Billings Montana no Wally Docking

MichaelC wrote:
Would you trade minimum wage laws for a complete removal
of all illegal immigrant labor in this country? Think
carefully before you answer.

"Icono Clast" wrote:
Different issues. Not a fair question.

MichaelC wrote:
Same issue. Illegal immigrant labor floods the labor market
with a low cost labor "product", which pulls down wages for
the entire labor "food" chain.

Take out "illegal immigrant" and I don't disagree but I maintain:

It is an employer paying less than ought be to the people a few
hours away from [select starvation eviction
water/gas/electricity cut off out of gasoline etc? /select]
who "pulls down wages for the entire labor 'food' chain". If a
dirty job at an illegal wage is all that's available to keep you
from [see above], you do it and give your child a glass of
milk.

.. . . and not the desperate, at fault.

Sorry, but there's no room to disagree here -- this is Econ 101
from any college in the country. There exists a free market for
labor just as there eixsts a free market for goods and services.
The greater the number of applicants for a given job, the less the
employer has to pay to get the guy/gal he wants.

Yeah. No problem with that.

When it comes to illegals, they get plugged into jobs where the
employer can fudge the system, low-trained US workers have to take
other jobs (fast food) and because there's a dozen applicants for
the burger flipping job, the empllyer could pay whatever he
wants.

The legal status of a job seeker is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if
there's a thousand incipient 'burger flippers, the employer is still
required to abide by the law.

Now, if you pull the illegals out of the equation, everyone moves
up the food chain, and the same worker applies for jobs and McD,
Wendys, and BK, and if he's the only competent applicant, picks
the one paying the most, thus forcing the employer to "buy" him
with higher wages.

We have more than enough desperately poor people without "illegals"
to accept Minimum Wage jobs. "Illegals" are irrelevant.

If the labor supply was constrained, this "living wage" b**s**t
wouldn't even be under discussion. The BK on Geary would have to
either pay the buy 10 bucks an hour, or offer him full time full
benefits, to get him.

Well of course: Supply/Demand - it's a law!

Think though that process the next time you go to the polls.

If you remove illegals from the equation, the real cost to
hire an employee willing to flip a burger on Geary Street
might very well reach or exceed $8.50 per hour.

"Illegals" are irrelevant. A living wage should be the right of any
and every fully-employed person any and every where. Might be $8.50
in San Francisco and $3.50 in East Saint Louis, $0.25 in Peking;
doesn't matter.

The "illegals" are the scofflaw employers, not those desperate
for work . . . If you're talking about people who have entered
the country without going through the proper channels, there is
no difference. They're all effectively undocumented.

Doesn't matter where the come from, does it?

As a conservative/libertarian (or whatever), I object to laws
designed to fix problems that other laws (or, in this case,
lack of enforcement thereof) cause.

That's correct. If you know of an employer who hires, for
example, undocumented Canadians to do a job for which US
citizens are qualified and available, call your local Department
of Labor. The times I've done so (for other reasons), I've been
impressed by how quickly, well, and effectively they responded.

Sure, but there is anecdotal evididence that the Feds only spank
the employer and release the illegal. Without consequences, law is
meaningless.

Yes. Who's at fault for that?

What about the 90% of the workplace regulations that
*don't* increase risk to rank and file life and limb?

I've not read them in so long that I don't know to what you
refer. The laws of which I'm aware are legislated
recognition of some of the conditions won by the deaths of
striking workers.

SEC regs, affirmative action regs, eeoc regs, american with
disabilites regs, etc..........etc.....etc...... All of them have
good purpose,

That's good enough for me. The reasons those laws exist, even if
they're burdensome, is because of the historic abuses of employees.

but amount to us loading Lance Armstrong down with a fifty pound
weight and telling him to win the next Tour de France.

I don't understand the analogy. Yes, I know who Lance is.

Forbes estimates that the cost of compliance with regulations
in this country (the most expensive regs are usually those
involved with EEO compliance, next to safety) is three million
jobs per year. Three million jobs added to the equation would
take the unemployment rate to replacement levels (2-2.5%) and,
like the illegals question above, would increase the cost of
your Geary Street burger flipper to your hypothetical living
wage.

If those three million jobs would be with long hours at sub-standard
wages in an unsatisfactory working environment, t'hell with 'em.

In 2008, the wave of retirees which constitutes 1/3 of the
workforce (in total) will retire. The younguns might be nice,
but I doubt they'll be willing to work tripleshifts to
compensate for the retirees who want to go fish.

We old people'l out-vote 'em!

Actually, we likely will, refusing to deal with the reality that
saddleing them with our retirement is unethical.

All of us who were employed after 1937 were saddled with the burden
of supporting retirees. Had the gummint handled the funds honestly
and competently, there would be no problem.

The problem with Social Security is that the revenue collected
goes into the General Fund rather than being kept separate as it
ought. The "solutions" proposed by the idiot in the White House
are neither sound nor realistic.

I don't like the solutions either, but the system is failing. If
it contained a private component when it was created, we wouldn't
have this problem right now.

The simplest fix is that Social Security contributions be levied upon
all wages earned. During the ten years that I maxed out my
contributions, I received a "bonus" check or two at the end of the
year. I think it ought not be possible to max out one's contribution.
Yes, that would be unfair to those who have high wages. So what? They
have more money!

Bottom line is that available jobs will, in the near future,
*far* exceed the labor force, and again, this talk of greed
and living wage will be moot.

Looks that way.

Yuppies/Boomers have proved to be the most selfish,
self-centered, inconsiderate, and short-sighted of
generations. I believe their social and economic attitudes
bear a significant responsibility for the demise of union
membership and organized work places as well as the
acceptance of a greater than normal work weeks and lesser
than livable wages. It is my hope that the generation now
entering the work force will see the errors of the
Yuppie/Boomer generation and demand the kinds of working
conditions, and wages, that I had for most of my working
life.

They won't have to "demand" anything, and employers will be
offering working scenarios that not even the most creative
unionist could imagine. Stay tuned.

Yup.
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan who's stickin' t'the union!
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net