"He would see this country burn if he could be King of the ashes." - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15055764
Julian658 wrote:Not all immigrants are here to work the fields in farms. That is a low expectation condescending view of Hispanics, I guess not as bad as actual xenophobia. Sure, many are illiterate and come from extreme poverty, but many become police officers, carpenters, electricians, and many other more highly technical jobs. Our business IT person is Hispanic.


Well yeah, of course, not all immigrants work in farm fields. The point of the post was not condescending at all. It does sound like that you look down on those immigrants who work hard in the fields picking our food. I don't look down on those immigrants who pick our food because they are important to our economy and somebody has got to pick our food otherwise we don't have a food supply. You mentioned that immigrants "steal jobs from Americans." Well, when Trump started cracking down on immigration a lot of those immigrants went into hiding because they didn't want to be deported and weren't out there working.

And no Americans step forward to fill those jobs working in the fields. So, how are those immigrants "stealing jobs from Americans?" They are not stealing jobs. Those immigrants are essential and vitally important to our economy. Somebody has to be out in those fields picking our food. If Americans aren't going to do those jobs, then somebody else has to do it. It's honest work and the "illiterate" and "uneducated" immigrants as you call them are at least working and providing an essential service to our economy.

And as far as immigrants working in IT fields for example, I'll put my experience, work ethic and education up against them any day. The fact is, I am not entitled to those jobs in IT. If I want them, I got to work hard and earn it like anybody. And many of those immigrants are here legally. And besides, there is plenty of work in IT to go around for both immigrants and Americans alike. So, they are not really "stealing jobs" from Americans. That's BS. I am happy to compete against those immigrants any day in the IT field and I am just as good as any of them. But I am not entitled to any job. If I want the job, I have to compete for it and earn it like anybody. And I want to earn it. I don't want that job just given to me.
#15055765
Politics_Observer wrote:Well yeah, of course, not all immigrants work in farm fields. The point of the post was not condescending at all. It does sound like that you look down on those immigrants who work hard in the fields picking our food. I don't look down on those immigrants who pick our food because they are important to our economy and somebody has got to pick our food otherwise we don't have a food supply. You mentioned that immigrants "steal jobs from Americans." Well, when Trump started cracking down on immigration a lot of those immigrants went into hiding because they didn't want to be deported and weren't out there working.

And no Americans step forward to fill those jobs working in the fields. So, how are those immigrants "stealing jobs from Americans?" They are not stealing jobs. Those immigrants are essential and vitally important to our economy. Somebody has to be out in those fields picking our food. If Americans aren't going to do those jobs, then somebody else has to do it. It's honest work and the "illiterate" and "uneducated" immigrants as you call them are at least working and providing an essential service to our economy.

And as far as immigrants working in IT fields for example, I'll put my experience, work ethic and education up against them any day. The fact is, I am not entitled to those jobs in IT. If I want them, I got to work hard and earn it like anybody. And many of those immigrants are here legally. And besides, there is plenty of work in IT to go around for both immigrants and Americans alike. So, they are not really "stealing jobs" from Americans. That's BS. I am happy to compete against those immigrants any day in the IT field and I am just as good as any of them. But I am not entitled to any job. If I want the job, I have to compete for it and earn it like anybody. And I want to earn it. I don't want that job just given to me.



I do not disagree with your capitalism perspective regarding jobs or the meritocracy. That is why we hire hispanic to do house remodeling, they do the job for less.

So why do you advocate for unions to protect jobs? Why not allow the free market in that area as well?
#15055767
Julian658 wrote:So why do you advocate for unions to protect jobs? Why not allow the free market in that area as well?


Unions don't protect jobs. If a company wants to get rid of union jobs they can do it. I advocate for unions because of the importance of worker safety, give them a real voice in the work place and so that prosperity is shared not just going straight to the top. Without unions you would have child labor, very unsafe working conditions for workers, workers won't have a voice on the job plus they won't even be paid a living wage and not have any benefits. People need some decent benefits to survive.

Unions are also essential for the survival of the republic. Without unions, you will eventually just have a third world banana republic where all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few and everybody else is poor. I want to live in a first world country, not a third world country so unions are essential for that. Why are you opposed to unions? Why are you opposed to these things? Their is plenty of money to go around for everybody as long as we all pitch in and work and do our part. You can't have a wild west sort of capitalism where there are no rules and where the wealthy are permitted to engage in a sort of disgusting economic gluttony either.
#15055769
Politics_Observer wrote:Unions don't protect jobs. If a company wants to get rid of union jobs they can do it. I advocate for unions because of the importance of worker safety, give them a real voice in the work place and so that prosperity is shared not just going straight to the top. Without unions you would have child labor, very unsafe working conditions for workers, workers won't have a voice on the job plus they won't even be paid a living wage and not have any benefits. People need some decent benefits to survive.

Unions are also essential for the survival of the republic. Without unions, you will eventually just have a third world banana republic where all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few and everybody else is poor. I want to live in a first world country, not a third world country so unions are essential for that. Why are you opposed to unions? Why are you opposed to these things? Their is plenty of money to go around for everybody as long as we all pitch in and work and do our part.



I am not against unions, so you are preaching to the choir. But, at the same time one would expect YOU to be weary of the importation of foreign replacement workers that will work for less. There is a contradiction in there. Perhaps you take this position because you see overemphasize the importance of migration.
#15055770
@Julian658

If it's illegal like it should be you don't to worry about replacement workers when they go on strike. And YOU should also be very wary about the dangers of xenophobia and how dictators and demagogues have used that to blame "the other" and scapegoat them. If people angry about something, then they need to aim at the proper target instead of scapegoating immigrants.
#15055772
Politics_Observer wrote:@Julian658

If it's illegal like it should be you don't to worry about replacement workers when they go on strike. And YOU should also be very wary about the dangers of xenophobia and how dictators and demagogues have used that to blame "the other" and scapegoat them. If people angry about something, then they need to aim at the proper target instead of scapegoating immigrants.


It is not Xenophobia: We should be able to freely discuss issues without using that term. I am a Latin American and I don't see it that way. Sometimes a particular political position clouds our ability to judge. You are against xenophobia and I commend you for that. But, that does not mean one should avoid having this discussion. of the pros and cons.

You are highly pro-union to protect American jobs and highly in favor of bring foreign workers that would replace American workers. I am astounded you cannot see the contradiction.
#15055773
Julian658 wrote:
Sure, but on the whole that would be a MASSIVE improvement for the uneducated American lower social strata.

The Japanese actually teach less, the curriculum is much smaller. In America the curriculum is larger and more ambitious and the kids end up learning nothing. America assumes ALL kids are college material and hence you have people that have no business going to college clamoring for free college. In Japan and Germany those kids are sent vocational school and do way better.



This is why I didn't want to bother. You're not going to take the time to work your way through this, because you are content with your kids getting a good education, and the lower classes getting a crap education.

You wet dream is what we used to do. Didn't work.
#15055775
late wrote:You only would if your politics didn't use reality as toilet paper.

He's not an activist, never was.


I don't see someone who takes part in a protest as an "activists".

Activists coordinate protests. Protestors attend them.

Again, the words he chose to use were quite plain. It's clear to anyone that he was taking part.

ANd that's absolutely fine. It's just curious that he wishes to hide that fact...
#15055781
late wrote:You're assuming he's like you.

Trust me, he's not.


I haven't been to a protest since I attended a No Nukes rally back on Long Island in 1977.

JJ said what he said, and it's easy to conclude that his use of the word "us" identifies him as a protestor...
#15055790
late wrote:Stuck on literal..


He said what he said.

And "literal" is truth.

I think it's fucking laughable that you can't accept that "us" places him with the protestors, yet you believe "Do us a favor" equates to abuse of power...
#15055795
@Julian658

Julian658 wrote:You are highly pro-union to protect American jobs and highly in favor of bring foreign workers that would replace American workers. I am astounded you cannot see the contradiction.


Like I said before, unions don't protect jobs. Are you reading what I wrote? With a union contract and laws that make it hard to replace workers on strike, you can't bring in immigrants to replace striking workers unless their is a very good reason. You can't do that. It would be a violation of the law and a violation of the union contract in such a hypothetical scenario. But that doesn't mean those union jobs are safe or are "protected." There is no such thing as a "secure job."

On top of that, what does help to keep jobs (though it's not a guarantee) is a booming economy where plenty of Americans have money to spend. If there is no demand for products or services, then companies don't hire because they don't need to given their is no demand. See how that works?

Workers having more money means more spending. More spending means more demand. More demand means companies hire more to meet that demand. If you don't have laws that provide for the ability of striking workers not to be replaced (unless very good reason) then workers have less money because they don't get paid as well. The use of the strike as a means to get the employer to negotiate in good faith is useless.

Less money means less spending. Less spending means less demand. Less demand means no jobs. No jobs means no economic prosperity and of course no economic prosperity means nobody moves up except the rich and everybody else just works hard but stays poor. All while inflation takes it's tool and the cost of living continues to climb. Hard work in such a scenario wouldn't pay enough. It makes perfect sense and is not rocket science. The rich's spending power is not what drives the vast majority of demand that leads to hiring and more jobs.

It's the spending of the working and middle classes that drive the vast majority of spending more demand and thus more jobs. So unions also help to create jobs for working Americans because it puts more money in their pockets and they tend to spend more when they have more money in their pocket which then drives demand which leads to more hiring and more economic prosperity and jobs.

This notion that unions "protect jobs" and that immigrants "steal jobs" is false and is not based on fact or good economics. Companies can close down if they want and move elsewhere if they don't want to pay union wages or if their company is not profitable and the union doesn't negotiate in good faith, they can close down the company because they aren't making money. Unions don't keep their jobs if the company isn't profitable. Unions cannot guarantee a "secure job" like you seem to be asserting.
#15055800
Politics_Observer wrote:@Julian658



Like I said before, unions don't protect jobs. Are you reading what I wrote? With a union contract and laws that make it hard to replace workers on strike, you can't bring in immigrants to replace striking workers unless their is a very good reason. You can't do that. It would be a violation of the law and a violation of the union contract in such a hypothetical scenario. But that doesn't mean those union jobs are safe or are "protected." There is no such thing as a "secure job."

On top of that, what does help to keep jobs (though it's not a guarantee) is a booming economy where plenty of Americans have money to spend. If there is no demand for products or services, then companies don't hire because they don't need to given their is no demand. See how that works?

Workers having more money means more spending. More spending means more demand. More demand means companies hire more to meet that demand. If you don't have laws that provide for the ability of striking workers not to be replaced (unless very good reason) then workers have less money because they don't get paid as well. The use of the strike as a means to get the employer to negotiate in good faith is useless.

Less money means less spending. Less spending means less demand. Less demand means no jobs. No jobs means no economic prosperity and of course no economic prosperity means nobody moves up except the rich and everybody else just works hard but stays poor. All while inflation takes it's tool and the cost of living continues to climb. Hard work in such a scenario wouldn't pay enough. It makes perfect sense and is not rocket science. The rich's spending power is not what drives the vast majority of demand that leads to hiring and more jobs.

It's the spending of the working and middle classes that drive the vast majority of spending more demand and thus more jobs. So unions also help to create jobs for working Americans because it puts more money in their pockets and they tend to spend more when they have more money in their pocket which then drives demand which leads to more hiring and more economic prosperity and jobs.

This notion that unions "protect jobs" and that immigrants "steal jobs" is false and is not based on fact or good economics. Companies can close down if they want and move elsewhere if they don't want to pay union wages or if their company is not profitable and the union doesn't negotiate in good faith, they can close down the company because they aren't making money. Unions don't keep their jobs if the company isn't profitable. Unions cannot guarantee a "secure job" like you seem to be asserting.


OK, so we are stuck on this point.

But, have no fear, I am in agreement with 99% of what you say. Immigrants mostly take jobs citizens do not want. But, that is not an absolute. At some point locals will lose out to the foreign competition. And guess what? I am OK with that too. I have zero issues with fair competition, but I also have compassion for those that cannot compete and end up unemployed.
#15055803
@Julian658

Julian658 wrote:but I also have compassion for those that cannot compete and end up unemployed.


I agree too. But you also can't give up on yourself. You have to get out there and do your best, if you are able to work.

All too true. I will disagree. Both sides have […]

Virus Hysteria For Morons

https://twitter.com/TruthAbtChina/status/124759006[…]

This thread concerns a longstanding debate, about […]

I think people are kind of looking at this all bac[…]