tom

...why do we require illegal immigrants to do menial work? Besides, any argument for them making substandard

Why indeed Tom?
Because of the slow population growth, industries in the US needed to hire immigrants.
But industries that know that they can hire illegal immigrants know that they hold all the power and can offer these illegals a lower wage. From those that decide to pursue a strategy of lowering labor costs the ability to hire poorly documented and illegal emplyees represented a great saving.
Most of the saving go to profits which is shared by the executive and shareholders. Some goes to lower food prices in some industries if there is a dynamic driving price competition. Fast Food and major dscount grocery chains did provide some of this dynamic in food. But not in high quality food so much.
Illegal immigration works to the benefit of some companies who fight everify (too expensive, too difficult etc) . So the same people who, on the surface oppose "illegals" - prop up the illegal employers by refusing a vote on mandated e-verify in Congress. Which is the most effective place to police illegal immigration.
On another board you'll see Hacker ask about "effective government". Ask him if congress is beign effective when they won't vote on a mandated e-verify.?

so, let's get this straight...

The US (and the UK I suppose?) require illegal immigrants so they can do the work the rest of us will not do. That does indeed make some sense!
But it doesn't jive with the other things you are saying
Everyone should be paid a decent living wage, but that must include illegal immigrants? and if they too need to be paid this higher wage then we have no reason for allowing illegals?

we also hear other posts that all people are entitled to free health care and free education and food stamps and welfare of all sorts. That also applies to illegals that cost us a crap-ton of money.

None of this argument makes sense, Illegals do the grunt work for next to nothing or all people deserve a good wage, you simply can not argue both sides. Might I suggest you pick one side and stick to that one position and not simply point to what suits your argument at the time?

rickyp wrote:fate

Meh. You're probably in favor of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, right? Like that won't impact food prices

.
That would depend on what component of the cost of production was labor. And it would depend on whether there was effective competition in a sector that would cause some producers to attack prices in favour of market share.
What it would do is ensure that everyone working could afford food on what they were being paid. As it is a significant percentage of minimum wage workers end up on government assistance. Meaning that the low wage employers are being subsidized . By you.

Double Meh:

1. The vast majority of households in the US are not dependent upon a wage-earner at the minimum wage. These are typically high school and college students just trying to make a buck.

2. Those same people are not eligible for government assistance, if you mean welfare.

One thing you need to recognize is that worker productivity in the US has not been rewarded with increased compensation for that increased productivity. Corporations have merely pocketed the profits or paid the executives and shareholders... This is a major contribution to inequality.

Stop Blaming Obama! After all, he's done a lot of things by fiat, why can't he just fix it with an executive order?

For minimum wage workers thisis particularly true. There has not been an increase in the minimum wage since 2009.

So what? Are you blaming Obama again?

Henry Ford paid his workers a greeat wage because he knew they would be out buying his cars. Paying the lowest earners a living wage reduces the cost of the social safety net, and increases the domestic economy more than proving more income to any other group.

Paying a "living wage" does two things: 1) raises costs; 2) disincentivizes personal improvement.

Tom

so, let's get this straight...
The US (and the UK I suppose?) require illegal immigrants so they can do the work the rest of us will not do. That does indeed make some sense!
But it doesn't jive with the other things you are saying
Everyone should be paid a decent living wage, but that must include illegal immigrants? and if they too need to be paid this higher wage then we have no reason for allowing illegals?

I never said they need "illegal immigrants". I said that with an almost flat population growth the US required immigrants to work in in order to fuel growth and meet labor requirements. I've never said they had to be illegal. (Please quote me Tom. It will help you understand perhaps).
The reason the illegals are in the work force is because people gave them jobs without comprehensively vetting them. And the reason they do that? They can pay them less.

I would much prefer that the companies were forced to properly vet and were held responsible when they didn't. This would force them to offer higher wages to attract genuine legal immigrants and citizens. Alternatively they might force the Federal government to step up legal immigration in order to meet their labor needs.
And yes. In a first world country, everyone should be paid a living wage. What do you think is the alternative? A non-living wage? A wage that requires the worker to be subsidized with welfare in order to feed and clothe themselves and their family?

What middle class?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/ ... -year.html
https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2014

The low wage debate covers a lot more than minimum wage workers. Of course, obviously someone making $5,000 is not a full-time. Still 50 percent of American workers made $28,500 or less in 2014. These people are not just the lazy, the unskilled, or whatever description wants to be applied to those who don't make much money. Globalization may be working for those at the top, but it isn't working for the MAJORITY. They can self-improve all they want their wages are not improving. Well, they should try to improve themselves and it may improve their economic condition, perhaps even greatly improve it. But it's a zero-sum game--it won't change the facts that there are only so many good jobs around. And, no, cutting taxes is not going to create any economic activitity. Who is going to buy goods when 50 percent of workers make $28K a year or less? That will just stratify wealth even further.

Globalization and free trade are the most efficient way for the world's economy. But there are those who are deriving benefits and there are those who are being hurt by it. Both the gainers and losers are subject to forces beyond their control--in other words, the gainers do not deserve the extra income they are getting as a result of globalization and the losers do not deserve to be getting less income. Low-wage competition overseas makes investments more profitable and puts a downward pressure on wages. And yet governments in the West--at least Britain and US--are not doing anything to adjust for globalization. That's a prescription for a lot of anger and the anger is largely misdirected at immigrants but a lot of people have good reason to be angry.

freeman3 wrote:What middle class?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/ ... -year.html
https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2014

The low wage debate covers a lot more than minimum wage workers. Of course, obviously someone making $5,000 is not a full-time. Still 50 percent of American workers made $28,500 or less in 2014. These people are not just the lazy, the unskilled, or whatever description wants to be applied to those who don't make much money.

Fine, but a Federal minimum raise to $15 would be stupid. Not only would it price students out of the job market, but the cost of living varies greatly across the nation. It doesn't cost as much to "live" in Mississippi as it does in NYC, SF, or Chicago.

Globalization may be working for those at the top, but it isn't working for the MAJORITY. They can self-improve all they want their wages are not improving. Well, they should try to improve themselves and it may improve their economic condition, perhaps even greatly improve it. But it's a zero-sum game--it won't change the facts that there are only so many good jobs around. And, no, cutting taxes is not going to create any economic activitity. Who is going to buy goods when 50 percent of workers make $28K a year? That will just stratify wealth even further.

Yet, you're going to vote for Hillary, who will continue the globalization march. I hate Trump, but he's with Bernie on trade.

Fate

1. The vast majority of households in the US are not dependent upon a wage-earner at the minimum wage. These are typically high school and college students just trying to make a buck.

2. Those same people are not eligible for government assistance, if you mean welfare

.

Offered by you with Trumpian certainty. However when one checks the facts: About half of minimum wage earners are over 25.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although
workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of
hourly paid workers, they made up nearly half of those
paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed
teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 15 percent
earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3
percent of workers age 25 and older

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum ... s-2014.pdf

Welfare queens, lazy government leeches and "scrubs" are but a few of the insults that Americans have leveled at their fellow citizens who rely on public assistance programs to support their families or make it through a rough patch.
But the reality is that tens of millions of Americans with full-time jobs are working for low hourly wages and cannot afford to cover the monthly basics, according to David Cooper, a poverty and minimum wage analyst at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.
In a government data analysis released Tuesday by the liberal-leaning think tank, Cooper said there are 41.2 million working people, or nearly 30 percent of the workforce, receiving public assistance such as food stamps, housing subsidies and cash assistance to make ends meet. Nearly half of those workers, 19.3 million people, had full-time jobs and most were earning less than $12.16 per hour in wages, Cooper wrote in his analysis.
“When corporations pay wages so low that working people must rely on public assistance, taxpayers are effectively subsidizing these companies to make up the difference between what workers make and what they need to support themselves and their families,” he wrote.

http://www.ibtimes.com/welfare-america- ... ce-2300713

fate

Stop Blaming Obama! After all, he's done a lot of things by fiat, why can't he just fix it with an executive order?

In April 2014, the U.S. Senate debated the Minimum Wage Fairness Act (S. 1737; 113th Congress). The bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to increase the federal minimum wage for employees to $10.10 per hour over the course of a two-year period.[17] The bill was strongly supported by President Barack Obama and many of the Democratic Senators, but strongly opposed by Republicans in the Senate and House.[18][19][20] Later in the year, voters in the Republican-controlled states of Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota considered ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage above the national rate of $7.25 per hour. In all four states the initiatives were successful. The results provide further evidence that raising minimum pay has support across party lines.[21]

fate

Paying a "living wage" does two things: 1) raises costs; 2) disincentivizes personal improvement.

You don't have to pay people shit to incentive them to improve themselves.
And the better you pay and treat people at work, the more loyal they are, the better job they will do and their productivity will improve.

Walmart Pays Workers Poorly And Sinks While Costco Pays Workers Well And Sails-Proof That You Get What You Pay For
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... fa16ebbc3d

freeman3

Globalization and free trade are the most efficient way for the world's economy.

Based on metrics of financialization.
When quarterly profits and share price are the driving metrics then you see globalization used to drive down labour costs.
But as companies gain they also lose. Many learn that their extended supply chains create inefficiencies, and hamper product quality control and product development. But because the accounting metrics are dominant in management these considerations are set aside and cost of labor is the only factor taken into account.
Globalization is getting blamed because managers operate in financial silos, often seperate from real world decisions tha affect products and service delivery. Often to the detriment of the compay in the long term.
Many companies are now learning that these supply chain problems swamp the benefits of cheap labor and are pulling production back to fewer centres, and more in North America .
The point I'm truing to make Freeman is that you can't blame Globalization for poor management decisions.
You can blame governments who didn't forsee the effects of globalization on their populace and prepare a soft landing for the expected victims. Or who didn't see that globalization might lead to a hollowing out of the economy, and fought to make domestic industries more attractive to companies.

I never said they need "illegal immigrants". I said that with an almost flat population growth the US required immigrants to work in in order to fuel growth and meet labor requirements.

honestly, it's hard to understand what you are trying to say. But, as always, we need to get back to the core and not off on one of your tangents...

The Brexit was the topic, we discussed one reason was uncontrolled immigration. You declared that was not the case yet I went on to show how yes it was the case, you asked for data and I showed how data was not important, you keep moving the subject!

anyways, I pointed to how immigration was fine but we are against uncontrolled and/or illegal immigration. To which you say you never mentioned "illegal" immigration while all along that was the very gist of the discussion! You need not actually mention "illegals" when they are the subject matter we are discussing now do you?

You're right--there would need to be adjustments based on cost-of-living by states. $15 per hour in Mississippi would be too much. I'm sure we could figure out how to rationally do it. It also makes sense to me to do it in incremental steps to see what effect it has, so we can see empirically what's happening before making such a big change. And I wanted Sanders but you know that wasn't going to happen. I agree with you that Hillary will keep the status quo as far as globalization goes but I can't see voting for Trump--who knows what he will do?

rickyp wrote:Fate

1. The vast majority of households in the US are not dependent upon a wage-earner at the minimum wage. These are typically high school and college students just trying to make a buck.

2. Those same people are not eligible for government assistance, if you mean welfare

.

Offered by you with Trumpian certainty. However when one checks the facts: About half of minimum wage earners are over 25.

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although
workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of
hourly paid workers, they made up nearly half of those
paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed
teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 15 percent
earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3
percent of workers age 25 and older

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum ... s-2014.pdf

What a hopeless sack of fertilizer!

From your link, "The percentage of hourly paid workers earning the prevailing federal minimum wage or less declined from 4.3percent in 2013 to 3.9 percent in 2014."

In other words"

Doctor Fate wrote:The vast majority of households in the US are not dependent upon a wage-earner at the minimum wage.

More than 96% of workers paid by the hour make more than the minimum. I was 100% right.

Only someone who is an idiot or a liar would represent things as you have. Which one are you?

fate

Stop Blaming Obama! After all, he's done a lot of things by fiat, why can't he just fix it with an executive order?

In April 2014, the U.S. Senate debated the Minimum Wage Fairness Act (S. 1737; 113th Congress). The bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to increase the federal minimum wage for employees to $10.10 per hour over the course of a two-year period.[17] The bill was strongly supported by President Barack Obama and many of the Democratic Senators, but strongly opposed by Republicans in the Senate and House.[18][19][20] Later in the year, voters in the Republican-controlled states of Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota considered ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage above the national rate of $7.25 per hour. In all four states the initiatives were successful. The results provide further evidence that raising minimum pay has support across party lines.[21]

More fertilizer. Democrats could have done this during 2009-10 and didn't. Why not?

Oh, and why doesn't "no check on my power" Obama just decree it?

fate

Paying a "living wage" does two things: 1) raises costs; 2) disincentivizes personal improvement.

You don't have to pay people shit to incentive them to improve themselves.

Right. That's why generations live in government housing. I'm leaning toward "idiot," but may be willing to concede you're just a liar.

And the better you pay and treat people at work, the more loyal they are, the better job they will do and their productivity will improve.

Loyalty means nothing--to corporations or individuals. This ain't the 50's.

If Costco is your poster child, you need another paradigm. Most people don't view a job in a membership warehouse as "living the dream."

freeman3 wrote:You're right--there would need to be adjustments based on cost-of-living by states. $15 per hour in Mississippi would be too much. I'm sure we could figure out how to rationally do it.

This needs to be a State issue. I know many liberals don't like that, but a Federal law cannot impose State guidelines that vary as much as a "living wage" would.

[quote]And I wanted Sanders but you know that wasn't going to happen. I agree with you that Hillary will keep the status quo as far as globalization goes but I can't see voting for Trump--who knows what he will do?[/quote

I have no idea. I know what he won't do: destroy the world. Other than that, he also will have a primary challenge in 4 years. He will be out in 4 no matter what--either a Democrat will defeat him or he will destroy the remnant of the GOP.

fate

In other words"

fate

These are typically high school and college students just trying to make a buck

.
ricky

However when one checks the facts: About half of minimum wage earners are over 25.

Not typically high school students at all.

fate

If Costco is your poster child, you need another paradigm. Most people don't view a job in a membership warehouse as "living the dream."

For someone working at WalMart or McDonalds it would be a major move up though...
And they do disprove your notion that companies can't afford to pay a decent wage and compete in retail or fast food...

rickyp wrote:fate

In other words"

fate

These are typically high school and college students just trying to make a buck

.
ricky

However when one checks the facts: About half of minimum wage earners are over 25.

Not typically high school students at all.

More garbage. Less than 4 million people across the country earn the minimum wage. About half are high school or college age. So what?

My main point, which you are now trying to obscure, was that most households are not dependent upon the minimum wage--which your survey proves. So, shut up.

fate

If Costco is your poster child, you need another paradigm. Most people don't view a job in a membership warehouse as "living the dream."

For someone working at WalMart or McDonalds it would be a major move up though...
And they do disprove your notion that companies can't afford to pay a decent wage and compete in retail or fast food...

Never said that. In-N-Out pays very well--fast food.

But, the bottom line for those 2 million adults working at minimum wage is this: do something to change your circumstances.

Now, it is possible that some of them are not able--maybe they have Down's Syndrome (like a young woman who works in a Starbucks near me) or some other issue, or maybe they have a criminal record. However, the vast majority of Americans learn to move on from low-paying jobs.

To hear you all tell it, the french fry guy at McDonald's should make as much as a neurosurgeon--or something.

If you can be replaced by a 'bot, then you're doing something wrong.

GMTom wrote:

It is hard to accuse "some" of "wanting to make it all about xenophobia" when you had immigration front and centre of the campaigns at times.

followed by

Given that coming out has so far impacted our economy negatively, and that recent EU immigrants contribute more than they take out, it may not be xenophobia but it is not first grade economic analysis.

...sure sounds like you want us to believe it was all about xenophobia now doesn't it?

Nope. I am saying that xenophobia is one factor that we should not ignore.

There are other factors, many talked about the "democratic deficit" of the EU. So I want to see us make strides to address our own democratic deficits in the UK.

Many cited control of our own laws. Fine, but I have concerns about which EU laws we would remove.