You erroneously assume that those who favor stopping illegal immigration wish for a vacuum to replce them. On the contrary, many of them would support a guest worker program and/or increased legal immigration. Both of which would be better for the currently-exploited workers.
It’s got nothing to do with raising grains and legumes. As i pointed out earlier in this thread (and you can read Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation if you don’t believe me), quite a lot of the most dirty and dangerous slaughterhouse work in the midwestern states is done by illegal immigrants. Schlosser visited slaughterhouses and meat processing plants in a few different states, and found illegals killing animals, cutting them up, packing meat, and doing related work like working on the plant cleaning crews.
I’ve read “Fast Food Nation.”
The work is “dirty and dangerous,” and most importantly it’s low paying by American standards. Without illegal labor, the meatpackers would have to pay higher wages and offer better benefits and working conditions in order to recruit labor. Because labor accounts for only a fraction of the cost of packaged meat, I’m simply not willing to accept (without proof) that meat prices would “skyrocket” or raise significantly enough to cause great hardship (especially when the lower classes that would be most harmed by increased food prices would also benefit the most from earning more at their jobs!).
I’ve said it before (in this very thread and in others), but I’ll repeat it: I’m pro-immigration. I think we should let far more people in legally then we do now. BUT, they need to be documented, their employers need to meet US wage, tax, and safety requirements, and, most importantly, employment must NOT be a condition of residence. Anything else and your going to stack the labor market against US natives and in favor of immigrants.
Well, you’re certainly right that “labor accounts for only a fraction of the cost of packaged meat.” The question, though, is what fraction? 1/20? 1/10? 1/5? In many products that we buy, labor in fact accounts for a significant percentage of the final cost. I don’t know what the percentage is with meat products, but i suspect that its not negligible.
Also, your assumption that those who would suffer from higher food prices are the same people who would benefit from higher wages is rather problematic. There are plenty of people in America who are here perfectly legally (as citizens or as immigrants), and who earn a legal minimum wage, who would be adversely affected by a rise in food prices.
I agree with all of this, as i’ve also made clear multiple times before. And it’s one of the reasons that i think the OP of this thread is such a jackass: he’s all for cracking down on illegal immigrants, but i haven’t yet heard him rant against American employers who are breaking the law by hiring these people in the first place and benefitting from the fact that they can avoid taxes, social security payments, health insurance, etc.
You expect me to remember that back? I am not that old you know 
In any case, in school there was no peep of that incident, that should give you a big clue that even if it was instigated first by the leftists, the people in power know that it is better to not even blame the Indians so as to not generate hard questions regarding that incident.
Because AFAICR it was mostly the extremely discriminated indigenous population that being fed up of abuses and de facto slavery that organized under a communist banner and attacked a military garrison and took over territory, but it was the response that obliterated any defense one can make for the military dictator General Hernández Martínez.
I don’t think one can expect a utopia from a military dictator, what they do is create a breeding ground for revels.
But back to the response that the “good and honest” military dictator did:
http://www.frif.com/new2003/scar.html
I also do remember that racism against Indians played a factor, many described that even using indigenous clothing was a death sentence.
I guess they got away with what IMHO can be called genocide because they could peg the communist label on the ones that were killed, but as is typical in Central America, it was not that simple, it was mostly the Indians then who rebelled, and for sure not all indians killed were communists. In Latin American countries, racism against the Indians is a problem to this day.
I agree with all this too. Well said.
Since this 6% number keeps being mentioned, I thought I would respond by examining this study in more detail. As I am not an economist but rather hold a degree in history, I thought I would delve into the “study” as best as I could. What I have found is that this “study” assumes a number of things in arriving at 6% rise in the price of produce.
First of all, 6% is what the price would stabilize at in the long term and Metacom does not mention the short term increase according to the study:
Secondly, the study admits what Metacom has denied in that the cost of labor is a MAJOR cost of production:
If you look even closer you will see a number of conditions which are assumed for the study’s conclusions to work. Those assumptions are as follows and I put in the bold the one that strikes me in particular:
As you can see, there are a lot of assumptions to make this theory work BUT WAIT there is more.
As you can see, they low-balled the wage difference even though other studies suggest a higher gap. See how you can prove a point when you’re selective about what data you use?
And lastly, the study assumes that the American labor could be found and adjusted to fill the vacuum (which Metacom does not suggest but this “study” hypothetically assumes) created by the removal of all illegal labor. In other words, in a very short paragraph, these Agriculture professors from Iowa have boiled down the complex social and economic niche the illegal laborers fill being replaced quickly by American workers in one small paragraph full of assumptions. I have to question this. If we eliminated all the illegal labor, would we be able to fill their shoes with Americans who would basically become itinerant farmers for minimum wage? This is a joke. Here is what would really happen. We could eventually fill these positions but after awhile, the American pickers would wise up and unionize and would not be working for minimum wage for very long. That’s why the biggest opponents to ending illegal employment are the farmers themselves. They know what would happen if they didn’t have these people picking their produce. And do you really believe that they and the retailers would absorb the cost offset caused by the higher cost of production? Man this study is actually quite funny. Give it a read and don’t be afraid of the techno-babble because bullshit is bullshit however you slice it. So, let’s not use the 6% number for anything but a highly suspect and hypothetical figure.
Not negligible, indeed.
Thank Og that meat packing is such a minor contributor to our economy here. :dubious:
If I’m not mistaken, my professor told us that Hernandez Martinez had the belief that it was a sin to kill even a tiny ant, for when they die, they die for good. But human beings had souls, so they’d go on to the next life, so it didn’t matter if you killed them.
I don’t believe I’ve ever denied this? 
The assumption you’ve bolded has no impact on the 6% figure.
They didn’t “low-ball” it; they substituted the minimum (legal) wage for 1996.
No, they discuss it in the section called “The Aggregate Labor Market”–probably one of the bits you dismiss has “techno-babble” (is that what history grads call “math with symbols”?).
Wow. You’re pretty daft: they’re not comparing immigrants and “Americans,” they’re comparing illegal labor and legal labor. There’s a difference. Does “basic reading comprehnsion” fall under the broader umbrella you’ve dubbed “techno-babble”? :dubious:
You know what’s even funnier? Someone with a “degree in history” thinking they know more about agricultural economics then a professor of agricultural economics. I’ll trust their word, biased or not, over yours (also biased) any day.
Bwhahaha!
“Ignore the math, my guesses are more reliable! I HAVE A DEGREE IN HISTORY!”
:rolleyes:
Yeah, the meatpacking companies are exactly the people I’d go to for objective opinions about the impact of cutting back on illegal laborers.
What do you think they’re gonna say? “Well… We’d have to pay more to get workers that don’t live in constant fear of going back to the third-world shithole they came from, and we’d have to slow the line speed down to safe levels, but with modest retail price increases and a reduction in our corporate profits we’ll manage. In the end, not exploiting desperate people is more important then ensuring that McDonald’s burgers sell for $1.00 instead of $1.25.”
Hey Metadork, respond to the questions regarding the obvious assumptions of the study you cite. You like my post huh? Calls what you submitted as factual and well researched as a bunch of bullshit. Respond to the questions. Do you really want me to decifer the simple mathematics used in this, at best, abbreviated study? Like that is hard for someone who has had university level mathematics? I call it like I sees it. My post is well cited from the study and I leave it to the other readers to decide. Making fun of a history degree is really imaginative. I guess a slack-jawed conservative asswhipe like yourself has no respect for someone who is educated. You wouldn’t be the first and it is quite typical of your ilk.
The questions still remain and my argument well cited. Answer my questions or go fuck yourself you cheesedick fuck. How’s that for techno-babble? :wally
mhendo & Highwayman - Thanks for the informative responses. I don’t suppose you (or anyone else) could also recommend any books which deal with the economics of immigration?
Yes indeedy. Anytime someone “critiques” a study and in doing so demonstrates that they aren’t capable of differentiating “native American workers,” “legal immigrants,” and “illegal immigrants” they save me the trouble of having to give much thought to anything else they say. If it saves me work, I’m all for it. 
You asked three. One was rhetorical, one demonstrated that you were conflating “legal labor” with “native American labor,” and the other was so stupid I didn’t want to embarass you by answering it. But since you’ve requested it:
Um, no, honey. That’s why the study that you’re bringing both your braincells to bear on is discussing a retail price increase. That means that farmers and retailers wouldn’t be absorbing the higher cost of production.
As an aside, you may want to read the definitions of “quote” and “cite” and start using the two words appropriately.
Damn! You got me! I’m secretly in awe of you fancy-pants liberuhls with your highfalutin “kolledge” (sp?) degrees. Maybe one day I’ll get my GED and tack it up above the space heater in my trailer, next to my Franklin Mint limited-edition collectors plate of George W Bush painted in the style of Norman Rockwell.
“Cheesedick”? What insults did you flip through on your “Mental Rolodex of Terms From the 3rd Grade” before that came up? “Watermelontesticle”? “Sausageass”? “Beefnose”?
:rolleyes: Sigh! I really don’t want to deal with this during my vacation to Cancun! I just came in for a minte to check my email!
Then you should learn how to read. I clearly posted that they should be prosecuted, and then I said that if we are going to fight crime “let’s get serious and include greedy white business criminals too!”
For some reason the hotel computer won’t let me copy that post for this one. So go back and find it, it’s there!
Now back to the beach!
I wish to submit that regardless of what he has or hasn’t posted in this thread the OP is still a jackass.
Seconded. Shall we vote now, or break for lunch first?
Hey Metacom, remember Dieter from Sprockets on Saturday Night Live or are you able to watch a show produced by a communist Jew on one of those God-forsaken devil boxes? One of Mike Myers best characters. Well imagine me doing my best impression of him: Your argument (or lack there of) has become tiresome.
But I will respond, even though your second to last post was filled with ad hominem attacks (which should be forever after known as “the Republican” fallacy) against me and did not refute much of what I said. However, your last post was hilarious I must say,
and as you know, “cheesedick” is a term that I save for those undeserving of imaginative insults. You have proven slightly better than this third grade bag and maybe you deserve fourth-grade material.
I’m not confusing “native”, “non-native”, and “illegal” labor. The study is fairly clear about this point. Here is what the study assumes:
This is the crux of their argument, as I have stated before, that eliminating illegal and not replacing it with guest labor would cause only a 6% rise in the price of produce in the long run when you adjust for other industry factors.
The reason I made bold the first assumption in the second to last post is because this strikes me as an important point in the overall debate. You seem to imply (by citing this study) that illegal immigration is not as important to our economy as we imply. The study itself brings up something that they do not factor in and that is the cost of giving all the illegals the boot and then maintaining a more or less illegal free society. Although not important to this produce industry study, nevertheless it is important to the overall argument on this topic. You cannot factor this into the negative effects of illegal immigration and therefore must be counted as a positive to their value to our society.
You cited the study to cast doubt on a higher estimation on the value of illegal labor on the produce market. You used the 6% figure which, as the study states, is a longer term projection. In my opinion, this directly refutes the 6% figure using the study itself as evidence. This is not a conflation and is discussed directly in the study. The other arguments are re-interpretations of statements in the study and are therefore not a conflation, which to my mind, is the adding of extraneous information to a text.
Finally, you seem to think that the simple calculations done in this study confound me. Symbol A minus symbol B is still just subtraction regardless of what you call it. Hence “techno-babble.” Which brings me to the final point: Don’t stick something out there as argument-ending factual evidence counting on most people’s laziness in verifying the information and lack of understanding and fear of what appear to be abstract and complicated formulas. I am not a Republican. I will read it and I will question it and I will not pass it around as factual to all my other dumb-ass friends via a just learned ability to email. So go amuse yourself with stories of how many people Clinton killed and how George Dumbass prayed with a soldier with no hands. It’s all bullshit.
QUICK, HE’S IN MEXICO… TELL THE MEXICANS!
They knew. They were enjoying the [lawfully earned] money I was spending while I was there. I was there legally, and I obeyed the law while I was a guest in their country.
I am right on this issue. It is absurd for legislatures to waste their time and our money passing laws they have no intention enforcing! Why bother? At least be honest about it and move on to something else.
Also, overall the costs of having illegals here seem to outweigh any benefits they bring. Especially if they are criminals, which the individual mentioned in the OP may be
(same name, age, and crimes commited in the same location he claimed to be from.)
If Mexicans didn’t have such a fucked up crooked government, with retards for leaders, maybe they wouldn’t have to illegally sneak into our country just to find work!
Gezus Khrist! Even Hillary Clinton appears to agree with me on this issue:
** In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not “think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better.”…“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”… “People have to stop employing illegal immigrants”…**
Bless her liberal bleeding heart!