Thread for people to explain how immigrants take jobs

[Pax]

My position train and educate the people(whatever country you may live in) before we start looking outside the borders to employ people.
Consider this also in my job, I'm willing to risk my life for less than $25.00 per hour. At that price point a lot of Police Officers are disgruntled. I really believe that there are legal citizens out there willing to take the job for about $13.00 per hour. I further believe that you could probably import Mexican Police to do the job for even cheaper. But just because it's cheaper does not make it better and it also does not make it fair. My life is worth more than $25.00 per hour and it only takes a fraction of that to cease my earning potential if you know what I mean. So the idea of finding the cheapest labor is not always fair to the workers.

[C0ckney]

I wonder how much of that is an expectation issue ("I don't want that crap job"), and how much is because immigrants don't have recourse to public funds unlike the indolent natives.

it's both really. the native people think they are too good for jobs like fruit picking and at the same time know that they have the option of staying on the dole.

[Pax]

HC, in reference to your comment about the "best" qualified getting the job. Do you think veterans should be given any preferential treatment with respect to jobs? Do you think veterans should be given in benefits from the government after serving their country?

[MikeH]

I wonder how much of that is an expectation issue ("I don't want that crap job"), and how much is because immigrants don't have recourse to public funds unlike the indolent natives.

Yeah, I'm sure it's a bit of both.

[MikeH]

this is true, although this is certainly an argument for forcing the local unemployed to take those jobs. it's ridiculous to pay healthy young people to sit on their lazy arses and do nothing while importing workers from the other side of the continent to do a low skilled job like fruit picking.

It's difficult though, let's say, you're a recent graduate who's been struggling to find full time work in your chosen field. Is forcing you to pick fruit the best thing to do? Not all unemployed are lazy layabouts.

And there's always the third option of turning to crime, if you say "hard physical labour, or no benefits" how many people will say, "looks easier spending 2 hours a day selling drugs"

And if you force people to do a job motivation will be low.

There's also the point that fruit picking isn't actually that low skilled and migrant groups of skilled fruit pickers are very productive. And it's an industry where poor quality picking, or slow picking, can ruin a crop and therefore ruin the farmer.

Not as simple as saying "Make the unemployed pick the fruit" IMO.

[Jon Miller]

It's also a guaranteed way to make sure that all your non-fruit picking skills become obsolete.

Also, as mentioned, it is actually high skill. I have known several people who were like 'we will help pay for our vacation by picking fruit/etc/etc' and found that to pick the same amount of fruit as a fruit picker (or whatever, my brother did coffee) they needed to spend 2-4 times as long...

JM

[Dauphin]

And there's always the third option of turning to crime, if you say "hard physical labour, or no benefits" how many people will say, "looks easier spending 2 hours a day selling drugs"

Then you'll have drug dealers complaining about graduates stealing their jobs.

[C0ckney]

edit: x-post, responding to mikeh

well at least someone selling drugs is showing a bit of enterprise, and let's be honest, most drug dealers work for far more than 2 hours a day.

i worked for a summer on a farm supervising people (from eastern europe, naturally) picking fruit. as far as i know, none of them had previous experience. obviously with any job, it takes a little time to learn the ropes, but fruit picking is not exactly rocket science and anyone can learn how to do it reasonably well within a short space of time. as for motivation, it's a challenge for any employer in any job and no doubt they will find ways to motivate their pickers (for example, i used to divide my pickers into teams and have them compete against each other, for small rewards, which was pretty effective). i remember the money wasn't bad either, it was above minimum wage.

It's difficult though, let's say, you're a recent graduate who's been struggling to find full time work in your chosen field. Is forcing you to pick fruit the best thing to do? Not all unemployed are lazy layabouts.

yes this could be a problem. i would say it should work something like this. let's say that there are 500 picking jobs available in an area, firstly you encourage people to take the jobs. if the positions aren't filled then you take people who've been out of work for an extended period of time, say 6 months for the sake of argument, and have them do the jobs or face losing their benefits.

[Jon Miller]

6 months is not that much time in the current economy.

JM

[C0ckney]

Then you'll have drug dealers complaining about graduates stealing their jobs.

won't someone spare a thought for our hard working drug dealers

[DaShi]

If they can't compete with high school chemistry teachers, then they should just start picking berries.

[C0ckney]

It's also a guaranteed way to make sure that all your non-fruit picking skills become obsolete.

i don't see how spending a few months picking fruit will erode people's skills any more than a few months spent sitting on your backside. doing something is going to be better for someone's skills than doing nothing.

6 months is not that much time in the current economy.

maybe not, perhaps a longer time would be more appropriate, it's something that could be studied. unfortunately i don't have several months and a team of researchers to conduct such a study. perhaps you could start with people out of work for over 2 years, then 1 year, then 6 months until you get a sufficient number of people.

[DaShi]

You could apply for a Fulbright.

[Heraclitus]

Specifically, prove why these people are incorrect. Cite studies, use logic, I don't care. I just want to give you all the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, and while you're at it, explain why (if applicable) you prefer wealth transfers, whether by tax money or charity money, to people in first world countries instead of third-world countries. I will accept Felch-style arguments for this one, just demonstrate that you're intellectually honest enough to admit your favoritism. (If I am mischaracterizing you, Felch, I apologize.)

This thread sponsored by posts made by kentonio, Pax and Oerdin.

Some people are too stupid to do any job. A few people are bit less stupid and will soon be obsolete but can for now do only a few jobs.

Importing more stupid (even if they come clustered with average and moderately above average folks) soon to be obsolete people is economically speaking good in the short term because they at least have a work ethic unlike home-grown stupid Americans, also by avoiding minimal wage laws illegal immigrants really are a boon economically to the businesses that hire them.

In the long term it sucks because stupid people are obsolete and in 40 years time there literally won't be a job people with an IQ of 100 will be able to do that will enable them a middle class existence. There will be vanishingly few jobs for people with IQs lower than 90.

Now if Americans where content to be like Persian Gulf Arabs and be ok with a large fraction of the population not being citizens and ultimately not their concern, the USA's future would be pretty sweet, since they would get to kick out illegals as they become obsolete (getting rid of citizens is much harder). As it is the future of the US is California.

[DaShi]

Don't worry, Hera, there will still be jobs for you in 40 years. If you can't pick berries, we're always looking for new fluffers.