Well, gigi, after doing the abovementioned jobs, I did in fact join the Navy.
That was my choice, though. One of my brothers just continued to be a short-order cook until he earned his teaching degree.
I understand. But I’m not so sure about the consensus thing. It might be more an issue of agri-business lobbying.
Good point.
I’m not so sure I agree with this. When I was kid, I used to mow lawns for the neighbors (at least those who didn’t have their own kids), and they got some cheap gardening done. Also, my housekeeper here gets $20/hr. She’s Mexican, although I assume she’s a legal immigrant. $20/hr is pretty damn good considering the skill level needed to do housework (ie, not much). That’s about the going rate for housecleaning around here and I’m sure there are plenty of Americans taking jobs that pay less than that.
I’m not seeing a whole bunch of unemployed teens. But I have lived in big cities my whole life…perhaps it’s different in the suburbs and rural areas.
(I’m not a parent, but I wouldn’t want my children working under the same conditions that illegals work under. Working at McDonald’s is “teaching them a lesson”. Spending 8 hours under a boiling sun in near slave-like conditions is not how I’d want my children to spend their time.)
I’d personally like to see jobs going to grown people with dependents before handing them over to kids who just want money for X-Boxes and fancy clothes. Even if the grown people don’t have papers.
The easy way to turn the “jobs Americans won’t do” into “jobs Americans will do” is to pay a decent salary to do them. You don’t have to go any further than plumbing as proof that people will do any icky, grimy, dumb-ass job as long as they’re well-compensated for the efforts.
Unfortunately, the industries that have the “jobs Americans won’t do” are entirely dependent on low wages with no benefits to keep their profits high, so they refuse to pay a salary that will attract more Americans to do 'em. Which leaves exploiting illegal immigrants as the only remaining option. Keeping employees in line with threats to report them to the INS is cheaper than paying a decent wage or providing a halfway decent health plan.
I disagree with the last bit about rural areas. Unfortunately, where I lived when I was a teenager is now a strip mall; however, when I was young, the area was quite rural, and almost all the kids I knew had some sort of job, whether it was babysitting, de-tassling, errand running, mowing lawns, or helping do smaller interior paint jobs and learning to swing a hammer and repair stuff.
As far as suburbs go, I haven’t ever lived in one, so I’m not sure about that. Plus, I don’t have any kids. I’m in my late 20s, but it seems that a lot of things have changed since I got my first job.
Also, the worst thing about de-tassling corn wasn’t necessarily the heat (though that was pretty bad); it was the blisters and the cuts you’d get on your arms from the corn stalks, especially if you forgot your gloves. Ouch!
The US subsidies to it’s farmers is one of the biggest welfare scams going. Eliminate these and the Mexican growers would be able to compete in certain areas. That would help keep Mexicans at home.
Sure there are jobs that Americans won’t do. Migratory farm work is hard, low-paying work. My ancestors were migratory farm workers. It was horrible work, but the family got established here. Day laborers are almost always immigrants. What American (besides a crack whore) would stand on a street corner waiting for some stranger to maybe pick them up for a one-day gig that pays next to nothing? It would make more sense to just collect welfare.
calm kiwi seemed to take this as some sort of arrogance on the part of Americans in general or Bush in particular, but this is the way thing are. It’s not something new and it’s not an uniquely American phenomenon. Perhaps the most famous example of this kind of thing is Germany’s guest worker program.
This issue gets a lot of attention in the U.S. due to the huge numbers of people involved. The 2000 Census showed 20.1 million Mexicans living in the U.S. This excludes other Central Americans and all those who avoided being counted because they are illegal (although those people are supposed to be counted). It is possible there are more Mexicans in the U.S. than there are Canadians in Canada. Some Americans are trying to put a the brakes to more immigration. On the far-right there are voices calling for an end virtually all immigration from Latin America.
I didn’t see Bush’s statement on this issue so I have no reaction to it. Personally, I would like to see the number of legal immigrants from Central America greatly expanded. If more folks could come here legally, we would know who they are and the practice of sneaking across the border would be left to the nefarious. With so many fewer people sneaking across the border, the patrol would have a much better chance of catching people such as terrorists trying to get access to the country. I know none of the Sept. 11 terrorists entered the country this way, but it would be a logical way to try to get in today.
Exactly - these aren’t jobs that Americans won’t do, they’re jobs that Americans won’t do for those wages. This is a very important point.
Part of the problem is that we’re overrun with companies that see only the bottom line. Their goal is to reduce costs as much as possible. Therefore, some companies in the States will do whatever necessary to reduce costs, including importing labor and paying that labor a pittance. Yeah, it’s illegal (it’s illegal to pay less than minimum wage), but it seems no one cares. There’s little enforcement, large borders, and tons of employers who’ll pay to bring up immigrants from the U.S./Mexico border and pay them nothing.
Time Magazine did a rather large story on this, what, 2 - 3 months ago? Americans will do those jobs, Americans would love to do those jobs, they just want a fair wage for them. As long as companies can get away with paying less than minimum wage for those jobs, this problem will continue.
I don’t see it as a problem with American workers, I see it as abuse by American companies.
“Jobs Americans won’t do”? Right. Talk to one of the guys who cleans chicken guts out of the machinery at a Tyson poultry plant; then tell me there are jobs Americans won’t do.
That’s kind of my thinking as well. It seems that if there are industries that can’t afford to operate within the restrictions placed on them by the law, then they are not economically viable. So, are we giving them ‘federal aid’ by turning a blind eye to what we know are illegal hiring practices?
I mean, people can make a living selling just about everything, I find it hard to believe that it’d be impossible to make a tidy profit selling orange juice while not operating under the radar.
Working class Americans are in one hell of a pickle. Jobs go overseas for cheap labor, products made cheaply in China and sold to them at Wal-Mart…which is about what they can afford. Slowly, slowly, cutting their own throats.
I think you will find a strong correlation between wages for unskilled jobs and the supply of unskilled labor.
That’s why employers of unskilled labor are doing everything they can to expand the pool of dirt-poor labor. With the help of the President, they can now do so without worrying about political pressures, because the new poor we are importing from the Third World are not only culturally incompetent but can’t even vote! It’s a really great idea for building a nation! A government that loses confidence in the electorate has the inherent right to dissolve that electorate, right? Or something like that.
I just don’t get all of you “compassionate liberals.” Let’s face it, there are a lot of Latin Americans living in abject poverty in their home countries, and if they decide that they want to make the trek north the seek out a better life, I say let 'em. Right now they’re subject to exploitation based upon their illegal status; they have to accept below-market wages in some cases because they can be bullied and threatened by employers. If they have a legal means to the country, at least they cannot be threatened in this manner. Perhaps they won’t even be able to make minimum wage, but if they decide that the market for their labor in the States is unfavorable, they’re free to go back to their home country, but I doubt many will make that decision.
A lot of these immigrants will be sending money home, which equals guaranteed foreign investment for their home country and propping up their own countries economy. And since the current situation along the U.S. border is that basically anyone can get in with enough persistence, actually getting these people registered and being able to compare them to suspected terrorists will make us more secure. Additionally, imigrants that are here legally will be more likely to follow laws like car-insurance requirements, and ease the burden of their impact on local communities.
Considering our nations looming demographic crisis with the retirement of the baby boomers, I think that immigration can be a win-win situation for us, and this is a step in the right direction. And legal immigration is better than illegal immigration that is going to happen anyway.
Also, I went to the store yesterday to get a copy of Windows for $5, but the store wouldn’t sell me one. This a big problem - stores that just won’t sell me software. Microsoft’s refusal to provide me with software is hurting my bottom line just like Americans who won’t do hard jobs are hurting Tyson’s bottom line. I’m sure I could improve my productivity and do my part to grow the economy if I could get a copy of Windows for $5. You can get Windows for $5 in a lot of shops overseas, but here we have to worry about job-killing copyright laws - when will the government break down these artificial barriers to growth and make affordable software available? It’s a crying shame, I tell you.
It’s not usually liberals who support the criminalization of illegal immigrants. Nor are liberals generally anti-immigration.
I don’t believe the guys who beat up day laborers are the liberal type. I’m thinking the type who whines about how “they” are taking “their” jobs and complain about bilingual education are the some of the same folk who voted for Bush last month.
Could be wrong though…
If anything, it’s the “fault” of Ameican consumers. Unless you want to lock the borders to trade, Americans will buy cheaper, imported produce rather than more expensive home-grown stuff. It’s very easy to blame this on greedy corporations, but that’s just silly. Companies give people what they want. If there was a market for $8 apples lovingly picked by college educated farm workers making $50k per year (plus full benefits), then you’d see them in the stores today.
Bingo. That’s what I took away from the Kiwi’s rant.
This was(for once), not Bush’s arrogance shining through. This was just a fact-there are jobs which don’t pay and the conditions suck soooooo bad that Americans can’t afford to do.
My wife and I were just talking about migrant and non-citizen workers yesterday. Specifically, how to alleviate the strain on them and our assistance programs locally. We came up with no answers.
Sam
Nein! That illegals are available means that companies don’t have to be wage-competive to get American citizens to do these jobs. Tighten up the borders, and watch American companies compete for American workers to do these jobs. Yes, American companies are wrong for turning a blind eye to employment standards, but the gov’t is even more wrong for allowing such a situation to occur in the first place.
Senators are intended to represent each state equally. Each of our 50 states has two senators, for a grand total of 100. The Senate is referred to as the “upper house” for archaic reasons but basically because there are only 100 of them. Senators serve six-year terms with no term limits. Roughly one-third of the Senate is up for election every two years, and any Senator who serves two terms will have to stand for election in a Presidential (“high” turnout) year.
Representatives are from the House of Representatives, and there are 435 of them. Each state gets at least one Representative; more according to their population. Several small states have only one Representative (like my home state, Delaware). California has 52 (!). Representatives sit for two-year terms with no term limits, and all Representatives are up for election at the same time. A funny political side-effect of this is that you can rarely get them to commit to an issue in an election year (which is half the time!) unless the issue is a solid lock for their party.
“Congressman” or “Congresswoman” are not usually used as forms of address because they force the gender issue – both “Senator” and “Representative” are gender-neutral. However, both “Congressman” and “Congresswoman” may be used to generically refer to a Senator or a Representative. You can tell the difference between them by trying this; a Senator will immediately correct you and insist on being addressed as “Senator.” 
There, a quick summary of our bizarre government. We Americans don’t blame you Oceanians for having a hard time keeping track of our form of government. We just thank our lucky stars that yours is so easy! Speaking of which, how is the Queen doing?
Seriously: most Americans can’t be bothered to tell the difference either, let along worry about what happens in your country, so don’t sweat it. I’m flattered that you even try… and yes, I wrote that whole post to deliver that complicated back-handed compliment to our Antipodean pal calm kiwi.
Now now. Every fall I buy apples locally from many orchards that don’t hire migrant workers, and they don’t cost $8 a piece. True, the owners do more than just grow and sell apples (which are, at least here in VT, a seasonal crop) to make a living, but still.
I get your point, but I think you’re using hyperbole inappropriately. No one is suggesting (I think) $50,000 a year + benefits for apple pickers (which is many times the minimum wage for 40hrs, 52wks a year).
You raise an interesting question though, which is maybe better answered in great debates than here: where does responsibility lie as far as responsible wages etc etc? Is it the responsibility of the consumer to choose the more expensive product in order to drive business owners to provide those ‘benefits’, or is it the responsibility of the business owner to provide a certain level (what that level is is certainly debatable as well) of ‘benefit’ to his or her employees initially, ignoring the bottom line in that respect?