Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Nails it.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... nt-workers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not really.

That's all fine. Disruptions are to be expected. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for farmers who have gone on for years knowingly hiring a bunch of illegal aliens to work. No illegal aliens and the pay for doing that work will find it's proper level in the context of what Americans are willing to work for. If you pay enough, people will do the job.

What the situation shows is how bad the problem of illegal immigration is. What it tells you is that so many of the workers were illegal that the farmers can't operate ... at least not at what they're willing to pay...without them.

I don't care how hard they're willing to work. If they didn't come here through legal channels they shouldn't be here. Period.

It's an illegal employer problem. Cgrad, your sense of humor and irony is seriously lacking in this one.

Whoa. You mean there wasn't a long line of unemployed people rushing to fill these back breaking agribusiness jobs?!? Who knew.

JohnStOnge wrote:That's all fine. Disruptions are to be expected. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for farmers who have gone on for years knowingly hiring a bunch of illegal aliens to work. No illegal aliens and the pay for doing that work will find it's proper level in the context of what Americans are willing to work for. If you pay enough, people will do the job.

What the situation shows is how bad the problem of illegal immigration is. What it tells you is that so many of the workers were illegal that the farmers can't operate ... at least not at what they're willing to pay...without them.

I don't care how hard they're willing to work. If they didn't come here through legal channels they shouldn't be here. Period.

Define "enough", seems kind of subjective. They pay enough for illlegals to do the job. Maybe the problem isn't illegals, maybe it's us for refusing to work for low wages.

Having stiff penalties for hiring illegals would serve the same purpose.

There was a group of guys in a newer subdivision in Charleston a few years back that bought a bunch of black T-shirts and black baseball caps with "IMF" printed in big white letters on them. They started milling around new home construction sites in the subdivision, and suddenly, none of Beazer's people were showing up for work. It was classic.

Now, Beazer build sh!tty houses with sh!tty materials. Those houses weren't worth 1/4 of what they were selling for (which is another thread altogether.... I am not upside down on a house right now because I refused to buy a piece of sh!t pile of pine pulpwood and vinyl siding on a concrete slab), but Beazer for some reason can sell them at enough of a markup to the point where they make about 65% profit on the units, and that includes absorbing the cost of buying the big tract of land.

Why do the big home builders need to hire illegal Mexicans?

Because the equation works both ways. Some people say that Americans won't work for an illegal's wage, and there is a lot of truth to that, but if illegals are available, and there is no disincentive to hiring them, then the home builders are going to hire them. I think that both approaches are fine (kicking out the illegals, or killing their revenue stream).

I am all in favor of sending illegal immigrants home, but I am more in favor of havnig them go home voluntarily. That means SERIOUS punitive fines for people who hire them. Maybe even some jail time for repeat offenders. If there is no work for them here, then they won't stay. (Provided the bleeding hearts don't extend the poor waifs Obamacare and other bennies simply for being present inside our borders.)

SDHornet wrote:Whoa. You mean there wasn't a long line of unemployed people rushing to fill these back breaking agribusiness jobs?!? Who knew.

The world needs ditchdiggers too.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:That's all fine. Disruptions are to be expected. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for farmers who have gone on for years knowingly hiring a bunch of illegal aliens to work. No illegal aliens and the pay for doing that work will find it's proper level in the context of what Americans are willing to work for. If you pay enough, people will do the job.

What the situation shows is how bad the problem of illegal immigration is. What it tells you is that so many of the workers were illegal that the farmers can't operate ... at least not at what they're willing to pay...without them.

I don't care how hard they're willing to work. If they didn't come here through legal channels they shouldn't be here. Period.

Define "enough", seems kind of subjective. They pay enough for illlegals to do the job. Maybe the problem isn't illegals, maybe it's us for refusing to work for low wages.

Because if you worked for them wages you couldn't afford the iPhone4, iPad, iPod, 52 inch plasma, RV, quads, boat and go on those expensive vacations every year....and those are RIGHTS as AMERICANS. It's in the Constitution. Look it up.

AZGrizFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Define "enough", seems kind of subjective. They pay enough for illlegals to do the job. Maybe the problem isn't illegals, maybe it's us for refusing to work for low wages.

Because if you worked for them wages you couldn't afford the iPhone4, iPad, iPod, 52 inch plasma, RV, quads, boat and go on those expensive vacations every year....and those are RIGHTS as AMERICANS. It's in the Constitution. Look it up.

Our ditchdiggers are supposed to be greedy. American exceptionalism and such.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Because if you worked for them wages you couldn't afford the iPhone4, iPad, iPod, 52 inch plasma, RV, quads, boat and go on those expensive vacations every year....and those are RIGHTS as AMERICANS. It's in the Constitution. Look it up.

Our ditchdiggers are supposed to be greedy. American exceptionalism and such.

The new definition of "poor" in America: no health insurance, but every toy in the book.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:

Our ditchdiggers are supposed to be greedy. American exceptionalism and such.

The new definition of "poor" in America: no health insurance, but every toy in the book.

And McMansions they can't afford. Although I wonder exactly to what extent this is true. It's anectdotal but we all know hard working lower middle class to poor people who are frugal.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
The new definition of "poor" in America: no health insurance, but every toy in the book.

And McMansions they can't afford. Although I wonder exactly to what extent this is true. It's anectdotal but we all know hard working lower middle class to poor people who are frugal.

Sure, but they're all illegal Mexicans.

Hmm, looks like I need to start putting the land right for farming if they're going to drive up the price of food.
Simple fcvks don't get that food prices are one of the few things that will put Americans into the streets with bad attitudes and intentions.

houndawg wrote:Hmm, looks like I need to start putting the land right for farming if they're going to drive up the price of food.
Simple fcvks don't get that food prices are one of the few things that will put Americans into the streets with bad attitudes and intentions.

Like I have said before. Cid1990's compound has 500 acres of defensible farmland, I even have mules on tap for the plows.

And I have about 100 ornery Scots Irish family members who would set up shop there tomorrow. We already have a rendezvous plan if the sh1t ever starts to hit the fan.

If are are willing to work, then you'll eat. We'll even make shine for Saturdays.

Get rid of the minimum wage. Get rid of the idea that anybody is entitled to some minimum amount for what they have to offer and things will reach an equilibrium. People can't sell things if other people can't buy them. Also, there is a point at which, if you offer less to do a certain job, you can't find someone to do it.

Like flipping hamburgers. If you offer nothing no one's going to do it. If you offer 1 cent per hour probably no one's going to do it. You keep going up and at some point people will do it. And that's the point at which you should be able to stop. There shouldn't be any artificial government requirement for some minimum. And there shouldn't be a culture such that people think they DESERVE some minimum just because they are drawing breath.

JohnStOnge wrote:Get rid of the minimum wage. Get rid of the idea that anybody is entitled to some minimum amount for what they have to offer and things will reach an equilibrium. People can't sell things if other people can't buy them. Also, there is a point at which, if you offer less to do a certain job, you can't find someone to do it.

People can't buy things if they're not paid enough. If I'm selling a product that minimum wage people buy and their wage increases, can they buy more of my product? Is that an equilibrium as well? 2/3's of our economy is consumer spending and a good chunk of that is by folks that spend every cent they make. Just sayin'.

CID1990 wrote:Because the equation works both ways. Some people say that Americans won't work for an illegal's wage, and there is a lot of truth to that, but if illegals are available, and there is no disincentive to hiring them, then the home builders are going to hire them. I think that both approaches are fine (kicking out the illegals, or killing their revenue stream).

Agribusiness has been dependant on cheap labor since people settled on this continent. That sure as hell ain’t going to change anytime soon.

AZGrizFan wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Whoa. You mean there wasn't a long line of unemployed people rushing to fill these back breaking agribusiness jobs?!? Who knew.

The world needs ditchdiggers too.

Agreed. But we are not dealing with ditch diggers here; we are dealing with crop pickers.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Get rid of the minimum wage. Get rid of the idea that anybody is entitled to some minimum amount for what they have to offer and things will reach an equilibrium. People can't sell things if other people can't buy them. Also, there is a point at which, if you offer less to do a certain job, you can't find someone to do it.

People can't buy things if they're not paid enough. If I'm selling a product that minimum wage people buy and their wage increases, can they buy more of my product? Is that an equilibrium as well? 2/3's of our economy is consumer spending and a good chunk of that is by folks that spend every cent they make. Just sayin'.

I think you actually confirmed JSO's point there.

People usually will avoid working at places where the wages do not support what they think their standard of living should be. Sometimes they have no choice but to work for wages that are lower than they would prefer (that has been the case my entire life), but then sometimes you have to decide whether or not you REALLY need that IPhone and the Playstation.

You are owed exactly the wage for which you are willing to work.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
People can't buy things if they're not paid enough. If I'm selling a product that minimum wage people buy and their wage increases, can they buy more of my product? Is that an equilibrium as well? 2/3's of our economy is consumer spending and a good chunk of that is by folks that spend every cent they make. Just sayin'.

I think you actually confirmed JSO's point there.

People usually will avoid working at places where the wages do not support what they think their standard of living should be. Sometimes they have no choice but to work for wages that are lower than they would prefer (that has been the case my entire life), but then sometimes you have to decide whether or not you REALLY need that IPhone and the Playstation.

You are owed exactly the wage for which you are willing to work.

I don't neccessarily disagree. I was speaking to the greater economic point here. Wages can be both inflated or suppressed depending on political conditions, and either direction effects demand. JSO's point (I think) is that wage inflation leads to higher prices. But if you market a product for mass consumption and the masses are making a little bit more, they can afford more of that product. Henry Ford understood this and payed his employees enough to be able to buy one of his cars.

Next year Washington State's minimum wage is increasing from $8.67 to $9.05. This sucks for me as a good chunk of my employees are min. wage workers. But I won't be able to immediately raise rates as overall demand is still soft for my industry. Instead I will have to streamline, perhaps go with fewer employees, and become more efficient. But since some of my customers make min. wage and a few more of my customers own businesses or work in industries that also rely on mass consumption, consumer demand due to higher wages can increase and help to strike that equilibrium.

Not saying either view is right wrong just that both are worthy of attention.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I think you actually confirmed JSO's point there.

People usually will avoid working at places where the wages do not support what they think their standard of living should be. Sometimes they have no choice but to work for wages that are lower than they would prefer (that has been the case my entire life), but then sometimes you have to decide whether or not you REALLY need that IPhone and the Playstation.

You are owed exactly the wage for which you are willing to work.

I don't neccessarily disagree. I was speaking to the greater economic point here. Wages can be both inflated or suppressed depending on political conditions, and either direction effects demand. JSO's point (I think) is that wage inflation leads to higher prices. But if you market a product for mass consumption and the masses are making a little bit more, they can afford more of that product. Henry Ford understood this and payed his employees enough to be able to buy one of his cars.

Next year Washington State's minimum wage is increasing from $8.67 to $9.05. This sucks for me as a good chunk of my employees are min. wage workers. But I won't be able to immediately raise rates as overall demand is still soft for my industry. Instead I will have to streamline, perhaps go with fewer employees, and become more efficient. But since some of my customers make min. wage and a few more of my customers own businesses or work in industries that also rely on mass consumption, consumer demand due to higher wages can increase and help to strike that equilibrium.

Not saying either view is right wrong just that both are worthy of attention.

And there's the problem with raising the minimum wage. Will drive up up employment among the 15-24 age group and the no/low skill labor even higher than it is now.

Raising the min wage leads to 2 negative outcomes: Employers of min wage people will have to either raise prices or lay people off.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Nails it.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... nt-workers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here comes JUAN CROW!!!!!!!!!

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
I don't neccessarily disagree. I was speaking to the greater economic point here. Wages can be both inflated or suppressed depending on political conditions, and either direction effects demand. JSO's point (I think) is that wage inflation leads to higher prices. But if you market a product for mass consumption and the masses are making a little bit more, they can afford more of that product. Henry Ford understood this and payed his employees enough to be able to buy one of his cars.

Next year Washington State's minimum wage is increasing from $8.67 to $9.05. This sucks for me as a good chunk of my employees are min. wage workers. But I won't be able to immediately raise rates as overall demand is still soft for my industry. Instead I will have to streamline, perhaps go with fewer employees, and become more efficient. But since some of my customers make min. wage and a few more of my customers own businesses or work in industries that also rely on mass consumption, consumer demand due to higher wages can increase and help to strike that equilibrium.

Not saying either view is right wrong just that both are worthy of attention.

And there's the problem with raising the minimum wage. Will drive up up employment among the 15-24 age group and the no/low skill labor even higher than it is now.

Raising the min wage leads to 2 negative outcomes: Employers of min wage people will have to either raise prices or lay people off.

Or make less money. But if less jobs are available, that just means that unskilled workers will be incentivized to improve themselves so they can once again get another minimum wage job. At least that's what you conks keep telling me. It's a win-win.