New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The gap between the rich and the rest of us.

The rich are getting richer and leaving the rest behind because they use illegal aliens and H-1B Visa holders to suppress wages and salaries and they have been doing it for decades now. If there was a labor/worker shortage of any kind wages would have gone up and the rich would have had a lot less to pay themselves with.

Amnesty will institutionalize the practice forever because after this amnesty another amnesty will have to follow and then the border will have to be effectively dissolved. With no border the U.S. will likely have mass graves like Mexico does today.

FOCUS ON THE MESSAGE!!!
 

Arkady

President
The rich are getting richer and leaving the rest behind because they use illegal aliens and H-1B Visa holders to suppress wages and salaries and they have been doing it for decades now. If there was a labor/worker shortage of any kind wages would have gone up and the rich would have had a lot less to pay themselves with.

Amnesty will institutionalize the practice forever because after this amnesty another amnesty will have to follow and then the border will have to be effectively dissolved. With no border the U.S. will likely have mass graves like Mexico does today.

FOCUS ON THE MESSAGE!!!
I think you're partly right. The very wealthy have, in fact, favored loose immigration, including lots of H-1B visas, because it lets them hold down wages by increasing the supply of workers. And this has, in fact, increased the gap between the rich and everyone else. However, amnesty would probably push in the other direction. Having lots of illegal immigrants here depresses wages more than having the same number of legal immigrants would, since the illegal immigrants can much more easily be taken advantage of by employers, which undercuts what other workers can demand. Illegal immigrants can't effectively unionize, because they risk being deported if they try to litigate illegal union-busting activities. Illegal immigrants can't bring effective cases against employers for violating overtime laws, either, so an illegal worker could be made to work the equivalent hours of two workers, without having to pay him time and a half. That allows illegal workers to displace more native workers than a legal immigrant would.... a legal immigrant could always turn around and bring a case and get treble damages for unpaid overtime.

This is why the wealthy like the status quo: keep lots of illegal immigrants here, where they can be exploited by the employers. The wealthy don't want them deported, but also don't want them to have legal status. They like them just the way they are, as second-class workers who can help to keep the legal workers in line.
 
I think you're partly right. The very wealthy have, in fact, favored loose immigration, including lots of H-1B visas, because it lets them hold down wages by increasing the supply of workers. And this has, in fact, increased the gap between the rich and everyone else. However, amnesty would probably push in the other direction. Having lots of illegal immigrants here depresses wages more than having the same number of legal immigrants would, since the illegal immigrants can much more easily be taken advantage of by employers, which undercuts what other workers can demand. Illegal immigrants can't effectively unionize, because they risk being deported if they try to litigate illegal union-busting activities. Illegal immigrants can't bring effective cases against employers for violating overtime laws, either, so an illegal worker could be made to work the equivalent hours of two workers, without having to pay him time and a half. That allows illegal workers to displace more native workers than a legal immigrant would.... a legal immigrant could always turn around and bring a case and get treble damages for unpaid overtime.

This is why the wealthy like the status quo: keep lots of illegal immigrants here, where they can be exploited by the employers. The wealthy don't want them deported, but also don't want them to have legal status. They like them just the way they are, as second-class workers who can help to keep the legal workers in line.
You make the persuasive case that today's illegals should be sent back home by cutting off their opportunity to keep working for employers like Hilton and Perdue because legally or illegally here they add to the labor pool and suppress pay as do H-1B visa holders.

I wonder how bad the drought in California would be if illegals weren't contributing to the 80 gallon per person per day water demand in that drought stricken area?
 
Last edited:

Arkady

President
You make the persuasive case that today's illegals should be sent back home by cutting off their opportunity to keep working for employers like Hilton and Perdue because legally or illegally here they add to the labor pool and suppress pay as do H-1B visa holders.

I wonder how bad the drought in California would be if illegals weren't contributing to the 80 gallon per person per day water demand in that drought stricken area?
I favor focusing on the employer side of the equation. If you focus on the employee side, by deporting illegal workers, you simply create a job vacancy that will very quickly draw another illegal worker. The more illegal workers you deport, the more job vacancies for illegal workers, the higher their wages rise, and the higher the incentive to immigrate illegally, until enough have come in to restore equilibrium. It's always going to be a losing approach. Those who come here have too little to lose to be deterred. Focusing on the employer side, on the other hand, has promise. Employers have a lot to lose. Throw a few illegal employers behind bars and fine others enough to make the strategy unprofitable, and people will stop offering jobs to undocumented workers. And once those jobs dry up, there will be vastly less incentive to immigrate illegally.

I'm more hostile to H-1B visas than to amnesty. The way I see it, most of those who would benefit from amnesty are very low-end workers. If you're the kind of worker who is going to be displaced or have your wages driven down by competition from a poor migrant worker who barely speaks the language and has all the disadvantages of not knowing the culture, then maybe it's time you thought about upgrading your skills a bit. By comparison, H-1B visas displace workers or drive down their wages at the high end of the scale. These are people who did all the things you're "supposed" to do: they invested in higher education, developed in-demand skills, and built up a solid work record, yet despite all that, they find themselves getting paid less and less as companies are allowed to pull in cheap competition from places where people aren't burdened with student loan debt, etc.

I can see a decent way to have a "guest worker" program where low-skill workers come in and do the kinds of scrub work that would be a waste of the skills of someone with a first-world education, native English fluency, etc. They can be domestic workers, low-skill manufacturing workers, etc. Often they won't displace anybody, because they'll be doing work (like landscaping or professional housekeeping) that most people wouldn't have done if there weren't immigrants making it affordable for the middle class. They'll simply improve the quality of life of native residents, while also making much better money than they could if they hadn't come here. In fact, often if they displace anybody, it'll be someone in the third world -- for example, by allowing a manufacturing operation to stay open in the US, thanks to the low costs of immigrant labor, rather than moving operations to India or China, where they can use low-cost local labor.

And if they keep their noses clean, there could be a way to transition them into citizenship after a time. I prefer that approach, of bringing in the "huddled masses" to fill the bottom rungs of the ladder, pushing native residents higher on the ladder, as opposed to bringing in foreign engineers and doctors to take high positions on the ladder, pushing everyone else down.
 
I favor focusing on the employer side of the equation. If you focus on the employee side, by deporting illegal workers, you simply create a job vacancy that will very quickly draw another illegal worker. The more illegal workers you deport, the more job vacancies for illegal workers, the higher their wages rise, and the higher the incentive to immigrate illegally, until enough have come in to restore equilibrium. It's always going to be a losing approach. Those who come here have too little to lose to be deterred. Focusing on the employer side, on the other hand, has promise. Employers have a lot to lose. Throw a few illegal employers behind bars and fine others enough to make the strategy unprofitable, and people will stop offering jobs to undocumented workers. And once those jobs dry up, there will be vastly less incentive to immigrate illegally.

I'm more hostile to H-1B visas than to amnesty. The way I see it, most of those who would benefit from amnesty are very low-end workers. If you're the kind of worker who is going to be displaced or have your wages driven down by competition from a poor migrant worker who barely speaks the language and has all the disadvantages of not knowing the culture, then maybe it's time you thought about upgrading your skills a bit. By comparison, H-1B visas displace workers or drive down their wages at the high end of the scale. These are people who did all the things you're "supposed" to do: they invested in higher education, developed in-demand skills, and built up a solid work record, yet despite all that, they find themselves getting paid less and less as companies are allowed to pull in cheap competition from places where people aren't burdened with student loan debt, etc.

I can see a decent way to have a "guest worker" program where low-skill workers come in and do the kinds of scrub work that would be a waste of the skills of someone with a first-world education, native English fluency, etc. They can be domestic workers, low-skill manufacturing workers, etc. Often they won't displace anybody, because they'll be doing work (like landscaping or professional housekeeping) that most people wouldn't have done if there weren't immigrants making it affordable for the middle class. They'll simply improve the quality of life of native residents, while also making much better money than they could if they hadn't come here. In fact, often if they displace anybody, it'll be someone in the third world -- for example, by allowing a manufacturing operation to stay open in the US, thanks to the low costs of immigrant labor, rather than moving operations to India or China, where they can use low-cost local labor.

And if they keep their noses clean, there could be a way to transition them into citizenship after a time. I prefer that approach, of bringing in the "huddled masses" to fill the bottom rungs of the ladder, pushing native residents higher on the ladder, as opposed to bringing in foreign engineers and doctors to take high positions on the ladder, pushing everyone else down.
We've discussed this before. I too believe that putting Hilton (Hotels) and Perdue (chicken) in jail and fining them thousands for each illegals is the key to get money for the state to pay its debts and for illegals to find the job market dried up so that they will return to their nations to rebuild them in America's image.

I'm sorry to say that in fact the rich do not want the status quo. They are pushing for amnesty via entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because they want more supply than demand when it comes to labor (be it white or blue collar middle class).
 

Spamature

President
The rich are getting richer and leaving the rest behind because they use illegal aliens and H-1B Visa holders to suppress wages and salaries and they have been doing it for decades now. If there was a labor/worker shortage of any kind wages would have gone up and the rich would have had a lot less to pay themselves with.

Amnesty will institutionalize the practice forever because after this amnesty another amnesty will have to follow and then the border will have to be effectively dissolved. With no border the U.S. will likely have mass graves like Mexico does today.

FOCUS ON THE MESSAGE!!!
I recall a few years back when "some people" were ranting about income redistribution and the evils of leftist who were pursuing said course. Lead of course by the Socialist in Chief in the White House.

So excuse me if I don't understand all this talk lately about the rich the rich getting richer. And the people who were dead set on workers getting together to demand higher wages instead of being played against each other by employers should be done away with. You know those things called UNIONS.

I sometimes wonder how people can so consistently ignore the fact that they supported causes of the problems they later complain about and never recognize their roles in its creation.
 
I recall a few years back when "some people" were ranting about income redistribution and the evils of leftist who were pursuing said course. Lead of course by the Socialist in Chief in the White House.

So excuse me if I don't understand all this talk lately about the rich the rich getting richer. And the people who were dead set on workers getting together to demand higher wages instead of being played against each other by employers should be done away with. You know those things called UNIONS.

I sometimes wonder how people can so consistently ignore the fact that they supported causes of the problems they later complain about and never recognize their roles in its creation.
I work in an industry that has long complained about H-1B visas. I might have posted around here about illegals taking high paying electrician jobs after Katrina from black electricians and complaining about it. I've long been bothered by these stories.

I'm sorry that you seem confused by the fact that income redistribution the communist way is anathema while fair play capitalism is the preferred modus operandi by Americans in America. :0)
 

Spamature

President
I work in an industry that has long complained about H-1B visas. I might have posted around here about illegals taking high paying electrician jobs after Katrina from black electricians and complaining about it. I've long been bothered by these stories.

I'm sorry that you seem confused by the fact that the communist way is anathema while is the preferred modus operandi by Americans in America. :0)
Could you please describe what you think these to things are

fair play capitalism

income redistribution
 
Could you please describe what you think these to things are

fair play capitalism

income redistribution
fair play capitalism - exemplified by T. Roosevelt (see PBS Ken Burns Roosevelt special)

income redistribution - is what Acorn and Obama community organizing accomplishes.
 

Spamature

President
You think there was a difference between the goals of community organizers and groups like ACORN did and those of Teddy Roosevelt ?
Yes, I do. Redistributors wish to redistribute with impunity in regards to property rights and the actual effort laid out in earning the fruits of labor.

People often take artistic license with history. Thanks for the wonderful link to just such an example (if you believe that Eric Black is asserting communism/socialism is the way to utopia).
 

Spamature

President
Yes, I do. Redistributors wish to redistribute with impunity in regards to property rights and the actual effort laid out in earning the fruits of labor.




People often take artistic license with history. Thanks for the wonderful link to just such an example (if you believe that Eric Black is asserting communism/socialism is the way to utopia).
Can you show any specifics on in regards to ACORN ?

Or are you lying about a group you know nothing about ?

And since when are direct quotes from a speech considered taking artistic license ?
 
Can you show any specifics on in regards to ACORN ?

Or are you lying about a group you know nothing about ?

And since when are direct quotes from a speech considered taking artistic license ?
1) Acorn forced many a bank to pay the protection racket money.
2) You see in quotes what is not there. You interpret/understand them poorly.
 

Spamature

President
1) Acorn forced many a bank to pay the protection racket money.
2) You see in quotes what is not there. You interpret/understand them poorly.
1) You posted

redistribute with impunity in regards to property rights and the actual effort laid out in earning the fruits of labor

In regards to ACORN

Now you say

forced many a bank to pay the protection racket money

Even if that were true (which it isn't).

How do you equate the supposed goal in your first response with actions in the second ?

How would "paying protection money" be a redistribution of wealth when it worse it would be a fee for a service ? Or are you getting confused about the meaning of the phrases you're throwing around.


2) Claiming that I don't understand something does exactly nothing towards proving your statement. Point to something in the speech (which is linked in the article) to prove what you say. Because much of what is not in the article but is in the TR speech goes a good way toward proving my point.
 
1) You posted

redistribute with impunity in regards to property rights and the actual effort laid out in earning the fruits of labor

In regards to ACORN

Now you say

forced many a bank to pay the protection racket money

Even if that were true (which it isn't).

How do you equate the supposed goal in your first response with actions in the second ?

How would "paying protection money" be a redistribution of wealth when it worse it would be a fee for a service ? Or are you getting confused about the meaning of the phrases you're throwing around.


2) Claiming that I don't understand something does exactly nothing towards proving your statement. Point to something in the speech (which is linked in the article) to prove what you say. Because much of what is not in the article but is in the TR speech goes a good way toward proving my point.

ACORN and groups like it got politicians to force lenders to make bad loans via regulation. Those loans quite logically were then bundled and gotten rid of. The practice became systemic and was a factor that directly led to the crash in 2008. That is the result of communist/socialist values.

You came up with "income redistribution" which is quite different than what you meant (and what Obama meant to Joe the plumber) when you should speak more accurately of "wealth" redistribution.

The speech which you speak off is that made by an uber mensch, a Nietzschean, with tinges of macho. The speaker wants you to get off your fat ass and earn it on a level playing field and is willing to carry your load for limited time until you can do for yourself. Teddy was for a level playing field that is not what Obama is about. Obama is about "fair" Teddy was about "right" Two very different things.

ACORN never has an expiration date on their redistributive help.
 

Klunker

Council Member
I work in an industry that has long complained about H-1B visas. I might have posted around here about illegals taking high paying electrician jobs after Katrina from black electricians and complaining about it. I've long been bothered by these stories.

I'm sorry that you seem confused by the fact that income redistribution the communist way is anathema while fair play capitalism is the preferred modus operandi by Americans in America. :0)
Illegals didn't "take" high paying jobs after Katrina. The POTUS, at that time, immediately suspended Davis-Bacon for any projects with Federal money in the striken area. That allowed the no-bid contractors... KBR being one... to gobble up federal dollars and pay minimum wage, or less. Waves of illegals came from Texas over to New Orleans and worked for cash under the table. The skilled workers couldn't find an electrician, carpenter, pipe fitter, steel worker job anywhere that paid a living wage.
 

Spamature

President
ACORN and groups like it got politicians to force lenders to make bad loans via regulation. Those loans quite logically were then bundled and gotten rid of. The practice became systemic and was a factor that directly led to the crash in 2008. That is the result of communist/socialist values.

You came up with "income redistribution" which is quite different than what you meant (and what Obama meant to Joe the plumber) when you should speak more accurately of "wealth" redistribution.

The speech which you speak off is that made by an uber mensch, a Nietzschean, with tinges of macho. The speaker wants you to get off your fat ass and earn it on a level playing field and is willing to carry your load for limited time until you can do for yourself. Teddy was for a level playing field that is not what Obama is about. Obama is about "fair" Teddy was about "right" Two very different things.

ACORN never has an expiration date on their redistributive help.
From the Minneapolis Fed

Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136&TC=1

St Louis fed found the same thing. But here you are posted this long ago busted LIE !

Wealth is even worse than income distribution and I can tell you did not read the speech from a man you claim to admire.

Like this for instance;

The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective — a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

By the way Wealth Distribution in this countryis even more unequal than income distribution, and it looks like this. Y



ou tell me is it right or is it fair or does something like this even make a difference ?
 
From the Minneapolis Fed

Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136&TC=1

St Louis fed found the same thing. But here you are posted this long ago busted LIE !

Wealth is even worse than income distribution and I can tell you did not read the speech from a man you claim to admire.

Like this for instance;

The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective — a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

By the way Wealth Distribution in this countryis even more unequal than income distribution, and it looks like this. Y



ou tell me is it right or is it fair or does something like this even make a difference ?
Of course you beLIEve what the Fed tells you because ...? lol

The whole system is corrupt. Liberal progressives have infested everything and are the most dishonest characters imaginable. They have even appropriated "science". lol.

What they can't escape is the facts on the ground.

The corruption started with the CRA and infested the rest of the system. Patient zero? Acorn/Obama.
 

Spamature

President
Of course you beLIEve what the Fed tells you because ...? lol

The whole system is corrupt. Liberal progressives have infested everything and are the most dishonest characters imaginable. They have even appropriated "science". lol.

What they can't escape is the facts on the ground.

The corruption started with the CRA and infested the rest of the system. Patient zero? Acorn/Obama.
Then I guess you can back your claim up with facts that aren't pulled from your rear end.

So let's see them.
 

gigi

Mayor
I favor focusing on the employer side of the equation. If you focus on the employee side, by deporting illegal workers, you simply create a job vacancy that will very quickly draw another illegal worker. The more illegal workers you deport, the more job vacancies for illegal workers, the higher their wages rise, and the higher the incentive to immigrate illegally, until enough have come in to restore equilibrium. It's always going to be a losing approach. Those who come here have too little to lose to be deterred. Focusing on the employer side, on the other hand, has promise. Employers have a lot to lose. Throw a few illegal employers behind bars and fine others enough to make the strategy unprofitable, and people will stop offering jobs to undocumented workers. And once those jobs dry up, there will be vastly less incentive to immigrate illegally.

I'm more hostile to H-1B visas than to amnesty. The way I see it, most of those who would benefit from amnesty are very low-end workers. If you're the kind of worker who is going to be displaced or have your wages driven down by competition from a poor migrant worker who barely speaks the language and has all the disadvantages of not knowing the culture, then maybe it's time you thought about upgrading your skills a bit. By comparison, H-1B visas displace workers or drive down their wages at the high end of the scale. These are people who did all the things you're "supposed" to do: they invested in higher education, developed in-demand skills, and built up a solid work record, yet despite all that, they find themselves getting paid less and less as companies are allowed to pull in cheap competition from places where people aren't burdened with student loan debt, etc.

I can see a decent way to have a "guest worker" program where low-skill workers come in and do the kinds of scrub work that would be a waste of the skills of someone with a first-world education, native English fluency, etc. They can be domestic workers, low-skill manufacturing workers, etc. Often they won't displace anybody, because they'll be doing work (like landscaping or professional housekeeping) that most people wouldn't have done if there weren't immigrants making it affordable for the middle class. They'll simply improve the quality of life of native residents, while also making much better money than they could if they hadn't come here. In fact, often if they displace anybody, it'll be someone in the third world -- for example, by allowing a manufacturing operation to stay open in the US, thanks to the low costs of immigrant labor, rather than moving operations to India or China, where they can use low-cost local labor.

And if they keep their noses clean, there could be a way to transition them into citizenship after a time. I prefer that approach, of bringing in the "huddled masses" to fill the bottom rungs of the ladder, pushing native residents higher on the ladder, as opposed to bringing in foreign engineers and doctors to take high positions on the ladder, pushing everyone else down.
I agree with you about the H1-B visas. My husband lost a job to H1-Bs from India, who were paid a fraction of what the workers they replaced were earning. But they were also provided apartments, that they shared among several people, and cell phones....and it still worked out cheaper for the employer. If I'm not mistaken, John McCain was a big fan of H1B Visas.

But those "low end" workers from the other part of your post do low end jobs because they can't enter the mainstream workforce without either the proper documentation or amnesty. They work where they can hide. You can't make the case that most of those low end workers don't have other skills that would land them better paying jobs, the kind of jobs people get when they've done everything right, if they could work out in the open legally.
 
Top