• 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!

Should we celebrate Cesar Chavez?

Is Cesar Chavez someone we should celebrate?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • No

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • Jimmy Hoffa

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14
Because he knew it would bring down wages for migrant farm workers most likely. Like I said, he didn't care about the plight that his programs incurred on those south of the border, he had his special group that he was going to help and didn't care who it hurt.

In other words, the man had his priorities in order.

What's the difference between an American and someone outside of the country, except for the mere area where they live?

There is more to being an American than living here. There is an American culture, a sense of identity, that comes with being a citizen. There is nothing wrong with being a Mexican, but it is not the same as being an American and they have their own nation to be concerned with-- just as Americans should be concerned with our nation first and foremost.


Wikipedia said:
This common argument against the use of restricted working hours to reduce unemployment has recently been questioned, with one scholar arguing that "substituting a dubious fallacy claim for an authentic economic theory may have obstructed fruitful dialogue about working time and the appropriate policies for regulating it".[3] Walker argues that the idea that the lump of labour is a fallacy often goes unsubstantiated, and that the reduction of working hours can have similar labour-saving impacts as the introduction of technology into the production process.

This "lump" looks and smells an awful lot like economists labeling an argument a "fallacy" simply because they do not like its implications.

It is true that there is neither a fixed demand for labor nor a fixed supply of labor, but this does not change the fact that labor is a commodity and it is still governed by the laws of supply and demand. When supply far outstrips demand, as it has for all unskilled labor since the Industrial Revolution (save World War II), there is no effective competition for workers.
 
It is true that there is neither a fixed demand for labor nor a fixed supply of labor, but this does not change the fact that labor is a commodity and it is still governed by the laws of supply and demand. When supply far outstrips demand, as it has for all unskilled labor since the Industrial Revolution (save World War II), there is no effective competition for workers.

What happens to the price of a good when there is a lot of it and not much demand? The price goes down. It doesn't remain unsold. It is priced at a price that is just low enough so that it will move.
 
What happens to the price of a good when there is a lot of it and not much demand? The price goes down. It doesn't remain unsold. It is priced at a price that is just low enough so that it will move.

And what happens when the price of a man's labor is less than the price of his food and rent?
 
And what happens when the price of a man's labor is less than the price of his food and rent?

Increase your skills, get some charity, etc. But it's no excuse for not working at all.
 
In case you don't know who he is (I'm just not sure how popular he was outside of California), he was a union organizer for the UFW (United Farm Workers) who tried to raise wages for migrant farm workers. The UFW doesn't do much anymore; they've pretty much sunk into obscurity. The famous work of the UFW, at its height, were the boycotts and strikes.



Emphasis added mine

From Making Economic Sense by Murray Rothbard.

I'd also like to add the commentary that by pushing these wages up as he tried to do, Cesar Chavez effectively limited the number of jobs available. So while he was trying to help those who were picking grapes up in California, who knows what misery he brought upon those still south of the border who were no longer allowed due to union practices (you have to keep our labor if you're going to keep wages up). If you think migrant farm wages are bad, imagine not even being able to earn that!

Fighting for real workers and not imaginary ones is what CC did. If a farm needed 30 wokers a day, they hired 30 workers a day or their crops didn't get ppicked.

Your argument is silly at best.
 
Because he knew it would bring down wages for migrant farm workers most likely. Like I said, he didn't care about the plight that his programs incurred on those south of the border, he had his special group that he was going to help and didn't care who it hurt.

I don't think CC had any obligation to people below the border. He was fighting for the rights of people hired to do work here in the USA. People already hired. He was not fighting for the rights of Mexicans or others who lived SoB.

Trying to demonize a man like him? Just curious: What have you ever done for anyone that would wow the world?
 
Fighting for real workers and not imaginary ones is what CC did. If a farm needed 30 wokers a day, they hired 30 workers a day or their crops didn't get ppicked.

Your argument is silly at best.

So the Mexicans that could no longer work because of the closed shop policy are imaginary?

If a farm needs 30 workers a day and can pay them $25 for the day, but they now demand $50 for the day, what are they going to do? Produce less (because price per unit increases when you produce less) and hire less (because the company needs to stay profitable).
 
I don't think CC had any obligation to people below the border. He was fighting for the rights of people hired to do work here in the USA. People already hired. He was not fighting for the rights of Mexicans or others who lived SoB.

Yet they became worse off because of it. I could lift 100 people out of poverty in this country by enslaving say the city of Los Angeles. Because I helped the 100 people am I an angel, or am I a devil for enslaving the city?

Trying to demonize a man like him? Just curious: What have you ever done for anyone that would wow the world?

Irrelevant.
 
Increase your skills, get some charity, etc. But it's no excuse for not working at all.

Not saying it is. But you do realize that what you are saying is that management sets the terms and that labor has no choice but to accept them? That is the source of the exact problems that labor laws were enacted to correct. If you have no choice in selling a good, you have no bargaining power.
 
Not saying it is. But you do realize that what you are saying is that management sets the terms and that labor has no choice but to accept them? That is the source of the exact problems that labor laws were enacted to correct. If you have no choice in selling a good, you have no bargaining power.

There's no competition in business? The company that offers the highest wages won't get all of the best workers?
 
So the Mexicans that could no longer work because of the closed shop policy are imaginary?

If a farm needs 30 workers a day and can pay them $25 for the day, but they now demand $50 for the day, what are they going to do? Produce less (because price per unit increases when you produce less) and hire less (because the company needs to stay profitable).

Facts is American farms did not do this. Your theory is not a fact.

Mexicans are not guaranteed a job on American farms. btw, more than Mexicans worked on farms and got better lives because of CC's work.

I wonder why so many Mexicans and others who are farm workers loved CC? I guess that weren't as concerned as you are for others and they aren't as smart as you are, eh?
 
Yet they became worse off because of it. I could lift 100 people out of poverty in this country by enslaving say the city of Los Angeles. Because I helped the 100 people am I an angel, or am I a devil for enslaving the city?



Irrelevant.

Who became worse off? People south of the border who had no guarantee jobs or the actual people who were hired?
 

You need to read. I didn't say that there was a static number of jobs (which is what that fallacy you like to bring up all the time is principled on). I said there was a finite number of jobs. Jesus. And you can rally all you want against measurement; but between your delusions and actual measurement...I'm going with measurement. There are not infinite numbers of jobs out there, there is a finite number. There is a finite number of workers available to fill those jobs. You can look at the two numbers and see which one is bigger. During the era where many of workplace hazards were common, particularly during times such as the Industrial Revolution, there were far more people looking for jobs than actual jobs in existence. This environment particularly destroys your "well if there were a safer place to work, people would work there" argument. People took whatever job they could, and if they caused problems or got hurt, they found themselves in the street on their asses as there was a LARGE labor pool to draw from and no regulation or oversight.

Innovation at what cost? Goldenboy makes this argument all the time of minimum wage allowing for capital investment. That's great, but it also creates current misery by forcing people out of work. Is that a good tradeoff? Of course not! If it was so good, then companies would have done it before the introduction of the minimum wage.

You're arguing for lack of oversight and regulation to such a degree that it would put people in a much worse position. There is a good tradeoff. Better work conditions, better living salaries, and investment into innovation. Innovations which increase productivity and efficiency so that they ultimately will create cheaper products. Companies would not have done so before the introduction of the oversight because there is initial investment. If there is a large enough labor pool to draw from you can cycle through it without having to invest in the new science or engineering. The new science or engineering may drive you to a better spot, but the companies are stuck in a local minimum which may not be (and usually isn't) the global minimum. Government can be used to drive to the global minimum.
 
Facts is American farms did not do this. Your theory is not a fact.

Proof that farms would not contract if labor became more expensive?

Mexicans are not guaranteed a job on American farms. btw, more than Mexicans worked on farms and got better lives because of CC's work.

Prove that more Mexicans worked because of his efforts.

I wonder why so many Mexicans and others who are farm workers loved CC? I guess that weren't as concerned as you are for others and they aren't as smart as you are, eh?

They don't look at the unintended consequences. They're called unintended consequences for a reason. They only see that Cesar Chavez fought for higher wages. They ignore the fact that this necessarily caused higher unemployment among migrant farm workers.
 
You need to read. I didn't say that there was a static number of jobs (which is what that fallacy you like to bring up all the time is principled on). I said there was a finite number of jobs.

Does it really matter? You're basically arguing that there must be a perpetual number of people who are forced out of work. It's still nonsense.


Real mature of you.

And you can rally all you want against measurement; but between your delusions and actual measurement...I'm going with measurement. There are not infinite numbers of jobs out there, there is a finite number. There is a finite number of workers available to fill those jobs. You can look at the two numbers and see which one is bigger. During the era where many of workplace hazards were common, particularly during times such as the Industrial Revolution, there were far more people looking for jobs than actual jobs in existence. This environment particularly destroys your "well if there were a safer place to work, people would work there" argument. People took whatever job they could, and if they caused problems or got hurt, they found themselves in the street on their asses as there was a LARGE labor pool to draw from and no regulation or oversight.

Okay, I've had enough of this. Show me the actual numbers.

You're arguing for lack of oversight and regulation to such a degree that it would put people in a much worse position. There is a good tradeoff. Better work conditions, better living salaries, and investment into innovation. Innovations which increase productivity and efficiency so that they ultimately will create cheaper products. Companies would not have done so before the introduction of the oversight because there is initial investment. If there is a large enough labor pool to draw from you can cycle through it without having to invest in the new science or engineering. The new science or engineering may drive you to a better spot, but the companies are stuck in a local minimum which may not be (and usually isn't) the global minimum. Government can be used to drive to the global minimum.

If what you're saying is true, then a company could have made a ton of money with safer working conditions. They would have gotten all the labor. Since they didn't, there can only be two reasons: it was prohibitively expensive and it really just wasn't that big of a deal. If it was a bigger deal, then the cost would have been worth it, but the benefits obviously did not outweigh the costs.
 
Who became worse off? People south of the border who had no guarantee jobs or the actual people who were hired?

Answer my analogy.

"I could lift 100 people out of poverty in this country by enslaving say the city of Los Angeles. Because I helped the 100 people am I an angel, or am I a devil for enslaving the city?"
 
"I could lift 100 people out of poverty in this country by enslaving say the city of Los Angeles. Because I helped the 100 people am I an angel, or am I a devil for enslaving the city?"

That depends on who the 100 people are and who you are. Really, it depends on whether you're asking one of those 100 people or one of the former citizens of Los Angeles.
 
Why would you not?

Well... I guess if you only watch Fox New, everything you think you know about the labor leader and civil rights activists is ...wrong.
 
Answer my analogy.

"I could lift 100 people out of poverty in this country by enslaving say the city of Los Angeles. Because I helped the 100 people am I an angel, or am I a devil for enslaving the city?"

Are you arguing for a socialistic view of the one or two sacrificed for the many?
 
1. Proof that farms would not contract if labor became more expensive?



2. Prove that more Mexicans worked because of his efforts.



3. They don't look at the unintended consequences. They're called unintended consequences for a reason. They only see that Cesar Chavez fought for higher wages. They ignore the fact that this necessarily caused higher unemployment among migrant farm workers.
Originally Posted by phattonez:
So the Mexicans that could no longer work because of the closed shop policy are imaginary?

If a farm needs 30 workers a day and can pay them $25 for the day, but they now demand $50 for the day, what are they going to do? Produce less (because price per unit increases when you produce less) and hire less (because the company needs to stay profitable).

--------------------
1. Farms grew under the system of rights for farm workers. Farms produced more not less. There's your evidence. You used a hypothesis with no basis in reality, and reality is available to you.

here is what I wrote that you responded to: Facts is American farms did not do this. Your theory is not a fact.

Mexicans are not guaranteed a job on American farms. btw, more than Mexicans worked on farms and got better lives because of CC's work.

I wonder why so many Mexicans and others who are farm workers loved CC? I guess that weren't as concerned as you are for others and they aren't as smart as you are, eh?

-----------

2. Prove that more Mexicans worked? I have no idea where you are coming from here. Do you? Is there something implied that I missed? Did you have an issue comprehending this part of my statements: "btw, more than Mexicans worked on farms and got better lives because of CC's work."?

3. Higher unemployment of migrant workers? Where in the world do you get this idea? You keep stating things that come across as part of a fabulous big lie.
 
That depends on who the 100 people are and who you are. Really, it depends on whether you're asking one of those 100 people or one of the former citizens of Los Angeles.

I have no idea how anyone can seriously answer the poster's statements and analogy. Did Chavez somehow enslave people? How does enslaving an entire major city for the benefit of a handful translate to a credible and rational analogy of the work of Chavez?
 
Why would you not?

Well... I guess if you only watch Fox New, everything you think you know about the labor leader and civil rights activists is ...wrong.

Yes, I sit around all day and watch Fox News. You caught me.
 
Are you arguing for a socialistic view of the one or two sacrificed for the many?

No! I'm arguing that I'm not justified in enslaving those people.
 
That depends on who the 100 people are and who you are. Really, it depends on whether you're asking one of those 100 people or one of the former citizens of Los Angeles.

Or is there something wrong with violating one's ownership of self?
 
I have no idea how anyone can seriously answer the poster's statements and analogy. Did Chavez somehow enslave people? How does enslaving an entire major city for the benefit of a handful translate to a credible and rational analogy of the work of Chavez?

It was an extreme analogy, obviously, but if I can't justify that then how can I justify what Chavez did?
 
Back
Top Bottom