|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 31 2014 04:17 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
can you get back to explaining how you will get more workers into your industry by offering the illegal below minimum wage rate? Sure. If you have 5 citizens approach you willing to work for $10/hr, and 10 illegal immigrants approach you willing to work for $5/hr, which one's the better deal to you economically, legal inhibitions aside?
but what if there are no 5 citizens? like the case in the article you apparently didn't read past the first few words
|
On December 31 2014 04:28 IgnE wrote:
Argument by solecism is either trolling or stupidity. Surely, surely, you can see that your post isn't a response to the question being asked.
No, I really don't. ._. But surely you knew appealing to authority (you only brought in evidence after I called you out on the first link you sent me) is similarly faulty. One of the keys to debate is leaving your opponent room to surrender; backing me into a corner is a mistake.
Look, if you don't want me in this thread, just tell me. I'll leave and (try to) never come back.
|
I mostly want you to admit you are talking out of your ass so we can forgive you and reintegrate you into the community of critically thinking posters.
|
I dunno about Igne, just bring some empirical data rather than theorycrafting all day. I doubt someone's idea of playing StarCraft would last if they only thought of ideas without research then cry appeal to authority to a Liquidpedia article when called out.
Hell, the shit Igne posted could be wrong, but try to make an effort to disprove it.
|
Canada11607 Posts
I'm not sure that farms can't function by paying their workers above minimum wage. But certainly if they have the option to pay 10 people for $5, they're picking that every single time, illegal or not. Heck, if they could they'd pay 100 people for $1/hour. But what a business would pay is not the same thing as could pay. If the source of cheap labour was cut off, then the solution would be for the farmers to sweeten the deal. If workers can be picky about if they want to work in the fields or not, then farmers are in competition with other businesses for labour. The answer is to raise wages to attract workers or else some other benefits (free housing? I don't know.)
In Canada, we have a fair amount of temporary foreign workers- largely because it was hard to attract manual labourers- but foreign workers are willing to come because the buying power is so much greater when they take it back home. There's a big scandal involving the program, but that's besides the point. The thing is as long as their is cheap labour from out of country, then businesses will take that option, depressing wages. But if they must stick the actual citizens that live and work in the same country (and therefore labour's buying power is not crazily increased by going to another country) and you cannot attract workers, then wages must go up until you are attracting workers. There's a reason McDonald's workers in Fort McMurray get paid so much- McDonald's is competing against high paying oil jobs. Naturally, the price of everything else increases- Fort McMurray is expensive across the board, but the same naturally would occur with farms if they had no access to foreign, cheap labour. (In addition to automating more things, no doubt.)
|
Why should employers be forced to pay wages at all? They could just offer food and housing for their field hands. It's worked before, it could work again.
Everyone understands your argument that removing minimum wage restrictions could theoretically turn out to be a pareto improvement assuming that food prices are fixed and should remain fixed. The problem is that offering less compensation than slavery is not exactly optimal for the worker.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I think the problem here is that he is just failing at reading. It's been a while since I've seen one person hurt so many heads.
cLAN.Anax you are free to leave. While we promote debate here and like slinging word feces at one another, that is not the case when a party refuses to or is incapable of reading.
|
On December 31 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 04:17 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 31 2014 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
can you get back to explaining how you will get more workers into your industry by offering the illegal below minimum wage rate? Sure. If you have 5 citizens approach you willing to work for $10/hr, and 10 illegal immigrants approach you willing to work for $5/hr, which one's the better deal to you economically, legal inhibitions aside? but what if there are no 5 citizens? like the case in the article you apparently didn't read past the first few words
There are plenty of unemployed individuals/households. I'm confident the positions will be filled somehow come harvest time. My point was that if wages had to increase, productivity would not necessarily increase similarly. As stated in the article:
"We haven't found any machines that can do anything like that," he said. "You can't just pick the whole tree."
See:
On December 29 2014 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +FRESNO, Calif. – Farmers already scrambling to find workers in California — the nation's leading grower of fruits, vegetables and nuts — fear an even greater labor shortage under President Barack Obama's executive action to block some 5 million people from deportation.
Thousands of the state's farmworkers, who make up a significant portion of those who will benefit, may choose to leave the uncertainty of their seasonal jobs for steady, year-around work building homes, cooking in restaurants and cleaning hotel rooms.
Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League, estimates that 85 percent of California's agricultural workers are using false documents to obtain work.
Cunha, who has advised the Obama administration on immigration policy, figures that 50,000 of the state's farmworkers who may benefit from the president's executive action could leave the fields and packing houses in California's $46.4 billion agricultural industry.
"How do I replace that?" he said. "I think we're going to have a problem." Source"But what will I do without my workers criminality to hold over their head and trap them in the job I want them to do?!" Just wow...
On December 29 2014 10:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:
Am I understanding this right? They fear labour shortage because the president blocked deportation and the workers have now picked up permanent jobs?
wat Currently they are working illegally. The pardon will give them legality which gives them the option to move away and get a better job instead of being at the mercy of their slavemaster benevolent employer.
Originally, that's what I was replying to.
|
On December 31 2014 04:48 Falling wrote:
There's a reason McDonald's workers in Fort McMurray get paid so much- McDonald's is competing against high paying oil jobs. Naturally, the price of everything else increases- Fort McMurray is expensive across the board, but the same naturally would occur with farms if they had no access to foreign, cheap labour. (In addition to automating more things, no doubt.)
The reason why McDonald's workers in Fort McMurray get paid so much is because the capital owners would rather appropriate the increased purchasing power of Fort McMurray oil workers for themselves and not their employees. Importing Philippine workers who are less likely to know their legal rights and less likely to stay in Canada -- therefore find the low wages acceptable because they are viewing them as purchasing power back in Philippines -- allows for this. The other way to do this would be just to offer competitive salaries or close, but why let the 'market' or some other communist clap trap stand in the way of labor arbitrage.
|
On December 31 2014 04:50 Souma wrote:
I think the problem here is that he is just failing at reading. It's been a while since I've seen one person hurt so many heads.
cLAN.Anax you are free to leave. While we promote debate here and like slinging word feces at one another, that is not the case when a party refuses to or is incapable of reading.
Prove I'm not understanding you. Don't simply insult me as an illiterate.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On December 31 2014 04:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote:On December 31 2014 04:17 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 31 2014 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
can you get back to explaining how you will get more workers into your industry by offering the illegal below minimum wage rate? Sure. If you have 5 citizens approach you willing to work for $10/hr, and 10 illegal immigrants approach you willing to work for $5/hr, which one's the better deal to you economically, legal inhibitions aside? but what if there are no 5 citizens? like the case in the article you apparently didn't read past the first few words There are plenty of unemployed individuals/households. I'm confident the positions will be filled somehow come harvest time. My point was that if wages had to increase, productivity would not necessarily increase similarly. As stated in the article: Show nested quote +"We haven't found any machines that can do anything like that," he said. "You can't just pick the whole tree."
See: Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:FRESNO, Calif. – Farmers already scrambling to find workers in California — the nation's leading grower of fruits, vegetables and nuts — fear an even greater labor shortage under President Barack Obama's executive action to block some 5 million people from deportation.
Thousands of the state's farmworkers, who make up a significant portion of those who will benefit, may choose to leave the uncertainty of their seasonal jobs for steady, year-around work building homes, cooking in restaurants and cleaning hotel rooms.
Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League, estimates that 85 percent of California's agricultural workers are using false documents to obtain work.
Cunha, who has advised the Obama administration on immigration policy, figures that 50,000 of the state's farmworkers who may benefit from the president's executive action could leave the fields and packing houses in California's $46.4 billion agricultural industry.
"How do I replace that?" he said. "I think we're going to have a problem." Source"But what will I do without my workers criminality to hold over their head and trap them in the job I want them to do?!" Just wow... Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 10:31 Gorsameth wrote:On December 29 2014 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:
Am I understanding this right? They fear labour shortage because the president blocked deportation and the workers have now picked up permanent jobs?
wat Currently they are working illegally. The pardon will give them legality which gives them the option to move away and get a better job instead of being at the mercy of their slavemaster benevolent employer. Originally, that's what I was replying to.
How do you STILL not understand that these unemployed individuals/households are not willing to work on a farm for $9/hr, much less anything less?
You've proved yourself of being illiterate these past few pages. I need not say more.
|
On December 31 2014 04:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 04:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 31 2014 04:33 oneofthem wrote:On December 31 2014 04:17 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 31 2014 04:13 oneofthem wrote:
can you get back to explaining how you will get more workers into your industry by offering the illegal below minimum wage rate? Sure. If you have 5 citizens approach you willing to work for $10/hr, and 10 illegal immigrants approach you willing to work for $5/hr, which one's the better deal to you economically, legal inhibitions aside? but what if there are no 5 citizens? like the case in the article you apparently didn't read past the first few words There are plenty of unemployed individuals/households. I'm confident the positions will be filled somehow come harvest time. My point was that if wages had to increase, productivity would not necessarily increase similarly. As stated in the article: "We haven't found any machines that can do anything like that," he said. "You can't just pick the whole tree."
See: On December 29 2014 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:FRESNO, Calif. – Farmers already scrambling to find workers in California — the nation's leading grower of fruits, vegetables and nuts — fear an even greater labor shortage under President Barack Obama's executive action to block some 5 million people from deportation.
Thousands of the state's farmworkers, who make up a significant portion of those who will benefit, may choose to leave the uncertainty of their seasonal jobs for steady, year-around work building homes, cooking in restaurants and cleaning hotel rooms.
Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League, estimates that 85 percent of California's agricultural workers are using false documents to obtain work.
Cunha, who has advised the Obama administration on immigration policy, figures that 50,000 of the state's farmworkers who may benefit from the president's executive action could leave the fields and packing houses in California's $46.4 billion agricultural industry.
"How do I replace that?" he said. "I think we're going to have a problem." Source"But what will I do without my workers criminality to hold over their head and trap them in the job I want them to do?!" Just wow... On December 29 2014 10:31 Gorsameth wrote:On December 29 2014 10:16 Nyxisto wrote:
Am I understanding this right? They fear labour shortage because the president blocked deportation and the workers have now picked up permanent jobs?
wat Currently they are working illegally. The pardon will give them legality which gives them the option to move away and get a better job instead of being at the mercy of their slavemaster benevolent employer. Originally, that's what I was replying to. How do you STILL not understand that these unemployed individuals/households are not willing to work on a farm for $9/hr, much less anything less? You've proved yourself of being illiterate these past few pages. I need not say more.
Then don't. No need to personally denigrate me. For all I'm aware, you're the one misunderstanding me.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Not once have you addressed the fact that people are not willing to work these jobs at minimum wage, even though multiple people (and the article from which this debate originated) have been trying to get you to read such a simple line. You toss your libertarian generalities around without considering the simple point at hand and ignore everything everyone is trying to tell you to force some stupid ideal into the argument, which might have been okay if it weren't for the fact that one simple fact of the matter renders your entire argument moot. While I welcome "abolish the minimum wage" arguments in most economic discussions, it has no place in the present debate at hand, and for you to not even realize that even after all these pages of text means you're either trolling, dumb, or purposely not reading. In any case, I am done here; I am going to beat my balls with a water bottle as that would be less painful.
|
The California Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that sharecropping arrangements in the pickle industry did not permit growers to ignore the state's workers'-compensation laws. Sharecroppers were not independent operators, the court said, and growers could not avoid their legal responsibilities simply by inventing a new name for their employees. But after subsiding briefly, sharecropping reappeared a few years ago in the strawberry industry, in a new version that makes the old one seem enlightened and humane. Behind many of the current sharecropping schemes are growers and former growers determined to eliminate all risk from the business of producing strawberries. Instead of paying the operating costs of a strawberry farm, these growers--now called commission merchants--lend sharecroppers the money for operating costs at interest rates as high as 19 percent. Under the old arrangement, if things went wrong, sharecroppers simply would not be paid for hard work; under the new one, they are being saddled with thousands of dollars of debt.
Why stop at sharecropping, lets just go all the way back to straight up slavery...? If anyone should be in prison it shouldn't be the people who fell for the statue of liberty's message and crossed an imaginary line to hopefully be able to provide a better life for themselves and their children, it should be the people exploiting the holy hell out of said people.
Either way they shouldn't be complaining about how they wont be able to exploit the shit out of as many people.
Anax have you provided a shred of evidence to support your claims? Not just from your own head but you know, actual information generated by studies or an article or something?
|
Not once have you addressed the fact that people are not willing to work these jobs at minimum wage, even though multiple people (and the article from which this debate originated) have been trying to get you to read such a simple line.
This premise falls flat on its face. This is terribly assuming and I just don't buy it. I've been saying that all along because that's how I've been reading it all along.
Instead of repeating it over and over as if I couldn't read it correctly, you could have tried explaining why that was the case, because it's not accepted fact to me. I wasn't under the impression you had done that at all. That was the impasse we reached.
|
Canada11607 Posts
Well, if citizens are not willing to take the job now (farmers find difficult it to find labourers at current legal wages) and if they instead resort to illegal, cheap labour... the way to find out would be to cut off illegal labour. Right now labour is getting undercut from an outside source, so of course citizens aren't going to work for less than minimum- they can get better pay elsewhere or perhaps equivalent pay for less work. Cut off illegal labour and you'll still need workers (unless you can automate everything), if citizens are still not willing to work, then it seems to me that wages are not high enough to attract workers and higher wages are needed.
And as a general note to all involved, if you are feeling frustrated with impasse, do not take it out on your fellow posters. Perhaps take a small break from the thread until you are less frustrated or move on to different topics within the US Megathread.
|
On December 31 2014 05:18 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +Not once have you addressed the fact that people are not willing to work these jobs at minimum wage, even though multiple people (and the article from which this debate originated) have been trying to get you to read such a simple line. This premise falls flat on its face. This is terribly assuming and I just don't buy it. I've been saying that all along because that's how I've been reading it all along. Instead of repeating it over and over as if I couldn't read it correctly, you could have tried explaining why that was the case, because it's not accepted fact to me. I wasn't under the impression you had done that at all. That was the impasse we reached.
Some of the workers aren't even getting paid, If they happen to sign up on a bad year they may end up owing their boss money instead. People aren't avoiding that because they are worried about getting arrested for working for less than minimum wage (partially because I don't think that has ever even happened) but because they are simply offering a shitty arrangement for anyone except people who don't have another viable choice.
|
On December 31 2014 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The California Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that sharecropping arrangements in the pickle industry did not permit growers to ignore the state's workers'-compensation laws. Sharecroppers were not independent operators, the court said, and growers could not avoid their legal responsibilities simply by inventing a new name for their employees. But after subsiding briefly, sharecropping reappeared a few years ago in the strawberry industry, in a new version that makes the old one seem enlightened and humane. Behind many of the current sharecropping schemes are growers and former growers determined to eliminate all risk from the business of producing strawberries. Instead of paying the operating costs of a strawberry farm, these growers--now called commission merchants--lend sharecroppers the money for operating costs at interest rates as high as 19 percent. Under the old arrangement, if things went wrong, sharecroppers simply would not be paid for hard work; under the new one, they are being saddled with thousands of dollars of debt. Why stop at sharecropping, lets just go all the way back to straight up slavery...? If anyone should be in prison it shouldn't be the people who fell for the statue of liberty's message and crossed an imaginary line to hopefully be able to provide a better life for themselves and their children, it should be the people exploiting the holy hell out of said people. Either way they shouldn't be complaining about how they wont be able to exploit the shit out of as many people. Anax have you provided a shred of evidence to support your claims? Not just from your own head but you know, actual information generated by studies or an article or something?
The most I've done so far is point to this chart showing that there are plenty of unemployed individuals of whom some could probably do the work that these immigrants, who might not have to worry about deportation, move on from. A lot of younger people could (and perhaps should) jump on the opportunity to earn some money and, more importantly, experience and contacts. But if their productivity does not exceed their wage rates, they're not going to get hired, because employing them for a wage lower than the lawful minimum is illegal.
As I said earlier, if I'm wrong, "our culture is one of more expectation and narcissistic entitlement than I'd feared." I'd like to think we're largely better than that, though.
|
On December 31 2014 05:24 Falling wrote:
Well, if citizens are not willing to take the job now (farmers find difficult it to find labourers at current legal wages) and if they instead resort to illegal, cheap labour... the way to find out would be to cut off illegal labour. Right now labour is getting undercut from an outside source, so of course citizens aren't going to work for less than minimum- they can get better pay elsewhere or perhaps equivalent pay for less work. Cut off illegal labour and you'll still need workers (unless you can automate everything), if citizens are still not willing to work, then it seems to me that wages are not high enough to attract workers and higher wages are needed.
Curious: how does a government protect against illegal labor? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know. Seems to me under-the-table transactions are too easy to do and too hard to catch.
I'll have to follow up on this to see how it pans out. If we don't hear from Cali. again about it, either the farmers failed and had to shut down or reduce production, or they found workers after all and continued business as usual.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 31 2014 05:18 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +Not once have you addressed the fact that people are not willing to work these jobs at minimum wage, even though multiple people (and the article from which this debate originated) have been trying to get you to read such a simple line. This premise falls flat on its face. This is terribly assuming and I just don't buy it. I've been saying that all along because that's how I've been reading it all along. Instead of repeating it over and over as if I couldn't read it correctly, you could have tried explaining why that was the case, because it's not accepted fact to me. I wasn't under the impression you had done that at all. That was the impasse we reached.
it's not a premise. it's a factual condition that has farmers complaining, instead of just raising wage and prices.
basically their slave labor supply got cut off and they are flailing
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
