Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/04/06 9:10 pm:
Oh, one last point.

What does the AgJobs bill do to help citizen farm-workers and LEGAL immigrant farm workers? As far as I can tell, it gives jobs to cheap imported foreign labor, and takes them away from legal immigrants and citizens. How does that help the either the economy or the low-income farm workers who are here legally?

Back in 2003 and 2004, Ronnie, you were one of the biggest critics of exporting jobs to foreign countries, which you believed caused unemployment. And you blamed it all on Bush, if I remember corerctly, even though it was orporations that were making the decisions in accordance with current law. But now you are in favor of a bill that imports illegal foreign labor and takes jobs from Americans and legal immigrants. And this time it really IS the government that's doing it. How do you reconcile these two stances? How can you be against exporting low-paying jobs to India, but for importing foreign workers for low-paying jobs from Mexico? Isn't it the same thing? Doesn't it have the same effect?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/05/06 3:38 am:

Ah, me!

I will try to make this as simple as I can.

When a job is 'outsourced' it is no longer available for home-based American citizens. The job market thus contracts.

If the AgriJobs were well paid and had the 'normal' benefits home-based American citizens expect, then there would be no need for immigrant labour - not all immigrants are 'illegal.' The terms are not mutually inclusive.

If there were no job openings in the AgriSector, then there would be no influx of people from non-USA countries coming to fill them.

Stop immigrant labour and you immediately have a deficit of several million workers in industries currently dependent on immigrant labour.

You might get opportunity to see what effect that would have on the economy and on businesses other than Agris on May first - International Labour Day - if the threatened stay-away-from-work comes off, or is supported by enough of those who fill such jobs.

If you really want to stop immigrant workers, then about ten million Anglos will have to take to the fields and pull the cabbages, pluck the tomatoes, and gather the grapes.

Will you?

So, thre answer to your question, "Doesn't it have the same effect," should be obvious to you now.

NO, it does not have the same effect and for the reasons stated.

When you get out from under the flawed ideology that informs your outbursts and get to grips with life in the real world of flesh and blood people who, alhtough their skins might be a little darker than yours, and whose, language might not be as refined as yours, but who are nevertheless children of the same God, have bellies that hurt if they do not eat, and who die from disease if untreated, and whose right to live is 'self-evident' and who are just as eager to provide for their familieas as you are, then you will sound less like one of those very unpleasant people who have marked the conduct of their affairs in the blood of those they have assigned to lesser eligibility.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Send the Minutemen to work in the fields so that when immigrants come to claim those jobs, they will no longer be available, and so they will have to go back wherever they came from.

Any other course of conduct smacks of something very nasty.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/05/06 12:42 pm:
Ronnie,

First of all, you are under the misguided miosconception that I am against immigration and immigrant labor. I'm not. I'm the son and grandson of immigrants. I have no problem with immigration and immigrant labor.

My issue is with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

The reason that illegal immigrants are sought after in the agro sector is because employers can get away with paying lower salaries, no benefits, and forcing long hours, and the illegals can't complain about it because they are illegal. It's cheap labor. If they hired LEGAL immigrants or citizens, they would have to pay competitive wages and benefits. Thus, if we cut off the ILLEGAL immigrant labor supply, the agro sector would be forced to become competitive and such jobs would become more in demand. So what illegal immigrant labor is doing is cutting those jobs off from legal labor. Which is exactly the same as if the jobs were being exported.

>>>Stop immigrant labour and you immediately have a deficit of several million workers in industries currently dependent on immigrant labour. <<<

Yup. Which would drive up what the industry is willing to offer employees, thus creating a larger demand for such jobs, and lowering unemployement among legal workers. This is simple supply/demand market forces at work.

>>>If there were no job openings in the AgriSector, then there would be no influx of people from non-USA countries coming to fill them.<<<

No. If there were no illegal immigrants, businesses would be forced to pay competitive wages and benefits to legal workers instead of skimping in their employees health care and wages.

>>>You might get opportunity to see what effect that would have on the economy and on businesses other than Agris on May first - International Labour Day - if the threatened stay-away-from-work comes off, or is supported by enough of those who fill such jobs.<<<

I hope so. And I hope the employers start hiring legal employees at competitive wages instead, as they should have frome the beginning.

>>>If you really want to stop immigrant workers, then about ten million Anglos will have to take to the fields and pull the cabbages, pluck the tomatoes, and gather the grapes.<<<

What exactly would be wrong with that? If the wages and benefits are right, why would anglos have a problem with that? The only reason they stay away from such jobs in the first place is because the jobs aren't competitively compensated.

>>>Will you?<<<

For the right pay? Why not? But if the pay isn't right, why should I?

>>>So, thre answer to your question, "Doesn't it have the same effect," should be obvious to you now. <<<

Actually, it has exactly the same effect for the exact same reason. It has the effect of jobs going to foreigners who are not in the USA legally because companies don't want to pay more for benefits, which results in a decrease in the number of jobs available for legal workers. Same cause, same effect, same reasoning.

As for your allegations of racism... I'm not the one claiming that only Mexicans are capable of pulling cabbage and gathering grapes. I contend that anyone who wants a job would do those jobs if they were priced accordingly. YOU are the one who contends that Americans see such jobs as "beneath them" and "only for Mexicans". So who's the real racist here, Ronnie?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/05/06 3:10 pm:


Elliot,

China does have some human rights issues, and that is why I am surprised that Bush does not put it on his 'hit list.' However, what you would consider slave wages in the USA are hardly considered such in China. It is relative. I am not speasking out for sweatshops and the like, nor supporting child labour, two factors that many extremely wealthy and successful American companies rely on to tget their goods on the shelves at highly profitable - to themselves - prices.

Do you but goods made in China, or are you boycotting their products because you do not agree with their means of production?

Do you boycott services priovided by and agristuff picked by low paid immigrant (not all illegal) workers, or is your interest in their welfare more cerebral than practical?

Are you willing to pay much more that you do now for your vegetables, fruit, chicken products, and services that are traditionally low paid, the results of jobs which you will not take, so that these jobs become attractive to the unemployed non-immigrant citizenship?

You cannot have it both ways. If you stop immigrant labour without raising pay to at least double what it is now in these industries, then you have to do without the goods and services or else pay a great deal more to ensure that the fruit does not stay on the vine, etc. If you are willing to cough up some extra, then Tom will get his Mexican-raised imported lettuce.

You have to account for the period when the wrokers do not work and the would-be employers raise their prices to raise their wages. It would not happen overnight.

I am a life-long labour union activist, and I have intense dislike for low wages and no benefits, but the USA is not Utopia, and some American employers, particularly in the sectors under discussion, pay substandard wages - ie., less than a 'living wage,' and offer no benefits; but you have to start where you are with what you have got to get to where you want to be.

Tom,

You will have to work very hard to find any charge of racism made by me against Elliot. Very hard indeed!

The worst I have said of him is that he is a Republican Bushite supporter. In that, I believe that I am speaking the truth, and I do not feel he either denies his positions or considers me to be insulting.

That he says mean things about my mind I take as part of the day's work, as I am sure he does.

But, if you must put your stick in a mud hole, at least get one of your own.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/05/06 3:56 pm:
Ronnie,

I'm not quite sure what China has to do with this subject. But I am sure that I have as much of a problem with illegal immigration from China or anywhere else as I do with Mexico.

>>>Are you willing to pay much more that you do now for your vegetables, fruit, chicken products, and services that are traditionally low paid, the results of jobs which you will not take, so that these jobs become attractive to the unemployed non-immigrant citizenship?

You cannot have it both ways. If you stop immigrant labour without raising pay to at least double what it is now in these industries, then you have to do without the goods and services or else pay a great deal more to ensure that the fruit does not stay on the vine, etc. If you are willing to cough up some extra, then Tom will get his Mexican-raised imported lettuce.<<<

First of all, yes I am willing to pay more. Second, I won't have to.

According to Wallace Huffman and Alan McCunn of Iowa State University's Dept. of Economics, "The removal of illegal workers from the seasonal agricultural workforce would increase the summer-fall supermarket prices of fresh fruits and vegetables by about 6 percent in the short run and 3 percent in the intermediate term. During the winter-spring seasons, prices would rise more than 3 percent in the short term and less then 2 percent in the intermediate term. Imports would increase about 1 percent."

The reason for this is because salaries are such a small part of the overall cost of produce retail. In fact, while salaries are as much as 44% of the cost of producing agro products, production costs are only 40% of the total retail cost... which means that salaries only account for 18% of retail costs (44% x 40% = 18%). It is expected that if only legal labor were used, salaries would go up 30% in the short term and 15% in the intermediate term, which equates to a 2.7% - 5.4% increase in the retail cost of produce (18% x 15% = 2.7% or 18% x 30% = 5.4%).

Huffman, Wallace & McCunn, A., 2003. "How Much is That Tomato in the Window? Retail Produce Prices Without Illegal Farmworkers," Staff General Research Papers 11069, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

http://www.cis.org/articles/1996/back296.htm

So my $0.50 tomato will increase in price by about 1-3 cents... less than the effect of a bad growing season or a bad storm. I certainly would be willing to pay an extra 3 cents for tomatoes.

Your information on this subject is incorrect, Ronnie. In this one case, your labor union ties would have served you correctly. You should have stuck to your "labor" guns on this issue.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/05/06 4:59 pm:
you certainly did imply racism in this comment :

When you get out from under the flawed ideology that informs your outbursts and get to grips with life in the real world of flesh and blood people who, alhtough their skins might be a little darker than yours, and whose, language might not be as refined as yours, but who are nevertheless children of the same God, have bellies that hurt if they do not eat, and who die from disease if untreated, and whose right to live is 'self-evident' and who are just as eager to provide for their familieas as you are then you will sound less like one of those very unpleasant people who have marked the conduct of their affairs in the blood of those they have assigned to lesser eligibility.

That sounds like you are making the implication to me .

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/05/06 5:09 pm:
Tom,

I see what you mean. I was thoughtless. Apologies to you and to Elliot.


Ronnie

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/05/06 8:51 pm:
Apology accepted, Ronnie, with pleasure.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/05/06 9:53 pm:

Elliot,

Thank you.

Ronnie