plaidvillain wrote: You're laughable, Fred...you know your argument is completely bogus so you try to switch to the next scapegoat on your list. Your argument against the unions fails, so now you'll blame all your problems on illegal immigrants. Pathetic.
Heisenberg, you want a source for my comments? They're my comments, why would I need to source them? I did not cite statitstics or other references that should be sourced. Do you understand how this whole thing works? Now if you're actually asking what inspired my comments, simply re-read Fred's drivel (you may need to do this a few times), and if you can comprehend it all, you'll see that Fred advocates a weakened American economy and middle class, as well as reduced wages, benefits and working conditions for the American people. Not only that, you'll understand that Fred is more than happy to open up his mouth, stick out his tongue, and lick the boots of his beloved 'job creators'.
FredHayek wrote: OK, I have a great solution to increase wages in America. Lock up all illegal aliens for six months. Once they realize they can't earn money here, they won't enter illegally.
That will work a lot better to increase wages than your planned trade war.
Construction job wages will increase, farmers will have to pay real wages for labor, or invest in more capital to replace illegal aliens.
Plus for stimulus spending, the illegal immigrant camps will require thousands of guards and construction people to build them.
No wonder wages are stagnant or falling, million of aliens driving prices for work down.
A couple more for this list: cut the length of time one can receive unemployment benefits (99 weeks??? really??) and tighten elegibility requirements for food stamps. There are folks who are at rock bottom and desperately need help, and I say fine - help them! But many folks are sitting on their butts collecting benefits simply because they can. An interesting case study is Singapore. The government offers very little in the way of entitlements for the unemployed and unemployment there is around 2%. And for those who want sources, fire up your favorite search engine and enter 'Singapore unemployment'. For the folks who need some "entitlement" here's a link:
Grady wrote: Cesar Chavez would be turning over in his grave if he could see how the unions have not stood up to the massive influx of illegals into the workforce.
I suspect the unions would have a strong interest in making sure their members are legal residents, which adds strength to the argument to always hire union shops, use union labor. Hire unions to do the work you need done and you know you're getting the highest quality work with the most trained workers. You have an organization standing behind the work, that you can go back to later if there's a problem. You pay a little more, but get better value. AND, you know you're not employing illegal immigrants. Having a larger union presence discourages illegal immigration.
PV,
You are a great one for platitudes that have very little basis in actual economic reality.
Supply and demand.
Eliminating 10 million illegal aliens from the workforce will decrease the supply of labor and increase the price workers can negotiate. Example, North Dakota, they are having an economic oil and natural gas boom and wages have doubled in the last year there.
Cesaer Chavez was smart enough to know that illegal aliens drive down wages, why can't you grasp that?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Grady wrote: Cesar Chavez would be turning over in his grave if he could see how the unions have not stood up to the massive influx of illegals into the workforce.
I suspect the unions would have a strong interest in making sure their members are legal residents,
Unfortunately they don't. look at the INS busts at the union meat processing plants. When has any union recently tried to shut down or even protest a non-union construction site or workplace? Excepting of course the failed Black Friday Walmart stunt. Do really think for a moment that the LAX or Vegas hotel SEIU union reps verify legal status of it's members? rofllol
plaidvillain wrote: [Hire unions to do the work you need done and you know you're getting the highest quality work with the most trained workers. You have an organization standing behind the work, that you can go back to later if there's a problem. You pay a little more, but get better value. .
plaidvillain wrote: [Hire unions to do the work you need done and you know you're getting the highest quality work with the most trained workers. You have an organization standing behind the work, that you can go back to later if there's a problem. You pay a little more, but get better value. .
plaidvillain wrote: [Hire unions to do the work you need done and you know you're getting the highest quality work with the most trained workers. You have an organization standing behind the work, that you can go back to later if there's a problem. You pay a little more, but get better value. .
Do you write for the onion?
that was funny.
rofllol rofllol
Since when do you get "the highest quality" of workers when it's incredibly hard to fire a union worker no matter how worthless they are? See Chrysler union workers as one small example:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDg-4vKg_8I8bpCfQkbG-iaotv5bXujH2Mp2UZkKH8za8djUno
And we wonder why we can't compete...
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
The so-called "lucrative deals" of the public unions were negotiated fairly, with both sides making concessions for different gains. Now you think it's fair to go back and tell those employees the contracts they made don't matter? You surprise me Fred...I used to think you had principles.
No they aren't negotiated fairly. They are negotiated between to people likely on the same side. The unions put people in office, then they negotiate ridiculous benefits into their contract with that person. Unlike a private company, govt. can't go out of business. They just raise taxes to pay these benefits (or borrow to do so).
Yes, I think it is fair to go back and renegotiate contracts that are not possible for the employer (we taxpayers) to continue to fund. Any private company with this same unfunded burden would be out of business because they couldn't raise their prices enough to cover these unproductive costs.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Have to agree with Renegade. Those public employee contracts are simply buying votes. Vote for me, I gave you this sweetheart deal. And when it comes to pension plans like PERA, often the people negotiating the contract benefit from the pension plan themselves. For example, we will give you benefits worth one million in a private annuity but only charge you 500K. (Let the taxpayers make up the difference.)
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
that was funny.
rofllol
