Flighty wrote:

I am sort of OK with a high minimum wage. It is fine for people like me, well behaved, experienced, well trained people who are legal US workers. People like me will be able to start off at or above this minimum wage, build experience and occupy leadership positions permanently.

THAT is why a raise should be considered. It's not just a good wage to build experience; it should also be a wage to at least get by. We complain about moochers who "don't work"...well, how about giving them a wage that at least allows them to get off the government aid?

I do understand the notion that a burger flipper or a cashier shouldn't be earning too much, but this isn't a value of talent, but rather giving someone a wage where they can work but not be overworked. And I understand that cost of living in certain areas is different. Whereas you may get by with $7.25 in South Dakota (no state income tax and relative low cost of living), try living in NYC for the same wage.

Hillis wrote:

Flighty wrote:

I am sort of OK with a high minimum wage. It is fine for people like me, well behaved, experienced, well trained people who are legal US workers. People like me will be able to start off at or above this minimum wage, build experience and occupy leadership positions permanently. Lower value workers will just be cast aside, because it will be illegal to employ them. I am not sure what the plan is for them.

God, but that paragraph reeks with arrogance. Most people are well-behaved, legal workers. The ones that are illegal are hiried by businesses whose jobs Americans won't take because they're backbreakingly physical work, and said businesses can pay them less than minimum wage under-the-table.

Don't blame the workers for that; blame the companies who hire them, and refuse to pay wages that Americans can live on. And, what, in your mind, is a lower-value worker and what do they do? Are they the onces picking up after you in your office? Or are they the ones cleaning the restrooms at work? Who are they? You make them sound like they're sub-human, and can just be discared like the trash you throw into the waster basket.

That whole paragraph smell of overt racism.

You just finished defending people who are not legal workers. And like it or not, many people have a criminal record.

Do you really see people who are not high school graduates, or repeat offenders, or nonlegal workers, making the $15+ benefits (really more like $20+) minimum wage advocated by the left... I am just saying that you are advocating for me (and probably yourself). You are not advocating for the under privileged. They will be shut out of that. Yes, it will be well connected white people who will clean bathrooms. That is exactly how it is at my local university. Those are highly prized jobs.

People who can't compete at a high level for these $50k jobs just won't work... they will be on benefits. Low value is people who can't command over say 9 bucks an hour right now. It's not meant to gauge their humanity at all. Some of the most fabulous people I know, who are better than me make 9 dollars an hour. One is a vet's assistant. I don't even agree with the term "low skill" for similar reasons. That is an unfair word. I am just referring to their earning power. Low earning power if it helps you.

Flighty wrote:

You just finished defending people who are not legal workers. And like it or not, many people have a criminal record.

It would be closer to the truth to say I excoriated arrogent people like yourself, who clearly feel they are a superior beings who are "lower value workers", who doesn't know what to do with them. You make them sound like scum. Most are fleeing here illegally because they cannot afford the cost associated with getting here legally, and many are fleeing a drug war that exists beause Americans north of that border have an insatiable appetite for illicit drugs.

I'll wager many of them do more work in a day than either of us.

Flighty wrote:

Do you really see people who are not high school graduates, or repeat offenders, or nonlegal workers, making the $15+ benefits (really more like $20+) minimum wage advocated by the left.

Most people who are undocumented don't make minimum wage to begin with. They can't because the businesses that hire them, and know they're not documented would be busted by the Government for employing them in the first place. And if they do pay decent wages, the work is often so hard physically that most Americans and legals don't want them.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-06/ ... heres-cost

Again, you blame the brown people who are taking the work, instead of either the people who hire them or the people who won't take the work.

You do realize these people do help the economy as well? They're consumers. They aren't 11 million moochers. They buy good and services, they pay rent, they buy groceries. Taking 11 million people out of the economy would hurt the economy terribly.

So instead of throwing out 11 million people, why don't we have a program that does get rid of those with a history of committing crimes, while giving a path to citizenship to those who are already here? Many who work their asses off to just get by have earned it. Instead, we have ICE acting like the SS and hauling people away in front of their children.

[/quote="Flighty"]People who can't compete at a high level for these $50k jobs just won't work.[/quote]

Bullshit. Most can't compete for those jobs because they can't afford the education to qualify for those jobs. We've priced higher education out of the ballpark for the poor and many in the middle class. Unlike the civilized world, we demand a student or a parent go into massive debt to get an education. Why aren't we following the civilized world in allowing anyone who wants to go to college, and is accepted by the school(s) they apply to, to go tuition-free? There's even a revenue neutral way to do it, which is redirect that $93 billion a year in Corporate Welfare to funding student loans? Then more people could quailify for those types of jobs, and our economy would even be better off. What is your opinion about that proposal.

You make those who make $9 an hour sound like pieces of trash. You're the problem, not them.

Hillis wrote:

Bullshit. Most can't compete for those jobs because they can't afford the education to qualify for those jobs. We've priced higher education out of the ballpark for the poor and many in the middle class. Unlike the civilized world, we demand a student or a parent go into massive debt to get an education. Why aren't we following the civilized world in allowing anyone who wants to go to college, and is accepted by the school(s) they apply to, to go tuition-free? There's even a revenue neutral way to do it, which is redirect that $93 billion a year in Corporate Welfare to funding student loans? Then more people could quailify for those types of jobs, and our economy would even be better off. What is your opinion about that proposal.

You make those who make $9 an hour sound like pieces of trash. You're the problem, not them.

At $15+benefits per hour, most of the people I mentioned are unemployable. For them to work would be illegal under your plan. It's not my judgment, it is a consensus in which you also play a part. You are part of the consensus because you will also not pay random people $15. Instead you will hire only the best-qualified, if you hire anybody at all. Which you may not.

Minimum wage doesn't really change anybody's pay; it changes WHO can legally work. . A high minimum wage will eliminate diversity in the workforce, taking us back to an earlier time. Again, that is your policy preference, not mine necessarily.

Oddly enough I think we agree on what we would like to see, strong wages and opportunity for the U.S. working classes, paid for by rich US stockholders, and also a reduction in labor competition with foreign countries. I think you just don't realize that the supply of labor is involved in setting wages. But setting a high minimum wage will get rid of half the labor force anyway, so unwittingly, you are supporting "deport them all" with an added dose of condemning many Americans to a life without the possibility of work.

Hillis wrote:

health care coverage and medical leave. ALL of that is the result of union activism that everyone, whether they're part of a union or not, benefits from in the United States.

Not true.

The Economic Stabilization act of 1942 in combination with Executive Order 9250 froze salaries and wages for American workers. What did not freeze, however, was the need for companies to hire and retain workers with the appropriate skills or workers at all. Since they could not entice workers with additional pay employers got creative and began providing insurance and health benefits to their workers, which is how healthcare and employment became connected in the American economy. It was not the intervention of unions.

That story makes it incredible that American leftists are so utterly devoid of common sense as to believe that more government meddling is the solution to a problem created entirely from government meddling. Not to mention that it is a cautionary tale that the market always wins no matter how hard the government tries to mess with it.

Hillis wrote:

The early Industrialization of the United States was filled with companies that didn't give one damn about any workers.

Many of those workers were pretty much completely replaceable.

einsteinboricua wrote:

THAT is why a raise should be considered. It's not just a good wage to build experience; it should also be a wage to at least get by.

Why? What it takes to get by doesn't affect the value a particular job can create, only whether it's a good idea for someone to take it.

A guild /ɡɪld/ is an association of artisans or merchants who control the practice of their craft in a particular town. The earliest types of guild were formed as confraternities of tradesmen. They were organized in a manner something between a professional association, (trade union,) a cartel, and a secret society. They often depended on grants of letters patent by a monarch or other authority to enforce the flow of trade to their self-employed members, and to retain ownership of tools and the supply of materials. A lasting legacy of traditional guilds are the guildhalls constructed and used as meeting places.





One of the legacies of the guilds, the elevated Windsor Guildhall was originally a meeting place for guilds, as well as magistrates' seat and town hall.
An important result of the guild framework was the emergence of universities at Bologna (established in 1088), Oxford (at least since 1096) and Paris (c. 1150); they originated as guilds of students as at Bologna, or of masters as at Paris.[1]



One can see the beginnings of the labor movement way back when. The modern labor union and its language and the need to band together was justified then and now.

Hillis wrote:

Most people who are undocumented don't make minimum wage to begin with. They can't because the businesses that hire them, and know they're not documented would be busted by the Government for employing them in the first place. And if they do pay decent wages, the work is often so hard physically that most Americans and legals don't want them.

Interesting story in today's Washington Post Metro Section.

Wineries in Virginia employ a few thousand seasonal workers. President Trump's winery has advertised for 29 H-2A workers. There are a lot of these wineries that employ 10-50 H-2As.

They pay about $10-$13 per hour. I don't know about fringe benefits but the article says that employers must pay for transportation to/from the USA, local transportation, and also provide meals and housing.

The vintners claim that they can't find enough American workers to fill their needs.

The Post carries stories every year telling about the success of these wineries that manage to sell their entire vintage at good prices.

I imaging that the real total cost to the wineries is well above $15 per hour. I wonder why they can't find Americans who are willing to do the work?

WarRI1 wrote:

A guild /ɡɪld/ is an association of artisans or merchants who control the practice of their craft in a particular town. The earliest types of guild were formed as confraternities of tradesmen. They were organized in a manner something between a professional association, (trade union,) a cartel, and a secret society. They often depended on grants of letters patent by a monarch or other authority to enforce the flow of trade to their self-employed members, and to retain ownership of tools and the supply of materials. A lasting legacy of traditional guilds are the guildhalls constructed and used as meeting places.

The key to professional guilds (Trade unions, in modern parlance) is recognized apprenticeships, where you spend several years learning the trade from a qualified Master, and in the end you earn your qualification. But an apprentice can't make a lot of money, because the master can't afford to employ him. An apprentice should make $4 or $5 per hour, MAX. Enough to pay for his gas and condoms. He should still be living with his parents. Once his apprenticeship is over, its different.

Any minimum wage law should provide exemptions for recognized and certified apprenticeship programs.

Dreadnought wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

A guild /ɡɪld/ is an association of artisans or merchants who control the practice of their craft in a particular town. The earliest types of guild were formed as confraternities of tradesmen. They were organized in a manner something between a professional association, (trade union,) a cartel, and a secret society. They often depended on grants of letters patent by a monarch or other authority to enforce the flow of trade to their self-employed members, and to retain ownership of tools and the supply of materials. A lasting legacy of traditional guilds are the guildhalls constructed and used as meeting places.

The key to professional guilds (Trade unions, in modern parlance) is recognized apprenticeships, where you spend several years learning the trade from a qualified Master, and in the end you earn your qualification. But an apprentice can't make a lot of money, because the master can't afford to employ him. An apprentice should make $4 or $5 per hour, MAX. Enough to pay for his gas and condoms. He should still be living with his parents. Once his apprenticeship is over, its different.

Any minimum wage law should provide exemptions for recognized and certified apprenticeship programs.

I have served two apprenticeships in my working life, the first was as a Machinist, 3 years, and I can attest to the lack of high pay while serving such. My second was in my life's work, which took me years to serve and to attain the big bucks. I left a police department job (Patrolman) making 105 dollars a week. When I left to go serve the other apprenticeship, I was paid $56.50 a week and would not attain any real money except for 2 dollar raises every three months. Top money was after 5 years and after 3 tests for proficiency and knowledge. My wife was not exactly excited at the time at the money. Thank goodness for OT.

WarRI1 wrote:

I have served two apprenticeships in my working life, the first was as a Machinist, 3 years, and I can attest to the lack of high pay while serving such. My second was in my life's work, which took me years to serve and to attain the big bucks. I left a police department job (Patrolman) making 105 dollars a week. When I left to go serve the other apprenticeship, I was paid $56.50 a week and would not attain any real money except for 2 dollar raises every three months. Top money was after 5 years and after 3 tests for proficiency and knowledge. My wife was not exactly excited at the time at the money. Thank goodness for OT.

In the countries where apprenticeships are widespread, like Germany, you do your apprenticeship between the ages of 16 and 22, or thereabouts. The idea is that you are still unmarried and living with your parents.

I understand that the Trump administration has started sending teams from the departments of Labor and Education to various countries in Europe to study their apprenticeship programs in depth to try to put them in place here.

Dreadnought wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I have served two apprenticeships in my working life, the first was as a Machinist, 3 years, and I can attest to the lack of high pay while serving such. My second was in my life's work, which took me years to serve and to attain the big bucks. I left a police department job (Patrolman) making 105 dollars a week. When I left to go serve the other apprenticeship, I was paid $56.50 a week and would not attain any real money except for 2 dollar raises every three months. Top money was after 5 years and after 3 tests for proficiency and knowledge. My wife was not exactly excited at the time at the money. Thank goodness for OT.

In the countries where apprenticeships are widespread, like Germany, you do your apprenticeship between the ages of 16 and 22, or thereabouts. The idea is that you are still unmarried and living with your parents.

I understand that the Trump administration has started sending teams from the departments of Labor and Education to various countries in Europe to study their apprenticeship programs in depth to try to put them in place here.

Source on that Dreadnought? I think that's a load of bull.

Hillis wrote:

Dreadnought wrote:

I understand that the Trump administration has started sending teams from the departments of Labor and Education to various countries in Europe to study their apprenticeship programs in depth to try to put them in place here.

Source on that Dreadnought? I think that's a load of bull.

There has been talk about it.

Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven ... -to-scale/

CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/16/news/ec ... index.html

Hillis wrote:

Source on that Dreadnought? I think that's a load of bull.

From my side - nothing more than a few conversations with a Dept of Education guy here in KY who was on one of the teams going to Switzerland last month. I spent an evening talking to him about what he could expect to find there. He told me of the Administration's interest.

Dreadnought wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I have served two apprenticeships in my working life, the first was as a Machinist, 3 years, and I can attest to the lack of high pay while serving such. My second was in my life's work, which took me years to serve and to attain the big bucks. I left a police department job (Patrolman) making 105 dollars a week. When I left to go serve the other apprenticeship, I was paid $56.50 a week and would not attain any real money except for 2 dollar raises every three months. Top money was after 5 years and after 3 tests for proficiency and knowledge. My wife was not exactly excited at the time at the money. Thank goodness for OT.

In the countries where apprenticeships are widespread, like Germany, you do your apprenticeship between the ages of 16 and 22, or thereabouts. The idea is that you are still unmarried and living with your parents.

I understand that the Trump administration has started sending teams from the departments of Labor and Education to various countries in Europe to study their apprenticeship programs in depth to try to put them in place here.

I hope that is true, but just think how we have destroyed our economic might, and our manufacturing base. When I was in school we still had apprenticeships everywhere, paid for by the company you were working for. Now we have to got to Europe to study and learn from them. In 1947 Rhode Island was the most industrialized state in the US. You could serve an apprenticeship at Brown and Sharp, a world leader in Machinery and tooling and measurement devices,and automatic screw machines for steel products and anybody would hire you immediately. Jobs and trained people everywhere. Now Electric Boat cannot even find qualified welders to build submarines for the Navy. Generations of trained people wasted because of no jobs caused by corporate greed and a government who encouraged sending jobs overseas. Sad, Pathetic and tragic.

WarRI1 wrote:

I hope that is true, but just think how we have destroyed our economic might, and our manufacturing base. When I was in school we still had apprenticeships everywhere, paid for by the company you were working for. Now we have to got to Europe to study and learn from them. In 1947 Rhode Island was the most industrialized state in the US. You could serve an apprenticeship at Brown and Sharp, a world leader in Machinery and tooling and measurement devices,and automatic screw machines for steel products and anybody would hire you immediately. Jobs and trained people everywhere. Now Electric Boat cannot even find qualified welders to build submarines for the Navy. Generations of trained people wasted because of no jobs caused by corporate greed and a government who encouraged sending jobs overseas. Sad, Pathetic and tragic.

More than that - over the past half-century Americans have been browbeaten with the idea that "You have to go to college", that if you didn't go to college you were a failure, no better than a ditchdigger. Trades became looked-down-upon in America as a result. But I think a welder or carpenter who learned his/her trade with an apprenticeship is far more valuable to society than someone with a Masters Degree in Gender Studies or Sociology.

Dreadnought wrote:

More than that - over the past half-century Americans have been browbeaten with the idea that "You have to go to college", that if you didn't go to college you were a failure, no better than a ditchdigger. Trades became looked-down-upon in America as a result. But I think a welder or carpenter who learned his/her trade with an apprenticeship is far more valuable to society than someone with a Masters Degree in Gender Studies or Sociology.

Please stop generalizing. Gender studies and sociology professionals are needed. The ones that care about their degree are highly intelligent folks.
The real argument is how many do we need? Are there too many ? The market sorts them out into other professions usually. However, the one thing that remains constant, is that those that care and want to learn will always be needed and important in many fields.

The labor unions are extremely valuable in protecting those that can be exploited due to a lack of faith in their own skills. The right to work states are valuable to those that know their own value and can exploit it.

College in general is about furthering ones education, and one could argue trade schools are in the same line. Everyone should go to "College". Whether it is school, trade, military or community service .

. However the scary thing about the trades is that at any point an engineer or two, or a deprecated currency can destroy your livelihood. it is no different than what used ot happen prior to unions.

The best way to further your carreer is to accept that you should always keep learning. and find your valuable niche.

casinterest wrote:

Everyone should go to "College". Whether it is school, trade, military or community service

But the problem is that that is NOT what is said or done. Only 4-year-degree college/university education is ever discussed. Promotion of the trades in the United States is extremely poor and has been a major factor in dire shortages of tradespeople across the country that continues to grow.

cjg225 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Everyone should go to "College". Whether it is school, trade, military or community service

But the problem is that that is NOT what is said or done. Only 4-year-degree college/university education is ever discussed. Promotion of the trades in the United States is extremely poor and has been a major factor in dire shortages of tradespeople across the country that continues to grow.

Because at the end of the day, a trade is a trade, We will always need plumbers, carpenters, electricians, welders, factory workers, but a lot of these have become OJT instead of a schooling. It can be looked at to have schools for this, but for the most part people go to work in the industries and then learn as they go, and make money at it.

Dreadnought wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I hope that is true, but just think how we have destroyed our economic might, and our manufacturing base. When I was in school we still had apprenticeships everywhere, paid for by the company you were working for. Now we have to got to Europe to study and learn from them. In 1947 Rhode Island was the most industrialized state in the US. You could serve an apprenticeship at Brown and Sharp, a world leader in Machinery and tooling and measurement devices,and automatic screw machines for steel products and anybody would hire you immediately. Jobs and trained people everywhere. Now Electric Boat cannot even find qualified welders to build submarines for the Navy. Generations of trained people wasted because of no jobs caused by corporate greed and a government who encouraged sending jobs overseas. Sad, Pathetic and tragic.

More than that - over the past half-century Americans have been browbeaten with the idea that "You have to go to college", that if you didn't go to college you were a failure, no better than a ditchdigger. Trades became looked-down-upon in America as a result. But I think a welder or carpenter who learned his/her trade with an apprenticeship is far more valuable to society than someone with a Masters Degree in Gender Studies or Sociology.

As a person who came from a family of trades people, I agree that without skilled trades people, we will not do well. Not all can sit at desks. Sombody has to swing the hammer and know how to do it. Sadly lacking at home and in the workforce.

casinterest wrote:

Please stop generalizing. Gender studies and sociology professionals are needed. The ones that care about their degree are highly intelligent folks.

Sure the country needs some. Maybe 4 or 5. But you have around a million. 999,995 of them are involved in nothing more than intellectual masturbation in preparation for a job in the food service industry.

Dreadnought wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Please stop generalizing. Gender studies and sociology professionals are needed. The ones that care about their degree are highly intelligent folks.

Sure the country needs some. Maybe 4 or 5. But you have around a million. 999,995 of them are involved in nothing more than intellectual masturbation in preparation for a job in the food service industry.

Sheer and utter nonsense. And I think you know it.

Throughout the United States there are probably thousands of professors of sociology. Many more throughout the world.

According to UCDavis they have 29 faculty affiliated with the Department of Sociology graduate program. There are about 209 universities in the US that have graduate programs in Sociology.

"Gender Studies" is no doubt far behind.

Thousands of cities in the United States have departments of health and social services that employ sociologists.....surprised?

BobPatterson wrote:

Thousands of cities in the United States have departments of health and social services that employ sociologists.....surprised?

And what skills do they bring to the job that the average shmo doesn't have? I've seen dozens of degree'd sociologists pass through my office through the years, and none of them had learned anything useful in the real world. It's one of those self-masturbatory degrees in a subject that should be considered a field of academic interest, like a degree in 17th century literature, but nothing that actually adds value to society.

Dreadnought wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Thousands of cities in the United States have departments of health and social services that employ sociologists.....surprised?

And what skills do they bring to the job that the average shmo doesn't have? I've seen dozens of degree'd sociologists pass through my office through the years, and none of them had learned anything useful in the real world. It's one of those self-masturbatory degrees in a subject that should be considered a field of academic interest, like a degree in 17th century literature, but nothing that actually adds value to society.

What kind of work does your office do that you have seen dozens of sociologists passing through?

Why must you ridicule a profession by referring to "self-masturbatory degrees"? What do you have against masturbation (self or assisted)?

If you are too lazy to look up The American Sociological Association to get some idea of the range of work that sociologists do, should you be commenting upon them?

Do you have the same misguided feelings about psychologists, psychiatrists, coleopterists and lepidopterists?

Dreadnought wrote:

And what skills do they bring to the job that the average shmo doesn't have? I've seen dozens of degree'd sociologists pass through my office through the years, and none of them had learned anything useful in the real world. It's one of those self-masturbatory degrees in a subject that should be considered a field of academic interest, like a degree in 17th century literature, but nothing that actually adds value to society.

You are being absolutely no better than those who you previously derided for looking down upon tradespeople.

Sad. And very ironic.

Flighty wrote:

You just finished defending people who are not legal workers..

Who is the bigger criminal:

- an illegal worker, that takes an underpaid job to feed his family instead of robbing people (or just sit down and starve to death quietly, as you obviously think unemployed people should do).
- a Boss that hires hundreds of illegal workers, to pay them below legal limit, and use that advantage to price legally operating companies out of the market.

Little hint: you are spending a lot of breath defending the bigger culprit.

best regards
Thomas

vikkyvik wrote:

Dreadnought wrote:

And what skills do they bring to the job that the average shmo doesn't have? I've seen dozens of degree'd sociologists pass through my office through the years, and none of them had learned anything useful in the real world. It's one of those self-masturbatory degrees in a subject that should be considered a field of academic interest, like a degree in 17th century literature, but nothing that actually adds value to society.

You are being absolutely no better than those who you previously derided for looking down upon tradespeople.

Sad. And very ironic.

It's not a matter being "inclusive" and "non-judgmental". It's being objective. What gives you more of a marketable skill that society needs with which you can feed your family: A degree in African-American Studies or Renaissance Literature, or a qualification in auto mechanics or carpentry? We need mechanics and carpenters. The others add no value to society. They are interests/hobbies.

For the past 45 years or so I have always been fascinated by early 20th century naval architecture. I have tons of books which I have studied, and know more about the subject than anyone I know. But it's just a hobby - there is no need for it. If I took a degree in that subject, the most I could possibly do with it is maybe write a coffee-table book that will sell a few thousand copies to other geeks on the subject like me. That's what I mean when I call something a masturbatory subject - sure you might find it enjoyable, but it's a pointless exercise in the long run. I just laugh when I hear some of these SJWs and Occupy folks who complain that they can't find a high-paying job with their degree in Creative Writing or whatever (there is a market for creative writers, but I'll bet that Steven King or Dan Brown never took a course for it - it's a skill you either have or you don't - I think such courses are a fraud - my sister-in-law teaches creative writing at UCLA, and she reluctantly agrees).

I have no problem with people studying these fields. Like my own interests, they can be fascinating fields of study. But when you attend university with the expectation to come out with a marketable skill, a lot of college majors should be knocked right off the list. Graduate with a degree in accounting, engineering, or nursing, and you can be productive immediately. Graduate with a degree in political science or religious studies, sorry but you don't know how to do jack - someone will have to take the time to train you to do something.

Dreadnought wrote:

The others add no value to society. .

That is an impressively materialistic, despicable worldview. Any knowledge contributes to society. Then again, since pretty much every knowledge we gain moves society left and contributes to the winning side of history, it is understandable why you don´t see the value in it, and also why many other do.

best regards
Thomas

Dreadnought wrote:

It's not a matter being "inclusive" and "non-judgmental". It's being objective.

Why are you putting "inclusive" and "non-judgmental" in quotes like I used either word?

Anyway, no, it isn't being objective. Opinions are, by definition, not objective.

Dreadnought wrote:

The others add no value to society. They are interests/hobbies.

Opinion.

Dreadnought wrote:

That's what I mean when I call something a masturbatory subject - sure you might find it enjoyable, but it's a pointless exercise in the long run.

Opinion.

etc...

Just because you can't see a reason for some fields of study (in the "real world") doesn't mean they aren't useful to society.

Let's have everyone be a tradesperson, and see how far that gets us.

Hillis wrote:

God, but that paragraph reeks with arrogance. Most people are well-behaved, legal workers. The ones that are illegal are hiried by businesses whose jobs Americans won't take because they're backbreakingly physical work, and said businesses can pay them less than minimum wage under-the-table.

Don't blame the workers for that; blame the companies who hire them, and refuse to pay wages that Americans can live on. And, what, in your mind, is a lower-value worker and what do they do? Are they the onces picking up after you in your office? Or are they the ones cleaning the restrooms at work? Who are they? You make them sound like they're sub-human, and can just be discared like the trash you throw into the waster basket.

That whole paragraph smell of overt racism.

While I recognize that, in what passes for discussion today, it is a common practice to attack your opponent's position by accusations of harsh motives (like "overt racism"), rather than engaging and persuading with useful information, we'll ignore that for now.

You seem to have a very passionate stance on this topic, and it suggests you might have some legitimate core knowledge. So do, please, share with us your experience as an employer. Tell us about your triumphs, your disappointments, all the ways you can support your contentions with solid and personally-observed examples of actual human behavior.

Please, include some detail so we can know and believe that you're not just parroting some stuff you read on the Internet.

vikkyvik wrote:

Just because you can't see a reason for some fields of study (in the "real world") doesn't mean they aren't useful to society.

Well, the results of his sort of short sightedness are quite obvious, aren't they? Without knowledge being valued simply for being knowledge for its own sake, it is kinda hard to spark interest in science. Since Congress lost interest in funding basic fundamental research in the 90s, there is a downtrend in long term r&d. ITER was a Reagan/Gorbachew idea, now it is 2/3 EU/Japanese, Wendelstein is basically German/EU with a few token million from the DOE. CERN would be another one, even today much smaller than the SCC would have been. .

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

Just because you can't see a reason for some fields of study (in the "real world") doesn't mean they aren't useful to society.

Well, the results of his sort of short sightedness are quite obvious, aren't they? Without knowledge being valued simply for being knowledge for its own sake, it is kinda hard to spark interest in science. Since Congress lost interest in funding basic fundamental research in the 90s, there is a downtrend in long term r&d. ITER was a Reagan/Gorbachew idea, now it is 2/3 EU/Japanese, Wendelstein is basically German/EU with a few token million from the DOE. CERN would be another one, even today much smaller than the SCC would have been. .

Best regards
Thomas

See: The Changing Nature of U.S. Basic Research: Trends in Federal Spending. http://ssti.org/blog/changing-nature-us ... l-spending

"Since 1956, basic research has increased substantially as a share of total research and development expenditures, while development has decreased in share. In 1956, basic research comprised just 7 percent of total federal R&D spending, though this number continued to climb, for the most part, throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, crossing the 20 percent threshold in 1994 and the 25 percent threshold in 2000. From 2002 to 2014, basic research spending as a share of total federal R&D spending remained in the 20 percent to 25 percent range. Conversely, development comprised 71.4 percent of total federal R&D expenditures in 1956 and held a share higher than two-thirds until 1973. The share devoted to development continued to decrease until hitting a low of 47 percent in 2001. Since then, the share increased to a new peak of 57.5 percent in 2008, only to decrease to a preliminary share of 50.9 percent in 2014. From 1993 to 2014, the share of federal R&D spending devoted to applied research has remained between 20 percent and 25 percent."

"As the data shows, although federal spending on research and development has not kept up with federal spending as a whole, federal spending for basic research has increased over time, both in terms of total dollars and as a share of total federal R&D spending. Despite this, the vast majority of federal R&D spending is still focused on applied research and development. Assuming that basic research should remain an important contributor to these types of applied sciences, further research is needed on its other sources." [my emphasis]

sccutler wrote:

Hillis wrote:

God, but that paragraph reeks with arrogance. Most people are well-behaved, legal workers. The ones that are illegal are hiried by businesses whose jobs Americans won't take because they're backbreakingly physical work, and said businesses can pay them less than minimum wage under-the-table.

Don't blame the workers for that; blame the companies who hire them, and refuse to pay wages that Americans can live on. And, what, in your mind, is a lower-value worker and what do they do? Are they the onces picking up after you in your office? Or are they the ones cleaning the restrooms at work? Who are they? You make them sound like they're sub-human, and can just be discared like the trash you throw into the waster basket.

That whole paragraph smell of overt racism.

While I recognize that, in what passes for discussion today, it is a common practice to attack your opponent's position by accusations of harsh motives (like "overt racism"), rather than engaging and persuading with useful information, we'll ignore that for now.

You seem to have a very passionate stance on this topic, and it suggests you might have some legitimate core knowledge. So do, please, share with us your experience as an employer. Tell us about your triumphs, your disappointments, all the ways you can support your contentions with solid and personally-observed examples of actual human behavior.

Please, include some detail so we can know and believe that you're not just parroting some stuff you read on the Internet.

There is one problem with this debate that I am seeing: People are just assuming that illegals are the only ones who want minimum wage raised.

Illegals are not payed minimum wage. They are paid what they are paid.

A higher minimum wage benefits everyone. It gives more money to the working poor to spend on things like clothes and food. Because there is more traffic in stores, those stores need to hire more people at the higher minimum wage. Those people suddenly have more money to spend on things like clothes and food and so forth and so on. None of this happens by giving huge piles of cash to the wealthiest people.

Those low wage earners are not "throw away" people, either. They are making an honest effort to contribute to society. Working to feed their families because nobody but nobody WANTS to be on food stamps. Some of those people have to take two or three of those low wage jobs so they can fight to stay completely off government assistance. Some of those people take low wage jobs because they are out of prison and need something because they don't want to sell drugs and low wage jobs are all they can get.

So many variables.

Dreadnought wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I have served two apprenticeships in my working life, the first was as a Machinist, 3 years, and I can attest to the lack of high pay while serving such. My second was in my life's work, which took me years to serve and to attain the big bucks. I left a police department job (Patrolman) making 105 dollars a week. When I left to go serve the other apprenticeship, I was paid $56.50 a week and would not attain any real money except for 2 dollar raises every three months. Top money was after 5 years and after 3 tests for proficiency and knowledge. My wife was not exactly excited at the time at the money. Thank goodness for OT.

In the countries where apprenticeships are widespread, like Germany, you do your apprenticeship between the ages of 16 and 22, or thereabouts. The idea is that you are still unmarried and living with your parents.

I understand that the Trump administration has started sending teams from the departments of Labor and Education to various countries in Europe to study their apprenticeship programs in depth to try to put them in place here.

Glad to hear it. I'm so sick of hearing all about how going to "college" is the American Dream.

It's a Nightmare, when you look at student loan defaults, and the racket that is higher education, scamming the students and veterans who apply with differing amounts of Federal (taxpayer) grants and loans. The sky's the limit in overcharging when there's Govt. money to rake in...

So, I'm all for apprentice programs for those that want a trade over "college".

My wife met a girl on the beach last week. She's from Kentucky, doing a semester abroad in Ireland ( in Spain on holiday). I asked about the cost and she said 6k a year living at home. Sound reasonable. She said some of her friends left home to have the full American uní experience and will take on massive debt

seb146 wrote:

There is one problem with this debate that I am seeing: People are just assuming that illegals are the only ones who want minimum wage raised.

Illegals are not payed minimum wage. They are paid what they are paid.

A higher minimum wage benefits everyone. It gives more money to the working poor to spend on things like clothes and food. Because there is more traffic in stores, those stores need to hire more people at the higher minimum wage. Those people suddenly have more money to spend on things like clothes and food and so forth and so on. None of this happens by giving huge piles of cash to the wealthiest people.

Those low wage earners are not "throw away" people, either. They are making an honest effort to contribute to society. Working to feed their families because nobody but nobody WANTS to be on food stamps. Some of those people have to take two or three of those low wage jobs so they can fight to stay completely off government assistance. Some of those people take low wage jobs because they are out of prison and need something because they don't want to sell drugs and low wage jobs are all they can get.

So many variables.

I think you have it backwards. Of course illegals are not necessarily paid the legal minimum wage. And of course a higher EFFECTIVE (as in real-life, recorded in the labor market) minimum wage benefits everyone. Nobody disputes that. There is nobody, from Donald Trump, the Koch Brothers, to the average Kentucky redneck who wants people at the lower strata of society to earn less. We all want them to earn more. The only people who have an incentive to not want them to earn more are certain politicians and interests groups who thrive on poverty and getting those affected by it mad at someone else - but that's a separate topic.

Simply mandating a higher minimum wage by law is counterproductive. It just encourages cheating (such as hiring illegals) or the employers will seek alternatives, such as automation, or simply forgo hiring and the related activity because it is no longer economically feasible. Mandating a minimum wage squeezes the employer at the bottom end of the scale because it artificially increases his cost but does nothing to allow him to increase his prices to cover the additional cost - because while some of his competitors might be in the same boat and would increase prices, others continue to cheat or are willing to absorb the loss, making a price increase impossible.

The way to increase the effective minimum wage is to do so organically, and by market forces. How do you increase the price of something? You have to decrease the supply relative to demand. If there are 150 applicants for 100 jobs, the market wage will be low. If there are 75 applicants for 100 jobs, the wage will necessarily have to go up.

That is why people have been harping on getting control of illegal immigration for so long - to decrease the supply of low-skill labor and allow minimum wages to float. Look around the world at all the countries who have allowed in large amounts of cheap labor, such as the UK. All of them are suffering from the same thing - the indigenous low-skill population are finding only very low salaries on offer and have a hard time making ends meet - in many cases the offered wage isn't even worth them leaving the house in the morning and they would rather stay at home.

How many times have we heard the argument that "immigrants take the jobs americans don't want to take."? It's a BS argument. If they can hire illegal Jose to work in the tobacco fields at $8 per hour, then that is the prevailing wage and I can understand Americans not really wanting that job in suffient numbers. But what if there were no illegals available to the industry? The farmers would have no choice but to raise their wages. $10, $15, maybe at $20/hour, at some point you will have all sorts of Americans willing to do the toughest jobs, if the wage is good enough. THAT is where you get your increasing minimum wage.

If you want Americans at that end of the wage spectrum to earn more money, that's how you do it. By making the labor they can provide more scarce, and therefore more valuable.

Dictating a minimum wage by law displays a fundamental lack of economic understanding, common to all who have been indoctrinated into Marxist economic principles. Marx said that the value of labor can be calculated mathematically based on various inputs - and socialism takes that further by having the state assign a value to a good or service. By this logic, a minimum wage law makes sense. But as with Marx's theories in general, his LTV is based on bullshit. The actual value of a good or service is nothing more or less than what someone is willing to pay for it at that particular time and place. If the government were to pass a law making the minimum wage $100 per hour, that does not mean the economy can function at that level.

Dreadnought wrote:

If they can hire illegal Jose to work in the tobacco fields at $8 per hour, then that is the prevailing wage and I can understand Americans not really wanting that job in suffient numbers. But what if there were no illegals available to the industry? The farmers would have no choice but to raise their wages. $10, $15, maybe at $20/hour, at some point you will have all sorts of Americans willing to do the toughest jobs, if the wage is good enough. THAT is where you get your increasing minimum wage.

No need to hire illegals for tobacco fields. The farmer can hire H-2A workers legally and still pay only $8-$10 per hour as the neighboring vinyards do. There will be other costs, though.

Another option for the tobacco farmer is to stop raising tobacco (which most have done). They could grow more healthful crops instead.

As for your litany of arguments against having a minimum wage, I suggest that you report back to us after having worked for a year at the present minimum wage.

At that time, you might have some enlightened experience in the matter, and you can leave your Marxist clap-trap out of it.

Cheers.

BobPatterson wrote:

No need to hire illegals for tobacco fields. The farmer can hire H-2A workers legally and still pay only $8-$10 per hour as the neighboring vinyards do. There will be other costs, though.

Same issue - cut back on the H2A program and make employers hire locally. Guaranteed you will find the people to do it if the wage is high enough.

BobPatterson wrote:

Another option for the tobacco farmer is to stop raising tobacco (which most have done). They could grow more healthful crops instead.

Completely irrelevant.

BobPatterson wrote:

As for your litany of arguments against having a minimum wage, I suggest that you report back to us after having worked for a year at the present minimum wage.

Also completely irrelevant (and I have worked for MinWage)

BobPatterson wrote:

At that time, you might have some enlightened experience in the matter, and you can leave your Marxist clap-trap out of it.

Funny, since I was trying to point out that Marxism is claptrap crap. Seems you think along those lines, otherwise you would not bring in emotional arguments which are irrelevant. Marx is based on emotion.

Dreadnought wrote:

Funny, since I was trying to point out that Marxism is claptrap crap. Seems you think along those lines, otherwise you would not bring in emotional arguments which are irrelevant. Marx is based on emotion.

It's amazing how you can win by simply saying counter-arguments are irrelevant.

I think you must be living in an alternate and irrelevant world.

Have a nice weekend.

Dreadnought wrote:

seb146 wrote:

There is one problem with this debate that I am seeing: People are just assuming that illegals are the only ones who want minimum wage raised.

Illegals are not payed minimum wage. They are paid what they are paid.

A higher minimum wage benefits everyone. It gives more money to the working poor to spend on things like clothes and food. Because there is more traffic in stores, those stores need to hire more people at the higher minimum wage. Those people suddenly have more money to spend on things like clothes and food and so forth and so on. None of this happens by giving huge piles of cash to the wealthiest people.

Those low wage earners are not "throw away" people, either. They are making an honest effort to contribute to society. Working to feed their families because nobody but nobody WANTS to be on food stamps. Some of those people have to take two or three of those low wage jobs so they can fight to stay completely off government assistance. Some of those people take low wage jobs because they are out of prison and need something because they don't want to sell drugs and low wage jobs are all they can get.

So many variables.

I think you have it backwards. Of course illegals are not necessarily paid the legal minimum wage. And of course a higher EFFECTIVE (as in real-life, recorded in the labor market) minimum wage benefits everyone. Nobody disputes that. There is nobody, from Donald Trump, the Koch Brothers, to the average Kentucky redneck who wants people at the lower strata of society to earn less. We all want them to earn more. The only people who have an incentive to not want them to earn more are certain politicians and interests groups who thrive on poverty and getting those affected by it mad at someone else - but that's a separate topic.

Simply mandating a higher minimum wage by law is counterproductive. It just encourages cheating (such as hiring illegals) or the employers will seek alternatives, such as automation, or simply forgo hiring and the related activity because it is no longer economically feasible. Mandating a minimum wage squeezes the employer at the bottom end of the scale because it artificially increases his cost but does nothing to allow him to increase his prices to cover the additional cost - because while some of his competitors might be in the same boat and would increase prices, others continue to cheat or are willing to absorb the loss, making a price increase impossible.

The way to increase the effective minimum wage is to do so organically, and by market forces. How do you increase the price of something? You have to decrease the supply relative to demand. If there are 150 applicants for 100 jobs, the market wage will be low. If there are 75 applicants for 100 jobs, the wage will necessarily have to go up.

That is why people have been harping on getting control of illegal immigration for so long - to decrease the supply of low-skill labor and allow minimum wages to float. Look around the world at all the countries who have allowed in large amounts of cheap labor, such as the UK. All of them are suffering from the same thing - the indigenous low-skill population are finding only very low salaries on offer and have a hard time making ends meet - in many cases the offered wage isn't even worth them leaving the house in the morning and they would rather stay at home.

How many times have we heard the argument that "immigrants take the jobs americans don't want to take."? It's a BS argument. If they can hire illegal Jose to work in the tobacco fields at $8 per hour, then that is the prevailing wage and I can understand Americans not really wanting that job in suffient numbers. But what if there were no illegals available to the industry? The farmers would have no choice but to raise their wages. $10, $15, maybe at $20/hour, at some point you will have all sorts of Americans willing to do the toughest jobs, if the wage is good enough. THAT is where you get your increasing minimum wage.

If you want Americans at that end of the wage spectrum to earn more money, that's how you do it. By making the labor they can provide more scarce, and therefore more valuable.

Dictating a minimum wage by law displays a fundamental lack of economic understanding, common to all who have been indoctrinated into Marxist economic principles. Marx said that the value of labor can be calculated mathematically based on various inputs - and socialism takes that further by having the state assign a value to a good or service. By this logic, a minimum wage law makes sense. But as with Marx's theories in general, his LTV is based on bullshit. The actual value of a good or service is nothing more or less than what someone is willing to pay for it at that particular time and place. If the government were to pass a law making the minimum wage $100 per hour, that does not mean the economy can function at that level.

You are still assuming that illegals have a say in their wage. Let's take them out of the mix.

No one wants to work for low wages. They work low wages because they have to. When they get tired of being treated like a dog for peanuts, they can simply walk up the street and get a job for the same wage and start the nightmare all over again. When wages go up, people have a reason to keep working there and learning other skills at that company. Less stress over how to pay the bills and more time to get to know co-workers and clients.

Also, your premise that prices rise when demand is high is partly correct. The high price can not be sustained, however. If widgets cost $100 each but demand is high, charging $1,000 for each will simply make demand go away because no one will want something they can not afford. Someone will come along and build a similar widget and charge $100, people will get that one. Why do you think there are more Toyotas on the road that Bentleys?

seb146 wrote:

You are still assuming that illegals have a say in their wage. Let's take them out of the mix.

That's what Trump promised to do. Hope he does it. And yes, they do have a say in their wage.

seb146 wrote:

No one wants to work for low wages. They work low wages because they have to.

So what happened to the argument of "Illegals take jobs Americans don't want"? We have millions of unemployed, but they don't want the job? Why is that? It's because the low end of the wage scale is artificially depressed.

Also, your premise that prices rise when demand is high is partly correct. The high price can not be sustained, however. If widgets cost $100 each but demand is high, charging $1,000 for each will simply make demand go away because no one will want something they can not afford. Someone will come along and build a similar widget and charge $100, people will get that one. Why do you think there are more Toyotas on the road that Bentleys?[/quote]

Absolutely. A lot of our products in American stores are too low - being artificially held down by an abnormally low cost of labor. If Trump really manages to shut down the illegal labor market, Orange growers will have to find Americans to work the groves, and since they won't work for $8/hr, he'll have to pay them $15 or $20 per hour. And I don't particularly blame them for that. To a Guatemalan, $8 per hour is a fortune, and he likely is used to living standards of the 3rd world. We are not. That would mean that instead of $1 per pound oranges, you have to pay $1.50 at the grocery store. But I'm OK with that, because $1.50 would be a truly representative price for the product. We Americans have gotten spoiled by cheap goods basically subsidized by other countries dumping their cheap labor on us. Yes, that means we only pay $1 per pound of oranges, but every illegal working in America displaces an American that could otherwise work that job, if you are willing to pay $1.50. Demand for oranges might fall a bit, but again, the wage levels, production levels, and store prices would find their market equilibrium levels. Illegal labor, by creating an oversupply of labor, has created dysfunctional markets.

Dreadnought wrote:

And yes, they do have a say in their wage.

Do desperate people truly have a say in their wage?

If I am starving and my family is in need shelter and support, my kids are suffering etc., do I have a real choice to not work any possible job that I am able to get? And if a number of people are in the same situation I have to be more willing to worked longer, for lower wages, while expecting to require less accommodation for job dangers, than those I am competing against for this same job. But everyone else likely feels the same so the wages go lower, and the job safety goes lower, and the hours get longer. But that is the way it works, it is very normal and natural.

Tugg

BobPatterson wrote:

At that time, you might have some enlightened experience in the matter, and you can leave your Marxist clap-trap out of it.

I don't have anything to say about the topic at hand, but this was too good to pass up. I have been around airliners.net for, oh, about 17 years now and this is the first time I have EVER seen someone accuse Dreadnought/Cfalk/Charles of espousing 'Marxist clap-trap.'

There are many names or monikers you may want to put on Dreadnought, but Marxist sure ain't one of them. He is about as free-market, private sector focused as they come.

skyservice_330 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

At that time, you might have some enlightened experience in the matter, and you can leave your Marxist clap-trap out of it.

I don't have anything to say about the topic at hand, but this was too good to pass up. I have been around airliners.net for, oh, about 17 years now and this is the first time I have EVER seen someone accuse Dreadnought/Cfalk/Charles of espousing 'Marxist clap-trap.'

There are many names or monikers you may want to put on Dreadnought, but Marxist sure ain't one of them. He is about as free-market, private sector focused as they come.

Dreadnought did not make the mistake you did in thinking I was referring to him as Marxist. Read his response above.

I thought the reference to or labeling as "Marxist economic principles" was unnecessary.

Perhaps my original comment could have been better written so as to avoid confusion.

Dreadnought wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You are still assuming that illegals have a say in their wage. Let's take them out of the mix.

That's what Trump promised to do. Hope he does it. And yes, they do have a say in their wage.

How? How do illegals have a say in their wage? When they climb into the back of a truck next to Home Depot, they are not under any obligation to get paid. If gringo says they will get X but pays less, how is the government going to help the illegals? That is why the illegals in your world need to be taken out of the mix.

Dreadnought wrote:

seb146 wrote:

No one wants to work for low wages. They work low wages because they have to.

So what happened to the argument of "Illegals take jobs Americans don't want"? We have millions of unemployed, but they don't want the job? Why is that? It's because the low end of the wage scale is artificially depressed.

Many people have degrees in marketing, engineering, health, or are trained in things like welding, fabrication, accounting, so they refuse to work the fields. Also, parents refuse to work 16 hour days in the field for next to nothing. Think about why Americans don't want jobs like that.

Dreadnought wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Also, your premise that prices rise when demand is high is partly correct. The high price can not be sustained, however. If widgets cost $100 each but demand is high, charging $1,000 for each will simply make demand go away because no one will want something they can not afford. Someone will come along and build a similar widget and charge $100, people will get that one. Why do you think there are more Toyotas on the road that Bentleys?

Absolutely. A lot of our products in American stores are too low - being artificially held down by an abnormally low cost of labor. If Trump really manages to shut down the illegal labor market, Orange growers will have to find Americans to work the groves, and since they won't work for $8/hr, he'll have to pay them $15 or $20 per hour. And I don't particularly blame them for that. To a Guatemalan, $8 per hour is a fortune, and he likely is used to living standards of the 3rd world. We are not. That would mean that instead of $1 per pound oranges, you have to pay $1.50 at the grocery store. But I'm OK with that, because $1.50 would be a truly representative price for the product. We Americans have gotten spoiled by cheap goods basically subsidized by other countries dumping their cheap labor on us. Yes, that means we only pay $1 per pound of oranges, but every illegal working in America displaces an American that could otherwise work that job, if you are willing to pay $1.50. Demand for oranges might fall a bit, but again, the wage levels, production levels, and store prices would find their market equilibrium levels. Illegal labor, by creating an oversupply of labor, has created dysfunctional markets.

Farm work is very different and has very different rules. Also, we get some of our produce from other countries. Partly because they are run by dictators or less than humanitarian governments. If you think forced labor is so wonderful, move to DPRK. If there are rules, like we have, giving foreign workers jobs that you don't want to do so we can all afford to eat is fine with me. If you and your family are willing to work for $10 a day to displace foreign workers, go for it. Show us how it is so great. Please. And let us know how wonderful things are. I dare you.

seb146 wrote:

If you and your family are willing to work for $10 a day to displace foreign workers, go for it.

You are obviously not listening to a thing I say, so what's the point in arguing? Have a nice day.

Dreadnought wrote:

You are obviously not listening to a thing I say, so what's the point in arguing? Have a nice day.

You confuse the fact of someone not agreeing with what you say with the supposition that someone is not listening to what you have to say. I'm pretty certain that Seb146, as well as I and others, have read your words but have rejected your argument/logic/reasoning. Maybe there is something wrong about your philosophy, reasoning, or ability to communicate. Have you considered these possibilities?

Comparing the production/costs of widgets with those of oranges is rather silly. Widgets probably are not produced in agricultural communities distant from population centers, and are not narrowly seasonal or dependent upon the vagaries of weather. Widgets are almost surely not produced by seasonal migrant labor.

It is absolutely possible for government (all of us) to mandate and enforce higher minimum wages and better working conditions throughout the agricultural sector.

What we cannot do is to force "pampered" Americans to trade in their welfare benefits in favor of becoming migrant workers toiling under a hot sun for a few days or weeks before moving on to the next "opportunity".

You seem to think that by waving a magic wand, all farmers, everywhere, will attract all the labor (American citizens only) they need by offering higher wages.

I suspect you have not personally conducted this experiment.

BobPatterson wrote:

It is absolutely possible for government (all of us) to mandate and enforce higher minimum wages and better working conditions throughout the agricultural sector.

Sure. Let's take this as an example. The government could mandate $10/hr for all agricultural workers. Violating this would be a rather serious crime. At least no one disagrees that that is a crime... right?

The result would be more Americans would do that job, and fewer foreigners would come and do it. Right?

It is much the same result as limiting immigration (by enforcing those laws on the worksite, perhaps by putting farmers in jail). But that is a hard crime to prove. Some say it is not a crime to employ illegal workers (it is). But enforcement is tough.

If we DID successfully enforce immigration laws, you would get the same $10/hr wage, and more Americans doing the work. And FEWER jobs, less food produced.

Just to be clear... that is really the same policy basically. A high minimum wage might be MORE efficient at chasing immigrants away, and it would harm the economy more, but obviously, we are a democracy (of citizens). What is best for the economy is irrelevant. What is best for >50% of CITIZENS is the only relevant thing politically. I think this is a middle ground that both the left and right working classes agree with.

Most economists don't support a minimum wage, yet, most economists fail to employ this >50% political economy test to their analysis. If it passes that test, it IS a good policy. My main worry about the minimum wage is young/convict workers who may not ever get that first job offer FOR THEIR WHOLE LIFE. That's a huuuuuuuge boogeyman to worry about with high minimum wages.

Flighty wrote:

The government could mandate $10/hr for all agricultural workers.

The result would be more Americans would do that job, and fewer foreigners would come and do it. Right?

If we DID successfully enforce immigration laws, you would get the same $10/hr wage, and more Americans doing the work. And FEWER jobs, less food produced.

No, it is not (right) correct. It has been abundantly demonstrated in many. many cases, that American workers could not be attracted by $10-$13 hourly wages for farm labor (plus other benefits such as temporary housing, meals and travel expenses). Hence, the H-2A agricultural visa program. I gave an example above at post #57.

$10 per hour translates to about $20,000 per year (40 hrs./week x 50 wks./year). That is not a living wage in the United States and is below the poverty level for a small family.

Also, such agricultural work is temporary, usually not exceeding three months in a year.

The vineyards in Virginia can't attract domestic workers (or not enough of them) even though there are many unemployed people living in Richmond, Washington and other places within 100 miles of the vineyards. This includes many unemployed or underemployed legal immigrants.

I'm not going to get into the problem of illegal immigrants except to say that the vast majority of them are not living in proximity to farms, and they aren't interested in short-term employment at below minimum wage. They stand a better chance of finding limited employment in large cities without drawing attention to themselves.

BobPatterson wrote:

Flighty wrote:

The government could mandate $10/hr for all agricultural workers.

The result would be more Americans would do that job, and fewer foreigners would come and do it. Right?

If we DID successfully enforce immigration laws, you would get the same $10/hr wage, and more Americans doing the work. And FEWER jobs, less food produced.

No, it is not (right) correct. It has been abundantly demonstrated in many. many cases, that American workers could not be attracted by $10-$13 hourly wages for farm labor (plus other benefits such as temporary housing, meals and travel expenses). Hence, the H-2A agricultural visa program. I gave an example above at post #57.

$10 per hour translates to about $20,000 per year (40 hrs./week x 50 wks./year). That is not a living wage in the United States and is below the poverty level for a small family.

Also, such agricultural work is temporary, usually not exceeding three months in a year.

The vineyards in Virginia can't attract domestic workers (or not enough of them) even though there are many unemployed people living in Richmond, Washington and other places within 100 miles of the vineyards. This includes many unemployed or underemployed legal immigrants.

American has untold millions of healthy, strong teenagers who are free in the summer, if the wage is attractive to them. As you know, the reason teenagers are free in the summer is so they can provide agricultural labor.

You are talking about wages that can't even attract an American child, or the business isn't being managed well enough to attract them. The customary solution for that is M&A activity or bankruptcy so they can be repossessed and managed by someone else.

Flighty wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Flighty wrote:

The government could mandate $10/hr for all agricultural workers.

The result would be more Americans would do that job, and fewer foreigners would come and do it. Right?

If we DID successfully enforce immigration laws, you would get the same $10/hr wage, and more Americans doing the work. And FEWER jobs, less food produced.

No, it is not (right) correct. It has been abundantly demonstrated in many. many cases, that American workers could not be attracted by $10-$13 hourly wages for farm labor (plus other benefits such as temporary housing, meals and travel expenses). Hence, the H-2A agricultural visa program. I gave an example above at post #57.

$10 per hour translates to about $20,000 per year (40 hrs./week x 50 wks./year). That is not a living wage in the United States and is below the poverty level for a small family.

Also, such agricultural work is temporary, usually not exceeding three months in a year.

The vineyards in Virginia can't attract domestic workers (or not enough of them) even though there are many unemployed people living in Richmond, Washington and other places within 100 miles of the vineyards. This includes many unemployed or underemployed legal immigrants.

American has untold millions of healthy, strong teenagers who are free in the summer, if the wage is attractive to them. As you know, the reason teenagers are free in the summer is so they can provide agricultural labor.

You are talking about wages that can't even attract an American child, or the business isn't being managed well enough to attract them. The customary solution for that is M&A activity or bankruptcy so they can be repossessed and managed by someone else.

Much of the need for part-time agricultural workers falls outside the period of summer school vacation. Spring planting and autumn harvest.

What is "M & A"?