The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Sorry if these are snarky or short. . .I'm a little bored today. (I guess I'm itching for tonight's game.)

VetSkinsFan wrote:So, is the argument that you'd rather be able to pay them what you think they're worth?

Yes.

Isn't that a completely subjective ideal?

Yes.

You could say that an employer that employs illegals has no integrity.

I disagree. I think they are being heroic. Who else is going to help out those poor people? (Yes, I know not everyone agrees with this perspective. But, if you grant for a moment my view that immigration laws are unjust, you will at least see my perspective on this.)

They are knowingly employing an individual below known market rate; the cheapest labor regardless of legality of the action or person.

You are blaming the employer when the real culprit is the legislator.

Don't forget where mimumum wage oringally came from.

I won't.

Even though I support zero tolerance to illegal immigration,

Why? What harm have they done you?

I still believe that these laborers deserve an honest wage for an honest day's pay...do you think $2/hr is an honest wage for ANY job? I don't.

The solution, then, seems clear. If you want these laborers to make as much money as possible given their abilities, you should promptly:
(1) Change your views on immigration, and support open borders, and
(2) Change your views on the minimum wage, and support dropping it entirely.

At least the minimum wage at least sets a floor for this.

That "floor" is zero, dude. A minimum wage boxes out a LOT of people from getting jobs they would otherwise have taken.

Additionally, I don't think there's a person here that can argue that minimum wage has risen with the cost of inflation.

Inflation is a HUGE problem for those who are poor. Worse than the minimum wage. But one of the few silver linings of inflation is that it wears down the destructiveness of a minimum wage over time.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I understand perfectly. Didn't you say you hired three new employees at the new MW? So your beef is not so much with the cost of the labor, but with the labor itself

Did you read the toaster analogy? You can disagree with it, but you're asking a question I answered. Start by reading the answer and then let's take it from there instead of simply asking the answered question.

Deadskins wrote:If you didn't balk at paying the higher wage to the new employees, then why do you feel that you had to fire the previous three?

Ditto. Answered. Start with the answer, don't ask again.

Deadskins wrote:You would rather blame politicians for the choice you made. Your anger is obviously misplaced. And you now also think you know my voting record. More projection on your part.

I'm not angry. Liberals love non-liberals to be angry, don't they? Actually, if you go back and read the first post the point you're debating isn't my point and never was. My point was on the reality of socialism.

Let's look at winners and losers.

Me: Dumped tired, sorry, lazy, unmotivated employees I was sick of dealing with and already overpaying because they weren't bad people and at least showed up for work and went through the motions. I should have fired them already. When government gave them a big raise it forced my hand. (Winner)

Government/Politicians: The aforementioned go through the motion employees will now be more dependent on government growing government spending and the power of the politician puppet masters at the helm (Winner)

Liberals: Not caring about the reality of their policies, liberals are smugly aglow about their great generosity with capitalists money to pay artificially high wages to workers not worth it (by definition, the market), their great generosity in using capitalists money to pay welfare instead, and then point their long bony accusatory fingers as the capitalists who fire the workers because they aren't worth the new wage and probably weren't worth the old ones. (BIG Winners)

Workers: Not able to get jobs, they lose more motivation and increase government dependence making themselves even more unemployable. Teenagers can't get experience, people trying to turn their lives can't get a job. (Big Losers)

So my question and the whole point of this forum, Deadskins, is aren't the only losers the low end workers, the ones the liberals claim they are trying to help while they declare victory and pat themselves on their back for their great generosity? How can liberals be the biggest winners when the ones they set out to help were the real losers in the equation?

Well, if you had actually read what I have written all along in this thread, you would see that I actually said I was not supporting the MW, just providing a counter to some of your ridiculous posts on the subject. This is where your perception of me as a big government liberal clouds your comprehension of my posts. I see you agree with me, though, that the liberals did you a favor.

A point I should make, though, is that it can be hard to get motivated for some people when you are being paid such a low wage, especially if you feel you're efforts are unappreciated. Not everyone has that great work ethic, that any job worth doing is worth doing well. And your attitude that the three were "tired, sorry, lazy, unmotivated employees" may have been self-fulfilling.

Deadskins wrote:A point I should make, though, is that it can be hard to get motivated for some people when you are being paid such a low wage, especially if you feel you're efforts are unappreciated. Not everyone has that great work ethic, that any job worth doing is worth doing well. And your attitude that the three were "tired, sorry, lazy, unmotivated employees" may have been self-fulfilling.

Before I add this to my rapidly expanding list of Deadskins Sure To Win Management Techniques Deadskins Doesn't Pay For, I have a question. How is it that in your "idea" I decided to single out those three since you're conjecturing I caused their low performance? Why exactly would I do that? Why didn't I just fire them in the first place instead of wasting my time and money to give them chances when I didn't even want them to succeed?

Interesting that you still blame the capitalist. It just can't be the workers, comrade. And I think you're a big government liberal... How the heck did I arrive at that conclusion? Boggles the mind.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:A point I should make, though, is that it can be hard to get motivated for some people when you are being paid such a low wage, especially if you feel you're efforts are unappreciated. Not everyone has that great work ethic, that any job worth doing is worth doing well. And your attitude that the three were "tired, sorry, lazy, unmotivated employees" may have been self-fulfilling.

Before I add this to my rapidly expanding list of Deadskins Sure To Win Management Techniques Deadskins Doesn't Pay For, I have a question. How is it that in your "idea" I decided to single out those three since you're conjecturing I caused their low performance? Why exactly would I do that? Why didn't I just fire them in the first place instead of wasting my time and money to give them chances when I didn't even want them to succeed?

Interesting that you still blame the capitalist. It just can't be the workers, comrade. And I think you're a big government liberal... How the heck did I arrive at that conclusion? Boggles the mind.

Reading Comprehension 101 for Kaz:

may -
–auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or (Archaic) may or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might.
1. (used to express possibility): It may rain.
2. (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.
3. (used to express contingency, esp. in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
4. (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.
5. Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)



Of course I could be wrong, but I suspect you may value them as people by what you pay them as employees. How the heck did I arrive at that conclusion? Boggles the mind.

Countertrey wrote:I once was able to employ 3 high school students through the summer. No longer.

how are those kids going to buy pot now??

Deadskins wrote:Reading Comprehension 101 for Kaz:

may -
–auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or (Archaic) may or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might.
1. (used to express possibility): It may rain.
2. (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.
3. (used to express contingency, esp. in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
4. (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.
5. Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)



Of course I could be wrong, but I suspect you may value them as people by what you pay them as employees. How the heck did I arrive at that conclusion? Boggles the mind.

I see. So if you engage in wild speculation using the word "may" then you declare yourself beyond questioning because of your use of the word "may?" In fact I have no reading comprehension, you said MAY! How DARE I? You...said....MAY! Got it. Thanks!

Just to confirm, are you saying I can speculate whatever accusation against you I want and as long as I use the word "may" I can simply quote the definition if you challenge it? I'm not thinking Fios will go for that. I mean if I do it. You go right ahead, he'll be fine.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Just to confirm, are you saying I can speculate whatever accusation against you I want

Don't see why you should stop now. And, just like you, I'm only going off your posts for my impressions. But, I'm a hoot that way.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Just to confirm, are you saying I can speculate whatever accusation against you I want

Don't see why you should stop now. And, just like you, I'm only going off your posts for my impressions. But, I'm a hoot that way.

Yes, you're a hoot. But let me modify that by saying you are a "high maintenance hoot." You cut off the critical words. Here's what I actually said, a completely different meaning then your selective word parsing:

kaz wrote:Just to confirm, are you saying I can speculate whatever accusation against you I want and as long as I use the word "may" I can simply quote the definition if you challenge it?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:You cut off the critical words. Here's what I actually said, a completely different meaning then your selective word parsing:

My goodness, I bow at the feet of the master.

PS Your own words often have a different meaning than you intend, because of the transposition of basic parts of speech.

Irn-Bru wrote:Sorry if these are snarky or short. . .I'm a little bored today. (I guess I'm itching for tonight's game.)

VetSkinsFan wrote:So, is the argument that you'd rather be able to pay them what you think they're worth?

Yes.

Isn't that a completely subjective ideal?

Yes.

You could say that an employer that employs illegals has no integrity.

I disagree. I think they are being heroic. Who else is going to help out those poor people? (Yes, I know not everyone agrees with this perspective. But, if you grant for a moment my view that immigration laws are unjust, you will at least see my perspective on this.)

They are knowingly employing an individual below known market rate; the cheapest labor regardless of legality of the action or person.

You are blaming the employer when the real culprit is the legislator.

Don't forget where mimumum wage oringally came from.

I won't.

Even though I support zero tolerance to illegal immigration,

Why? What harm have they done you?

I still believe that these laborers deserve an honest wage for an honest day's pay...do you think $2/hr is an honest wage for ANY job? I don't.

The solution, then, seems clear. If you want these laborers to make as much money as possible given their abilities, you should promptly:
(1) Change your views on immigration, and support open borders, and
(2) Change your views on the minimum wage, and support dropping it entirely.

At least the minimum wage at least sets a floor for this.

That "floor" is zero, dude. A minimum wage boxes out a LOT of people from getting jobs they would otherwise have taken.

Additionally, I don't think there's a person here that can argue that minimum wage has risen with the cost of inflation.

Inflation is a HUGE problem for those who are poor. Worse than the minimum wage. But one of the few silver linings of inflation is that it wears down the destructiveness of a minimum wage over time.

Open borders? That's actually insane. There are benefits of being a U.S. citizen (natural born or otherwise) that the legal citizens enjoy. To open borders would suck even more money out of our economy than illegal immigration already does. That would result in an even larger influx of immigrants taking resources that are already stretched thin.

The harm is that they have no respect for our laws and so what they want to do. What happens if I take someone's car or rob a bank? Do I just get shrugged at? Provided I haven't endangered anyone's life (midnite bank robbery, no customers or workers), why should I be punished? I just want to provide better for my family.

Why would we abolish the minimum wage? While we're at it, let's abolish ALL the labor laws that come with it. I mean, paying women and children $2/hr to work in an unsafe factory or some other unsavory job is still better than no money at all, right? If you don't HAVE to pay an honest wage for an honest day's pay, how many employers really would be doing that with unskilled labor?

And employers of illegals are heroic? I can usually at least comprehend the other side of the coin, but come on. How is employing someone at a substandard rate who completely disregards our laws heroic? I call it criminal.

This has got to be the most far fetched post I think I've seen here.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Open borders? That's actually insane.

Why? I don't think it is.

There are benefits of being a U.S. citizen (natural born or otherwise) that the legal citizens enjoy. To open borders would suck even more money out of our economy than illegal immigration already does. That would result in an even larger influx of immigrants taking resources that are already stretched thin.

OK, so I agree with the provisio that open borders + HUGE welfare state is insane. But the problem in that case isn't the open borders, it's the HUGE welfare state.

The harm is that they have no respect for our laws and so what they want to do.

The only info we've stipulated is that they've broken ONE law — and the law in question doesn't deal with the person or property of American citizens. Did you go 5 mph over the limit on the way to work today? Do you have any pirated music on your computer? Ever had an illegal drug? Ever drank before you were 21? Ever lied or cheated on your taxes in any way?

Do you watch YouTube videos?

Federal law says that it's illegal to use your computer to transport over state lines "any obscene, lewd, lascivious . . . picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character." That law is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Take a look at our Smack Forum and tell me there aren't a few here that have broken that law.

What happens if I take someone's car or rob a bank? Do I just get shrugged at?

If you've stolen property and/or threatened someone else, then yes, you deserve to be prosecuted. Now tell me: what property does an immigrant steal simply by coming into the U.S.? You are ASSUMING that every single one has broken other laws, but why isn't (e.g.) a pot-user just as suspicious in your eyes?

Provided I haven't endangered anyone's life (midnite bank robbery, no customers or workers), why should I be punished? I just want to provide better for my family.

Someone had money in the bank, and you stole it from them. I don't see the analogy holding at all.

Why would we abolish the minimum wage?

There are many reasons, but among them are maximizing income for hard workers and insuring just relations between employees and employers. Those strike me as good reasons.

If you think the minimum wage has any positive effect on how much people on the whole are going to be able to make, can you answer this question: why stop at seven dollars? Why not set the minimum wage at twenty dollars? One hundred? If we're serious about providing a living wage, let's do that.

While we're at it, let's abolish ALL the labor laws that come with it.

Sounds good to me.

I mean, paying women and children $2/hr to work in an unsafe factory or some other unsavory job is still better than no money at all, right?

Do you really think that would happen if we abolished labor laws tomorrow? That is a serious question: really?

If you don't HAVE to pay an honest wage for an honest day's pay, how many employers really would be doing that with unskilled labor?

Many more than now do it.

And employers of illegals are heroic?

Yes!

I can usually at least comprehend the other side of the coin, but come on. How is employing someone at a substandard rate who completely disregards our laws heroic? I call it criminal.

Few things:

* Not all illegals are employed at a "substandard" rate. If it weren't for the illegals, there are a LOT of crucial jobs that would not get done. The reason they keep coming here is precisely because they often make more than a substandard rate. Many make enough to live here (and live well) while sending money back to families in their home country.

* Many, many illegal immigrants actually follow laws rather strictly (apart from immigration laws, obviously ) and with greater effort than most Americans. They are just trying to keep their head down, make money, and survive. The pressure is more intense on them to not break laws than it is on you and me.

* Many illegals actually pay taxes and are net contributors to the same structures you are accusing them of robbing.

* Many illegals do prey on the welfare system we have. I'm not defending any of that, and I think it's wrong.

I'm not going to pretend they are all heroic people, but your characterization certainly doesn't capture them with any accuracy, IMO. Given that they are human beings like you and me, with all of the same rights that you and I have, I think it's heroic when other compassionate people help them out by giving them a job and a source of income. That kind of dignified, human-to-human exchange in the midst of unjust laws is exactly what I find to be heroic about it.

This has got to be the most far fetched post I think I've seen here.

Well, perhaps, but I hope you at least consider the other side of the argument, even if you end up rejecting it.

It takes a bit of effort to see through the typical responses that you'll hear in public education / mainstream media / government press releases. In my opinion there's a lot of scapegoating, scaremongering, and misinformation out there.

But I think that the economic logic is pretty clear and indisputable. (Same with the moral reasoning, but that's a little less 'shared' by all.) We'd all be better off with just wage laws and immigration policies.

IB, I agree with almost your entire post, I do, however, need clarification from you on a couple of points.

Irn-Bru wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I mean, paying women and children $2/hr to work in an unsafe factory or some other unsavory job is still better than no money at all, right?

Do you really think that would happen if we abolished labor laws tomorrow? That is a serious question: really?

Not right away, perhaps, but eventually, yes. That was the case before the laws were passed. Or do you figure that because we are now in the information age, companies and individuals would not attempt to take the moral low road?

Irn-Bru wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:If you don't HAVE to pay an honest wage for an honest day's pay, how many employers really would be doing that with unskilled labor?

Many more than now do it.

Sorry, you lost me there. Why do you figure it's many more? Just because it's no longer illegal to hire them, or because there is no minimum wage?

Irn-Bru wrote:We'd all be better off with just wage laws and immigration policies.

What wage laws?

Oh, and one more thing:

Irn-Bru wrote:Many, many illegal immigrants actually follow laws rather strictly (apart from immigration laws, obviously ) and with greater effort than most Americans. They are just trying to keep their head down, make money, and survive. The pressure is more intense on them to not break laws than it is on you and me.

Would the same be true if they weren't afraid of deportation?

Deadskins wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I mean, paying women and children $2/hr to work in an unsafe factory or some other unsavory job is still better than no money at all, right?

Do you really think that would happen if we abolished labor laws tomorrow? That is a serious question: really?

Not right away, perhaps, but eventually, yes. That was the case before the laws were passed. Or do you figure that because we are now in the information age, companies and individuals would not attempt to take the moral low road?

Some people might try to take the moral low-road, but it won't get them far. Good business is good business; and bad business practices tend to get punished.

I think an analogy may help to clarify what I mean: in some parts of the middle east today, it is culturally considered fortunate if you are able to rip someone off in a transaction. There isn't the same concept that we are raised with that repeat business is the best business, and that it isn't advantageous in the long run to rip someone off, even if it profits you something in the short run.

But suppose you were talking to someone who was convinced that freedom wasn't enough to ensure good prices for quality products. Suppose they were convinced you needed lots of laws to hem in definitions of good quality and appropriate prices, etc. How might you approach the situation to convince them that, in fact, letting people pursue their own betterment leads to honest business deals?

So I think the same holds true whether it's being honest in the product / price or in how one treats employees.

Speaking to the historical example in question, it is my understanding that workplace conditions, worker treatment, hours worked for the wages, and wages themselves were all improving at a rapid pace well before any legislation took effect. There's a correlation / causation issue here in interpreting historical events.

Just look at countries with the higher degrees of freedom versus countries with more controlling governments. The former are almost without exception more prosperous, to the point where the poor in the U.S. often look like patricians compared to the poor in certain other countries.

In short, it doesn't seem to me that child labor laws helped the situation any more than McCain Feingold has helped the integrity of business practices in accounting.

Irn-Bru wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:If you don't HAVE to pay an honest wage for an honest day's pay, how many employers really would be doing that with unskilled labor?

Many more than now do it.

Sorry, you lost me there. Why do you figure it's many more? Just because it's no longer illegal to hire them, or because there is no minimum wage?

It's a shortcut I took. It seems to me that justice has good consequences, and so what one should expect in a free society is a greater level of prosperity for all. If you believe in that principle, then, yeah, after dropping immigration and mwl's, you'd more often see employers giving an honest wage for an honest job done by honest workers.

Irn-Bru wrote:We'd all be better off with just wage laws and immigration policies.

What wage laws?

Indirect. . .laws that uphold the rights of individuals. I guess you could also say that 'no wage laws' = 'just wage laws', in my view.

Oh, and one more thing:

Irn-Bru wrote:Many, many illegal immigrants actually follow laws rather strictly (apart from immigration laws, obviously ) and with greater effort than most Americans. They are just trying to keep their head down, make money, and survive. The pressure is more intense on them to not break laws than it is on you and me.

Would the same be true if they weren't afraid of deportation?

I suppose. Although I'm not sure that would be a good reason to retain the threat of deportation!

VetSkinsFan wrote:I still believe that these laborers deserve an honest wage for an honest day's pay...do you think $2/hr is an honest wage for ANY job? I don't.

You haven't answered my question. Who should decide? If someone is willing to work for $2 an hour, haven't they decided that's their best option? Aren't they the best ones to decide that, not you or some politician acting on your behalf? How are you the one to know that NOBODY should be ALLOWED to work for $2, so you're banning it across the board. Isn't that what freedom's about?

Even if you think that's the case, don't you think that majority rule trumps individual decision is what's driving this country down the rat hole of government dependency? What about someone who says no one can get an abortion because it's NEVER the right option. Is it right for the majority to decree that ignoring a woman's right to control her own body? How is that different then you saying no one can take a job for $2 an hour even if they have decided it's their best choice? How many things you oppose are in play if that's the standard, that individuals cannot chose what the majority doesn't think should be allowed?

Remember if we were free, no one can force me to pay more then $2 for a job, but on the other hand no one can force a worker to take it. We are only talking with below minimum wage the scenario where a deal is done. I offer, they accept, they want the job. And the GOVERNMENT comes in and takes it away. How does that make sense in a free country, and are you OK with government running your life to the standards of the "majority view" across the board or just for the things you want?

Irn-Bru wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Open borders? That's actually insane.

Why? I don't think it is.

There are benefits of being a U.S. citizen (natural born or otherwise) that the legal citizens enjoy. To open borders would suck even more money out of our economy than illegal immigration already does. That would result in an even larger influx of immigrants taking resources that are already stretched thin.

OK, so I agree with the provisio that open borders + HUGE welfare state is insane. But the problem in that case isn't the open borders, it's the HUGE welfare state.

The harm is that they have no respect for our laws and so what they want to do.

The only info we've stipulated is that they've broken ONE law — and the law in question doesn't deal with the person or property of American citizens. Did you go 5 mph over the limit on the way to work today? Do you have any pirated music on your computer? Ever had an illegal drug? Ever drank before you were 21? Ever lied or cheated on your taxes in any way?

Do you watch YouTube videos?

Federal law says that it's illegal to use your computer to transport over state lines "any obscene, lewd, lascivious . . . picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character." That law is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Take a look at our Smack Forum and tell me there aren't a few here that have broken that law.

What happens if I take someone's car or rob a bank? Do I just get shrugged at?

If you've stolen property and/or threatened someone else, then yes, you deserve to be prosecuted. Now tell me: what property does an immigrant steal simply by coming into the U.S.? You are ASSUMING that every single one has broken other laws, but why isn't (e.g.) a pot-user just as suspicious in your eyes?

Provided I haven't endangered anyone's life (midnite bank robbery, no customers or workers), why should I be punished? I just want to provide better for my family.

Someone had money in the bank, and you stole it from them. I don't see the analogy holding at all.

Why would we abolish the minimum wage?

There are many reasons, but among them are maximizing income for hard workers and insuring just relations between employees and employers. Those strike me as good reasons.

If you think the minimum wage has any positive effect on how much people on the whole are going to be able to make, can you answer this question: why stop at seven dollars? Why not set the minimum wage at twenty dollars? One hundred? If we're serious about providing a living wage, let's do that.

While we're at it, let's abolish ALL the labor laws that come with it.

Sounds good to me.

I mean, paying women and children $2/hr to work in an unsafe factory or some other unsavory job is still better than no money at all, right?

Do you really think that would happen if we abolished labor laws tomorrow? That is a serious question: really?

If you don't HAVE to pay an honest wage for an honest day's pay, how many employers really would be doing that with unskilled labor?

Many more than now do it.

And employers of illegals are heroic?

Yes!

I can usually at least comprehend the other side of the coin, but come on. How is employing someone at a substandard rate who completely disregards our laws heroic? I call it criminal.

Few things:

* Not all illegals are employed at a "substandard" rate. If it weren't for the illegals, there are a LOT of crucial jobs that would not get done. The reason they keep coming here is precisely because they often make more than a substandard rate. Many make enough to live here (and live well) while sending money back to families in their home country.

* Many, many illegal immigrants actually follow laws rather strictly (apart from immigration laws, obviously ) and with greater effort than most Americans. They are just trying to keep their head down, make money, and survive. The pressure is more intense on them to not break laws than it is on you and me.

* Many illegals actually pay taxes and are net contributors to the same structures you are accusing them of robbing.

* Many illegals do prey on the welfare system we have. I'm not defending any of that, and I think it's wrong.

I'm not going to pretend they are all heroic people, but your characterization certainly doesn't capture them with any accuracy, IMO. Given that they are human beings like you and me, with all of the same rights that you and I have, I think it's heroic when other compassionate people help them out by giving them a job and a source of income. That kind of dignified, human-to-human exchange in the midst of unjust laws is exactly what I find to be heroic about it.

This has got to be the most far fetched post I think I've seen here.

Well, perhaps, but I hope you at least consider the other side of the argument, even if you end up rejecting it.

It takes a bit of effort to see through the typical responses that you'll hear in public education / mainstream media / government press releases. In my opinion there's a lot of scapegoating, scaremongering, and misinformation out there.

But I think that the economic logic is pretty clear and indisputable. (Same with the moral reasoning, but that's a little less 'shared' by all.) We'd all be better off with just wage laws and immigration policies.

I understand what you're trying to get at. Without the extremes, I can even agree to some of it on paper. I'll keep it short; I don't have the time, patience, or desire to pick apart every phrase and possibly take it out of context.

I believe that people, without regulation or threat of negative repercussions, will take advantage of the individuals or groups they have power over. That's why we need regulation.

Open borders CAUSES the insane Welfare state.

And this nonsense of only illegals doing these jobs is crap. I've worked construction, worked these fast food joints, a few of these jobs "Americans won't take." Americans won't take them at the rate they're being given b/c of the influx and availability of illegal cheap labor.

Given[/i] that they are human beings like you and me, with all of the same rights that you and I have, I think it's heroic when other compassionate people help them out by giving them a job and a source of income. That kind of dignified, human-to-human exchange in the midst of unjust laws is exactly what I find to be heroic about it.

This is what got me most of all. I had a discussion about this at work. It's all about the haves and the have-nots. Are we not entitled to work for and keep what we 'have' as a country? or shall the world be one great big welfare state?

When it's unlawful to employ someone without documentation, how is this heroic? They break the law for their own agenda (frequently to lower their bottom line so they don't have to pay taxes, benefits) and their heroic? I am positive that there are enough avenues out there to assist the LEGAL immigrants in their plight to live their dream in the U.S.A. If that's the case, then yes, going out of their way to help someone live their dreams can be heroic. Employing criminals (illegally being in the U.S.) is not heroic in my book.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I understand what you're trying to get at. Without the extremes, I can even agree to some of it on paper. I'll keep it short; I don't have the time, patience, or desire to pick apart every phrase and possibly take it out of context.

That's cool, Vet. I understand that we'll probably just have our differences, but I appreciate the discussion.

I believe that people, without regulation or threat of negative repercussions, will take advantage of the individuals or groups they have power over. That's why we need regulation.

I think that if you look at the history of regulation, it essentially never does what it was intended to do, and causes much harm besides. I agree that the vulnerable in society need protection, and am all for that protection taking place, but means such as minimum wage laws do more harm than good. (And, in my view, both economics and history bear this out.)

Open borders CAUSES the insane Welfare state.

Why? If we had no welfare state and open borders tomorrow, you are saying that the welfare state would simply pop up overnight?

No, I think either it will come into being on its own accord through the political process (as it did in the first place), or — and perhaps this is what you meant — the new influx of people would mean a new influx of voters (who would vote for welfare). But in either case, once again, the open borders isn't the cause: the way the political process is set up is the cause.

And this nonsense of only illegals doing these jobs is crap.

You may be reading more into my comment than is there. I know there are some people who think that only illegals, and no Americans, would do those jobs. (But I disagree, as that's a strange kind of blanket statement in my view, as it is in yours.) I'm speaking to our situation as it exists today. If tomorrow there were no illegals in this country, many crucial processes would grind to a halt.

Giventhat they are human beings like you and me, with all of the same rights that you and I have, I think it's heroic when other compassionate people help them out by giving them a job and a source of income. That kind of dignified, human-to-human exchange in the midst of unjust laws is exactly what I find to be heroic about it.

This is what got me most of all. I had a discussion about this at work. It's all about the haves and the have-nots. Are we not entitled to work for and keep what we 'have' as a country? or shall the world be one great big welfare state?

Uhh, are those my only two options?

No, I don't want the world to be one big welfare state. That's kind of my point. We all have the same rights. . .those rights do not include robbing Peter to pay Paul.

When it's unlawful to employ someone without documentation, how is this heroic? They break the law for their own agenda (frequently to lower their bottom line so they don't have to pay taxes, benefits) and their heroic?

Yes. I think that kind of activity is heroic. People who break unjust laws for the sake of doing a good thing are always heroic.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I believe that people, without regulation or threat of negative repercussions, will take advantage of the individuals or groups they have power over. That's why we need regulation

This is so ironic. Replace "people" with "politicians" and think about your own argument and how they use this to control us. And I am not calling you a liberal. You argue liberal points sometimes and non-liberal points others. The ones I call liberal are the ones who argue all liberal self serving arguments and say they are not liberal or extreme liberal. Except Ray, but for him it's because his arguments on the middle east specifically come straight from the Democratic party kool-aid and he made them in such a totally Democratic self serving election coming sort of way. But I digress.

So on employment. How do employers have the power? It's nonsense. You could not imagine how much time and effort is spent attracting and retaining good workers. I have had a lot of success turning mediocre performers into good performers and I particularly focus on that because finding good ones is so hard. And even when we deal with bad performers we have to do it with the right message to good performers.

Employment is like any sort of market. Good employers and good employees ultimately find each other. Bad employers lose good employees and good employees leave bad employers. The ones who get the right match win. Good employers have power over poor performers and good employees have power over poor companies.

Then POLITICIANS come in and like everything else use the lie that the employers have the power to persuade good people like you that we need to PROTECT workers. Which doesn't help good employees, they are set. And the bad employees get fired. And the politicians have more power. Read your own statement again.

VetSkinsFan wrote:But I think that the economic logic is pretty clear and indisputable. (Same with the moral reasoning, but that's a little less 'shared' by all.) We'd all be better off with just wage laws and immigration policies.

Well, the word "just" is so subjective. If by just you mean "free markets" then this is true. But if by just you mean regulation, then your statement that "economic logic is pretty clear" is just plain wrong. Economics completely 100% says that free markets maximize wealth.

And BTW, my issue with immigration is that Irn-Bru is not realistic in these regards. We've debated that before.

1) Terrorism: I do think we should be looking for terrorists and the Taliban should not be able to Fly into NY unchecked and that is a SERIOUS risk.

2) Crime: Despite the non-reporting by the liberal media, our jails are full of illegal aliens and they commit lots of crimes in this country. I am not willing to let them walk across the border, commit more and pay to jail them rather then letting Mexico and other countries do it.

3) Social Welfare State: Ignoring the first two, I would be with Irn-Bru except for timing. IF the world were free (not socialist) and even roughly economically equal I would be with his concept. The fact is we are socialist and becoming moreso and I am not interested in China, Cuba and any other government allowing or even shipping us their poor and putting them on our many, varied welfare rolls, which is what would happen today. I want the social welfare state destroyed FIRST and there has to be some reality dealt with that the world is just so different we would be overrun if we just removed our immigration. That's why in my view the EU without borders works, it's between countries with at least roughly similiar economic statuses. The US and the world is not comparable to that.

So, let's say we just check workers at the border to at least search for criminals and terrorists and make sure they leave unless they go through a legal immigration process. At that point, picking our melons for $2 an hour (or whatever the rate is) is GREAT for our economy. You have to look at the whole thing. Producers benefit, consumers benefit. The money saved is economic productivity. We are producing the same thing for less. And BTW, you will literally learn that in an Economics 101 class.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru, not VetSkinsFan wrote:But I think that the economic logic is pretty clear and indisputable. (Same with the moral reasoning, but that's a little less 'shared' by all.) We'd all be better off with just wage laws and immigration policies.

Well, the word "just" is so subjective. If by just you mean "free markets" then this is true. But if by just you mean regulation, then your statement that "economic logic is pretty clear" is just plain wrong. Economics completely 100% says that free markets maximize wealth.

RC 101:
By "just" he means fair.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru, not VetSkinsFan wrote:But I think that the economic logic is pretty clear and indisputable. (Same with the moral reasoning, but that's a little less 'shared' by all.) We'd all be better off with just wage laws and immigration policies.

Well, the word "just" is so subjective. If by just you mean "free markets" then this is true. But if by just you mean regulation, then your statement that "economic logic is pretty clear" is just plain wrong. Economics completely 100% says that free markets maximize wealth.

RC 101:
By "just" he means fair.

What does "fair" mean? This just begs the question, you replaced one subjective word with another.

I define "justice" as "rendering to each his or her due," as expounded upon and understood by natural law theorists from St. Thomas Aquinas through thinkers today like Dr. Guido Hulsmann. It relies on an understanding of rights of person and property, as well as the understanding that no man is above the moral law (even if serving in some capacity).

"Just" can mean "fair," as well, when properly understood.

Irn-Bru wrote:I define "justice" as "rendering to each his or her due," as expounded upon and understood by natural law theorists from St. Thomas Aquinas through thinkers today like Dr. Guido Hulsmann. It relies on an understanding of rights of person and property, as well as the understanding that no man is above the moral law (even if serving in some capacity).

"Just" can mean "fair," as well, when properly understood.

"Fair" is the ultimate word used by the Left in this country to justify extreme inequity in the treatment of citizens by government and the law. It's fair to discriminate for minories against whites and women over males is fair. Our tax code where 1% of the population earn 20% of income and pay 40% of taxes and 46% of the population pay none is simply is fair.
Redistribution of wealth, forcing people to join unions to belong to a list of professions to be allowed to work in the field, transferring personal responsibility to the well funded, and every other inequity in our government is simply "fair." Which is why I ask. Not you, I doubt we could get a good argument on that point.

Sure. But "fairness" is still a real thing, which is why I refuse not to use it.

Irn-Bru wrote:Sure. But "fairness" is still a real thing, which is why I refuse not to use it.

Agreed. I ask when a liberal uses it because I know they mean "inequity unilaterally enforced by government guns on all American citizens motivated by the power of politicians on the ostensible behalf of well meaning liberals in an ill conceived effort to create evenness without regard to the effort or other resources expended by the citizenry to achieve the objective in question." I doubt that's what you mean.

I remember why I don't get involved in these types of discussions. I don't have time nor desire to break things down line by line and 'debate,' so I'll bow out.

One last comment though: I'm not poilitical enough to consdier myself liberal or conservative. Label me and my opinions as you feel fit. I don't know why everything has to have a label, but if that's what let's you sleep at night, then good for you!