Is the other part because working when you're under 14 is illegal?
Apparently not- I see plenty of illegal immigrant children still in the fields.
And that working in hazardous environments (like harvest) when you're under 18 (given some exceptions for apprentices) illegal?
Some crops are hazardous environments, but I doubt strawberries are. They're low to the ground, best picked by hand, and I've even seen 8 year olds do it. But there is a definite bias against white children- who are too demanding
I've had to try to fall back on minimum wage jobs since college (I was unemployed October 2001 to December 2003). The constant I got was "you are overqualified" once they did a credit check and found my student loans- but the reality was, every kitchen in Oregon speaks Spanish.
I'm all for import taxes and a minimum wage that is a set fraction of the maximum income.
Why not the workers that scab less-than-living wages from these businesses?
If you're scabbing less than living wages, then you're pretty much losing money by working. One way around this is to *be* an illegal immigrant- have a home country to go back to where costs are cheaper.
If the business were paying too little for their market, they'd have no employees.
Which is exactly what certain industries, primarily agricultural industries, have been complaining about for decades.
Honestly, I blame credit cards, but maybe that's all about to end.
Hmm, that's an interesting theory. I've got a related one- inflation is *directly* caused by a widening gap between the rich and the poor (something else that is about to end, I think rather explosively).
Also, based on that, I'm willing to temper my "Government can't find work for Americans" quote earlier. It appears by that chart that the Federal Government (in Baltimore and Washington DC) are the only people hiring at anything close to parity with the number of unemployed.
Yep, I'm in Portland, OR. 6 applicants for every job, even the minimum wage ones. Of course, illegal immigrants are willing to work *below* minimum wage, and in Oregon, unemployment (at a minimum) is now $80/week, essentially setting a floor of 40 hours at $2/hr, 25% of our minimum wage.
Still can't find a job, or still can't find a job that allows them to live "their prior lifestyle" (to use your words) in a manner they feel accustomed, if not entitled to?
Still can't find a job *at all*, even after cutting their expenses back to 25% of their "prior lifestyle".
I'm in the process of changing careers, to a career that will pay, at maximum, 2/3 of what I earn now. I'm adjusting lifestyle choices, not waiting for a blue moon where I might find some magical position that would put me at parity with my pay now (for the record, moving from IT Development / Management, to Paramedic).
Good for you. What are you using to pay for the retraining, your retirement funds?
If jobs programs fall under this phrase, then I'd press you for an example of something that does not.
Centralized ownership of everything by 5 corporations, seems to me to be a very timely example.
Does waging war 'promote the general welfare'? What if we did it to profit off of their oil?
The general welfare is for citizens only- and as citizens are killed by invading other countries, for any reason, I'd suggest that on a Consistent Ethic of Life scale, invasion is against the general welfare. Even if it's to grab resources. We have enough resources here in the United States that if we'd just live sustainably, we could easily live lives of luxury for all 300 million citizens. Thus, environmentalism is a part of promoting the general welfare.
How about putting all Japanese Americans in concentration camps?
Are they citizens? If so, then promoting the general welfare would say DON'T put them in concentration camps.
Or shooting all illegal immigrants on sight?
Once again, are they citizens? And where's the shot being fired from? I'd argue that if you try to shoot the illegal immigrant *after* he crosses the border, you're a bit late and likely to make a mistake that harms general welfare. Mining the border on the other hand, has it's protectionist pluses. But the whole idea shouldn't be based on what is good for the illegal immigrant, but what is good for our citizens.
Is there any limit at all?
Yes, there is- the primary duty of the US Government should be to it's citizens- and the US Government has no duty to anybody who isn't a citizen. That is the limit.
Or perhaps it is a simple guideline saying 'pass only good laws', and NOT an enumerated power.
Looks to me like it's as much of an enumerated power as "provide for the common defense", which we pour TRILLIONS into every year.
First, though, you've got to prove that the laws against drug abuse are *unjust laws* as opposed to *guidelines to help people live a better life*.
I'm not in agreement with Thoreau on many things...including his dislike of majority rule. But then again, I'm for majority rule only in a very distributed fashion- which a representative republic in general is NOT. Majority rule makes sense up to the neighborhood level, then it breaks down. As do capitalism and communism. Democracy, capitalism, and communism just don't scale very well.
I've evolved over the years. Marxism has it's flaws- but the biggest flaw was when Wall Street started openly using Marxism to centralize capitalism.
But back to the subject at hand- the original comment meant that we currently don't have a stable enough business environment to hire the people we have, so why would we want to import more?
Sure it has. Unemployment benefits expire after a little while, at which time job-seekers will lower their asking price and the rest will sort itself out.
And how is that theory working for you?
Anybody can find work. They are just having trouble finding work they like, at a pay rate that supports their prior lifestyle.
I know people who have been out of work more than two years now- who have already cut their prior lifestyle by 1/4th (since that's what unemployment insurance pays) and STILL can't find a job.
A deceptive clue. It's a very old handle- I went from Marxism, to Apostolic Communism, to libertarian Capitalism, and back to distributism in the 30 years I've used that nickname on the net.
But you can't avoid the Declaration of Independence. Not protecting the borders and not giving a stable enough business environment to create jobs were two of the biggest failings of King George which created the American Revolution to begin with.
It's not the government's job to create jobs, if that's what you're saying.
"promote the general welfare". What part of that phrase don't you understand?
What we need is fewer "programs" (decrease public sector) and more freedom (increase private sector). So yes, the government has failed, but I'm not sure if it's failed the way you're implying.
Freedom is bad for business. Ultimately freedom means no police to stop shoplifters, no courts to enforce contracts, no way to stop fraud or even counterfeiters. The private sector couldn't exist without certain government "programs".
The answer to the war on drugs is pretty easy- don't take them. Or if you do, just have a prescription for them. They can't prosecute what is already legal.
But thanks for entirely missing my point- that if this is so, this is *MORE* reason for the "browner" (though I know plenty of whites with black hair) people not to take drugs.
What's really wrong with it is that there are 18 million Americans who are also willing to work for that fraction- but aren't getting the jobs because of racial discrimination.
The Mexicans who do enter illegally aren't exactly "stealing" great jobs from American citizens. They're picking crops, cleaning houses, flipping burgers, etc.
When 18 million Americans are unemployed, great jobs aren't an issue- ANY JOB IS THE ISSUE.
I'll tell you what- we can ban unions if we can also ban certain businesses from our communities. To bring this back on topic, I say the proper response is a 1000% tariff on IBM mainframes.
Slashdot Mirror
Being addicted to drugs *reduces* one's freedom, not enhances it. So I guess that makes YOU the nazi, wanting to addict everybody to drugs.
Is the other part because working when you're under 14 is illegal?
Apparently not- I see plenty of illegal immigrant children still in the fields.
And that working in hazardous environments (like harvest) when you're under 18 (given some exceptions for apprentices) illegal?
Some crops are hazardous environments, but I doubt strawberries are. They're low to the ground, best picked by hand, and I've even seen 8 year olds do it. But there is a definite bias against white children- who are too demanding
I've had to try to fall back on minimum wage jobs since college (I was unemployed October 2001 to December 2003). The constant I got was "you are overqualified" once they did a credit check and found my student loans- but the reality was, every kitchen in Oregon speaks Spanish.
I'm all for import taxes and a minimum wage that is a set fraction of the maximum income.
It's in the same bloody sentence! How could it not be equal to providing for the common defense?
Every cut reduces freedom a little bit- because taking economic responsibility for yourself instead of paying for it with taxes reduces freedom.
Well, let's look at something at the top of the normal list, shall we?
What's at the top of your list? What do you think we should cut?
Why not the workers that scab less-than-living wages from these businesses?
If you're scabbing less than living wages, then you're pretty much losing money by working. One way around this is to *be* an illegal immigrant- have a home country to go back to where costs are cheaper.
If the business were paying too little for their market, they'd have no employees.
Which is exactly what certain industries, primarily agricultural industries, have been complaining about for decades.
Honestly, I blame credit cards, but maybe that's all about to end.
Hmm, that's an interesting theory. I've got a related one- inflation is *directly* caused by a widening gap between the rich and the poor (something else that is about to end, I think rather explosively).
Also, based on that, I'm willing to temper my "Government can't find work for Americans" quote earlier. It appears by that chart that the Federal Government (in Baltimore and Washington DC) are the only people hiring at anything close to parity with the number of unemployed.
Yep, I'm in Portland, OR. 6 applicants for every job, even the minimum wage ones. Of course, illegal immigrants are willing to work *below* minimum wage, and in Oregon, unemployment (at a minimum) is now $80/week, essentially setting a floor of 40 hours at $2/hr, 25% of our minimum wage.
Still can't find a job, or still can't find a job that allows them to live "their prior lifestyle" (to use your words) in a manner they feel accustomed, if not entitled to?
Still can't find a job *at all*, even after cutting their expenses back to 25% of their "prior lifestyle".
I'm in the process of changing careers, to a career that will pay, at maximum, 2/3 of what I earn now. I'm adjusting lifestyle choices, not waiting for a blue moon where I might find some magical position that would put me at parity with my pay now (for the record, moving from IT Development / Management, to Paramedic).
Good for you. What are you using to pay for the retraining, your retirement funds?
If jobs programs fall under this phrase, then I'd press you for an example of something that does not.
Centralized ownership of everything by 5 corporations, seems to me to be a very timely example.
Does waging war 'promote the general welfare'? What if we did it to profit off of their oil?
The general welfare is for citizens only- and as citizens are killed by invading other countries, for any reason, I'd suggest that on a Consistent Ethic of Life scale, invasion is against the general welfare. Even if it's to grab resources. We have enough resources here in the United States that if we'd just live sustainably, we could easily live lives of luxury for all 300 million citizens. Thus, environmentalism is a part of promoting the general welfare.
How about putting all Japanese Americans in concentration camps?
Are they citizens? If so, then promoting the general welfare would say DON'T put them in concentration camps.
Or shooting all illegal immigrants on sight?
Once again, are they citizens? And where's the shot being fired from? I'd argue that if you try to shoot the illegal immigrant *after* he crosses the border, you're a bit late and likely to make a mistake that harms general welfare. Mining the border on the other hand, has it's protectionist pluses. But the whole idea shouldn't be based on what is good for the illegal immigrant, but what is good for our citizens.
Is there any limit at all?
Yes, there is- the primary duty of the US Government should be to it's citizens- and the US Government has no duty to anybody who isn't a citizen. That is the limit.
Or perhaps it is a simple guideline saying 'pass only good laws', and NOT an enumerated power.
Looks to me like it's as much of an enumerated power as "provide for the common defense", which we pour TRILLIONS into every year.
First, though, you've got to prove that the laws against drug abuse are *unjust laws* as opposed to *guidelines to help people live a better life*.
I'm not in agreement with Thoreau on many things...including his dislike of majority rule. But then again, I'm for majority rule only in a very distributed fashion- which a representative republic in general is NOT. Majority rule makes sense up to the neighborhood level, then it breaks down. As do capitalism and communism. Democracy, capitalism, and communism just don't scale very well.
I've evolved over the years. Marxism has it's flaws- but the biggest flaw was when Wall Street started openly using Marxism to centralize capitalism.
But back to the subject at hand- the original comment meant that we currently don't have a stable enough business environment to hire the people we have, so why would we want to import more?
Sure it has. Unemployment benefits expire after a little while, at which time job-seekers will lower their asking price and the rest will sort itself out.
And how is that theory working for you?
Anybody can find work. They are just having trouble finding work they like, at a pay rate that supports their prior lifestyle.
I know people who have been out of work more than two years now- who have already cut their prior lifestyle by 1/4th (since that's what unemployment insurance pays) and STILL can't find a job.
A deceptive clue. It's a very old handle- I went from Marxism, to Apostolic Communism, to libertarian Capitalism, and back to distributism in the 30 years I've used that nickname on the net.
But you can't avoid the Declaration of Independence. Not protecting the borders and not giving a stable enough business environment to create jobs were two of the biggest failings of King George which created the American Revolution to begin with.
It's not the government's job to create jobs, if that's what you're saying.
"promote the general welfare". What part of that phrase don't you understand?
What we need is fewer "programs" (decrease public sector) and more freedom (increase private sector). So yes, the government has failed, but I'm not sure if it's failed the way you're implying.
Freedom is bad for business. Ultimately freedom means no police to stop shoplifters, no courts to enforce contracts, no way to stop fraud or even counterfeiters. The private sector couldn't exist without certain government "programs".
The answer to the war on drugs is pretty easy- don't take them. Or if you do, just have a prescription for them. They can't prosecute what is already legal.
But thanks for entirely missing my point- that if this is so, this is *MORE* reason for the "browner" (though I know plenty of whites with black hair) people not to take drugs.
I'm sure that when I was 12, I was picking crops right next door, and that my son doesn't have the same option to learn to work.
Only part of that is because I moved to the city- they used to bus kids out to the berry fields as well.
Yes, but how do you detect drugs in the hair of somebody who doesn't do drugs?
This assumes that each new person is a net cost to government coffers. If that's true, then we have bigger problems than immigration.
It is true, and we do have a bigger problem than immigration: businesses that aren't willing to pay living wages to get workers.
What's really wrong with it is that there are 18 million Americans who are also willing to work for that fraction- but aren't getting the jobs because of racial discrimination.
The problem is that the USA government has not managed to establish a proper program to fill up the demand of international labour in the country.
At 10% unemployment, I'd say the USA government has not managed to establish a proper program to use up the supply of domestic labor either.
The Mexicans who do enter illegally aren't exactly "stealing" great jobs from American citizens. They're picking crops, cleaning houses, flipping burgers, etc.
When 18 million Americans are unemployed, great jobs aren't an issue- ANY JOB IS THE ISSUE.
Global variables usually screw up the code. Guess the same goes for governments, economies, and business practices.
I'll tell you what- we can ban unions if we can also ban certain businesses from our communities. To bring this back on topic, I say the proper response is a 1000% tariff on IBM mainframes.