• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Farmers Strain to Hire American in Place of Migrant Labor

I agree. Minimum wages increase unemployment... just a fact of life. Perhaps a minimum wage is nessecary for other social reasons, but we should appreciate that it increases friction in the labor market, and puts the very least skilled and capable out of work.

As I said in another thread, if you want to argue against a minimum wage as a solution, O.K., there are valid arguements there. Don't argue that the solution is illegal activity (not that you are).
 
The original justification for the minimum wage law was actually rooted in Jim Crow ideology. White people didn't like blacks taking "white jobs" for lower wages, so they implemented a minimum wage law forcing employers to pay wages that white people would work for (thus taking away the economic incentive to hire blacks instead of whites). That's not to say that most modern supporters of the minimum wage aren't well-intentioned, but I think the parallels are pretty obvious.

The original minimum wage was .25 cents an hour. FDR enacted the wage because so that the government wouldn't be responsible for so many not able to feed themselves because they were getting a few pennies in sweat shops.
 
Are you willing to pay more for your food? $5 per pound for apples instead $.99? $8 for a gallon of milk?

Everything is so simple until your own neck is on the line.

Hyperbole. The difference in what an illegal would be paid and what legally would be paid would make a difference but it would be a fairly small difference.
 
I've got news for you: you eat sand whenever you get a burger at McDonalds.

.99 cents for a double cheeseburger. A pretty good deal and it's made by people making at least minimum wage. I'm O.K. with not paying .89 cents and having it served by illegals that I'm subsidizing with welfare.
 
.99 cents for a double cheeseburger. A pretty good deal and it's made by people making at least minimum wage. I'm O.K. with not paying .89 cents and having it served by illegals that I'm subsidizing with welfare.

Not sure what you mean by this. I was being literal. Fast food has sand in it for filler.

Anyway, your bigotry against Mexican immigrants is duly noted.
 
Not sure what you mean by this. I was being literal. Fast food has sand in it for filler.

Anyway, your bigotry against Mexican immigrants is duly noted.

Your attempt at attacking me over a bogus claim is duly noted also. Also, resturaunts add "silica" which is found in sand. Silica is an essential nutrient. Vegitables, fruit, nuts all have silica in it.
 
Last edited:
Nope its worth much more...but the basis of the entire problem is the employers DO NOT WANT TO PAY they want dirtcheap illegal immigrant labor that never complains

I disagree, it's worth what the market (in this case the potential employer) can get away with paying for it. I always hear people saying, especially unemployed people, getting all indignant in their bitching because a job they've looked "doesn't pay what they're worth." So they don't even consider it and continue to suck off the unemployment tit or they lose everything. You're worth as an employee is determined by what your employer can get away with paying you and still remain viable as a business.

This government and the corporate influence that dominates its policy making have given America this problem. It's called Capitalism. It's called the profit motive. It's called globalization. This is why our government does not address the illegal immigration issue. It's a federal responsibility to secure our borders and enforce immigration. They refuse to make any meaningful effort because corporate interest requires us to remain as open as possible with completely free international trade and cheap labor. That's why we have such a stark difference in how border states aggressively pursue tackling the real issues surrounding illegal immigration and the federal government essentially ignores it.

The haves do not really care about the have nots in a mixed capitalist economy like ours, growing economic disparity is the inevitable result under the current American way of doing business. Period.
 
Are you willing to pay more for your food? $5 per pound for apples instead $.99? $8 for a gallon of milk?

Everything is so simple until your own neck is on the line.


If people aren't allowed to hire illegals then Appeals will be five dollars a pound, no one will be around to clean hotel rooms or watch children and we will have to mow our own lawns.Oh the humanity


Local News | Low-paid illegal work force has little impact on prices | Seattle Times Newspaper
More than 7 million illegal immigrants work in the United States. They build houses, pick crops, slaughter cattle, stitch clothes, mow lawns, clean hotel rooms, cook restaurant meals and wash the dishes that come back.
You might assume that the plentiful supply of low-wage illegal workers would translate into significantly lower prices for the goods and services they produce. In fact, their impact on consumer prices — call it the "illegal-worker discount" — is surprisingly small.

The bag of Washington state apples you bought last weekend? Probably a few cents cheaper than it otherwise would have been, economists estimate. That steak dinner at a downtown restaurant? Maybe a buck off. Your new house in Subdivision Estates? Hard to say, but perhaps a few thousand dollars less expensive.

The underlying reason, economists say, is that for most goods the labor — whether legal or illegal, native- or foreign-born — represents only a sliver of the retail price.
Consider those apples — Washington's signature contribution to the American food basket.

At a local QFC, Red Delicious apples go for about 99 cents a pound. Of that, only about 7 cents represents the cost of labor, said Tom Schotzko, a recently retired extension economist at Washington State University. The rest represents the grower's other expenses, warehousing and shipping fees, and the retailer's markup.

And that's for one of the most labor-intensive crops in the state: It takes 150 to 190 hours of labor to grow and harvest an acre of apples, Schotzko said, compared to four hours for an acre of potatoes and 1 ½ hours for an acre of wheat.
The labor-intensive nature of many crops is a key reason agriculture continues to rely on illegal workers. A report by Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center who has long studied immigration trends, estimates that 247,000 illegal immigrants were employed as "miscellaneous agricultural workers" last year — only 3.4 percent of the nation's 7.2 million illegal workers, according to Pew statistics, but 29 percent of all workers in that job category.

Eliminating illegal farmworkers, by shrinking the pool of available labor, likely would raise wages for those who remain. Philip Martin, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of California, Davis, noted that two years after the old bracero program ended in 1964, the United Farm Workers union won a 40 percent increase for grape harvesters.
A decade ago, two Iowa State University agricultural economists estimated that removing all illegal farmworkers would raise wages for seasonal farmworkers by 30 percent in the first couple of years, and 15 percent in the medium term.
But supermarket prices of summer-fall fruits and vegetables, they concluded, would rise by just 6 percent in the short run — dropping to 3 percent over time, as imports took up some of the slack and some farmers mechanized their operations or shifted out of labor-intensive crops. (Winter-spring produce would be even less affected, they found, because so much already is imported.)
If illegal workers disappeared from the apple harvest and wages for the remaining legal workers rose by 40 percent in response — and that entire wage increase were passed on to the consumer — that still would add less than 3 cents to the retail price of a pound of apples.
 
Last edited:
The original minimum wage was .25 cents an hour. FDR enacted the wage because so that the government wouldn't be responsible for so many not able to feed themselves because they were getting a few pennies in sweat shops.

Except a minimum wage INCREASES unemployment. Thus increasing the amount of people earning $0 per hour.

for so many not able to feed themselves because they were getting a few pennies in sweat shops.

That's ridiculous, if people weren't able to feed themselves, why would they take the job in the first place? What's the point of working if you aren't even earning enough to feed yourself?
 
Last edited:
Except a minimum wage INCREASES unemployment. Thus increasing the amount of people earning $0 per hour.



That's ridiculous, if people weren't able to feed themselves, why would they take the job in the first place? What's the point of working if you aren't even earning enough to feed yourself?

Sometimes a ****ty job is better than no job.At least with a ****ty job you can save up money.
 
Not sure what you mean by this. I was being literal. Fast food has sand in it for filler.

Anyway, your bigotry against Mexican immigrants is duly noted.

Guy, can you ever answer without this name calling?
and your continued support for illegal immigrants is duly noted.
Your bigotry towards Americans is also noted.
 
Except a minimum wage INCREASES unemployment. Thus increasing the amount of people earning $0 per hour.

I do not disagree that it has an affect. As I said, if you simply want to argue the minimum wage, that's an interesting arguement.

That's ridiculous, if people weren't able to feed themselves, why would they take the job in the first place? What's the point of working if you aren't even earning enough to feed yourself?

Maybe you need to brush up on the history of the minimum wage. What's the point? There was a time that any job was better than nothing. You were looked down on for not working at one time.
 
Sometimes a ****ty job is better than no job.

Agreed. Which is exactly why the minimum wage is so pernicious, as it destroys many of those ****ty jobs.

At least with a ****ty job you can save up money.

If they aren't earning enough to feed themselves then almost by definition they can't save up any money. But I agree that earning $3 per hour puts you in a better position than earning $0 per hour does.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you need to brush up on the history of the minimum wage. What's the point? There was a time that any job was better than nothing. You were looked down on for not working at one time.

Generally speaking, people work to earn enough money to support themselves. If they aren't even earning enough to support themselves in the most basic way (i.e. having enough food to eat) then there wouldn't be any point to working at all. From an economic perspective their time would be better spent scavenging, foraging, begging, or stealing food.

But I agree that in some situations, any job is better than nothing. Which is exactly why we shouldn't have a minimum wage.
 
Generally speaking, people work to earn enough money to support themselves. If they aren't even earning enough to support themselves in the most basic way (i.e. having enough food to eat) then there wouldn't be any point to working at all. From an economic perspective their time would be better spent scavenging, foraging, begging, or stealing food.

Yours is the position that has made things worse.....If I can't make what I feel is enough, I'll just not work at all. Basically though, your arguement is for people to not work at all. Nobody is going to work for $3.00 an hour.

But I agree that in some situations, any job is better than nothing. Which is exactly why we shouldn't have a minimum wage.

So that people can just sit at home instead because they decide it's not worth their effort?
 
Yours is the position that has made things worse.....If I can't make what I feel is enough, I'll just not work at all. Basically though, your arguement is for people to not work at all. Nobody is going to work for $3.00 an hour.



So that people can just sit at home instead because they decide it's not worth their effort?

If there are no people willing to supply their labor at $3 per hour for a certain job, then market forces will raise the wage until there ARE people willing to supply their labor. You don't need a minimum wage or a crackdown on illegal immigration to accomplish that; market forces are sufficient.
 
If there are no people willing to supply their labor at $3 per hour for a certain job, then market forces will raise the wage until there ARE people willing to supply their labor. You don't need a minimum wage or a crackdown on illegal immigration to accomplish that; market forces are sufficient.

You continue to ignore the illegal activites that skew market forces. Without these illegal activities, nobody is going to be able to pay $3.00 an hour and get workers.

If your position is that slave labor is good, just argue that.
 
You continue to ignore the illegal activites that skew market forces. Without these illegal activities, nobody is going to be able to pay $3.00 an hour and get workers.

It's only illegal because our present government has determined it is illegal, which is the very issue under debate. Arguing that something should be illegal because it is illegal is a circular argument. As for the other half of your argument (that allowing poor immigrants to work those jobs is driving down wages in those industries), the benefits to society greatly outweigh the costs. The consumer benefits in the form of cheaper products, the employer benefits in the form of smaller labor costs, and the immigrant himself benefits in the form of a higher wage than he could earn back home. The losers in this equation are the unskilled native-born workers who might otherwise have worked those jobs at an inflated wage due to artificial barriers to trade (i.e. immigration crackdowns), but frankly their loss is not sufficiently large to offset the gains to the economy as a whole. And as I already mentioned, if we the people feel that they are unable to maintain a "decent" standard of living (as defined by the public), then we the people should support them instead of erecting distortive barriers to trade.

If your position is that slave labor is good, just argue that.

:roll:
 
Last edited:
Hey Teabaggers, thanks for the $10.00 apples.

Well done!!

Keep tanking the U.S. economy and then you can blame it on the black guy.
 
It's only illegal because our present government has determined it is illegal, which is the very issue under debate.

As I noted earlier, the same can be argued about taxes so I'm going to argue from here on out that not paying your taxes is a valid way of keeping your costs down.

Arguing that something should be illegal because it is illegal is a circular argument.

It should be illegal because no country has open borders and just allows whoever wants in, in. There, as you know, are very good reasons for this.

As for the other half of your argument (that allowing poor immigrants to work those jobs is driving down wages in those industries)

That isn't my arguement and unless you want to frame it correctly, I'm not going to continue.
 
As I noted earlier, the same can be argued about taxes so I'm going to argue from here on out that not paying your taxes is a valid way of keeping your costs down.

It would be perfectly valid to argue that businesses will have lower costs if tax law was changed, as I am suggesting immigration law should be. While I might object on practical grounds, I certainly would not object on the grounds that changing tax law would be approving of (previously) illegal activity.

It should be illegal because no country has open borders and just allows whoever wants in, in. There, as you know, are very good reasons for this.

We need not take in everyone in the world, but the current level of illegal immigration is not a problem.

That isn't my arguement and unless you want to frame it correctly, I'm not going to continue.

Umm you said the following:
Without these illegal activities, nobody is going to be able to pay $3.00 an hour and get workers.

How is that NOT arguing that employing poor immigrants drives down wages in those industries? I thought that was a pretty straightforward paraphrasing of what you wrote. If I have misconstrued it then please enlighten me. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Hey Teabaggers, thanks for the $10.00 apples.

Well done!!

Keep tanking the U.S. economy and then you can blame it on the black guy.

Insults,racism and fear mongering in one post.Bravo. Maybe in your next post you can say Bush lied for war, the government had something to do with 9-11 and Obama was born in Kenya.

Apples will not cost $10.00 a pound.That is nothing more than fear mongering spread by pro-illegals. If apples are 10 dollars a pound it won't be due to farmers paying workers a decent wages, it will due to other factors.

Local News | Low-paid illegal work force has little impact on prices | Seattle Times Newspaper
More than 7 million illegal immigrants work in the United States. They build houses, pick crops, slaughter cattle, stitch clothes, mow lawns, clean hotel rooms, cook restaurant meals and wash the dishes that come back.
You might assume that the plentiful supply of low-wage illegal workers would translate into significantly lower prices for the goods and services they produce. In fact, their impact on consumer prices — call it the "illegal-worker discount" — is surprisingly small.

The bag of Washington state apples you bought last weekend? Probably a few cents cheaper than it otherwise would have been, economists estimate. That steak dinner at a downtown restaurant? Maybe a buck off. Your new house in Subdivision Estates? Hard to say, but perhaps a few thousand dollars less expensive.

The underlying reason, economists say, is that for most goods the labor — whether legal or illegal, native- or foreign-born — represents only a sliver of the retail price.
Consider those apples — Washington's signature contribution to the American food basket.

At a local QFC, Red Delicious apples go for about 99 cents a pound. Of that, only about 7 cents represents the cost of labor, said Tom Schotzko, a recently retired extension economist at Washington State University. The rest represents the grower's other expenses, warehousing and shipping fees, and the retailer's markup.

And that's for one of the most labor-intensive crops in the state: It takes 150 to 190 hours of labor to grow and harvest an acre of apples, Schotzko said, compared to four hours for an acre of potatoes and 1 ½ hours for an acre of wheat.
The labor-intensive nature of many crops is a key reason agriculture continues to rely on illegal workers. A report by Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center who has long studied immigration trends, estimates that 247,000 illegal immigrants were employed as "miscellaneous agricultural workers" last year — only 3.4 percent of the nation's 7.2 million illegal workers, according to Pew statistics, but 29 percent of all workers in that job category.

Eliminating illegal farmworkers, by shrinking the pool of available labor, likely would raise wages for those who remain. Philip Martin, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of California, Davis, noted that two years after the old bracero program ended in 1964, the United Farm Workers union won a 40 percent increase for grape harvesters.
A decade ago, two Iowa State University agricultural economists estimated that removing all illegal farmworkers would raise wages for seasonal farmworkers by 30 percent in the first couple of years, and 15 percent in the medium term.
But supermarket prices of summer-fall fruits and vegetables, they concluded, would rise by just 6 percent in the short run — dropping to 3 percent over time, as imports took up some of the slack and some farmers mechanized their operations or shifted out of labor-intensive crops. (Winter-spring produce would be even less affected, they found, because so much already is imported.)
If illegal workers disappeared from the apple harvest and wages for the remaining legal workers rose by 40 percent in response — and that entire wage increase were passed on to the consumer — that still would add less than 3 cents to the retail price of a pound of apples.
 
Last edited:
Insults,racism and fear mongering in one post.Bravo.

Please show specifically what I said that is racist. Or apologize.




Maybe in your next post you can say Bush lied for war, the government had something to do with 9-11 and Obama was born in Kenya.

No, that's the Teabagger montra.
 
Back
Top Bottom