Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is that the way people in power try to operationalize what you say (with regard to "ripping off the whole roof") is separating people into those who gets put in the spots wholly unprotected from the rain in some way, and other people in the spots protected from the rain in some way, and it is the folks already suffering from exposure, who don't have even an umbrella, that are the former; and those exceedingly healthy and hale, with excess umbrellas and other means of mitigating the harm from exposure, who are the latter.
I do agree with you that there needs to be a lot of scrutiny applied to work visas and such: The rule should be that those folks being brought in must be paid substantially more than Americans in the same role (rather than less). It may seem paradoxical, but it isn't: They should be so much better than the available Americans that they're worth compensating more, rather than just brought in because they will do the job for less compensation.
I do agree with you that there needs to be a lot of scrutiny applied to work visas and such: The rule should be that those folks being brought in must be paid substantially more than Americans in the same role (rather than less). It may seem paradoxical, but it isn't: They should be so much better than the available Americans that they're worth compensating more, rather than just brought in because they will do the job for less compensation.
Good point. They don't even receive equal pay to Americans; it has been demonstrated time and time again that the more H1-Bs you pour into an industry, the lower the median salaries get. IT salaries per position/yrs of experience haven't kept up with inflation for the last ten years, and H1-Bs are largely to blame.
One of the strong arguments being made by supporters of immigration reform is exactly this ... and they point-out how an influx of younger workers who will pay into the SS system for a long period of time will help to bolster the strength of the system.
For the too few jobs, there's no point in bringing in millions of immigrants and paying them low wages.
Instead we need to get unemployed Americans back to work, we need to eliminate the huge welfare programs and get those people working in and paying in for their retirement years.
It does not make sense to keep millions of Americans out of work and not paying into social security -- and their own retirement plans.
For the too few jobs, there's no point in bringing in millions of immigrants and paying them low wages.
Instead we need to get unemployed Americans back to work, we need to eliminate the huge welfare programs and get those people working in and paying in for their retirement years.
It does not make sense to keep millions of Americans out of work and not paying into social security -- and their own retirement plans.
we also need to stop having leaders who punish the savers in the country, because someday they are going to wish that there were more savers.
of course, right now stealing is more important.
for those clueless people who think that just the presence of more people create jobs think of how china got so desperate with their population size that they resorted to draconian measures and limited births to one child apiece.
as for the US, where have all the workers gone? read this:
just ask yourself the simple question, "will more of this help or hurt this country"?
I feel very sad about the direction this country is heading-we don't need lower wages, more part time jobs, more welfare, more food stamps, less participation rate, more poor people with more mouths to feed, and more quantitative easing to keep it all from exploding.(and at some point interest rates do go up and then there is real trouble).
the rich may be getting richer, but the poor will be getting desperate.
we also need to stop having leaders who punish the savers in the country, because someday they are going to wish that there were more savers.
Surely saving enough to keep yourself off public assistance when you're old is in the country's interest, but how does saving for retirement beyond that level benefit the countrymore than pouring that extra amount into the economy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
I feel very sad about the direction this country is heading-we don't need lower wages, more part time jobs, more welfare, more food stamps, less participation rate, more poor people with more mouths to feed, and more quantitative easing to keep it all from exploding.(and at some point interest rates do go up and then there is real trouble).
So is what you are saying that there needs to be more spending more so that businesses need to produce more so that they can employ more people?
The problem are not the lack of immigrants, the problem are the lack of jobs, good paying jobs that allows people to pay more into Social Security and Medicare. Perhaps we in the US need to start going back to basics, and start looking after our own elderly instead of relying on the government? This is probably why white people from the West think Japan is going to capsize without mass immigration, but the Japanese don't see their aging population as a problem (especially since their country is severely overpopulated due to their geographical constraints). Bring back the jobs and you'll solve the problem of lack of people paying into Social Security.
Australia is real strict about who they let in. Word is illegal aliens there are rounded up and put in camps, NOT set free in Sydney and so on.
There are many people who want to come to the US and are def Ok with coming here legally and WON'T try to sneak in. We DON'T need illegal aliens for a thing.
Many come legally, try to stay legally, but their visa runs out and they become illegal. At what point did they sneak in?
How many economists do we have in this thread? Apparently none because everyone is running with the "zero sum" concept of jobs, as if jobs were physical commodities with limited supply that have to be assigned to people. That's a favorite position of people who don't want immigrants, "they'll take our jobs!"
In reality, jobs are dynamic and grow with the population. Because more people also means more consumers and customers, you know, the people who we do the jobs for? At any rate, America has had massive population growth since world war 2, and surprise surprise, on long term structural unemployment. All the anti-immigrant people here have absolutely no leg to stand on with the jobs argument.
Find me a single reputable economist that says higher levels of immigration will lead to long term high unemployment.
We have plenty of young American workers but we have a shortage of jobs.
Don't be silly or disengenuous in your remarks. There is no shortage of jobs which American workers would take if given the chance. Illegal immigrants are working in the USA, millions upon millions of them. They're not sitting around doing nothing. Harshly punnish the enablers ... the employers who are breaking the law by hiring illegal aliens ... and we'll find out just how many Americans want to do the work the illegals are doing. Dry-up the source of income and security for the illegals and they'll mostly return home. That's the quickest "fix" for a huge portion of the illegal alien problem.
Surely saving enough to keep yourself off public assistance when you're old is in the country's interest, but how does saving for retirement beyond that level benefit the countrymore than pouring that extra amount into the economy?
So is what you are saying that there needs to be more spending more so that businesses need to produce more so that they can employ more people?
do you have any idea how much people would have to save to keep themselves and their families off any kind of public assistance if they lost their jobs? if they didn't have pensions? if social security imploded? did you know that the amount of people paid by private sector pensions has been steadily decreasing, which puts more people reliant on the government to have their needs met?
with no disrespect intended (it was an intelligent question), it sounds like wimpie, "give me the burger today and I will pay for it tomorrow". That isn't a strategy that would or could work for a country.
what I am saying is that if there are more start up businesses, run by american citizens/legal immigrants, more demand can be created. You might not know what you even want until you see it! we need tariffs on foreign goods to price american goods competitively and to "steer" americans to their own products. we need labeling of american goods to make it easier for americans to see their own products on the shelves and opt for them, without having to read tiny labels on the back for countries of origin.
we need energy independence, we need natural gas stations and infrastructure and we can grow the entire country, just as north dakota has grown their state.
this is all possible if there was actually the will to create and encourage american jobs.
instead, in January 2013, we had 47.7 something million americans in the snap program. (not to mention undocumented citizens who wouldn't be included). side note: for those who hate the "big boys", Each month, JP Morgan makes between $.31 and $2.30 for every single person on food stamps (and that does not even include things like ATM fees, etc).
KA-CHING.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.