Immigration Reform
(See here) a Los Angeles Times piece written by Nicole Gaouette that addresses the Immigration issue.
Seems some Dems are expecting that, due to the Democrats taking control of both houses in Congress, some type of left wing solution to the Immigration Reform problem is going to be the result.
Cough, cough, please note left wingers, that the Democrat victory was obtained through putting up some moderate candidates in many Congressional Districts. Even if Democrats had enough votes in the House for some type of radical solution, they still have to deal with a filibuster in the Senate from the Republican minority. Heck, Dems probably could not even muster a simple majority within the Senate, let alone the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster.
I think most people are realistic and realize Mexican workers are necessary in some occupations within America. One can trot out the purist argument that if the less desirable jobs paid enough, Americans would line up to fill them. There is some truth to this argument, however when a dose of realism is applied (will it work in the real world) reality slaps us in the face. Mexican workers help our economy flourish.
Problem is, that the illegal workers are starting to crowd out American workers from jobs they are willing to do, jobs that would still be there even if the wages required to attract the American workers went through the roof.
As an example we can look at what is going on in California. California has a real need for Mexican workers in the agricultural field. Without the Mexican workers, California's agricultural sector will find it difficult if not impossible to compete with foreign agricultural production. However, even with the existing flood of illegal immigrants, California's agricultural sector has been having trouble finding enough workers to meet their needs. Why? Because these same workers are finding more favorable employment in the building trades.
There is no reason that Mexican workers (illegals) need to be employed in California (or anywhere else in America) in the building trades. With housing values what they are in California, builders can afford to pay high enough wages to attract American workers and still make a healthy profit.
A guest worker program needs to be introduced that will restrict these "guest workers" to only certain occupations. Which occupations? How many guest workers? All that is yet open to debate.
How would the guest worker program be enforced? Just how hard would it be to put something on the Internet? Plug in the guest worker's ID# and receive back both a picture and thumbprint of the guest worker. Anyone employing undocumented or unauthenticated workers would be penalized. Employers from unauthorized sectors of the economy would be severely penalized whether the worker was documented or not.
Who could become a guest worker? Perhaps some method could be employed that even allows those already within the country to sign up. As they cue up for the jobs in permitted occupations, a streamlined documentation and approval process might be employed.
There is room to make something happen. However the current of public opinion is going to have to be recognized and dealt with.
One thing is certain. If Congress is going to do anything about the "problem", the result is not going to look anything like left wing Nirvana. The Democrat majority that was realized was not done so by electing a majority of liberals. The majority was won through opening up the door to moderates.
Democrats might now have the majority, but that majority does not consist of liberals only.
Seems some Dems are expecting that, due to the Democrats taking control of both houses in Congress, some type of left wing solution to the Immigration Reform problem is going to be the result.
Cough, cough, please note left wingers, that the Democrat victory was obtained through putting up some moderate candidates in many Congressional Districts. Even if Democrats had enough votes in the House for some type of radical solution, they still have to deal with a filibuster in the Senate from the Republican minority. Heck, Dems probably could not even muster a simple majority within the Senate, let alone the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster.
I think most people are realistic and realize Mexican workers are necessary in some occupations within America. One can trot out the purist argument that if the less desirable jobs paid enough, Americans would line up to fill them. There is some truth to this argument, however when a dose of realism is applied (will it work in the real world) reality slaps us in the face. Mexican workers help our economy flourish.
Problem is, that the illegal workers are starting to crowd out American workers from jobs they are willing to do, jobs that would still be there even if the wages required to attract the American workers went through the roof.
As an example we can look at what is going on in California. California has a real need for Mexican workers in the agricultural field. Without the Mexican workers, California's agricultural sector will find it difficult if not impossible to compete with foreign agricultural production. However, even with the existing flood of illegal immigrants, California's agricultural sector has been having trouble finding enough workers to meet their needs. Why? Because these same workers are finding more favorable employment in the building trades.
There is no reason that Mexican workers (illegals) need to be employed in California (or anywhere else in America) in the building trades. With housing values what they are in California, builders can afford to pay high enough wages to attract American workers and still make a healthy profit.
A guest worker program needs to be introduced that will restrict these "guest workers" to only certain occupations. Which occupations? How many guest workers? All that is yet open to debate.
How would the guest worker program be enforced? Just how hard would it be to put something on the Internet? Plug in the guest worker's ID# and receive back both a picture and thumbprint of the guest worker. Anyone employing undocumented or unauthenticated workers would be penalized. Employers from unauthorized sectors of the economy would be severely penalized whether the worker was documented or not.
Who could become a guest worker? Perhaps some method could be employed that even allows those already within the country to sign up. As they cue up for the jobs in permitted occupations, a streamlined documentation and approval process might be employed.
There is room to make something happen. However the current of public opinion is going to have to be recognized and dealt with.
One thing is certain. If Congress is going to do anything about the "problem", the result is not going to look anything like left wing Nirvana. The Democrat majority that was realized was not done so by electing a majority of liberals. The majority was won through opening up the door to moderates.
Democrats might now have the majority, but that majority does not consist of liberals only.
posted by Little David at 11/23/2006 08:00:00 AM
52 Comments:
I think it needs to be addressed that the reason a majority of "illegals" are here is because of right wing business, not left wing bleeding hearts.
1. There is some truth to this argument, however when a dose of realism is applied (will it work in the real world) reality slaps us in the face. Mexican workers help our economy flourish.
Reply- There is no evidence to this end. There is no correlation between the influx of Mexican labor in the mid 90's to present, and ANY economic measurable statistic. Mexicans have not reduced inflation, Mexicans have not "lowered prices".
What they have done is
1. Put more coin in the wealthiest of Americans pockets. The only thing that has steadily increased since the mid 90's, is the GINI index.
2. Stagnated the wages of middle America. Although Im sure Mexicans arent completely to blame for this, they no doubt contribute to the problem.
3. Lessened the need for a living wage or a raise in minimum wage. Why raise minimum wage when you have loads of workers willing to work for even less then the current minimum wage?
I believe the evidence in that more businesses have not been moving operations south of the border or overseas.
I will use California agriculture as an example. If California farmers could not utilize the lower cost illegal immigrant labor market to harvest their crops, they would find it increasingly difficult to compete with South American agriculture production.
Yes, illegals do drive down wages needlessly is some occupations. I gave the building trades as an example where this need not, and should not, be the case.
Which is why I have suggested that at least some tightly regulated method of allowing guest workers into the US needs to be developed. These guest workers should only be allowed into occupations that face direct competition from foreign producers. Anyone employing "illegals" after the guest worker program is introduced, or who employs a "guest worker" in an unapproved occupation would face stiff penalties.
America is losing manufacturing jobs to south of the border and overseas. If someone considering moving facilities is enticed to keep production here in the US through being provided cheap labor, the US economy would be better off in the long run.
1. I believe the evidence in that more businesses have not been moving operations south of the border or overseas.
Reply- Youve got to be kidding me right? Businesses are outsourcing their operations more frequently then ever, especially after all these "free trade" agreements.
2. I will use California agriculture as an example. If California farmers could not utilize the lower cost illegal immigrant labor market to harvest their crops, they would find it increasingly difficult to compete with South American agriculture production.
Reply-
1. This is highly unlikely. One of the reasons why there are so many low skilled Mexicans coming here for jobs is because NAFTA stripped their agricultural tariffs, and now US subsidized agricultural products have pushed thousands of Mexican farmers out of jobs.
2. Even if this were so, it wouldnt be anything a few tariffs couldnt fix.
3. Yes, illegals do drive down wages needlessly is some occupations. I gave the building trades as an example where this need not, and should not, be the case.
Reply- Why is it ok for illegals/low skilled legals to work in agriculture, but not construction?
4. America is losing manufacturing jobs to south of the border and overseas. If someone considering moving facilities is enticed to keep production here in the US through being provided cheap labor, the US economy would be better off in the long run.
Reply- One word answer....TARIFFS. Screw this "free trade" garbage. That is not what is best for Americans on a whole.
Tariffs are what brought on the last depression.
You are out of your mind if you do not think free trade is best for the global economy.
We Americans can not build tariffs for "everyone else" while continuing to insist our products must be introduced into their markets without fetter.
Are we Americans going to be hypocrites or something?
Let's everyone close off our markets to everyone else. Then as the tourniquet starts to bite, watch as the global economy grinds to a halt. I think Herbert Hoover last tried that. It led to the depression. Go read about it.
1. Tariffs are what brought on the last depression
Reply- Some feel that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act may have led to the depression. So what? That was a different period in time when the US exported more then it imported, and many industries depended on export sales.
Now, we import far more then we export, and demand for US products is low amongst the globe. Forcing industries back into the US will do nothing but fuel the economy, assuming that wages keep up with the general price inflation that is bound to happen.
Furthermore, many "foreign" goods are already produced in the USA, or can be produced in the USA in this global economy. Everything doesnt have to be shipped in, as it did in the depression era.
It is my belief that the net effect of huge tariffs would force all substitutable goods consumed inside of this country, to be made inside of this country.
2. You are out of your mind if you do not think free trade is best for the global economy.
Reply- The "global economy" doesnt concern me. I really dont care what is good for China, or Germany, or Israel. It is time the US started looking out for number 1, because that is what the rest of the world is looking out for.
3. We Americans can not build tariffs for "everyone else" while continuing to insist our products must be introduced into their markets without fetter.
Reply- You act as if nearly every other country in the world isnt already pursuing protectionary tactics, or do we need to review how China feels about the subject. You also act as if every other country has the same cost or standard of living as the US. The "global economy" is dragging the US middle class down, and that is unacceptable.
4. Let's everyone close off our markets to everyone else. Then as the tourniquet starts to bite, watch as the global economy grinds to a halt. I think Herbert Hoover last tried that. It led to the depression. Go read about it.
Reply-
I think maybe you should "go read" about the "global economy" and the US's position in the 20's and 30's as compared to today. You will find that the US is almost in a 180 degree different position then it was. I caution you on questioning me about the subjects of Finance and Economics.
I will acknowledge your education in finance, however I would also question your understanding of some things related to economics.
One of the objects of global trade is to bring the economies of other countries up to American standards. Many think this step is important to ensuring world peace. Look at how ramping up the economies after WWII proved to be wiser then the war reperations instituted against those who lost WWI.
China's economy and society might still have a long way to go, however the actions of China to open themselves up to the rest of the world are significantly better then Chairman Mao's isolationism and phobia of everything about Western civilization.
I doubt you will see America launch into a new round of protectionist trade tariffs, although this past election's putting Democrats into majority power might make the approval of new free trade treaties less likely and could result in more pressure being exerted on China to increase efforts to level the playing field.
1. One of the objects of global trade is to bring the economies of other countries up to American standards.
Reply- I understand this, and dont care. Bringing up other economies is squeezing out the US middle class. Im sorry, I dont want to live in a one bedroom apartment with 2 other families, so that some family in China doesnt have to live in a cardboard box with 12 families. China isnt my problem.
2. Look at how ramping up the economies after WWII proved to be wiser then the war reperations instituted against those who lost WWI.
Reply- Again, WW1 was a different period of time. Reperations stifled huge consumers of American goods. American on shore companies are not currently even capable of meeting half of the demand of US citizens. Foreign markets need not even be calculated.
Tariffs and reperations had the effect of shutting down internal business in WW1 era, because the US depended on the consumption of US goods by foreign sources. They will have the effect of bringing them back to the US shores in this era. Chinas economy, and many economies depending on the US to consume their cheap goods, would probably be ravished, as the US economy was in the depression, but I couldnt give a damn, really. I feel it is Chinas responsibility to fix China, not US and western Europes consumerism to pull up the rest of the globe by the boot straps.
3. I doubt you will see America launch into a new round of protectionist trade tariffs,
Reply- Im sure you are correct, tariffs are not popular amongst almost anyone, especially with their history. Im sure eventually, people will get sick of their jobs being farmed out to Asians, and farmed in to Mexicans, and theyll force something.
Companies wont stop farming out jobs or farming in employees until they are forced to, period.
China is everybody's problem. China is a developing nation with billions of people. Even if America turns its back on how things develop in China, it does not mean developments are going to stop. China can not be wished away. It is better for America if China developes as a friend instead of developing as an enemy.
I am troubled by your falling back on the "I don't care" attitude. Why should I even bother discussing things with you when it you can always fall back on "But I don't care".
It is my hope that the majority of Americans are not as selfish and as self centered as you are.
1. China is everybody's problem. China is a developing nation with billions of people. Even if America turns its back on how things develop in China, it does not mean developments are going to stop. China can not be wished away. It is better for America if China developes as a friend instead of developing as an enemy.
Reply- China would hardly develop without the wads of American cash building up in its coffers.
2. I am troubled by your falling back on the "I don't care" attitude. Why should I even bother discussing things with you when it you can always fall back on "But I don't care".
Reply- I dont care. I dont care if 4 million Chinese people starve if it cost one American going in to poverty. If only American industry felt the same way about Americans as I do.
3. It is my hope that the majority of Americans are not as selfish and as self centered as you are.
Reply- If you asked the majority of Americans the question
"If 6 Chinese people had to live in poverty, for you to be able to properly provide for your family, would you make that trade"
Ill bet you 99% would gladly say yes.
Thats who it is affecting here, middle America. We are just getting broker, as foreigners in poverty are getting our potential wages funneled to them through the greedy bastards on the corporate boards just getting richer from the whole deal.
Im not cool with that, and I bet the majority of Americans wouldnt be either.
I am not "cool" with a few individuals getting wealthy within America upon the backs of impoverished Chinese workers.
However I am extremely troubled by your statement: "I dont care if 4 million Chinese people starve if it cost one American going in to poverty." Seems you are no better then the other greedy bastards.
But that's just my point of view.
1. I am not "cool" with a few individuals getting wealthy within America upon the backs of impoverished Chinese workers.
Reply- Neither am I. I think China should be completely cut out of the equation.
2. However I am extremely troubled by your statement: "I dont care if 4 million Chinese people starve if it cost one American going in to poverty." Seems you are no better then the other greedy bastards.
Reply- Wrong. Those jobs were HERE first. Its not like Im taking away from the Chinese to give to Americans. Im just for not giving to the Chinese in the first place at the expense of Americans.
Perhaps you also think it was wrong for America to welcome our defeated enemies after the last World War back into the world community?
Oh, I get it. China has to launch a war against us. Perhaps they would be victorious in such a war, but even if they lose, then America would be willing to welcome them into the world community.
Seems to me it would be cheaper for America to do this without the expense of the war.
1. Perhaps you also think it was wrong for America to welcome our defeated enemies after the last World War back into the world community?
Reply- Where did you dig this up from? I dont care about Germany or Japan and there presence in the "World Community". That is their own concern. I dont believe the US should be a part of the "World Community" at the expense of Americans.
2. Oh, I get it. China has to launch a war against us. Perhaps they would be victorious in such a war, but even if they lose, then America would be willing to welcome them into the world community.
Reply- This isnt about China, nor is it about China being in the world community. China just happens to be one of the countries that jobs are being exported wholesale to. You could say the same for India or Mexico. I dont care about any of these countries.
3. Seems to me it would be cheaper for America to do this without the expense of the war.
Reply- It is Chinas responsibility to project itself how it sees fit. It seems China has done quite well with protectionist tactics, while simutaneously pushing the USA as a country to the brink of economic collapse.
I do not think you would be real happy with the prices you would have to pay if America resorted to protectionist trade practices. Didn't you say you shopped at Walmart because of the low prices? How happy would you be if the cost of everything doubled at Walmart?
I agree that China needs to reform her trade practices. The current administration is trying to get China to do this. However I did read this morning that General Motors thus far this year has sold more Buicks in China then they have in the United States. After the United States, China is the 2nd largest market for General Motors' overall product line.
1. I do not think you would be real happy with the prices you would have to pay if America resorted to protectionist trade practices. Didn't you say you shopped at Walmart because of the low prices? How happy would you be if the cost of everything doubled at Walmart?
Reply- My salary would also go up considerably, as I am no longer competing on a global labor plane. Remember when the US made just about everything it consumed? Those were the most prosperous times in the history of this country. Since the era of globalism reigned in, the US poor and middle classes have been doing nothing but taking the shaft harder, so that the dirt poor of China could be pulled up to solidly poor, and the wealthy 1% of people here could pocket more coin off of the whole situation.
2. I agree that China needs to reform her trade practices. The current administration is trying to get China to do this. However I did read this morning that General Motors thus far this year has sold more Buicks in China then they have in the United States. After the United States, China is the 2nd largest market for General Motors' overall product line.
Reply- Saying China is the second largest consumer of anything American isnt saying a whole lot. Japanese countries do not have a major presence in China due too their history, and sadly enough, the largest consumer market by shear numbers on the globe, views American products as top shelf.
What needs to happen is for China to become as big at consumption as they are at production.
Of course this is what is slowly happening and this opens up an entirely new barrel of worms. Increased depletion of natural resources. Increased CO2 emissions contributing to global warming etc etc.
I guess this is why leftists always talk about developing a "sustainable" society. We should lead by example and the example we give should be sustainable. I agree with liberals on this point.
1. What needs to happen is for China to become as big at consumption as they are at production.
Reply- I dont think China could possibly consume enough for this to happen. Currently, China is producing enough in its borders, to not only satisfy its own demands, but probably 15-20% of the rest of the worlds demands.
There are only two scenarios that lead to a country demanding more then it produces.
1. Inadequate resources
2. The country has farmed out its production capabilities to another country.
As far as I know, China has enough raw resources, although they dont always intellegently employ them, and that means until they raise their standard of living to a high enough level that the companies go chasing even cheaper labor somewhere else, they will never outstrip their production with demand, just as the US never could until they started exporting their manufacturing capabilities.
China is currently exporting 35% of GDP. Meanwhile most of her population lives in poverty. That are adequate numbers of Chinese citizens to soak up the 35% excess production capability.
Of course, even as this domestic demand increased, export capabilities would also increase.
Perhaps you are more knowledgeable then me about China's own natural resource availability. However right now China is depending on imports of raw materials. China has little in the availablitity of oil for example and is largely dependant on imports for raw materials related to steel production.
1. China is currently exporting 35% of GDP. Meanwhile most of her population lives in poverty. That are adequate numbers of Chinese citizens to soak up the 35% excess production capability.
Reply- I think as you may have eluded to in a paragraph below this, although, Im not completely positive of your intent, as you drag these people out of poverty, so that they may purchase goods, and create demand, they will simutaneously also increase internal production.
Likely, as with most emerging, or maturing economies, every worker who goes to work in a labor intensive job, is going to be employed in such a way that the value of his production far exceeds the range of his economic means to create demand.
China is still currently built heavily around manufacturing, and large numbers of its lower classes are in laborous jobs, and not service jobs as in countries like the US, which create demand for material goods, without producing them.
2. However right now China is depending on imports of raw materials.
Reply- This is probably more due to poor deployment of current resources, and poor methods of extraction, then lack there of.
3. China has little in the availablitity of oil for example and is largely dependant on imports for raw materials related to steel production.
Reply- China actually has some of the largest deposits of oil in the world. As of 2002, they were the 7th largest oil producing country on the globe, and has more barrels in reserve then the USA.
As for coal, it is estimated that China has the largest amount of coal reserves on the planet, and that they have enough coal to last them for 500 years. In 2005, China produced 3.7 times more steel then the US, and almost twice as much as the next closest country, Japan.
My "intent" was to elude to the fact that as (if) China developes a thriving middle class, the potential for demand by this economy would be healthy for the world wide economy.
China has already developed a strong upper class, those who reap the profits based upon the labor of the lower class. For long term stability, China must now turn to increasing the number of her citizens that reside in the middle class. The majority of Chinese citizens must gain from the "economic miracle" that is happening in China or else China is going to one day experience one of those violent revolutions you talk about.
1. The majority of Chinese citizens must gain from the "economic miracle" that is happening in China or else China is going to one day experience one of those violent revolutions you talk about.
Reply- Revolution is the inevitable end of all capitalism. It isnt always violent, much of Europe has managed to peacefully install leftist regimes who handcuffed capitalisms evil.
So they have managed to obtain equilibrium?
In other words, ways to protect the worker while still finding ways to motivate the investor?
Raw capitalism is untenable. Raw communism is untenable. The trick is to find the balance.
In America, the pendulum swung towards the raw capitalists with the election of George Dubyah Bush and a Republican majority. However the electorate took a look at the results of this and a revolution occured at the voting booth. Now a left leaning Democrat majority rules in both houses of Congress.
It's the American Way. Revolution without violence. I love it. And if the Democrats can't govern, we'll throw them bums out too!
1. In America, the pendulum swung towards the raw capitalists with the election of George Dubyah Bush and a Republican majority.
Reply- The pendulum has been swinging towards the raw capitalists since FDR died.
2. However the electorate took a look at the results of this and a revolution occured at the voting booth. Now a left leaning Democrat majority rules in both houses of Congress.
Reply- Wow, welfare capitalists are really going to fix everything.......Throwing government handouts at the people that capitalism abuses is not the way to fix anything.
The Democratic party doesnt "lean left". They are center right as a party, and and continue to be so.
3. It's the American Way. Revolution without violence. I love it. And if the Democrats can't govern, we'll throw them bums out too!
Reply- Yeah, and put some Republicans from the same fraternity back in.....wow, that solved something.
Sorry, but I view myself as being a kinda centrist type person. I looked at the results of the last election with a certain amount of glee.
Of course, this glee might turn into a frown if centrist Democrats are unsuccessful.
"Communists" and other left leaning individuals do not have enough votes to win either an election or a revolution in America. Thank God for that.
1. "Communists" and other left leaning individuals do not have enough votes to win either an election or a revolution in America. Thank God for that.
Reply- One day the poor slave class will wake up and realize there is little to no chance for them to "have the American dream", and that the very notion of an "American Dream" is outdated propaganda, distributed to keep the slave class tied to an impossible to achieve ideal, and happily work themselves into an early paupers grave. After all, how does Donald Trump continue to live in a penthouse mansion without scraping cash off the $5.15 workers scrubbing toilets in his properties.
Thank God for the slave class and the rightist efforts to keep them there. As long as they stay brainwashed, the unholy beast of capitalism will continue to survive. It is funny though, that country after country that have half the intellegence of the average American citizen have been able to realize that fact, yet Americans continue to be blissfully ignorant that they are slaves to Bill Gates and Donald Trump, and in order for them to do any better, Gates and Trump have to do worse, which isnt happening.
Thank GOD!!!!
Even the poorest of Americans would be considered wealthy in comparison to the majority of the rest of mankind. They enjoy certain benefits such as food stamps so that they do not starve etc.
I am not in favor of unvarnished, unregulated capitalism. Perhaps improvements can even be made in the current "American Way" such as some form of socialized medicine so as to provide decent medical care to all of our citizens.
However, I am not in favor of completely doing away with the free market. Capitalism motivates people to get off their butts and do something for society. Communism and unvarnished socialism do the opposite.
1. Even the poorest of Americans would be considered wealthy in comparison to the majority of the rest of mankind. They enjoy certain benefits such as food stamps so that they do not starve etc.
Reply- Although the poorest in many countries are much poorer then the poorest Americans, the top classes are hardly more wealthy or in the numbers of the US in proportion. This is called the GINI index. Its a measurement of concentration of wealth. See, Id rather be dirt poor and live in a box, knowing my manager was living in a tin shack next door, then be poor living in a roach infested one room apartment in the ghetto with no electricity, while my manager lives in an 8 bedroom house with a Mexican maid.
Furthermore, many of those "poor" countries, have become the "slaves" of the capitalist countries exploiting them.
2. However, I am not in favor of completely doing away with the free market. Capitalism motivates people to get off their butts and do something for society. Communism and unvarnished socialism do the opposite.
Reply- you have yet to refute or reply to my fast food worker example.
For fast food worker:
I could point to my own motivated young son who was a fast food worker. He worked at a sub shop. He was motivated enough to start thinking about opening a sub shop of his own and reap the profits of the owner as well as the wages of the worker. Under the free enterprise system, there is nothing to prevent the motivated, capable worker from branching out on his own. All he has to do is be willing to take on the risk and be willing to provide the sweat and elbow grease if it is needed.
However, in my son's example, he instead chose to continue on with his college education first. Many successful businessmen have achieved great wealth without a college education. However I have never heard anyone claim that a college education bars anyone from achieving the same succcess. I think my son chose wisely.
1. I could point to my own motivated young son who was a fast food worker. He worked at a sub shop. He was motivated enough to start thinking about opening a sub shop of his own and reap the profits of the owner as well as the wages of the worker.
Reply- I think you misinterpreted your sons motivations for possibly opening his own shop. Furthermore, your "young" son's dreams had nothing to do with reality. The reality is, he was a middle class kid with big dreams, which would successively be stomped down in to the dirt as he aged.
Poor kids and middle class kids rarely EVER see any of their dreams come true. They dont have the means, and forcing them to come true is a complete up hill battle.
What is wrong with a society that every man is judged on his own merit? Not on how much money you have. Where every man makes EXACTLY what his labor is worth to society? Not how much he can weasle from a capitalist, or how much he can weasle off the back of a worker. Where every man has an equivalent chance to go to college, and obtain the same jobs? Not where a man can get into Yale with a GPA that wouldnt get a poor kid in to Podunck State because of his daddies bank roll and connections.
2. However I have never heard anyone claim that a college education bars anyone from achieving the same succcess.
Reply- A college education bars you from working the majority of low skilled jobs, and at the same time, only opens up jobs that underpay severely for the level of skill required to do them.
In response to your first:
I guess my child "grew up" and is learning to deal with the "real world".
In response to your second:
I am sorry that you feel that a college education does not open new doors to you. I feel that none are closed as a result. You feel to seem otherwise.
A college education enables an individual to knock on doors that would otherwise be slammed shut on him. It is up to the individual who has the college diploma to convince those who answer the knock to give them the job.
1. I am sorry that you feel that a college education does not open new doors to you. I feel that none are closed as a result. You feel to seem otherwise.
Reply- Try getting a job at Walmart or Kroger with a college degree stapled to your application. I dont know if youve ever done that, but I have. Ill tell you where thats going the minute they read it. A tremendous number of doors are shut when you get a degree, and only a tiny number open.
2. A college education enables an individual to knock on doors that would otherwise be slammed shut on him. It is up to the individual who has the college diploma to convince those who answer the knock to give them the job.
Reply- So what do you do when nobody answers the knock any more? What happens when they only want 1 set of encylopedias, and there are 56 salesmen canvasing your street?
Well then I guess I should be sorry that I paid for having paid for my son's education.
If my son can't figure out how to do it with the opportunity I laid at his feet, then I guess the situation is hopeless for everyone else as well. Let's start a new TV advertisement campaign. Don't dare get a college education so that you can qualify for a job at Walmart!
Meanwhile I watch as the economy cooks along, and as I myself deal with this same economy, and wonder why my child wallows in self pity.
I understand my child suffers from medical problems. As my child has learned to deal with these problems I have found new respect for him. I do not have all the answers to every individual's problems. I can only offer that the "American Way" offers the broadest amount of opportunity for the broadest amount of people.
1. Don't dare get a college education so that you can qualify for a job at Walmart!
Reply- Why dont you take a look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and have a gander at what jobs this "cooking" economy is actually creating. Ill give you a hint, 95% of the top 30 jobs in numbers being created pay less then 8 dollars an hour on average, and require less then an associates degree.
The jobs being created, however are not
- Scientists
- Doctors
- Lawyers
- Mathematicians
- Most types of Engineers
- Computer and IT positions
In fact, far more people are graduating college then there are even remotely jobs for, and thats not even including all the cheap imported Indians and Chinese the companies are bringing in to suck up all the American jobs.
The US is transforming into a low paying service economy. That is a fact. The "middle class" is being eroded away.
When the only jobs are Walmart jobs, youre damn straight I want to be qualified for one.
I guess maybe you werent around when your son was forced to settle for temp jobs and first-thing-offered toilet jobs, because his degree "opened so many doors".
2. Meanwhile I watch as the economy cooks along, and as I myself deal with this same economy, and wonder why my child wallows in self pity.
Reply- Cooks along, HAH, haha hahah....thats surely a joke right? What economic factors are you basing this outlandish claim on? Falling-frozen real median wage? Falling factory orders? Soaring GINI index? The complete and total loss of industrial capability? Housing and oil prices that many times outpace normal inflation? Record numbers of people without healthcare coverage? The huge amount of debt controlled by countries that really dont like the US too much?
What part of this defines "cooking"?
3. I can only offer that the "American Way" offers the broadest amount of opportunity for the broadest amount of people.
Reply- Capitalism ("The American Way") is the only system which requires the enslavement and outright suffering of MANY people, so that a few can be financially succesful. It is inherently false that it offers opportunity to all people, or even a good range of people, because that is impossible at its very theoretical level.
So then give me an example of a communist society, or even a socialist one, that does better.
No fair pointing to Scandanavian countries which are CAPITALIST societies with a strong socialist influence.
1. So then give me an example of a communist society, or even a socialist one, that does better.
Reply- Are you purposely trying to aggitate me, or are you not even really reading my posts?
THERE ARE NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES, THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ONE. OBVIOUSLY, THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO GIVE REAL WORLD EXAMPLES.
I believe Ive said this atleast 5 times in reply to your repeated requests for "examples".
2. No fair pointing to Scandanavian countries which are CAPITALIST societies with a strong socialist influence.
Reply- "Socialism" is not a socio-economical system in its self, as Communism and Capitalism are. In fact, Socialism almost ALWAYS exist as a counter balance to Capitalism, within the capitalist framework, and is viewed as a transition point to communism.
OK, I get it now.
Societies that have chosen to describe themselves as "communist" just really were not "true" communist societies.
Societies that have chose to descrive theirselves as "communist", even Lenin's society, only failed because they because they failed to bow and scrape enough at the altar of communism in a manner that would suit you.
Sorry. I fail to be motivated to adopt any society that you argue for. From my experience, you are only motivated by "what's in it for me" and not by what is best for all of us.
1. Societies that have chosen to describe themselves as "communist" just really were not "true" communist societies.
Reply- I can call a plane a car, doesnt mean it is.
2. even Lenin's society, only failed because they because they failed to bow and scrape enough at the altar of communism in a manner that would suit you.
Reply- No, its because they directly violated basic pillars of communism, and therefore failed miserably at even creating a communist society, forget about a viable nation. It has nothing to do with "suiting" me.
3. From my experience, you are only motivated by "what's in it for me" and not by what is best for all of us.
Reply- Obviously Im motivated by myself.....funny.....then why would all these people benefit from my plan
- 42 million people lacking healthcare (Census Bureau)
- 49 million below 125% of poverty level
(Census Bureau)
- 12 million below poverty (Census Bureau)
- An estimated 3 million homeless people (Coalation for Homelessness)
- 4 million people actively seeking work (BLS) and the millions more who are severely underemployed.
- 77 million people who could be attracted to the labor force with adequate employment prospects (BLS)
- 100's of thousands of foreclosures due to unaffordable housing and predatory lending by capital institutions. (MSNBC)
- 10's if not 100's of thousands who do not get an equal shot at going to college as others.
- The 30%+ of people who do not own any property, and most of which have little to no chance of ever owning anything because of their "earning cap".
The only thing YOUR screwed up system has done is create this quagmire. Capitalism does nothing but create these types of messes, period. It always has, always will, and thats because it DEPENDS on a SLAVE CLASS to operate.
Excuse me if my heart isnt bleeding for Bill Gates, Im more concerned about the 25%+ of Americans who are getting screwed over because of his greed.
So continue to be "motivated" by capitalism. When you have to drive 22 hours a day in your truck to bring home $30 dollars, which wont be enough to buy a pound of beef.....you tell me about how great the system is. Others of us will look forward to better.
I agree something needs to be done about our nations health care system.
I only think that our system has proven to provide the most benefits to the most people. Even those "below the poverty level" within our nation would be considered as wealthy in many areas of the world.
As for communism, I do not think you would even win majority support amongst the 25% you feel would benefit from adopting it. If it is as good as you say it is, you would have to be willing to expend a lot of energy educating "the masses" on how it would be better for them. You would have to convince strong majority of the entire American population to support such a change. However you seem to be unwilling to even begin such a task.
Until you can educate me otherwise, I am going to continue to state that communism has been proven to not work in large societies. Even our own society's attempts to lightly experiment in that area(labor organization rights won due to the labor movement)have produced only mediocre results due to the corruption of union leadership and the excesses displayed by ordinary union members when they thought they had the upper hand.
1. I only think that our system has proven to provide the most benefits to the most people. Even those "below the poverty level" within our nation would be considered as wealthy in many areas of the world.
Reply- So its fair that the income gap and GINI index of the US are on par with 3rd world banana republics, because the poor people in the US are wealthier then other countries poor people?
Gotcha.
2. As for communism, I do not think you would even win majority support amongst the 25% you feel would benefit from adopting it. If it is as good as you say it is, you would have to be willing to expend a lot of energy educating "the masses" on how it would be better for them. You would have to convince strong majority of the entire American population to support such a change. However you seem to be unwilling to even begin such a task.
Reply- You actually addressed your own comment within this paragraph. You are exactly right, it WOULD be nearly impossible to educate anyone on how it would be better for them. Getting through decades of negative western propaganda would prove almost futile in itself. In a nation that automatically equivalates communism with an evil dictatorship, its stupid to believe that standing on a pulpit would be any more then a waste of breath. It would be much more effective simply waiting until the abuses capitalism perpetrates catch up with it.
Instead of me trying to convince an unwilling horse to follow me to water, let the horse become thirsty enough to find its own water.
3. Until you can educate me otherwise, I am going to continue to state that communism has been proven to not work in large societies.
Reply- For the 600th time, Communism has never been attempted in large societies. In every case of someone calling their nation "communist" it has been some bastardized form of state run capitalism at best. Therefore, it is not possible to "prove that is has worked", because it hasnt been accuratley implemented.
4. Even our own society's attempts to lightly experiment in that area(labor organization rights won due to the labor movement)have produced only mediocre results due to the corruption of union leadership and the excesses displayed by ordinary union members when they thought they had the upper hand.
Reply- Actually, this is due to corporate union busting more then anything.
Wrong, I was a member of a union. I have experience as a union member. I was being paid obscene wages to stock shelves in a grocery store in an air conditioned environment. When the union contract came up, we were offered generous pay increases and what was offered just barely squeeked by and won approval. A significant portion of the union membership thought the generous offer was not enough.
Meanwhile, I watched their hypocrisy. Most members of the union (grocery workers) were stock clerks. While stock clerks were being offered a generous and huge pay raise, a rate of pay that I was almost embarassed about to try and explain to some of my friends who worked harder for less, some of their fellow union members were left to hang in the breeze. An example? My own mother was the bakery department manager of the store at which I worked. She had to worry about work schedules, hot and sweaty working conditions, as well as the risk of disability due to dealing with hot fat fryers and hot ovens. As I remember it, my mother, who was doing the harder work, was going to end up being paid significantly less then I was as a stock clerk.
But what were the issues that those who voted against accepting managements generous offer? Where they going to vote no because bakery workers were not paid enough? No. The issue was that stock clerks were not going to get enough. They didn't give a damn about bakery workers, they only cared about themselves.
As for leading the horse to water, perhaps the stubborn horse is being stubborn because he has thus far been successful in finding his own water, thank you very much. The water you attempt to lead him to has a strange taste to it and he prefers the water he has been drinking. Before you came along, he had already tasted the water you are trying to lead him to drink again from. He knows better.
I think the man who chooses to dare think he has the wisdom to lead the horse better have his shit all in one sock. I'll use my eldest son as an example. When each of my children was going to go to college, I tried to give them the benefit of the little wisdom I had. I tried to suggest to them that they get involved in health care. Not as a Doctor, I couldn't afford to pay for that, but they could have become registered nurses. Expanding field, supply already does not meet demand and demand is going to sky rocket. But every time I tried to convince my children this was wise, I was shouted down by my wife that "that's not what they want to do" and my children nodded their heads in agreement.
OK, I let each child choose for themselves what they wanted to go to school for. I feel there is at least some wisdom in the idea that you should try to choose an occupation that you enjoy. If you enjoy it, you are more apt to be good at it, possibly even excel at it.
But now that my eldest son is faced with the consequences of his decision (he majored in finance) he whines that there are no good paying jobs in his field in the area he grew up in, which just happens to be the area he now wants to live in. Didn't he realize he might have to relocate in order to get a decent paying job in the occupation he chose? Didn't he realize that places like Charlotte, North Carolina, Wall Street and other corporate finance centers is where the money is to be made in finance?
Meanwhile, registered nurses start off at something like $50k to $60k a year. You can pick darn near any area in the nation and the registered nurse's services are needed. Many places offer sign on bonuses and relocation expense assistance. But none of my children wanted to listen to Dad.
As for your "gotcha". If the poor people in America are wealthier then the rich people in poor countries, I do not think they are gettings such a bad deal. I do not like how things in America have recently started to tilt the playing field towards the advantage of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. However I think our society only needs some tweaking and our way of life need not be totally abandoned as a result.
1. Wrong, I was a member of a union.......They didn't give a damn about bakery workers, they only cared about themselves.
Reply- This is a result of a badly organized, and far too broad of union. Every single individual profession should have their own unions, not whole entire industries as they do now. When the only unions that exist are huge umbrella unions that cover 500 different positions, everyone is not going to get adequate attention or representation.
2. As for leading the horse to water, perhaps the stubborn horse is being stubborn because he has thus far been successful in finding his own water, thank you very much. The water you attempt to lead him to has a strange taste to it and he prefers the water he has been drinking. Before you came along, he had already tasted the water you are trying to lead him to drink again from. He knows better.
Reply- As if your limited experiences with a bad union are some sort of representation of communism. I think that water you were drinking was more like Kool Aid.
3. When each of my children was going to go to college, I tried to give them the benefit of the little wisdom I had. I tried to suggest to them that they get involved in health care. Not as a Doctor, I couldn't afford to pay for that, but they could have become registered nurses......But every time I tried to convince my children this was wise, I was shouted down by my wife that "that's not what they want to do" and my children nodded their heads in agreement.
Reply-
1. Nursing is a dead end job. There is no promotion, there is no CEO job, there is no corporate ladder, no nothing. Sure, you start off making like 40 or 50k, but you are making that for the rest of your life.
2. Nursing is a highly risky job. From what I understand, atleast one of your children, the eldest I believe, already has compromised health, and would not be best suited to be in an environment where he would be exposed to constant illness and disease.
3. Nurses have insane, non set schedules. If Im not mistaken, one of the biggest reasons why the eldest went in to "finance", is because of the 9-5, no weekend corporate schedule. Again, because of his illness, he is forced to schedule when he eats around his work schedule, and with an unset schedule subject to call ins, he would no doubt drop to a deadly range of weight.
4. Nurses take a certain type of person. For instance, can your son stand needles, and blood? Is your son tolerant of germs? Is your son personable, even in the face of death, intolerance, pain, and suffering? Maybe your son dislikes people, and has a strong mathematic and logical aptitude? All professions take a certain type of person, and its senseless to try to force a circle peg in a square hole.
Maybe your wife had a bit of wisdom when she made the suggestions you scorn her for.
4. But now that my eldest son is faced with the consequences of his decision (he majored in finance) he whines that there are no good paying jobs in his field in the area he grew up in, which just happens to be the area he now wants to live in.
Reply- You must have a serious disconnect from your son. Did you ever consider the fact that he dispises the place he lives in, and that he is merely financially trapped, in more ways then one, in to living in the place he grew up and graduated college from? The ramifications of dropping everything and leaving, especially when one has huge debt, are insurmountable at this point in his life. Furthermore, when one has an unpredictable illness, it requires an even larger financial cushion, when one moves away from their family. His intention is to leave Virginia long in the rear view mirror when he is able to, if ever, build some sort of financial cushion to move with.
Id think, if your son planned on living in the Hampton Roads area his whole life, he would have completely bipassed college, and took up one of the plentiful blue collar professions abound in the area.
Unfortunatley, some people are thrown curve balls in life.
5. As for your "gotcha". If the poor people in America are wealthier then the rich people in poor countries, I do not think they are gettings such a bad deal. I do not like how things in America have recently started to tilt the playing field towards the advantage of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. However I think our society only needs some tweaking and our way of life need not be totally abandoned as a result.
Reply- How do you suggest we "tweak" anything? The very institution of capitalism is a huge funnel that naturally vaccuums the wealth in to the hands of a few, who then proceed to run the governmnet as a huge oligarchal plutocracy.
There is no "tweaking". The only thing you can do is increase hand outs to those left behind. That isnt fixing anything.
Heh heh, you think large unions are a problem but that an even larger communist society would somehow be better? Give me a break.
As for experience with unions, it is not just limited to the one time I was a member of a union myself. My opinions are also based upon numerous interactions with workforces both unionized and non-unionized as I travel from various shippers to various consignees in my occupation as a truck driver.
As for how I would go about "tweaking" our society, I would start off by restoring a progressive tax code where the wealthy in our society again pay higher rates of taxes for the priveledge of living wealthy in our society. The most important tax that needs to be restored is the 50% death tax for estates valued over something like 10 million or so. The increased tax revenues would be used to fund programs that would assist motivated individuals in the lower and middle classes to earn a larger share of the pie.
There should be a safety net (even Ronal Reagan said as much) for the truly needy and disadvantaged. However, much like you yourself alluded to, the safety net should not be so large or so comfy that it ends up attracting and catching too many people.
1. Heh heh, you think large unions are a problem but that an even larger communist society would somehow be better? Give me a break.
Reply- Communist "soviets" (as Russia called them) are set up by shop on the lowest levels, and proceed to sector and industry bands. Everyone is represented on the lowest levels. This isnt neccessarily true in huge broad unions. Big unions arent the problem, BROAD unions are a problem.
2. The increased tax revenues would be used to fund programs that would assist motivated individuals in the lower and middle classes to earn a larger share of the pie.
Reply- By doing what? Training them for non existant jobs? Giving them seed money for businesses that will be run out by Walmart within 3 years?
3. However, much like you yourself alluded to, the safety net should not be so large or so comfy that it ends up attracting and catching too many people.
Reply- The safety net isnt "attractive", its that working is so unattractive. Nobody wants to go to work 40 hours a week, and still starve at the end of the day. That appeals to nobody.
Your idea of representation in society is no more attractive then the system we have.
I prefer "one man, one vote" and I am willing to die to defend such a system.
If you think you have a way to improve the "American Way" you better have the votes to back you up. If you seek to impose your minority viewpoint on the majority through the strength of arms, I am going to be amongst those taking up arms to oppose you.
1. I prefer "one man, one vote" and I am willing to die to defend such a system.
Reply- Your vote is worthless and you know it. Atleast a representitive government where people are directly recallable, and directly elected, and come from the people they represent, peoples voices and issues would be heard and addressed. Now, there is a price tag on your issue being heard.
2. If you seek to impose your minority viewpoint on the majority through the strength of arms, I am going to be amongst those taking up arms to oppose you.
Reply-
You obviously are not reading my posts, which is par for the course. If you were, youd realize Im in complete opposition to top down dictatorship governments.
Yet, dispite my continuous expression of this fact, you keep blabbering about how I want to "force my minority view on people", blah blah blah.
Again, Im perfectly content with, and prefer, the horses to come to the water when they are thirsty enough.
I do not think my vote is worthless, so I guess your "and you know it" statement is erroneous.
If you are not in favor of the minority enforcing its will on the majority, then there is no reason for a violent revolution. Of course you are now going to talk circles again (I have been reading your posts) about it must be a revolution blah blah blah.
I think I have said this before. If a revolution is necessary, it can be obtained through non-violence at the voting booth better then through the force of arms. If the results are obtained at the voting booth, then those who voted for the revolution can also vote to rescind it when those they voted far prove (as they will) that they are no more capable of providing Nirvana then those they ran out of office previously.
1. I do not think my vote is worthless, so I guess your "and you know it" statement is erroneous.
Reply- So where is the federal law forcing your representitive to vote the way his constituency wants him to? Where is the federal law requiring your elected official follow some, or even any of his promises, especially when he isnt even from remotely the same world you are?
2. If you are not in favor of the minority enforcing its will on the majority, then there is no reason for a violent revolution.
Reply- So you are going to willingly spit up your property if 85% of people support you doing so? Yeah, didnt think so. Unfortunatley, those who own capital arent normally so willing to spit it up, and it more then likely would have to be taken from them by force. The primary opposition to leftist government overthrows has ALWAYS been those who own property and wealth, those of which take up arms in defense of that property.
3. Of course you are now going to talk circles again (I have been reading your posts) about it must be a revolution blah blah blah.
Reply- Its not "circles". What would you call
a. Destroying the Federal Constitution
b. constructing a completely new government structure
c. Confiscating capital assets
d. Installing principles that the US has never witnessed before
If not a "revolution", what exactly would you call this process?
4. I think I have said this before. If a revolution is necessary, it can be obtained through non-violence at the voting booth better then through the force of arms.
Reply- Again, it is highly unlikely those who own capital assets would
a. EVER "vote" an extreme leftist party in to office
b. Willingly depart with their capital assets.
Violence will be almost inevitable when installing a state owned/worker possesed system of capital asset holding. I liken it to when a little kid picks up candy in the store. He rarely will put it down with out you physically pulling it from his hand.
1: If the representative I voted for does not lead in the way I expected, I can vote to run him out of office. It is called majority rules if you are unfamiliar with the term.
2: The American Way allows for the majority to actually own property in case you haven't noticed. And every American has the right to keep and bear arms to defend these property rights. Boo Hoo for you communists.
3: Every special interest group claims the Constitution violates their special interest, and your special interest is no different. If you think your rights are being violated, take it up with the Supreme Court. That those that serve on the bench of the Supreme Court is decided by those whom we elect is further evidence of why it is important for you to vote.
4: The only reason your statement holds some truth in your number 4 is due to the fact that the "voters" are those who own the capitol assets. It is true they, the majority, are going to be unwilling to give up power to you who would have no respect for private ownership.
1. If the representative I voted for does not lead in the way I expected, I can vote to run him out of office. It is called majority rules if you are unfamiliar with the term.
Reply- Obviously you were aware that the US federal government was constructed to PREVENT "mob" (majority) rule. This is why you vote for REPRESENTITIVES, and not directly on issues.
2. 2: The American Way allows for the majority to actually own property in case you haven't noticed. And every American has the right to keep and bear arms to defend these property rights. Boo Hoo for you communists.
Reply-
1. Funny, I always thought the reason behind keeping and bearing arms was to be able to construct a militia to defend against a tyrant, not to defend property rights. You are being pretty liberal with your assertations of the Constitutional guarantees of property rights, in my opinion.
2. This line of thought is EXACTLY why it would end up being a "violent" revolution.
3. Every special interest group claims the Constitution violates their special interest, and your special interest is no different.
Reply- I never claimed the constitution "violated my rights". However the Consitution does establish a form of government which does not mesh with Communism, and therefore it would have to be pretty much trashed, and started again.
I have nothing against the Constitution at all personally.
4. It is true they, the majority, are going to be unwilling to give up power to you who would have no respect for private ownership.
Reply- Private ownership creates two types of people, those who own, and those who are slaves to those who own. As capitalism progresses, it becomes increasingly difficult to become "one who owns" from, one who doesnt.
By the way, MOST of, the people, even those who "own a house", would see their standard of living increase considerably under Communism. Bill Gates' fortune alone would provide 30,000 dollars for 1.4+ million people.
Then stop arguing for Communism. Let me only quote your own words:
I never claimed the constitution "violated my rights". However the Consitution does establish a form of government which does not mesh with Communism, and therefore it would have to be pretty much trashed, and started again.
I have nothing against the Constitution at all personally.
1. Then stop arguing for Communism. Let me only quote your own words:
I never claimed the constitution "violated my rights". However the Consitution does establish a form of government which does not mesh with Communism, and therefore it would have to be pretty much trashed, and started again.
I have nothing against the Constitution at all personally.
Reply- What does this have to do with anything? Just because I dont have a problem with the CONSTITUTION, does not mean I dont have a problem with the form of government it guarantees.
I think the Constitution did what it was intended for fairly well. It just doesnt agree with a far superior system, one which I support.
Post a Comment
<< Home