National Emergency

[carpedm9587]

That old chestnut again.

And this is supposed to be a fact-check?

Wow.

From that very same Brookings Institution - apparently it's not just a "chestnut" - it's actually true.

[Mountain Man]

From that very same Brookings Institution - apparently it's not just a "chestnut" - it's actually true.

Am I supposed to be impressed by the Brookings Institution? I've never heard of them, and looking at the source, they offer nothing to substantiate the claim that "undocumented workers often work the unpleasant, back-breaking jobs that native-born workers are not willing to do." But then I follow the link to their source for that quote, and it suggests that illegal immigrants are willing to work long hours in unsafe conditions for little pay and no benefits. So, yeah, of course American citizens aren't willing to take those jobs. Improve work conditions and offer a competitive salary, however, and people will gladly apply.

[carpedm9587]

Am I supposed to be impressed by the Brookings Institution? I've never heard of them, and looking at the source, they offer nothing to substantiate the claim that "undocumented workers often work the unpleasant, back-breaking jobs that native-born workers are not willing to do." But then I follow the link to their source for that quote, and it suggests that illegal immigrants are willing to work long hours in unsafe conditions for little pay and no benefits. So, yeah, of course American citizens aren't willing to take those jobs. Improve work conditions and offer a competitive salary, however, and people will gladly apply.

Gee, MM - that doesn't jive with Sparko's argument that employers should be allowed to pay any amount they wish and as few benefits as they wish and the "market will out." So are you suggesting that we should force companies to change their salaries and benefits so Americans will want the work?


ETA: are you serious that you've never heard of the Brookings Institution?

[Cow Poke]

Gee, MM - that doesn't jive with Sparko's argument that employers should be allowed to pay any amount they wish and as few benefits as they wish and the "market will out."...

I don't see the incongruence that you're seeing.

First, not sure what you mean by "market will out".

Improving working conditions and offering a competitive salary is EXACTLY the response you'd get when a business wants to compete in the marketplace during full employment. Nobody would have to force companies to do that.

I've heard of Brookings, but know nothing about them, a don't really care.

[Sparko]

Gee, MM - that doesn't jive with Sparko's argument that employers should be allowed to pay any amount they wish and as few benefits as they wish and the "market will out." So are you suggesting that we should force companies to change their salaries and benefits so Americans will want the work?


ETA: are you serious that you've never heard of the Brookings Institution?

In the case of illegal workers they have a captive audience. They have no choice. They can't go elsewhere. So there is no competition. The unscrupulous employers gravitate to such a situation and take advantage of them. But I bet even among those unscrupulous employers there is some competition. If they are farmers trying to harvest a field, I bet the one that pays the most gets the workers.

[carpedm9587]

In the case of illegal workers they have a captive audience. They have no choice. They can't go elsewhere. So there is no competition. The unscrupulous employers gravitate to such a situation and take advantage of them. But I bet even among those unscrupulous employers there is some competition. If they are farmers trying to harvest a field, I bet the one that pays the most gets the workers.

Horse hockey, Sparo. Aren't you the "we all have choices" person? There are many businesses hiring illegal workers. And they can always go back across the border to where they came from. After all - this is the land of opportunity, right? No one is trapped by circumstances. Everyone can reach for and gain the "golden ring."

[carpedm9587]

I don't see the incongruence that you're seeing.

First, not sure what you mean by "market will out".

A reference to the much vaunted "free market." (i.e., a variation of "the truth will out.")

Improving working conditions and offering a competitive salary is EXACTLY the response you'd get when a business wants to compete in the marketplace during full employment. Nobody would have to force companies to do that.

I've emphasized the relevant part of your sentence. The problem mostly arises when we have higher unemployment. However even under full employment, we still have a massive number of "working poor." Your observation that this is the response we'll get under full employment can be shown to be false by a simple observation: it's not happening. We are now at full employment, and we still have a massive number of people working at less than a living wage.

I've heard of Brookings, but know nothing about them, a don't really care.

Too bad. They are actually pretty good. I find that pretty much everything I look at from them is well supported or (the few times it is not), a check of the facts from other sources finds them to be pretty spot on.

[Sparko]

Horse hockey, Sparo. Aren't you the "we all have choices" person? There are many businesses hiring illegal workers. And they can always go back across the border to where they came from. After all - this is the land of opportunity, right? No one is trapped by circumstances. Everyone can reach for and gain the "golden ring."

They are making more working for these businesses than they would in Mexico. So to them it is opportunity. And they use it to move up and onwards if they can. Except they have no social security number so they can't get a legitimate job, and the employer can always turn them in to ICE if they complain. Can't do that to legal workers can they?

[Cow Poke]

I've emphasized the relevant part of your sentence. The problem mostly arises when we have higher unemployment.

But we don't. We're talking about NOW -- where we have, indeed, full employment.

However even under full employment, we still have a massive number of "working poor."

Of course we do - not everybody is qualified for the high paying jobs.

Your observation that this is the response we'll get under full employment can be shown to be false by a simple observation: it's not happening. We are now at full employment, and we still have a massive number of people working at less than a living wage.

So, you just want to 'invent' jobs for them? It's incremental --- it doesn't take a genius to see that the lower unemployment is, the harder employers are going to have to work to recruit and retain employees. And, APPARENTLY, the conditions are better here than in a lot of other places like Mexico and Central and South America. That's why people are 'breaking in' to get here!

Carpe - it's like you're only here to pick nit and argue.

[carpedm9587]

But we don't. We're talking about NOW -- where we have, indeed, full employment.

Perhaps you are, CP, but I never placed such a limit on the discussion. IMO, a minimum wage is needed under all employment scenarios - for reasons I have cited.

Of course we do - not everybody is qualified for the high paying jobs.

No one said "high-paying," CP - all that was said was "living wage." I believe a person who works a full work week is entitled to a wage that makes it possible for them to survive above the poverty level.

So, you just want to 'invent' jobs for them?

No - I want equitable pay for the jobs that exist. For the CEO of WalMart to walk away with $22.8M per year when their line employees are not making a living wage is simple economic injustice. It is a powerful corporation taking advantage of the disadvantaged. As I noted, a drop to $20M would give every Wal*Mart employee a $2 raise. That is nothing to the managers and executives, but everything to the cashier earning minimum wage.

It's incremental --- it doesn't take a genius to see that the lower unemployment is, the harder employers are going to have to work to recruit and retain employees. And, APPARENTLY, the conditions are better here than in a lot of other places like Mexico and Central and South America. That's why people are 'breaking in' to get here!

YOu cannot justify an unjust system by pointing to something that's worse, CP. That makes no sense. It's like saying, "gee, Your Honor, my stealing isn't so bad. After all, my neighbor killed someone!"

Carpe - it's like you're only here to pick nit and argue.

I find this is a common refrain when these discussions arise. Somehow, so many of you cannot seem to resist making personal attacks instead of focusing on the arguments and discussions at hand. It really doesn't add much to the discussion, IMO.

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps you are, CP, but I never placed such a limit on the discussion.

Wow! Maybe you're in a time portal and talking about 20 years ago?

IMO, a minimum wage is needed under all employment scenarios - for reasons I have cited.

So a high schooler baptizing french fries needs a "livable wage"?

No one said "high-paying," CP -

I did - and I'm someone.

all that was said was "living wage." I believe a person who works a full work week is entitled to a wage that makes it possible for them to survive above the poverty level.

Ah, so now it's not just "under all employment scenarios", but only those where the person works a full week?

No - I want equitable pay for the jobs that exist. For the CEO of WalMart to walk away with $22.8M per year when their line employees are not making a living wage is simple economic injustice. It is a powerful corporation taking advantage of the disadvantaged. As I noted, a drop to $20M would give every Wal*Mart employee a $2 raise. That is nothing to the managers and executives, but everything to the cashier earning minimum wage.

And how do you propose to achieve this?

YOu cannot justify an unjust system by pointing to something that's worse, CP.

I wasn't justifying it - I was explaining what is.

That makes no sense. It's like saying, "gee, Your Honor, my stealing isn't so bad. After all, my neighbor killed someone!"

Yeah, because employment is EXACTLY like crime.

I find this is a common refrain when these discussions arise. Somehow, so many of you cannot seem to resist making personal attacks instead of focusing on the arguments and discussions at hand. It really doesn't add much to the discussion, IMO.

Personal attacks? I shared my honest opinion. That's a "personal attack"?

[carpedm9587]

Wow! Maybe you're in a time portal and talking about 20 years ago?

Not particularly helpful to the discussion.

So a high schooler baptizing french fries needs a "livable wage"?

No - I do think that jobs for high-schoolers are different. I just am unsure how to craft anything that would carve out that difference. Something age-based, maybe? I don't really know how to handle this.

I did - and I'm someone.

Point taken - I should have said "I was not talking about high wage, so you're arguing against a position I didn't take."

Ah, so now it's not just "under all employment scenarios", but only those where the person works a full week?

Context, CP - the statement was made in the context of a statement you made about "full employment" and was in reference to "all levels of employment" (i.e., low unemployment, high unemployment, etc.)

And how do you propose to achieve this?

Establish a minimum wage that provides a living wage.

I wasn't justifying it - I was explaining what is.

Yes - and we all know things are worse elsewhere. That doesn't mean they are fine as is here - so your observation really had no purpose.

Yeah, because employment is EXACTLY like crime.

No - it is an analogy - not an equality.

Personal attacks? I shared my honest opinion. That's a "personal attack"?

Your observation was about my motivations, CP - and irrelevant to the discussion and arguments being made. So yes - it was a personal attack. Don't get me wrong - I'm not sitting here crying about it. I just find it a pointless distraction to the discussion. I have no clue why so many here seem to feel the need to go there when what we are having is a discussion about issues. But if you need to go there...

[Cow Poke]

No - I do think that jobs for high-schoolers are different. I just am unsure how to craft anything that would carve out that difference. Something age-based, maybe? I don't really know how to handle this.

I can tell.

Your observation was about my motivations, CP

So? They are still my observations.

- and irrelevant to the discussion and arguments being made. So yes - it was a personal attack. Don't get me wrong - I'm not sitting here crying about it. I just find it a pointless distraction to the discussion. I have no clue why so many here seem to feel the need to go there when what we are having is a discussion about issues. But if you need to go there...

Because I believe it's true. And I think you demonstrate it more and more.

[Mountain Man]

Gee, MM - that doesn't jive with Sparko's argument that employers should be allowed to pay any amount they wish and as few benefits as they wish and the "market will out." So are you suggesting that we should force companies to change their salaries and benefits so Americans will want the work?


ETA: are you serious that you've never heard of the Brookings Institution?

Nope, never heard of Brookings, and what little I've seen from your link does not leave me impressed.

And, no, I'm clearly not suggesting that companies should be forced to pay better wages, but it's cold here tonight, so I appreciate the burning straw.

The point is that employers can get away with exploiting illegal workers because what are the workers going to do, risk deportation by going to the local authorities when they're required to do a hazardous job without the proper training or safety equipment?

[Starlight]

wow that list (cant see the wapo one) is ridiculous.

As I've told you before, opening WaPo links using the Incognitio feature in Chrome or Private Browsing in Firefox will show their pages regardless of their silly attempts to limit your monthly visits.

They are splitting hairs to call something he said an error or lie.

I see an EU betting site put their money where Trump's mouth is and allowed bets on how many times Trump would lie. They are paying out because Trump was judged to have lied 6 times during his speech and quite a few people bet on >3.5 lies. They thought the over-under for lies was around 3.5 because it was only going to be an 8 minute speech. Guess they misjudged how many lies Trump can cram in and it's costing them money now.