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.
No, I don't necessarily blame immigrants for "all our problems." The immigration ( legal and illegal alike) that so many are currently concerned with, is coming mostly from Mexico. But Mexicans were coming to the US already for ages. It's only logical for people from the poor country to seek jobs/opportunities across the border, with their wealthy neighbor, who is all willing to accept their offer of cheap labor and the profits that come with it.
So traditionally, Mexicans were thoroughly exploited, but they accepted their lot, for in return they were getting better money (and opportunities for their children had they decided to not to return to Mexico.)
So all in all it was a mutually beneficial arrangement, that was giving sufficient profits to American employers and at the same time was helping to keep Mexico's economy afloat, since a lot of those earned money were wired there.
But it all changed, when American employers decided that they can make EVEN MORE PROFITS, using the cheap Chinese labor, and made the deal with Chinese Communist Party, how to jointly exploit the Chinese workers.
What were they thinking at that point, that Mexicans would magically disappear, or they all of a sudden would become a "prosperous nation" - god knows. Who is going to hold responsible all sam waltons of this world for the mess they create in their greedy quest for more and more wealth and power?
However once the whole situation becomes an obvious mess down the line, and many are asking a question "now what?," I am merely pointing at the facts - it is what it is, and the US should either shut down the doors to ALL immigration and start taking the socialist rout ( obviously European, not Russian way,) OR to keep the doors open for cheap labor as it used to be, with unforeseen consequences.
You can create the "welfare state" in the closed system of coordinates, or you can keep that wheel of profits based on cheap labor churning. But it's one or the other and there is no way around it.
America can't feed and clothe all the "world's tired and poor" with the open door policies. It's not some "New Jerusalem," the ultimate "city on the shining hill," as some would try to imagine.
Look above.
I guess if I don't understand you, I'm not qualified to respond, but your further explanation does not help me understand you any better than I did before. I might understand more than your give me credit for however in the context of reality today, in America and the rest of the world...
Perhaps best to simply note you touch on some issues worthy of consideration, some true history, but I'm not sure your perspective is entirely correct or that all you conclude is the ONLY right answer or even more right than wrong or practical...
I struggle, for example, to understand your notion that "American employers decided that they can make EVEN MORE PROFITS, using the cheap Chinese labor, and made the deal with Chinese Communist Party." Not sure you are aware but I used to own and operate an employment agency. Placing thousands of general labor workers in jobs that typically paid minimum wage. I worked with hundreds of employers to help them fill those positions. The history of using immigrant labor is pretty well known by most people I think. (I could hardly get any non-immigrant Americans to even apply for these jobs).
The goal of keeping labor costs down is long in history and still acute today, but the entire history and scenario related to the gap between rich and poor TODAY involves far more than this particular element or influence of immigrant labor. What employers "decide to do" TODAY is also more than a little complicated. You seem intelligent, interested and informed, so rather than argue your straw man argument about feeding and clothing all the world's tired and poor (as if that's anything even remotely close to anything I advocate), I'll offer this article to you that pretty well addresses this PART of the problem rather comprehensively.
WARNING: A bit of a long read but the summary at the end does a pretty good job of reflecting my opinion about this challenge you are focused upon.
It's actually easy. Create the tax advantages that stimulate investment and hiring. The way to increase wages is to create scarcity of labor and make it possible to increase productivity.
Wish I could share the belief "it's actually easy," but of course it isn't. If it were, I suspect the problem of poverty wouldn't exist as it does in just about every country in the world, but incentives, including tax incentives, can be effective to promote certain outcomes that most people can agree are worthwhile. Problem there too, however, are all the people who believe any such action on the part of government should not be considered in the first place. Some profound ideological differences make just about any strategies far from easy. Far from easy to adopt and implement effectively anyway...
Promoting whatever the free market can do to create opportunity for all concerned is always something most people can get behind. At the same time there are blaring big gaps in what the free market can do for all too many people struggling with poverty, lack of opportunity. This is arguably where it makes sense that government step in. Not to close the gap or "fix" the problem but to mitigate the problems of poverty for all concerned to whatever extent possible.
Of course, "the devil is in the details," and there are a lot of details, but also of course we need to be determined as a country to do what CAN be done rather than adopt more of the "trickle down" mentality that we know doesn't work (other than for those doing the trickling). A robust economy, for example, requires a good many "winds" that can help everyone in all these respects, especially if all the spoils of a healthy economy don't mass so extremely disproportionately into the hands of the very few.
There's better we can do for all concerned, from the poor, to the middle class, and at the same time we can have plenty of people making lots of money at the top, which is also inevitable.
Tie executive, managerial & supervisory pay to multiples of what the lowest paid workers in the company make. I've mentioned this before to crickets because people can't wrap their minds around it, I guess. Too complicated? I don't think so.
My way of doing it:
1) Would start by making the minimum wage $10.50/hour.
2) If the lowest paid worker makes between $10.50 - $10.99/hour the top executive would make a maximum of a multiple of 50 times the salary of the lowest paid worker based on 40 hours/week times 52 weeks/year. Lesser executive positions, managerial and supervisory salaries would have lower maximum salaries descending downwards the lower the position is.
Example: $10.50/hour x 2080 hours/year (40 hours/week x 52 weeks) = $21,840. $21,840 x 50 (maximum multiple the top executive could make = $1,092,000/year.
3) With every 50 cent increase in lowest paid worker hourly wage the multiple would increase. So at $11/hour the top exec multiple might be times 55. $11/hour times 2080 = $22,880. $22,880 x 55 = $1,258,400.
4) Once the lowest paid worker makes $15/hour there would be no cap on executive, managerial or supervisory pay provided the lowest paid worker receives all benefits others in the company receive. That would also help people working in lower level positions get benefits that have steadily been taken away by corporate execs, like holiday pay, sick days, vacations, health benefits, participation in a company's 401k program, etc..
If a company can't afford to pay employees a decent wage executive pay shouldn't be exorbitant like we see today in most companies.
To be clear, if the lowest paid workers work less than 40 hours/week their pay would be prorated at 40 hours/week for the purpose of creating the multiple that would determine the maximum salary for execs.
Do this and all those people who work but are so poor they qualify for food assistance, Medicaid & other benefits will greatly decrease. They'll be able to afford to support themselves.
Tie executive, managerial & supervisory pay to multiples of what the lowest paid workers in the company make. I've mentioned this before to crickets because people can't wrap their minds around it, I guess. Too complicated? I don't think so.
My way of doing it:
1) Would start by making the minimum wage $10.50/hour.
2) If the lowest paid worker makes between $10.50 - $10.99/hour the top executive would make a maximum of a multiple of 50 times the salary of the lowest paid worker based on 40 hours/week times 52 weeks/year. Lesser executive positions, managerial and supervisory salaries would have lower maximum salaries descending downwards the lower the position is.
Example: $10.50/hour x 2080 hours/year (40 hours/week x 52 weeks) = $21,840. $21,840 x 50 (maximum multiple the top executive could make = $1,092,000/year.
3) With every 50 cent increase in lowest paid worker hourly wage the multiple would increase. So at $11/hour the top exec multiple might be times 55. $11/hour times 2080 = $22,880. $22,880 x 55 = $1,258,400.
4) Once the lowest paid worker makes $15/hour there would be no cap on executive, managerial or supervisory pay provided the lowest paid worker receives all benefits others in the company receive. That would also help people working in lower level positions get benefits that have steadily been taken away by corporate execs, like holiday pay, sick days, vacations, health benefits, participation in a company's 401k program, etc..
If a company can't afford to pay employees a decent wage executive pay shouldn't be exorbitant like we see today in most companies.
To be clear, if the lowest paid workers work less than 40 hours/week their pay would be prorated at 40 hours/week for the purpose of creating the multiple that would determine the maximum salary for execs.
Do this and all those people who work but are so poor they qualify for food assistance, Medicaid & other benefits will greatly decrease. They'll be able to afford to support themselves.
But you're assuming that people will choose to work full-time at the higher rate so they can support themselves. When McDonald's in Manhttan doubled the wage of their full-time employees to a minimum $15/hr, the workers were upset that they made too much money to get food stamps and other freebies. So they asked to have their hours CUT to 20 hours a week, thereby still getting taxpayer support. They loved it - same money for half the hours, and they still got food stamps and whatever else.
If you are poor, American taxpayers will pay your entire tuition for a 2-year community college program, by which you can earn an A.A. and a marketable skill!
But you're assuming that people will choose to work full-time at the higher rate so they can support themselves. When McDonald's in Manhttan doubled the wage of their full-time employees to a minimum $15/hr, the workers were upset that they made too much money to get food stamps and other freebies. So they asked to have their hours CUT to 20 hours a week, thereby still getting taxpayer support. They loved it - same money for half the hours, and they still got food stamps and whatever else.
Oh please Rachel, you don't really think most people would want their hours reduced, do you? My belief is most people are embarrassed to need help by way of food assistance, Medicaid, etc., and would much rather be able to support themselves.
As far as the workers at that McDonald's goes, if I had been the owner/manager I would have told them no, work your full-time hours or I'll find someone else who is willing to. My guess is they would have reluctantly agreed to work their regular hours than to have to find another job. And this was a rare case, I'm sure. In 99% of the cases I'm sure workers were thrilled to bring home those better paychecks for working 40 hours/week for $15/hour.
Oh please Rachel, you don't really think most people would want their hours reduced, do you? My belief is most people are embarrassed to need help by way of food assistance, Medicaid, etc., and would much rather be able to support themselves.
As far as the workers at that McDonald's goes, if I had been the owner/manager I would have told them no, work your full-time hours or I'll find someone else who is willing to. My guess is they would have reluctantly agreed to work their regular hours than to have to find another job. And this was a rare case, I'm sure. In 99% of the cases I'm sure workers were thrilled to bring home those better paychecks for working 40 hours/week for $15/hour.
She didn't say "most", YOU did!! Classic strawman, aka, a lie.
And stop the rich from having children so they wont grow up and take advantage of lower level workers. Works both ways, slick.
I can't decide if your post was folderol, balderdash, or both. I'm leaning towards "BOTH".
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.
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.
