Re: Immigration wars, 20 to 38 million, not the Fed's 12 million
- From: Sue <sebrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:16:21 -0700
Thanks for taking the time. An interesting read. I, um, guess I'm
one of those middlemen siphoning off the biggest part of the pie. I
don't feel like I got much pie. Damn.
Sue
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:21:37 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:04:55 -0700, Sue <sebrady@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:.
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:19:30 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It would be amazing how many willing workers they would have if they
paid an living American wage. It's just a lust for cheap labor for
the jobs we can't move offshore.
OK. I've seen this "living wage" thing a lot. Does anyone have any
idea exactly what a "living wage" is? Is it enough to allow a certain
set standard of living? To be able to buy a house? With a pool?
Decent housing. Anything above that is personal ability and choice.
Never have to drive a car more than 5 years old? 10 years old?
Personal transportation is optional. I typically run a car until it's
15 years old. I don't have to. It's my choice. Nobody owes me new
wheels.
If you can't afford a new car, drive what you can afford. If you
can't afford any car, live near work and walk/bike/mass transit/kick
in for gas money as a rider. Look for work closer to where you can
afford to live. Same trade off people have always had to make.
If >all this is the case then should someone with two children (or none)
be paid less than someone with six children? $20 per hour might meet
some standard for a household of four but wouldn't be nearly enough
for a household of eight. The federal poverty level changes depending
on household size so shouldn't this "living wage"?
Sue
Number of children is a choice. If I have a kid, I probably pass on
the better house and fancier car. The 52 inch TV is off the table.
Probably cook more from scratch and a lot less convenience foods.
Take lunch instead of go out. Skip kids, you get some toys. Your
choice. Nobody says everybody gets everything. "You deserve it" only
exists in commercials.
To me living wage means what the market wage would come to if we did
not have illegal workers in the competition. And - flip side - didn't
have labor organizations and liberal politicians pulling the other
way. There is fair and there is "vote for me" ridiculous.
Employers need labor, workers need employment. Workers ARE consumers;
consumers are workers. There is a balance where everybody gets the
best balance from any practical deal. It all works out if government
doesn't try to "fix" it.
Heck, illegals are not just willing to work cheap, they are
effectively subsidized to do it. Unlike the citizen they don't
support public service via taxes but they are first in line to claim
them. That's often our own stupid law. What taxes they do pay is far
less than their load on services.
I'll subsidize an American citizen if I must, but let Mexico subsidize
it's own workers. Illegals take jobs that would go to Americans,
drive the prevailing wage level down, and send their low wages home.
It's Mexico second biggest revenue source.
Now I have an American without a job because the minimal job they were
qualified to do is gone. They are now my problem. I'm effectively
subsidizing the family in Mexico.
I can't afford to subsidize the whole world no matter how generous I
may be. If a Mexican wants to work here, fine. One rule. Become a
citizen. Two countries - pick one. Otherwise, thanks for your
tourism visit. Become a citizen and he's on the same tax hook the
rest of us are.
Still families used to raise 8 children in some basic measure of
comfort on the income of just one worker in the family. Not in style,
not much luxury, probably hand me down clothes, but still they did
have a decent living quarters and basic diet. Then we invented
out-sourcing. Now it's the rule that two parents work and they still
don't achieve even that minimum lifestyle.
I'm earning about ten times what my father made in the 50s and that
was pretty fair money. A trip to the doctor was $2 cash and that was
the end of the deal. It was $3 if he gave you drugs. It was rare you
needed something that was an Rx at the drug store. If you were dirt
poor he said pay me later and forgot it. He was not a starving
doctor.
Inflate that by 10X and a routine doctors visit should cost me $20
today. It does but that's just the co-pay. The hidden part of the
iceberg is the insurance companies payment. That comes out of my
weekly pay check and my employers benefits budget. Why do either of
us have to pay that? Why doesn't $20 cash money cover it like it used
to? Inflation is obviously already accounted for in those numbers.
That dollar extra for drugs? My drug co-pay is $10. Same story. Why
doesn't $10 at the drug store pay for my pills and the transaction is
complete?
We are trying to make everything nicer for everybody. Nice intention.
It's created layers of regulation, services, brokers, insurers, and
other middlemen that add zero productivity to the nation. They just
syphon off the biggest part of the pie. As an inevitable result, the
average productive workers real income is plummeting. As productive
jobs disappear offshore those people have to become service providers.
The problem feeds on itself.
Me, my doctor, and two dollar bills - no insurance, employers
benefits, paycheck contributions, malpractice lawyers, TV hyped drugs,
etc. It used to work before we "fixed" it.
Let the flames begin.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Top Yank admits defeat in Iraq
- Next by Date: Re: New Evidence That Blackwater Guards Took No Fire
- Previous by thread: Re: Immigration wars, 20 to 38 million, not the Fed's 12 million
- Next by thread: Re: Immigration wars, 20 to 38 million, not the Fed's 12 million
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
