a huge shortage in the retail sector. So the real question here is whether you want to continue handing out benefits so that Americans won't have to take the harder meat processing jobs, and allowing those jobs to be done by illegals, who are often also collecting benefits; or do you want to force Americans to take the best paying job they can get, even if it means getting their hands dirty?

Let me give you another example. In the retail world, it is rather common for an employee to turn down an increase in hours, because the benefits they would loose makes the extra money they'd get not really worthwhile. When I was a teenager, I had a choice between a $7/hour job at the local amusement park, in 90 degree heat, dealing with mean drunks on concert nights and bee stings during the day, or a $4.50/hour job at an air conditioned mall store. Since I didn't stand to loose any benefits by taking the higher paying job, I took it, even though I would be working 3 times as hard for not even twice as much money. But if I stood to loose some benefits by taking the slightly higher paying job with slightly more hours, then I probably would have stuck with the mall store.

[TonyTiger]

Jun 15, 2012 13:20:59 GMT -5 vandalshandle said:

The original inhabitants of North America were Jews. I know it is true, because I read it in the Book of Mormon.

Oh, my, that 'bait' almost got to me... ;D

[mmhmm]

Jun 15, 2012 13:53:57 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

When we have able-bodied employees tell us that they want their hours cut because they are making too much money to draw government assistance, there's something pretty damn wrong with the system.

I disagree. I'd say there's something pretty damned wrong with those employees. I'd also show them the door without compunction. Then, they'd have nothing about which to complain.

[mmhmm]

It isn't the system that's the problem, IMO. Some people truly NEED the "system". The problem lies in these lazy employees. Kick them to the curb and hire someone who wants to work.

[vandalshandle]

Lone,
I don't think that anyone would deny that some people work fewer hours in order to be eligible for Medicaid, or ADC, etc. The problem that some of us have is the solution which many propose, which is to do away with the safety net altogether. There are innocent children who need to be fed, and who need medical care. If anyone thinks of a way to protect the innocent who genuinely need assistance, while stopping those that abuse the system, we will all listen.

[TonyTiger]

Jun 15, 2012 14:02:56 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Jun 15, 2012 14:00:56 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I disagree. I'd say there's something pretty damned wrong with those employees. I'd also show them the door without compunction. Then, they'd have nothing about which to complain.

So a system that allows an employee to work less hours in order to draw government benefits, you see nothing wrong with?
Interesting.

Scenario:

You are unemployed.

You are looking - fairly hard and conscientiously - for a new job.

You have had no luck so far in finding one.

Unemployment insurance - while a help - just isn't enough.

Bills are piling up.

Your state allows you to earn X per week ($200? $300?) before the state cuts off or reduces your unemployment.

You find part-time work.

Any likely combination of hours on the part-time job will not be as much as unemployment, but...

Some combination of hours will push you over the State's lowball horizen for weekly earnings, triggering a benefits cutoff or reduction...

You're broke and trying to catch-up and the termination or drastic reduction of unemployment benefits would be catastrophic in the short term until you can get back on your feet...

You go to your boss when he contemplates giving you more hours and ask him not to - not because you don't need the extra money or appreciate the gesture - but because those few extra hours spell the difference between barely squeaking-by (financially) for the month versus a total financial melt-down...

My wife works with someone who is in just that very situation - I reacted in much the same way, until it was explained to me...

Under such circumstances - and knowing now what I know - I can't blame such part-time employees for trying to hold onto whatever they can during such crunch-times...

Heckuva situation...

[formerroomate99]

If anyone thinks of a way to protect the innocent who genuinely need assistance, while stopping those that abuse the system, we will all listen.

The answer is rather simple. If you don't want children to go hungry because of their parent's laziness or bad decisions, then don't pay poor people to have children and put the children in adoptive homes or orphanages if their parents can't take care of them. This is how you break the cycle of poverty.

My grandparents never would have realised what loosers their parents were if the state had paid their sperm and egg donors to keep them. The fact that they were taken away from their parents, put in a stable enviornment and taught correct behavior is what allowed them to rise above their circumstances. They knew that their parent's selfishness and laziness was the reason they were in the orphanage and once they grew up, they were hell bent on making sure their kids would have a better shot at life.

[vandalshandle]

{sigh}

[formerroomate99]

Jun 15, 2012 14:00:56 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jun 15, 2012 13:53:57 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

When we have able-bodied employees tell us that they want their hours cut because they are making too much money to draw government assistance, there's something pretty damn wrong with the system.

I disagree. I'd say there's something pretty damned wrong with those employees.

You're actually both right. There is something wrong with these employees, and the fact that the system rewards this behavior means that there is also something wrong with the system.

On another thread, it was suggested to give the benefits but to icrementally raise the earnings cap while simultaneously lowering the benefits. So the max you can earn before loosing benefits goes up by $x while the amount you get in benefits simultaneously goes down $x. This makes sense.

[TonyTiger]

Jun 15, 2012 14:19:24 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Under such circumstances - and knowing now what I know - I can't blame such part-time employees for trying to hold onto whatever they can during such crunch-times...

But why should the taxpayer, because you've fallen on hard times, supplement your income?

1. You're preaching to the choir - I'm no big fan of ongoing Unemployment Insurance, myself.

2. Most of us DO pay (ourselves, or via our employers) into a State Unemployment Insurance fund, don't we?

3. We learned that lesson (about at least a modicum of Collective Compassion for the Unemployed) in the 1930s and have never forgot it - so far.

"...You don't think the working taxpayer isn't struggling?..."

Again, you're preaching to the choir.

"...With many employees, this isn't a hold on until things get better attitude, it's a permanent lifestyle."

I was under the impression that Unemployment Insurance only lasted for such-and-so number of weeks - was I wrong?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 15, 2012 13:53:57 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

When we have able-bodied employees tell us that they want their hours cut because they are making too much money to draw government assistance, there's something pretty damn wrong with the system.

I had several 30 hour a week guys in the landscape materials business.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 15, 2012 14:17:39 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

If anyone thinks of a way to protect the innocent who genuinely need assistance, while stopping those that abuse the system, we will all listen.

The answer is rather simple. If you don't want children to go hungry because of their parent's laziness or bad decisions, then don't pay poor people to have children and put the children in adoptive homes or orphanages if their parents can't take care of them. This is how you break the cycle of poverty.

My grandparents never would have realised what loosers their parents were if the state had paid their sperm and egg donors to keep them. The fact that they were taken away from their parents, put in a stable enviornment and taught correct behavior is what allowed them to rise above their circumstances. They knew that their parent's selfishness and laziness was the reason they were in the orphanage and once they grew up, they were hell bent on making sure their kids would have a better shot at life.

DING DING DING DING DING



None of this stuff is theory, is it?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 15, 2012 14:19:24 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Under such circumstances - and knowing now what I know - I can't blame such part-time employees for trying to hold onto whatever they can during such crunch-times...

But why should the taxpayer, because you've fallen on hard times, supplement your income? You don't think the working taxpayer isn't struggling? With many employees, this isn't a hold on until things get better attitude, it's a permanent lifestyle.

People have to do what's best for them financially. It IS the SYSTEM that is the problem. In the scenario Tony Tiger described, which I suspect is not uncommon, what would you suggest an individual do?

We've been sabotaged.

What people don't understand is if we strip away all this help and all these options, the massive costs- both direct and indirect- also unwind, and eventually go away. Now the employer can afford to pay more, AND btw, would HAVE TO because without the taxpayer subsidizing employees, the market wage would rise; the employee could afford to work the extra hours because their cost of living would drop with the cost of everything that currently has the incredible costs of the welfare state embedded into it. It doesn't cost just the $200 to $300 for the employee in Tony's scenario, it costs that plus 75% or more to administer the program, plus the long term pension obligation to the bureaucrats.

If we are gonna have welfare, it should be abject servitude. We ought to have a domestic civil service corps that does nothing but community service grunt work. You enlist, you get three hots and a cot ala Sherriff Joe, you paint fire hydrants, sweep subway stations, tar rural roads, change lightbulbs at the park, mow the grass, pick up trash and road kill in exchange for $1,000 a month, plus basic benefits package. You can enlist for two years at a time, max out at ten years, and your first two years, your money is in trust until the end of your term at which point a check for $24K ought to entice you to get the hell on.

If we're gonna do socialism, dammit, let's do it right.

[Deleted]

Jun 15, 2012 9:59:21 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Yes, and we have plenty of empoverished Americans who could take those jobs, and until recently, these jobs were done by Americans. But thanks to our current welfare system, someone with no skills can get a similar standard of living by collecting welfare or working part time and collecting other benefits. Take away the government goodies, and you'll have no problem getting Americans to take these jobs.

There is some truth in that but your attention seems to be turned almost compulsively towards welfare recipients, which strikes me as rather blinkered; there are several other things one could 'take away' from that scenario with the intention of remedying the problem (though I understand that welfare recipients are a convenient scapegoat).

Further, taking away 'government goodies', whilst we'll assume in your favour for the time being that it might solve one problem, may well open up other problems elsewhere.

Yes, let's pay everyone $100k for every single job and see what happens to the economy.

In taking us from one unreasonable extreme to the other you have inadvertently highlighted an important factor -there is effectively no choice to be made as to what people are paid; the matter is decreed by market forces, that is the tyranny under which Americans and other Westerners now live. Fiddling around with the welfare system isn't going to change this.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 15, 2012 13:44:14 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

again, i would really like to see a number that doesn't come off a right wing blog which defines how much a person who has never worked and has no intention of doing so is eligible to receive for continuing not to work. until i see that, i have a hard time believing anything you are claiming, here

Well, in most states, you can't get welfare forever,

i thought that was Federal Law. i guess states can make their own decisions on this, but do they?

but you can collect medicaid, WIC, food stamps, subsadized housing, etc forever if your income is low because you choose to work part time or most retail jobs. So let's just talk about the benefits that people with low paying jobs get.

let's do that. in DOLLARS AND CENTS. i am sure you can't get 100% benefits if you have a job. so what % do you get, for what income, and how much does it amount to?

[formerroomate99]

In taking us from one unreasonable extreme to the other you have inadvertently highlighted an important factor -there is effectively no choice to be made as to what people are paid; the matter is decreed by market forces, that is the tyranny under which Americans and other Westerners now live. Fiddling around with the welfare system isn't going to change this.

Oh yes it will. There is a large segment of the population that are raised to have no interest in learning any usable skills because they know that they can get some McJob and Uncle Sugar will supplement their income, especially if the pop out a few kids. If failing to get any usable skills meant spending the next 40+ years of your life working in a meat processing plant, you'd see a lot more parents encouraging their kids to do well in school and a lot more kids taking advantage of the opportunites they were given.

I absolutely hated working retail, probably as much as most people would hate working at a meat processing plant. One of the main reasons I was so hellbent on getting useful skills is because the thought of working retail the rest of my life scared the crap out of me. When you lower the price of failure, you're going to see a lot more of it. If more Americans have to take those shyt jobs to survive, I can pretty much guarantee you that they will raise their kids very differently than if they had been allowed to work 30 hours a week at some easy job and have their lifestyle supplemented by Uncle Sugar.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 15, 2012 16:40:26 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

In taking us from one unreasonable extreme to the other you have inadvertently highlighted an important factor -there is effectively no choice to be made as to what people are paid; the matter is decreed by market forces, that is the tyranny under which Americans and other Westerners now live. Fiddling around with the welfare system isn't going to change this.

Oh yes it will. There is a large segment of the population that are raised to have no interest in learning any usable skills because they know that they can get some McJob and Uncle Sugar will supplement their income, especially if the pop out a few kids.

how large? 5%? 20%? 60%?

[Driftr]

Last I made up it was 8.674%. But that was as of 2008.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 15, 2012 16:48:56 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Last I made up it was 8.674%. But that was as of 2008.

i don't need three decimal places. i am just looking for a rough estimate. ;D

[vandalshandle]

Famous gravestone epitaphs

Marie Antoinette: "They have no bread? Then let them eat cake!"

[Driftr]

Jun 15, 2012 16:55:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 15, 2012 16:48:56 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Last I made up it was 8.674%. But that was as of 2008.

i don't need three decimal places. i am just looking for a rough estimate. ;D

Oh. Sorry. Sometimes anality gets the best of me.

Rough estimate. Large.

Don't you owe me a graph with foreign loans made by US banks versus US balance of trade? Probably logging off in a couple minutes and doubt I'll be on until Monday, but I'll try and find it again then.

[Deleted]

Jun 15, 2012 16:40:26 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Oh yes it will. There is a large segment of the population that are raised to have no interest in learning any usable skills because they know that they can get some McJob and Uncle Sugar will supplement their income, especially if the pop out a few kids. If failing to get any usable skills meant spending the next 40+ years of your life working in a meat processing plant, you'd see a lot more parents encouraging their kids to do well in school and a lot more kids taking advantage of the opportunites they were given.

I'm having difficulty seeing how this addresses the issue to which it was presumably intended as a response. Your concerns are once again focused on welfare; I'm sorry to report that the rot permeates to a level far deeper than this -I would class the very existence of McJobs as evidence of this fact.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 15, 2012 17:25:48 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Jun 15, 2012 16:55:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't need three decimal places. i am just looking for a rough estimate. ;D

Oh. Sorry. Sometimes anality gets the best of me.

Rough estimate. Large.

Don't you owe me a graph with foreign loans made by US banks versus US balance of trade? Probably logging off in a couple minutes and doubt I'll be on until Monday, but I'll try and find it again then.

\

i spent a half hour looking for that. this was discussed really deeply on another board, and i can't find that thread, either. i have been kinda busy this week, but i will try looking again this weekend.

[Value Buy]

Jun 14, 2012 8:09:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 14, 2012 8:06:09 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well the other dynamic would be that if there were no illegals to do the work that Americans wouldn't do then either the wages for those jobs would increase until they would, or those jobs would be exported. In some service job situations, such as house cleaning or yardwork, the jobs would disappear if the wages needed to be too dear.

Part of the plan in the OP is to cut any subsidies for anyone refusing to work the jobs. I would assume that this means refusing to work for any wage that is offered to them. The idea seems to be if people are homeless and hungry enough, they will take anything.

Bills, did you read my last paragraph?

"If our citizens are working for minimum wage,poverty level jobs, etc, then extend some benefits their way, giving them some incentive to stick out these entry level jobs. Some will move upward on the job level, some will remain at the bottom of the job ladder.
Not everyone can be a policeman, teacher, firefighter, or rocket scientist, so America must admit this and accept the fact a certain percent of our citizenry will work in lower level jobs all their life.
Until we all admit this, we cannot solve the unemployment levels in our country."

Aren't you shocked I would take such a left leaning thought and propose it?