Immigration: Paying the Price for Following the Law

[Straybow]

Re: Re: Immigration: Paying the Price for Following the Law

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The issue here isn't this chick "playing by the rules" or "law enforcement" or anything more than failing to bid at a level the marketplace is willing to pay.

It is about "playing by the rules" and the liberal weenies who say they believe in paying a living wage but then don't pay it.

[Ramo]

Why should they? Liberal weenies believe in laws to force a decent wage (and associated welfare state). The heartless consies are the ones who trust in market forces to give everyone a reasonable standard of living...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: Immigration: Paying the Price for Following the Law

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The issue here isn't this chick "playing by the rules" or "law enforcement" or anything more than failing to bid at a level the marketplace is willing to pay.

It is about "playing by the rules" and the liberal weenies who say they believe in paying a living wage but then don't pay it.

So what are they paying their employees? Oh, I get it, they're not in business and not paying wages at all, living or otherwise, since they have no employees. They're consumers deciding how much and whether to spend money on non-essential items.

And northern coastal LA County homeonwers don't quite equate to "liberal weenies" - that's more the Hollywood set, but there are plenty of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives in the coastal white belt of LA - especially those old enough/affluent enough to own homes there. Ken Starr, anyone?

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: Immigration: Paying the Price for Following the Law

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The issue here isn't this chick "playing by the rules" or "law enforcement" or anything more than failing to bid at a level the marketplace is willing to pay.

It is about "playing by the rules" and the liberal weenies who say they believe in paying a living wage but then don't pay it.

I don't believe in "paying a living wage" `

[Straybow]

And northern coastal LA County homeonwers don't quite equate to "liberal weenies" - that's more the Hollywood set, but there are plenty of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives in the coastal white belt of LA - especially those old enough/affluent enough to own homes there. Ken Starr, anyone?

Still, those homeowners are willing to pay 5 times as much for their homes as folks in proverbial Peoria pay for the same thing. But in they're too cheap to pay a few extra bucks an hour to get the grass cut. Figures.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
And that's where you'd be wrong. The home landscaping business has exploded in the last couple of decades, for a variety of reasons... but I am saying they wouldn't pay more, and the evidence for it is that they didn't hire landscapers until wages fell.

I think the culture changed. Used to be the kid down the street mowed lawns around the neighborhood. They'd pay him well over the $3/hr minimum wage because, hey, he's the kid down the street and it keeps him out of trouble.

Now the kids on the street are too lazy to work the summer mowing lawns, including the homeowner's own brats (not tolerated in my day), so the homeowner looks for the cheapest solution.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
And that's where you'd be wrong. The home landscaping business has exploded in the last couple of decades, for a variety of reasons... but I am saying they wouldn't pay more, and the evidence for it is that they didn't hire landscapers until wages fell.

I think the culture changed. Used to be the kid down the street mowed lawns around the neighborhood. They'd pay him well over the $3/hr minimum wage because, hey, he's the kid down the street and it keeps him out of trouble.

Now the kids in the neighborhood are too lazy to work the summer mowing lawns, including the homeowner's own brats (not tolerated in my day), so the homeowner looks for the cheapest solution.

[DinoDoc]

A 20 minute dp?

[Gatekeeper]

Re: Re: Immigration: Paying the Price for Following the Law

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Law enforcement isn't an issue - demand is. No amount of law enforcement kept people from getting their hooch during prohibition, nor does it prevent people from getting dope now.

Al Capone during Prohibition and his modern-day cousins, the druglords, help see to that.

I suppose the only real way to deal with the issue of demand for illegal narcotics and whatnot is to come at people through institutions they hold near and dear to their hearts — community, family, faith and so on. IOW, shame them into being better. Heh. Judging from the news wires, it's been a hit-and-miss thing so far, in terms of success (and that's stating it optimistically).

People want cheap labor, when it comes to what they purchase. They don't want to be cheap labor when it comes to their own jobs, but that's another issue. People want the little dirty brown greasy people around as a source of that cheap labor - just not for anything else.

That's a hard-hitting and accurate assessment, MtG. It sums up why playing by the rules are worthless, why platitudes without action are worthless and why, in general, the world seems to be going down the toilet at times. Beneath the veneer of civilization, most of us are still animals. The "I" comes first, and "we" second or worse.

Who knows? Perhaps something will come along and shake things up sufficiently that folks will remember what's important. I wouldn't be on it, though.

And, to be honest, I can't honestly say I *wouldn't* go for the cheaper deal if I had a choice. That said, I'd hope my moral compass would be functioning enough to realize that, if it's cheaper *only* because someone is cheating or using illegal labor, there are more morally satisfying solutions out there. Heh. Kind of like those mutual funds that only invest in "responsible" stocks.

The issue here isn't this chick "playing by the rules" or "law enforcement" or anything more than failing to bid at a level the marketplace is willing to pay.

Then the marketplace needs to be changed — one soul at a time. In that case, I think we'll be here until Hell freezes over.

Gatekeeper

[notyoueither]

I find the number of Americans ready to shrug and say it's cheaper, so it's good, to be a bit surprising.

Laws mean ****.

No wonder the American government can't be trusted to keep trade agreements.

[notyoueither]

It's really funny.

Some of the biggest boosters for '**** it, it's a stupid law I don't agree with' are the same people who will scream at people from other countries about violating their sense of the the universiality of the US Constitution and the American Courts' interpretations of the Bill of Rights.

'**** the law, except the ones I find important and agree with.'

[Kuciwalker]

Your comparison is nonsensical. I don't advocate that other countries adhere to their own laws - since they do - I advocatie that other countries change their laws to be in accord with a principle I value highly.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I find the number of Americans ready to shrug and say it's cheaper, so it's good, to be a bit surprising.

Laws mean ****.

No wonder the American government can't be trusted to keep trade agreements.

The law is there to serve the society; the society is not there to serve the law.

The real problem with immigration debate is that (much like those around abortion and gun control) it is dominated by shrill extremists on either side. A measured, reasoned discussion of the economic, social, and cultural impact of immigration, culminating in a consideration of sensible policy, is simply impossible in the current political climate.

Amnesty, not for all illegals but for all illegals with jobs, is one such sensible solution. Make these folks legal, and now you have to pay them minimum wage. Minimum wage would be like manna from heaven compared to what they're now getting, and it would keep landscaping (and housekeeping, and child care, and elder care) within the budget of people who are now using the service. Everybody wins except for people who reflexively hate brown people and whiny lefties who place their notions of what is Good above the actual well-being of actual people -- and those folks losing is just the icing on the cake.

[Kuciwalker]

And enforcing the law is an absurd proposition in the first place. How do you propose we deport 10 million people?

[Kuciwalker]

If I mentioned one of the few historical examples of forced migration on a similar scale you'd claim Godwin.