Question for you political gurus

[Thumb]

These people are still selling us all out every chance they get

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/secret-deal-quadruples-foreign-workers-in-u-s/

It's unbelievable

Fine example of why many are completely fed up with all of this bullshit and throwing support to guys like trump and sanders

http://youtu.be/PBqrWL3h9-g

History doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme

http://youtu.be/WINDtlPXmmE

Are you fucking kidding me?

Nobody wants those jobs, which is why we need immigrants to do them. There is absolutely no gang of people bitching that all the dishwasher, motel maid service, day laborer, janitor, etc. jobs aren't available to them because of guest workers.

 

[tigermud]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Nobody wants those jobs, which is why we need immigrants to do them. There is absolutely no gang of people bitching that all the dishwasher, motel maid service, day laborer, janitor, etc. jobs aren't available to them because of guest workers.

If that's what you want to believe, did a globalist republican tell you that? Lol . No sir thumb I am NOT FUCKING KIDDING YOU!!!

Although the H-2B program requires employers to advertise job openings prior to petitioning for guest workers, the ads are designed to attract as little attention from American workers as possible, according to Smith.

“Buzzfeed found that while employers do post ads for American workers, they employ numerous strategies to make sure no one actually responds. The investigation found that one guest-worker employer, Talbott’s Honey of South Dakota, ran ads in newspapers in Texas and New Mexico, hundreds of miles away from its area of operation. Similarly, in North Carolina, the state’s online job board incorrectly posted seasonal Christmas-tree-cutting jobs ‘in the wrong counties, sometimes hundreds of miles from any pine forests.’”

As a result, Buzzfeed reported, “workers looking for Christmas-tree work close to home face a peculiar paradox: The only way to find the openings nearby is to search in a faraway corner of the state.” Other ads across the country simply failed to include contact information or the name of the company.

Another clever tactic of H-2B employers is to include overly stringent requirements in the want ads.

Lori Johnson, a lawyer from Legal Aid of North Carolina, told Buzzfeed that there is little evidence such requirements are ever imposed on the foreign guest workers who ultimately get the jobs. The ads are designed to “filter out U.S. workers,” Johnson concludes.

This may explain why, in fiscal 2015, only 505 American farmworkers in North Carolina found jobs from listings on the state’s Department of Commerce’s website, even though more than 7,000 American farmworkers in the state had registered with the agency to seek work.

“Quadrupling the number of H-2B visas will artificially increase competition for the jobs that typically go to the nation’s most vulnerable. Black unemployment in North Carolina, for instance, is 17 percent, four times the U.S. average and the fourth-highest rate for blacks across the nation. Members of Congress from Maryland and North Carolina, such as Congressional Black Caucus chairman G. K. Butterfield (D., N.C.), should join the bipartisan effort to condemn the bill,” Smith concluded.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/secret-deal-quadruples-foreign-workers-in-u-s/#Tu9qhcr6e50AwzIS.99

 

[Sbee]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Nobody wants those jobs, which is why we need immigrants to do them. There is absolutely no gang of people bitching that all the dishwasher, motel maid service, day laborer, janitor, etc. jobs aren't available to them because of guest workers.

it's not that nobody wants the job, nobody wants the job at the wages that are offered. you want to stop illegal immigration, go after the employers who profit off of the cheap labor, just be careful what you wish for.

 

[Michchamp]

as far as blame for illegal immigration goes, if you think about it logically, (i.e. you consider who is hiring them, and who is in a position to actually do something about it) the immigrants themselves should be pretty far down on the ladder. and besides, it's tough to blame people in desperate circumstances for doing what they have to just to feed their families. all of us would do the same damn thing if we had to, and most - if not all! - of our ancestors did, it's just that immigration law at the time permitted it.

although people with lower IQs than me who are often virulent racists disagree with me, so maybe I'm wrong...

 

[Gulo Blue]

Whatever products can be made/harvested either here or overseas are going to have this problem. It's tough (maybe impossible) to have employees living an American lifestyle if your product can be shipped from less wealthy parts of the world no matter how you cut it.

 

[tigermud]

Race to the bottom brought to you by repodems

http://www.naturalnews.com/052390_H-2B_visas_job_losses_Representative_Paul_Ryan.html

Thank a repodem

 

[Thumb]

it's not that nobody wants the job, nobody wants the job at the wages that are offered. you want to stop illegal immigration, go after the employers who profit off of the cheap labor, just be careful what you wish for.

I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make here.

And nobody wants those jobs. No high school graduates are thinking they really hope they can snag that job changing come-stained sheets at a Best Western, or wash dishes at an Applebee's regardless of the wage.

Everyone wants to bitch about immigrants or guest workers except when they are eating a salad and some guacamole because without those people doing those low wage jobs, shit heads wont have things to eat while being cunts and backing Trump.

 

[Spartanmack]

as far as blame for illegal immigration goes, if you think about it logically, (i.e. you consider who is hiring them, and who is in a position to actually do something about it) the immigrants themselves should be pretty far down on the ladder. and besides, it's tough to blame people in desperate circumstances for doing what they have to just to feed their families. all of us would do the same damn thing if we had to, and most - if not all! - of our ancestors did, it's just that immigration law at the time permitted it.

although people with lower IQs than me who are often virulent racists disagree with me, so maybe I'm wrong...

Pretty sure Thumb is the only person on here with a lower IQ than you and he agrees with pretty much everything you say. I don't think he's as virulently racist as you though.

 

[Spartanmack]

Whatever products can be made/harvested either here or overseas are going to have this problem. It's tough (maybe impossible) to have employees living an American lifestyle if your product can be shipped from less wealthy parts of the world no matter how you cut it.

it's not just less wealthy parts of the world - companies are leaving the US in droves, going to Europe and the Cayman's to take advantage of significantly lower tax rates. The government managed to vilify companies for being unpatriotic and inverting their domicile out of the US but they seem to be over that stigma now that it seems Congress is unable to make being unpatriotic about letting the government confiscate their earnings in perpetuity illegal.

 

[Michchamp]

Whatever products can be made/harvested either here or overseas are going to have this problem. It's tough (maybe impossible) to have employees living an American lifestyle if your product can be shipped from less wealthy parts of the world no matter how you cut it.

the government could mitigate this by mandating any products entering the country meet US wage, labor, environmental, & safety standards, AND really enforce this. a lot less incentives for corporations to move things overseas when they can't see the cost savings they'll get for being able to pay starvation wages, use borderline slave labor (or actual slave labor as in the case of the SE Asia fishing industry), child labor, and violate just about every workplace safety standard known to Americans.

It's funny how nice you can make it sound by referring to labor abroad as "low cost"... really masks how brutal the conditions are on the ground.

but as we barely enforce those things in our own country these days, fat chance of applying them to imported goods...

 

[tomdalton22]

the government could mitigate this by mandating any products entering the country meet US wage, labor, environmental, & safety standards, AND really enforce this. a lot less incentives for corporations to move things overseas when they can't see the cost savings they'll get for being able to pay starvation wages, use borderline slave labor (or actual slave labor as in the case of the SE Asia fishing industry), child labor, and violate just about every workplace safety standard known to Americans.

It's funny how nice you can make it sound by referring to labor abroad as "low cost"... really masks how brutal the conditions are on the ground.

but as we barely enforce those things in our own country these days, fat chance of applying them to imported goods...

yes...with our government, this is impossible.

 

[Michchamp]

yes...with our government, this is impossible.

it sucks for most Americans, though. for business owners able to move production abroad (mostly to the Far East) it's been just a wonderful time to make lots of money.

such waste too... look at every "rust belt" town from western NY to Iowa... a lot of them were gutted as capital fled the US to avoid minimum wage laws, labor standards, worker safety standards, US courts and legal standards, etc. all of which cost money. and for good reason! all those schools, homes, police and fire departments, libraries, town halls, all written off and decaying. No one ever does a true accounting of the overall costs of these business decisions; as they say, the owners privatize the profits and push some large portion of the costs on the public. and any attempts to rectify this situation are popularly understood now to be "big government overreach" or "anti-business."

I think more and more people are waking up to the reality here, though there remains a large number that either can't or won't understand the reality here and just want to blame Mexicans. compare Bernie Sanders supporters with Donald Trump's supporters.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Yup. No easy answers. Where you're competing with 2nd or 3rd world products there's a multifaceted tradeoff between

-2nd or 3rd world elements/conditions in your 1st world country
-giving up on that particular industry in your country
-tariffs
-subsidies
-technology advancements that reduce labor requirements

And all these things have problems.

 

[Gulo Blue]

the government could mitigate this by mandating any products entering the country meet US wage, labor, environmental, & safety standards, AND really enforce this. a lot less incentives for corporations to move things overseas when they can't see the cost savings they'll get for being able to pay starvation wages, use borderline slave labor (or actual slave labor as in the case of the SE Asia fishing industry), child labor, and violate just about every workplace safety standard known to Americans.

It's funny how nice you can make it sound by referring to labor abroad as "low cost"... really masks how brutal the conditions are on the ground.

but as we barely enforce those things in our own country these days, fat chance of applying them to imported goods...

Even with those mandates, when they are policed/enforced there are problems. Remember the whole "holding a shoe up" thing in Michigan Stadium? There was some talk that while intentions were good, the impact was bad, since the end result meant pulling the factory out of wherever it was. It's really ugly wherever there's that level of poverty, but when you have child labor and unsafe low paying factory jobs like that and you take it away, it's worse for the people involved. That doesn't justify the practice. It's just a tough reality.

It has to be globally uniform to work. But I do think we're getting there. That level of poverty is on the decline.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it's not just less wealthy parts of the world - companies are leaving the US in droves, going to Europe and the Cayman's to take advantage of significantly lower tax rates. The government managed to vilify companies for being unpatriotic and inverting their domicile out of the US but they seem to be over that stigma now that it seems Congress is unable to make being unpatriotic about letting the government confiscate their earnings in perpetuity illegal.

It's tough to write laws that are always fair. I'd expect companies to be strategic, but it seems like your options should be limited to the nations where you are actually doing stuff with some proportion to the level of activity you have there. One of the things taxes pay for is infrastructure for the societies that you either manufacture in or sell to. If the Cayman's haven't built a society that can really contribute to your enterprise in a physical way, it doesn't seem right that they should benefit from being a legal passthrough for money. I'm not blaming the companies as much as the nations that benefit from creating tax shelters. It feels like they are getting something for nothing.

 

[tomdalton22]

it sucks for most Americans, though. for business owners able to move production abroad (mostly to the Far East) it's been just a wonderful time to make lots of money.

such waste too... look at every "rust belt" town from western NY to Iowa... a lot of them were gutted as capital fled the US to avoid minimum wage laws, labor standards, worker safety standards, US courts and legal standards, etc. all of which cost money. and for good reason! all those schools, homes, police and fire departments, libraries, town halls, all written off and decaying. No one ever does a true accounting of the overall costs of these business decisions; as they say, the owners privatize the profits and push some large portion of the costs on the public. and any attempts to rectify this situation are popularly understood now to be "big government overreach" or "anti-business."

I think more and more people are waking up to the reality here, though there remains a large number that either can't or won't understand the reality here and just want to blame Mexicans. compare Bernie Sanders supporters with Donald Trump's supporters.

There is plenty of blame to go around. The greed of the companies, some of the unions and some of the unskilled laborers themselves. The uneducated, unskilled American worker thinks they are entitled to own $200K houses and $40K cars...that is part of the problem as well.

 

[Michchamp]

There is plenty of blame to go around. The greed of the companies, some of the unions and some of the unskilled laborers themselves. The uneducated, unskilled American worker thinks they are entitled to own $200K houses and $40K cars...that is part of the problem as well.

you're pretty out of touch if you think a $200k house is excessive for someone working full time. a $40k car, sure. but buying an expensive car is a dumb decision for most of the population, regardless of their income level or skill/unskilled status. $200k buys you not much of a house in most cities or suburbs, unless you're willing to live way out in the country and endure long commutes & pay more for gas.

also... as a more rhetorical point: I've heard Republitards trot out that criticism of wages/salaries of unskilled labor (or even of skilled union trade labor that they lump in... like plumbers, electricians, etc) many times. back in Michigan the bogeyman was always that proverbial long-time Ford or GM worker who had 2500 sq ft house, a boat, a weekend place up north etc, which would absolutely ENRAGE the person telling the story, even though this had no bearing on their own life whatsoever.

why is it that the same guy trots out unfailing faith in "the free market" in response to criticism of the high salaries of CEOs and other c-level types, but when wages of union labor is brought up - which of course were NEGOTIATED by tge unions and these same bosses & CEOs, the latter of whom hold more of the cards during the negotiation - it's a travesty, and we need the government to pass new laws to destroy the unions?

 

[tomdalton22]

you're pretty out of touch if you think a $200k house is excessive for someone working full time. a $40k car, sure. but buying an expensive car is a dumb decision for most of the population, regardless of their income level or skill/unskilled status. $200k buys you not much of a house in most cities or suburbs, unless you're willing to live way out in the country and endure long commutes & pay more for gas.

also... as a more rhetorical point: I've heard Republitards trot out that criticism of wages/salaries of unskilled labor (or even of skilled union trade labor that they lump in... like plumbers, electricians, etc) many times. back in Michigan the bogeyman was always that proverbial long-time Ford or GM worker who had 2500 sq ft house, a boat, a weekend place up north etc, which would absolutely ENRAGE the person telling the story, even though this had no bearing on their own life whatsoever.

why is it that the same guy trots out unfailing faith in "the free market" in response to criticism of the high salaries of CEOs and other c-level types, but when wages of union labor is brought up - which of course were NEGOTIATED by tge unions and these same bosses & CEOs, the latter of whom hold more of the cards during the negotiation - it's a travesty, and we need the government to pass new laws to destroy the unions?

The median home value in the US is $182K.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you're pretty out of touch if you think a $200k house is excessive for someone working full time.

I don't think that's true, historically speaking and adjusting for inflation...I haven't seen a distribution, and granted, there's a lot of room between "excessive" and "entitled", but I think $200k is solidly upper middle class for most of the country. Not in big cities, but most places.

Full-time at three times minimum wage is $45 k a year. I've heard rules of thumb about how much home you can afford in the 2-3 times your annual salary. That still doesn't get you to $200k.

 

[Gulo Blue]

...and home ownership has been pretty flat from the 1960s to present; always between 63 and 70%.