ANOTHER month, another court, another plank of Alabama's controversial immigration law enjoined. Last month a federal district court enjoined Alabama from enforcing the most controversial part of its law: the one making it a crime to conceal, harbour or transport illegal immigrants, along with three others related to employment. Last Friday a federal appellate court enjoined another two sections: one that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants not to have proper identity documentation, and another that requires Alabama's public schools to check their students' immigration status. That latter plank reportedly caused hundreds of Latino students to withdraw from Alabama's public schools. Perhaps the law's proponents are happy about this; perhaps they will argue that because their parents brought them to America illegally, they had no claim on any public service (for that same reason, perhaps these students' parents don't deserve water, either).
But I defy them to read this dispatch from Alabama and cheer. One woman is too scared to leave her apartment. Another family flees in the middle of the night, heading for North Carolina because the police followed the father home from work. A law office draws up papers detailing how eight- and ten-year-old children should be cared for if both of their parents should be seized. Students who look Hispanic receive print-outs explaining the harsh new law. These are people living in terror of a government with vastly expanded new powers—and to what end? Let's assume Alabama's crack state troopers had the resources to round up every single undocumented immigrant in Alabama: what would that do? Would it make the state any better off? Its unemployment rate is already high, crops are already rotting in the field; the opportunity exists for unemployed Alabamans to pick them and get paid for it. Apparently, they don't want to. And small wonder, too: it is backbreaking labour (a Georgia field worker who I interviewed for a previous piece—an undocumented immigrant who had been picking onions in Vidalia for 18 years—said that in the entire time he had been working in the fields he had never worked with a white or black person—only with other Latinos). Proponents say that illegal means illegal, and they shouldn't be here anyway. Well, fine. But they are here and they do work that benefits the rest of the state.
As it happens, Georgia's immigration law is slightly less harsh than Alabama's, but also modelled on Arizona's. It passed just before harvest time in a heavily agricultural state. The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association released a report showing economic losses incurred by their members after the law passed. It is depressing, but not surprising. More than 80% of respondents, by acreage, experienced labour shortages of around 40% compared with normal peak-harvest employment, leading to losses in seven spring crops of $75m. Assuming the survey respondents are representative, total statewide losses in those seven crops would be nearly twice that. Factor in goods and services and the total rises to $181m—and again, that is from just seven crops, harvesting of which appears to rely on the labour of undocumented immigrants; that says nothing about other crops, or about Georgia's sizable poultry and construction industries. More than one-third of farmers surveyed plan to decrease acreage in 2012. Why plant it if the crop is just going to rot in the field?
Most of Alabama's immigration law has been upheld, and the enjoined sections will get their day in court too (though it will likely not turn out well for those sections: to have an injunction granted pending appeal, petitioners have to show "a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of the appeal"). States may well have the right to rigorously enforce federal immigration law, but again, to what end? People (and undocumented immigrants may not be Americans, but they are still people) do not uproot themselves from their country and family to go someplace where they don't speak the language and get paid peanuts just for the fun of it. They do it for economic opportunities that do not exist in their home country. Like it or not they are a part of America's labour market. Simply removing them may be legal, but it is a demonstrably bad idea. Just ask Georgia's farmers.
So proof that two states are suffering economically from this-- as well as the old adage that nobody wants the jos the immigrants (illegal or not) are taking... at the same time, the article is right that they're well within their legal rights to do what they're doing, and it does seem to have political support...
If we have minimum wage laws, then those laws should apply to all who work, legal or illegal.
If we have immigration laws, then those laws should be applied, regardless of the 'economic cost' to employers.
Reality is, produce should cost much more than it does, based on the rules that our society has enacted. And yet, as consumers, we demand low prices, leading to a situation that is only sustainable by violating both labour and immigration laws.
This seems, to me, to be just another side of how disconnected most of the country is with the real costs of living. We demand cheap food, cheap goods, and cheap gas, and yet get angry when the only way we can have these things is by offshoring jobs, or hiring illegal workers at well below the established minimum wage.
ANOTHER month, another court, another plank of Alabama's controversial immigration law enjoined. Last month a federal district court enjoined Alabama from enforcing the most controversial part of its law: the one making it a crime to conceal, harbour or transport criminals, along with three others related to employment. Last Friday a federal appellate court enjoined another two sections: one that makes it a crime for criminals not to have proper identity documentation, and another that requires Alabama's public schools to check their students' immigration status. That latter plank reportedly caused hundreds of Latino students to withdraw from Alabama's public schools. Perhaps the law's proponents are happy about this; perhaps they will argue that because their parents brought them to America criminally, they had no claim on any public service (for that same reason, perhaps these students' parents don't deserve water, either).
But I defy them to read this dispatch from Alabama and cheer. One woman is too scared to leave her apartment. Another family flees in the middle of the night, heading for North Carolina because the police followed the father home from work. A law office draws up papers detailing how eight- and ten-year-old children should be cared for if both of their parents should be seized. Students who look Hispanic receive print-outs explaining the harsh new law. These are people living in terror of a government with vastly expanded new powers—and to what end? Let's assume Alabama's crack state troopers had the resources to round up every single undocumented immigrant in Alabama: what would that do? Would it make the state any better off? Its unemployment rate is already high, crops are already rotting in the field; the opportunity exists for unemployed Alabamans to pick them and get paid for it. Apparently, they don't want to. And small wonder, too: it is backbreaking labour (a Georgia field worker who I interviewed for a previous piece—an undocumented immigrant who had been picking onions in Vidalia for 18 years—said that in the entire time he had been working in the fields he had never worked with a white or black person—only with other Latinos). Proponents say that criminal means criminal, and they shouldn't be here anyway. Well, fine. But they are here and they do work that benefits the rest of the state.
As it happens, Georgia's immigration law is slightly less harsh than Alabama's, but also modelled on Arizona's. It passed just before harvest time in a heavily agricultural state. The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association released a report showing economic losses incurred by their members after the law passed. It is depressing, but not surprising. More than 80% of respondents, by acreage, experienced labour shortages of around 40% compared with normal peak-harvest employment, leading to losses in seven spring crops of $75m. Assuming the survey respondents are representative, total statewide losses in those seven crops would be nearly twice that. Factor in goods and services and the total rises to $181m—and again, that is from just seven crops, harvesting of which appears to rely on the labour of undocumented immigrants; that says nothing about other crops, or about Georgia's sizable poultry and construction industries. More than one-third of farmers surveyed plan to decrease acreage in 2012. Why plant it if the crop is just going to rot in the field?
Most of Alabama's immigration law has been upheld, and the enjoined sections will get their day in court too (though it will likely not turn out well for those sections: to have an injunction granted pending appeal, petitioners have to show "a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of the appeal"). States may well have the right to rigorously enforce federal immigration law, but again, to what end? People (and undocumented immigrants may not be Americans, but they are still people) do not uproot themselves from their country and family to go someplace where they don't speak the language and get paid peanuts just for the fun of it. They do it for economic opportunities that do not exist in their home country. Like it or not they are a part of America's labour market. Simply removing them may be legal, but it is a demonstrably bad idea. Just ask Georgia's farmers.
So proof that two states are suffering economically from this-- as well as the old adage that nobody wants the jos the immigrants (criminal or not) are taking... at the same time, the article is right that they're well within their legal rights to do what they're doing, and it does seem to have political support...
I edited your post to reflect how I feel about this. It's not that American citizens don't want these jobs, it's that we refuse to be paid next to nothing to do them. I've lived in the barrios of Phoenix for years and I see what it take to live on the wages the illegals will accept. 15-20 people in a 3/4 bedroom house so they can pay bills and still send money out of the country to their families..... and no that is not exaggeration or hyperbole.
They are perfectly in their right to deport all illegal immigrants but I feel the overzealousness (ie handing all latino looking info about it and cutting off electric/water) might be scaring those there legally which can create problems.
About fruit picking depends whats the pay is less than 100 quid a week can't help but sympathise (spelling?) with the 'lazy whites'.
I feel that the dollar above min wage didn't start till after they found out they were down the crapper, of course i have no idea how much usa min wage is some help please?
It's a good point, and it is harsh, but, I find it hard to get annoyed about strict immigration laws.
Immigrants flagrantly take the piss In England.
In the States they dont get free houses and wellfare cheques though, so I find it odd that people get so pissed about it.
I have no issues with anyone who works, and it looks like almost all these Mexicans are working!
I hate white British people that don't work for a living, but we HAVE to let those fethers stay, so clearly ima hate immigrants who take from a system that nobody in their lineage has EVER paid into.
We should start getting alabama on all those gypsies in the UK.
My opinion is that illegal immigrants are not entitled to public services provided by a country that they are not a citizen of, or a welcome resident in (by visa or permit). The water bit is a bit much since you pay directly for the service. But public schools should have to check for identification regardless of immigration status. If scaring illegal immigrants in a country with such high unemployment causes a labor shortage then there must not be an unemployment problem right? This is really endemic of larger social problems like welfare, and unemployment checks that allow people to turn their noses up to work.
It's not just one problem, it's a culmination of many problems. At the end of the day, illegal immigrants don't belong here they cost us money and jobs in welfare, education, prison costs, and tax revenue. Immigrate legally or be deported. Potential immigrants with useful skills should have a fast track to a leas a work visa and eventually citizenship. Carpenters, masons, physicists and physicians.
Melissia wrote:Actually I recall another article where they were offering a dollar over minimum wage per hour to work fields, but nobody wanted to do it.
True enough, but then again, one dollar over minimum wage is still a non-livable wage (That's approx. what I make right now and without the help of my friends I certainly wouldn't be able to afford an apartment and bills and food, much less internet.) There is definitely a very large disconnect between pay rates and cost of living in this country, and illegal immigrant employees is just a part of the problem. I don't know the solution, but I know that simply maintaining the status quo isn't helping.
I think that, if the federal government refuses to enforce it's laws, then the states should most definitely make, and enforce their own.
Being originally from a state where illegal immigration is a problem, I know first hand the "positives" and "negatives" of having illegals, or fresh immigrants there to do the crap jobs that "no one" wants. But, if I were a politician, I have a solution in mind to fix both problems. Welfare reform... Basically, instead of getting money for doing nothing because someone is too fat, stupid, lazy, incompetent, drug addled (whatever term is used to describe many who are on welfare for long periods of time), the folks who receive a government paycheck for food (thats basically what it is), they get to suddenly DO all those skill-less jobs that the illegals and immigrants are currently doing. At the same time, you remove illegals from the country, including those in American prisons.
That's basically my opinion, and I am in no way an "expert" on these sorts of matters, though I have spent a couple years conducting "foreign relations" operations.
DickBandit wrote:I still don't understand the issue.
Illegal immigrant = person who does not have proper documentation to be in a country.
So they get sent back to their country, or deported.
But I guess people are upset about that.... because..... it's not fair?
Confused.
People are convinced that illegals being present takes money from the country.
Most illegals I know work harder than any white person I've ever met (not implying that race is the factor here, just pointing to the culture and upbringing) and often for a hell of a lot less. The other side of this is, as was pointed out earlier, goods are being made for cheaper than they should be so the savings are passed on too.
Redbeard wrote:Reality is, produce should cost much more than it does, based on the rules that our society has enacted. And yet, as consumers, we demand low prices, leading to a situation that is only sustainable by violating both labour and immigration laws.
Actually, I believe that if america's farmers weren't paid to not farm, if we didn't burn for fuel what we do grow, and if we utilized every source of energy (drilling, shale, natural gas, coal, etc) we'd have both cheaper food and cheaper gas. We could have .50cent gas (plus @ .70cent+ taxes). Cheaper gas would make everything else cheaper that has to be trucked around.
Illegals Thread:
As for illegals, look up the definition of illegal and that should end any debate. And if we cut off all social program support, no schools, no jobs and no financial services, they'd leave. It wouldn't cost us anything to deport them.
Melissia wrote:Actually I recall another article where they were offering a dollar over minimum wage per hour to work fields, but nobody wanted to do it.
True enough, but then again, one dollar over minimum wage is still a non-livable wage (That's approx. what I make right now and without the help of my friends I certainly wouldn't be able to afford an apartment and bills and food, much less internet.) There is definitely a very large disconnect between pay rates and cost of living in this country, and illegal immigrant employees is just a part of the problem. I don't know the solution, but I know that simply maintaining the status quo isn't helping.
The solution is quite simple either pay the lower class a wage they can live on meaning everything costs more or make it so the lower class have no other option but to take crappy pay
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lordhat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Actually I recall another article where they were offering a dollar over minimum wage per hour to work fields, but nobody wanted to do it.
True enough, but then again, one dollar over minimum wage is still a non-livable wage (That's approx. what I make right now and without the help of my friends I certainly wouldn't be able to afford an apartment and bills and food, much less internet.) There is definitely a very large disconnect between pay rates and cost of living in this country, and illegal immigrant employees is just a part of the problem. I don't know the solution, but I know that simply maintaining the status quo isn't helping.
The solution is quite simple either pay the lower class a wage they can live on meaning everything costs more or make it so the lower class have no other option but to take crappy pay
Phanatik wrote:
Actually, I believe that if america's farmers weren't paid to not farm,
If we didn't pay the farmers not to farm, the over-surplus of food would drop the prices so low that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to farm at all. But we're not talking wheat and corn here, which are easily harvestable with machinery, we're talking about fruits like tomatoes, oranges, apples, which still have to be picked by hand. There are no subsidies for apple farmers.
Furthermore, even reductions in subsidies have led to increased health costs. One of the largest subsidy reductions took place during the 80s. In order to make up the lost revenue, farmers had to sell more product at lower prices. This led, directly, to the obesity epidemic that the country faces now, as this extra food was snapped up by restaurants and mass-food producers who sell in quantities far exceeding what is healthy to eat. A safe rule-of-thumb is to halve any portion of anything you get in a restaurant.
if we didn't burn for fuel what we do grow, and if we utilized every source of energy
This sentence clause directly contradicts itself. Do you want to use all energy, including refined corn, or do you not want to utilize all energy sources?
... We could have .50cent gas (plus @ .70cent+ taxes). Cheaper gas would make everything else cheaper that has to be trucked around.
Cheaper gas would indeed make everything else cheaper, although if you believe we'll ever see $.50 gas, you're living in a fantasy world.
Redbeard wrote:
Cheaper gas would indeed make everything else cheaper, although if you believe we'll ever see $.50 gas, you're living in a fantasy world.
"In the grim darkness of the far future, there is 50 cent gas."
Redbeard wrote:This sentence clause directly contradicts itself. Do you want to use all energy, including refined corn, or do you not want to utilize all energy sources?
One would have to ignore commas or the easily discernable intent of my message to think I would contradict myself.
All food sources should be utilized for food production.
All energy sources should be utlized for energy production.
I'm not advocating burning food for fuel or using people for Soylent Green (just in case that comes up).
Phanatik wrote:
One would have to ignore commas or the easily discernable intent of my message to think I would contradict myself.
Intention has no bearing on contradiction, nor does placing a comma between two contradictory statements make them any less contradictory.
Phanatik wrote:
All food sources should be utilized for food production.
All energy sources should be utlized for energy production.
The two categories overlap.
Phanatik wrote:
I'm not advocating burning food for fuel or using people for Soylent Green (just in case that comes up).
So you're not advocating using all energy sources for the the production energy. You're advocating using all energy sources, except those that can be used for food, as energy.
Lordhat wrote:True enough, but then again, one dollar over minimum wage is still a non-livable wage (That's approx. what I make right now and without the help of my friends I certainly wouldn't be able to afford an apartment and bills and food, much less internet.) There is definitely a very large disconnect between pay rates and cost of living in this country, and illegal immigrant employees is just a part of the problem. I don't know the solution, but I know that simply maintaining the status quo isn't helping.
The minimum wage, like unions, developed from the days of sweatshops. Their time of usefulness has come and gone. They are now used by the left to further the careers of lefty politicians and union bosses. The minimum wage isn't supposed to provide a "living" wage, and certainly not to fund the internet, cable, WoW or porn site memberships. There are probably negative results from raising the minimum wage. If a person wants a "living" wage, I'd suggest getting an education or a trade skill.
The whole illegal immigrant issue is so twisted and messed up its unbelievable. Americans complain about Immigrants taking our jobs from us, when frankly they take jobs in fast food, minimum wage fields, and manual labor, things none of us want to do. There seems to be some myth that immigrants have been taking skilled labor jobs, which largely I don't think they are, not yet. Even those who can do the work can't get the jobs because they're illegal and companies that hire for those fields don't like hiring illegals to do them.
So you're not advocating using all energy sources for the the production energy. You're advocating using all energy sources, except those that can be used for food, as energy.
Corn is a horrible source of energy. It costs more to turn it into ethanol than the ethanol gives back. If the government ceased subsidizing ethanol from corn, a gallon of gas would cost over $20. Ethanol from corn is one of the dumbest acts of energy reform we've committed and it's not that great for the environment either.
LordofHats wrote:The whole illegal immigrant issue is so twisted and messed up its unbelievable. Americans complain about Immigrants taking our jobs from us, when frankly they take jobs in fast food, minimum wage fields, and manual labor, things none of us want to do. There seems to be some myth that immigrants have been taking skilled labor jobs, which largely I don't think they are, not yet. Even those who can do the work can't get the jobs because they're illegal and companies that hire for those fields don't like hiring illegals to do them.
don't forget:
-construction
-manufacturing
While many of these jobs may not be high paying now, they were. They were also a large part of the jobs that Afircan Americans did historically.
While many of these jobs may not be high paying now, they were. They were also a large part of the jobs that Afircan Americans did historically.
In manufacturing, I think unions have largely forced many illegals out of the line of work. The laborer Unions are one of the strongest advocates of immigration reform and really don't like illegals. In construction I suppose I hear lots about illegals doing cheap day labor, but honestly, is the work they're doing 'skilled?' I suppose I'm just not clear on where the line between skilled and unskilled labor exists in this case.
While many of these jobs may not be high paying now, they were. They were also a large part of the jobs that Afircan Americans did historically.
In manufacturing, I think unions have largely forced many illegals out of the line of work. The laborer Unions are one of the strongest advocates of immigration reform and really don't like illegals. In construction I suppose I hear lots about illegals doing cheap day labor, but honestly, is the work they're doing 'skilled?' I suppose I'm just not clear on where the line between skilled and unskilled labor exists in this case.
Unions in manufacturing do not have that sort of power in the South.
The problem with illegals taking fast food jobs is that those were normally jobs teenagers would use as an entryway into the workforce.
Labor Unions would love to have every illegal that can climb or swim cross the border. Democrats are ready to meet them to sign them up for social services, and push for amnesty, as most illegals would vote democratic. That would swell union rolls which have been declining for years. Why do you think democrats protest over any republican attempt to have voter verification laws passed?
Lordhat wrote:True enough, but then again, one dollar over minimum wage is still a non-livable wage (That's approx. what I make right now and without the help of my friends I certainly wouldn't be able to afford an apartment and bills and food, much less internet.) There is definitely a very large disconnect between pay rates and cost of living in this country, and illegal immigrant employees is just a part of the problem. I don't know the solution, but I know that simply maintaining the status quo isn't helping.
The minimum wage, like unions, developed from the days of sweatshops. Their time of usefulness has come and gone. They are now used by the left to further the careers of lefty politicians and union bosses. The minimum wage isn't supposed to provide a "living" wage, and certainly not to fund the internet, cable, WoW or porn site memberships. There are probably negative results from raising the minimum wage. If a person wants a "living" wage, I'd suggest getting an education or a trade skill.
Regards,
Seriously who pays for porn?
Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?
LordofHats wrote:
In construction ...... is the work they're doing 'skilled?'
Absolutely. Granted, a lot of the skills are easily learned, but that makes them no less a skill set. At the very least construction workers need to know how to... construct... correctly. Building codes govern everything nowadays, from the exact concrete mixture for floors and walls, to what type of fasteners may be used on what type of roofing, to exactly how you assemble the framework of the walls. Simply needing this knowledge as it pertains to your particular job makes these 'skilled labor positions'. Then there's the knowledge and skillsets needed to conform to all these rules and regulations while still being efficient and productive.
I would happily work next to these gentlemen ( as I do less happily now) if they were to get work visas, or at least begin/continue the process of naturalization. The vast majority of them are just human beings trying the best they can (just like the rest of us), but the sad truth is they're a large part of the reason why my ( and their) backbreaking labor earns less than it costs to provide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?
What is a living wage?
A wage that will allow you to pay your (and your family's if applicable) bills.
LordofHats wrote:
In construction ...... is the work they're doing 'skilled?'
Absolutely. Granted, a lot of the skills are easily learned, but that makes them no less a skill set. At the very least construction workers need to know how to... construct... correctly. Building codes govern everything nowadays, from the exact concrete mixture for floors and walls, to what type of fasteners may be used on what type of roofing, to exactly how you assemble the framework of the walls. Simply needing this knowledge as it pertains to your particular job makes these 'skilled labor positions'. Then there's the knowledge and skillsets needed to conform to all these rules and regulations while still being efficient and productive.
I would happily work next to these gentlemen ( as I do less happily now) if they were to get work visas, or at least begin/continue the process of naturalization. The vast majority of them are just human beings trying the best they can (just like the rest of us), but the sad truth is they're a large part of the reason why my ( and their) backbreaking labor earns less than it costs to provide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?
What is a living wage?
A wage that will allow you to pay your (and your family's if applicable) bills.
curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?
What is a living wage?
Being able to obtain the basic necessities of life (fresh, non-rotten food; clean water, for both drinking and cleaning; shelter, including air conditioning and heating depending on the climate; and obtain viable transport from home to work, as otherwise they'll not be able to hold the job in the first place) without goin into debt.
This is, in many places, not possible with a minimum wage job. Minimum wage has not managed to keep up with inflation.
In truth, minimum wage laws shouldd have always scale with inflation, but companies lobby HARD to prevent this so we only ever see flat increases.
LordofHats wrote:
In construction ...... is the work they're doing 'skilled?'
Absolutely. Granted, a lot of the skills are easily learned, but that makes them no less a skill set. At the very least construction workers need to know how to... construct... correctly. Building codes govern everything nowadays, from the exact concrete mixture for floors and walls, to what type of fasteners may be used on what type of roofing, to exactly how you assemble the framework of the walls. Simply needing this knowledge as it pertains to your particular job makes these 'skilled labor positions'. Then there's the knowledge and skillsets needed to conform to all these rules and regulations while still being efficient and productive.
I would happily work next to these gentlemen ( as I do less happily now) if they were to get work visas, or at least begin/continue the process of naturalization. The vast majority of them are just human beings trying the best they can (just like the rest of us), but the sad truth is they're a large part of the reason why my ( and their) backbreaking labor earns less than it costs to provide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?
What is a living wage?
A wage that will allow you to pay your (and your family's if applicable) bills.
So what would DOnald Trump's living wage be?
Touche. I'm sure his wage is up to the task, unlike mine. I'm sure he deserves it too. As I said previously, I don't have all (or possibly any) of the answers, but every person working legally in this country deserves to be able to support themselves on a day's wage. I'm not saying that minimum wage should cover food and bills and every luxury one could want (TV, internet, Warhammer, ETC.), but at least food and necessary bills.
I usually stay out of these threads due to a large amount of trolling from a few users. But this one really got me going! While the articles author has a clear opinion on the subject there is much truth to it. While Alabama has the right to its law I think it goes to far. The issue of work not getting done is really unrelated and should have no bearing on the law. The agriculture industry sees many illegals due to the small amount of pay they offer (getting paid piecework, .05 cents a cucumber or in forestry .15 cents a tree planted) These companies either need to comply with the law and lose a little money to pay workers properly or just not harvest as the article states. Don't want illegal immigrants? Don't foster a situation that promotes their cheap labor, the issue must be fixed at that level. Fix the problem not the symptoms.
My issue with a law like this is where the article states "Students who look Hispanic receive print-outs explaining the harsh new law."...really? If a Mexican-American does not have documentation but is a legal citizen what happens? Police let them go, or hold for questioning? I am pretty dark, what if I forget my wallet one day and get stopped. Will I get let go or get the run around. I have been profiled before so I know the deal. The Alabama immigration law can lead to harassment of natural born citizens from profiling. To make an omelet need to break some eggs huh?
As for Alabama threatening to shut of water to families who do not provide proof of citizenship (everyone right..not just those who are of Hispanic heritage? Your 90 year old Norwegian grandma must do this...) the UN declared clean drinking water and sanitation a basic human right. No papers no basic human rights in Alabama?
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35456&Cr=SANITATION
Anyways my rant is over. I hope I didn't go to far off topic in some areas. Thanks for posting this Melissa.
I don't know. I suspect if I had the knowledge and skills to do that particular bit of math, I wouldn't be in a position to have to worry about it so much. Therefore in lieu of blowing smoke and trying to pretend to expertise I don't actually have, I'll refer to an expert:
Melissia wrote:This is, in many places, not possible with a minimum wage job. Minimum wage has not managed to keep up with inflation.
And in many places (I'd suggest most), it is possible with a minimum wage job. You'll just be driving a crappy car, living in a crappy apartment (possibly with 1-2 other people) and eating bland food (beans & rice).
The problem is that people want to live beyond their means, not within them.
LordofHats wrote:
In construction ...... is the work they're doing 'skilled?'
Absolutely. Granted, a lot of the skills are easily learned, but that makes them no less a skill set. At the very least construction workers need to know how to... construct... correctly. Building codes govern everything nowadays, from the exact concrete mixture for floors and walls, to what type of fasteners may be used on what type of roofing, to exactly how you assemble the framework of the walls. Simply needing this knowledge as it pertains to your particular job makes these 'skilled labor positions'. Then there's the knowledge and skillsets needed to conform to all these rules and regulations while still being efficient and productive.
I would happily work next to these gentlemen ( as I do less happily now) if they were to get work visas, or at least begin/continue the process of naturalization. The vast majority of them are just human beings trying the best they can (just like the rest of us), but the sad truth is they're a large part of the reason why my ( and their) backbreaking labor earns less than it costs to provide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?
What is a living wage?
A wage that will allow you to pay your (and your family's if applicable) bills.
So what would DOnald Trump's living wage be?
Touche. I'm sure his wage is up to the task, unlike mine. I'm sure he deserves it too. As I said previously, I don't have all (or possibly any) of the answers, but every person working legally in this country deserves to be able to support themselves on a day's wage. I'm not saying that minimum wage should cover food and bills and every luxury one could want (TV, internet, Warhammer, ETC.), but at least food and necessary bills.
Don't forget clothes and getting to work, and basically any non luxuary purchause, I'd like to add healthcare but it does seem to be a luxuary in the USA.
I don't know. I suspect if I had the knowledge and skills to do that particular bit of math, I wouldn't be in a position to have to worry about it so much. Therefore in lieu of blowing smoke and trying to pretend to expertise I don't actually have, I'll refer to an expert:
Melissia wrote:Being able to obtain the basic necessities of life (fresh, non-rotten food; clean water, for both drinking and cleaning; shelter, including air conditioning and heating depending on the climate; and obtain viable transport from home to work, as otherwise they'll not be able to hold the job in the first place) without goin into debt.
A/C is hardly a "necessity" of life. central air, i will say is, as it can regulate to a certain degree the extremes of temperatures. Much of Europe (at least the portions that I have been to) have made do, and continue to make due without A/C. And often times, they get just as hot as many if not most places in America. I spent a year in Arizona, where I saw all the extremes of weather that could be seen at my locale, and the entire time, my room had a tiny little wall heater, that could blow "not as hot as outside air so it feels pretty damn nice comparatively" air during the summer months, and everything was just fine, I did something my ancestors did, opened the window!
Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. If we forced minimum wage up to a living wage, we'd probably have to double it (stupid one size fits all laws!) and the economy would collapse as the price of consumer goods that are produced in the US skyrocketed. Where my parents live, you'd need to earn somewhere around $16 an hour in a 40 hour work week just to get a crappy apartment. Not everywhere is as expensive as DC, but some places cost more. The repercussions of raising minimum wage to a living wage could be disastrous (or everyone will just do what Wal-mart does and hire a mountain of part timers).
If anything, outsourcing would get worse. We'd lose more jobs. Americans just cost too much to employ. It's not really our fault, it's just the way things are. A high quality of life carries with it a high price tag.
LordofHats wrote:Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. If we forced minimum wage up to a living wage, we'd probably have to double it (stupid one size fits all laws!) and the economy would collapse as the price of consumer goods that are produced in the US skyrocketed. Where my parents live, you'd need to earn somewhere around $16 an hour in a 40 hour work week just to get a crappy apartment. Not everywhere is as expensive as DC, but some places cost more. The repercussions of raising minimum wage to a living wage could be disastrous (or everyone will just do what Wal-mart does and hire a mountain of part timers).
If anything, outsourcing would get worse. We'd lose more jobs. Americans just cost too much to employ. It's not really our fault, it's just the way things are. A high quality of life carries with it a high price tag.
Interestingly UK min wage gives you over $18k for a 40 hour week of course here comes the arguments of taxes and stuff, which I'd rather not go into cause it's confusing as heck for me.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Melissia wrote:Being able to obtain the basic necessities of life (fresh, non-rotten food; clean water, for both drinking and cleaning; shelter, including air conditioning and heating depending on the climate; and obtain viable transport from home to work, as otherwise they'll not be able to hold the job in the first place) without goin into debt.
A/C is hardly a "necessity" of life. central air, i will say is, as it can regulate to a certain degree the extremes of temperatures. Much of Europe (at least the portions that I have been to) have made do, and continue to make due without A/C. And often times, they get just as hot as many if not most places in America. I spent a year in Arizona, where I saw all the extremes of weather that could be seen at my locale, and the entire time, my room had a tiny little wall heater, that could blow "not as hot as outside air so it feels pretty damn nice comparatively" air during the summer months, and everything was just fine, I did something my ancestors did, opened the window!
I would like to point out deaths due to extreme temperatures aren't as rare as you think, there were 3,442 deaths due to temp extremes between 1999 and 2003 (688 mean) 65% were due to underlying heat and 35% with hypothermia as a contributing factor. The state with the highest average annual hyperthermia-related death rate during 1999--2003 was Arizona (hey look that place you mentioned) (1.7 deaths per 100,000 population or the equivalent of the murder rate in New Zealand)
Now is that enough to consider AC/heating as necessary for at least part of the year? maybe, I know the UK gives money to OAPs for heating in the winter.
A character created by a third-rate philosopher whose work has since become regarded as an object of quasi-religious devotion.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
A/C is hardly a "necessity" of life. central air, i will say is, as it can regulate to a certain degree the extremes of temperatures. Much of Europe (at least the portions that I have been to) have made do, and continue to make due without A/C. And often times, they get just as hot as many if not most places in America. I spent a year in Arizona, where I saw all the extremes of weather that could be seen at my locale, and the entire time, my room had a tiny little wall heater, that could blow "not as hot as outside air so it feels pretty damn nice comparatively" air during the summer months, and everything was just fine, I did something my ancestors did, opened the window!
I think you mean ventilation, central air is a form of AC.
In any case, large swathes of the Southwestern US were considered nearly uninhabitable before widely available air conditioning. That said, it isn't necessary for everyone to have AC in their homes, but there are some places in which not having access to it in some capacity means risking death.
LordofHats wrote:Minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. If we forced minimum wage up to a living wage, we'd probably have to double it (stupid one size fits all laws!) and the economy would collapse as the price of consumer goods that are produced in the US skyrocketed. Where my parents live, you'd need to earn somewhere around $16 an hour in a 40 hour work week just to get a crappy apartment. Not everywhere is as expensive as DC, but some places cost more. The repercussions of raising minimum wage to a living wage could be disastrous (or everyone will just do what Wal-mart does and hire a mountain of part timers).
Right, minimum wage isn't really that bad if you're living in the right place. Oregon, as I said, is probably the best place to live on minimum wage if its necessary. In fact, just about any rural area will allow you to survive on minimum wage. The same does not apply in urban locales, though, and definitely does not apply in suburbs.
Ah suburbia, high cost of living, and no public transportation, the worst of all worlds.
Its also worth noting that most minimum wage jobs don't follow a 40 hour work week (or even a 12 month work year), given that they tend to be targeted at students. Just about anything that is full time, or not seasonal will pay more than minimum wage.
my mom lives in AZ, and she has mentioned a few times to me how bad things are getting, and how funny it is. She lives in a gated community, and is on the board there. Every condo has a lavish yard with fruit trees and lots of shrubs and plants. Mind you AZ is basically a desert, so these things are not natural there. Every condo in the community has "workers" that maintain their property. Most all members of the community are older Catholic white people. At a recent board meeting my mom heard a bunch of men talking about how it was so hard to find any descent work these days and needing to go find some more workers somewhere. Now these men are all retired, and it is obvious by all the yard work being not done what sort of work it is. They are passing all these anti immigration laws, and then bitching that their cheap labor force is gone. It is a joke actually. Everyone in AZ that has money has Mexican "help" around the house, and then they bitch about them coming here.
Then you have Sheriffs that take over cities and throw the mayor out of town. AZ is an effed up place
dogma wrote:Ah suburbia, high cost of living, and no public transportation, the worst of all worlds.
Yeah. In suburbia's defense, it worked okay back when we were the only industrial nation in the world that wasn't bombed to all heck and had the rest of the world at our beck and call...
It does get down to the nitty gritty of the problem. American labor costs too much, and cheap labor is a basic necessity of a thriving economy. As sad as it may be, we middle class and rich folk need a lower class to make all our iStuff on the cheap Current economic systems just don't turn without that. We can't get any cheap labor from American's anymore for so many reasons, and now we turn to Southeast Asians, Chinese, and illegal immigrants.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:A/C is hardly a "necessity" of life
It is here in Texas.
"Remember the Alamo?" Far as I'm aware, it's in Texas. There was a battle fought there in 1836, I believe. Modern Air Conditioning didn't exist until 1902. It's hard to have battles in places that you cannot live in. I therefore conclude that A/C is not a necessity of life, even in the questionably great state of Texas.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:A/C is hardly a "necessity" of life
It is here in Texas.
"Remember the Alamo?" Far as I'm aware, it's in Texas. There was a battle fought there in 1836, I believe. Modern Air Conditioning didn't exist until 1902. It's hard to have battles in places that you cannot live in. I therefore conclude that A/C is not a necessity of life, even in the questionably great state of Texas.
I don't believe recognizing that not all parts of Texas were able to be permanently habitable w/o technological advancements in cooling is the same as saying Texas was never inhabited. In fact I know they aren't the same thing. Heating/Cooling technology has allowed many places in Texas and the south west to be lived in. It is also why they have laws requiring AC in those areas that require them to exist in a habitation.
There's also an issue of scale in that AC significantly increases the number of people that can live, over a protracted period, with a given fresh water supply.
Without AC places like Phoenix would have much smaller populations.
But Texas was inhabited, that's the point. Along with most of the southwest. I've seen pueblo dwellings in the southwest that are over a thousand years old. They didn't have A/C. A/C is not a requirement to live somewhere, I don't care how hot you think it is. Maybe not many people would want to... that's a different matter entirely. But claiming A/C is a necessity is like claiming denying prisoners cable is cruel and unusual punishment - it's a ridiculous statement and denies the fact that people have existed without it for centuries.
Redbeard wrote: A/C is not a requirement to live somewhere, I don't care how hot you think it is.
If you're using "live" in a very broad sense (eg. in any possible way, not just in modern society, and for an indeterminate period of time) then that's probably true. But, when "live" is used in the contemporary, social sense it tends to reference life with reasonable access to societal institutions and for about 70 years, if you're a man.
Okay, I challenge you to go live in a concrete heat trap (IE, anywhere near a city) with no air conditioning during a Texas heat wave-- 115 degrees, 80% or higher humidity, no wind. And not only do that, but also do that while working a fourty hour work week, while only eating ramen noodles and drinking non-cooled water.
Many tougher people than you have died because of this kind of situation... you might live through it, but you'd certainly come out FAR worse for wear, and probably be too exhausted to really do your job properly, nevermind advance in it.
Melissia wrote:Okay, I challenge you to go live in a concrete heat trap (IE, anywhere near a city) with no air conditioning during a Texas heat wave-- 115 degrees, 80% or higher humidity, no wind. And not only do that, but also do that while working a fourty hour work week, while only eating ramen noodles and drinking non-cooled water.
Many tougher people than you have died because of this kind of situation... you might live through it, but you'd certainly come out FAR worse for wear, and probably be too exhausted to really do your job properly, nevermind advance in it.
The human body tends to acclimate to whatever climate it is exposed to rather quickly (days to weeks). People have been living on the equator and in other extremely hot climates around the world far longer than A/C has been around.
I have worked in extreme heat as well, I used to run cable in Florida and would often find myself in peoples attics in mid afternoon when 110-120F would have been a blessing and 140-150 was the norm. At first I could barely stand 3-5 minutes but after getting used to it I could tolerate it till the job was done as long as I drank tons of water, usually hot out of the back of my truck.
Seriously, find an old steel mill worker who used to pull 12-16 hours days playing with molten steel and try telling him 115 degrees is too hot to work 40 hours a week when they worked in 150 degree mills in full body suits and thermal underwear.
Melissia wrote:Okay, I challenge you to go live in a concrete heat trap (IE, anywhere near a city) with no air conditioning during a Texas heat wave-- 115 degrees, 80% or higher humidity, no wind. And not only do that, but also do that while working a fourty hour work week, while only eating ramen noodles and drinking non-cooled water.
Many tougher people than you have died because of this kind of situation... you might live through it, but you'd certainly come out FAR worse for wear, and probably be too exhausted to really do your job properly, nevermind advance in it.
The human body tends to acclimate to whatever climate it is exposed to rather quickly (days to weeks). People have been living on the equator and in other extremely hot climates around the world far longer than A/C has been around.
I have worked in extreme heat as well, I used to run cable in Florida and would often find myself in peoples attics in mid afternoon when 110-120F would have been a blessing and 140-150 was the norm. At first I could barely stand 3-5 minutes but after getting used to it I could tolerate it till the job was done as long as I drank tons of water, usually hot out of the back of my truck.
Seriously, find an old steel mill worker who used to pull 12-16 hours days playing with molten steel and try telling him 115 degrees is too hot to work 40 hours a week when they worked in 150 degree mills in full body suits and thermal underwear.
And? They weren't trying to LIVE in those temperatures. Not talking about spending 8 hours a day and no weekends in these conditions-- hell, I've done taht, and I wouldn't claim to be physically tough-- but rather, 16 hours a day and all day weekends. When you're eating (and probably not able to keep an appetite), when you're sleeping (and probably not very well). No cold showers to cool you down, no refrigerator for cold food, no cold water to drink. In fact, you may very well look forward to work as at least there you might have air conditioning....
These kinds of conditions can kill. And they do kill.
Melissia wrote:Okay, I challenge you to go live in a concrete heat trap (IE, anywhere near a city) with no air conditioning during a Texas heat wave-- 115 degrees, 80% or higher humidity, no wind. And not only do that, but also do that while working a fourty hour work week, while only eating ramen noodles and drinking non-cooled water.
Many tougher people than you have died because of this kind of situation... you might live through it, but you'd certainly come out FAR worse for wear, and probably be too exhausted to really do your job properly, nevermind advance in it.
The human body tends to acclimate to whatever climate it is exposed to rather quickly (days to weeks). People have been living on the equator and in other extremely hot climates around the world far longer than A/C has been around.
I have worked in extreme heat as well, I used to run cable in Florida and would often find myself in peoples attics in mid afternoon when 110-120F would have been a blessing and 140-150 was the norm. At first I could barely stand 3-5 minutes but after getting used to it I could tolerate it till the job was done as long as I drank tons of water, usually hot out of the back of my truck.
Seriously, find an old steel mill worker who used to pull 12-16 hours days playing with molten steel and try telling him 115 degrees is too hot to work 40 hours a week when they worked in 150 degree mills in full body suits and thermal underwear.
Steel mill workers are pansies real men work in mines where there's heat, dust, poisonous gases and cave ins.
I'm pretty sure it would be a lot easier on the body to live in 110 degree weather, than it would to spend well over half your time (cause steel mills had long, long hours) in 150+ degrees in non-breathable acid suits, long thermal underwear under their clothing, gloves (for welders), respirators, heat-tempered hard hats and work boots. 40 degrees is a pretty big difference.
But, maybe I'm just being silly.
My point is that it is entirely survivable and people without A/C in these conditions will adapt, the heat stroke death numbers that I have seen personally never mention how many of these people have exacerbations of chronic illnesses, advanced age, severe dehydration from hangovers, drugs, or considering Mountain Dew by the case a good way to hydrate in extreme heat (ie, people who live morbidly unhealthy lifestyles).
Just read the numbers in Curtis's post and it seems that when you smoke/drink/live off McD's your whole life your body cannot handle extreme heat. If you do happen to be one of the aforementioned people and the heat may kill you, move your to the north.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:My point is that it is entirely survivable and people without A/C in these conditions will adapt
Actually that wasn't your point, and if it was, you made it poorly. There is a difference between passing through an area and living in it, and even than people still have died going through them, not becuase they didn't adapt, but becuase they are harsh areas that we not designed to survive in w/o modification. We didn't develop these things purely for comforts sake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Just read the numbers in Curtis's post and it seems that when you smoke/drink/live off McD's your whole life your body cannot handle extreme heat.
So how do you explain the people who died in dangerous environments that never had any of those things? If you take someone who has never had McDonald's and drop them into the middle of the Sahara, the bottom of the Ocean, or the Badlands the odds they will survive has nothing to do with never eating fast food. You seem to overestimate how humans adapt while underestimating the harshness of nature.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
Just read the numbers in Curtis's post and it seems that when you smoke/drink/live off McD's your whole life your body cannot handle extreme heat.
And yet, professional athletes have died in far tamer conditions.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
Just read the numbers in Curtis's post and it seems that when you smoke/drink/live off McD's your whole life your body cannot handle extreme heat.
And yet, professional athletes have died in far tamer conditions.
Certainly one footballer in the uk died of a heart attack on the pitch, don't know much about it not a football person, also there are the ones who live healthy life styles but still get these chronic illnesses, unhealthy lifestyles only make the chance worse.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:My point is that it is entirely survivable and people without A/C in these conditions will adapt
Actually that wasn't your point, and if it was, you made it poorly. There is a difference between passing through an area and living in it, and even than people still have died going through them, not becuase they didn't adapt, but becuase they are harsh areas that we not designed to survive in w/o modification. We didn't develop these things purely for comforts sake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Just read the numbers in Curtis's post and it seems that when you smoke/drink/live off McD's your whole life your body cannot handle extreme heat.
Just because YOU do not understand my point doesn't make it poor, or wrong. If the southwest is so unlivable how do you explain the 70 some Native American tribes I found from that area in a cursory glance on the internet?
I believe Mexico has been inhabited for a while too with the same climate, and lots of people without access to A/C
So how do you explain the people who died in dangerous environments that never had any of those things? If you take someone who has never had McDonald's and drop them into the middle of the Sahara, the bottom of the Ocean, or the Badlands the odds they will survive has nothing to do with never eating fast food. You seem to overestimate how humans adapt while underestimating the harshness of nature.
I think there is a bit of difference between being dropped into the middle of the desert/ocean/mars/whatever and dealing with the heat in an area with shade, running water and such.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
I think there is a bit of difference between being dropped into the middle of the desert/ocean/mars/whatever and dealing with the heat in an area with shade, running water and such.
And yet, with all those things, people still die in heat waves.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Just because YOU do not understand my point doesn't make it poor, or wrong.
Ah, the "nuh-uh" defense. Well played.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:If the southwest is so unlivable how do you explain the 70 some Native American tribes I found from that area in a cursory glance on the internet?
For the third, and last time, saying an area is dangerous and not safe for people to live in is not the same as saying no one has ever lived in any place ever. The tribes of the Southwest United States did not live in every part of the Southwest becuase they weren't stupid. They lived in habitable areas and learned how to traverse dangerous areas as well as avoiding certain areas altogether becuase of how dangerous they are. Just as people live in Texas does not mean that every area in Texas has people living in it. There are more habitable areas today becuase of technology, but still not every area is hospitable without cultivation.
Really really want to make a rebutal to the 'only unhealthy people die of heat complications' (paraphrased) but can't for another 12 hours at least (on phone and going work soon), if anyone does it I'll give you a cookie.
also the CDC says AC is the best preventative measure to combat heat exhaustion et al.
curtis wrote:Really really want to make a rebutal to the 'only unhealthy people die of heat complications' (paraphrased) but can't for another 12 hours at least (on phone and going work soon), if anyone does it I'll give you a cookie.
also the CDC says AC is the best preventative measure to combat heat exhaustion et al.
Yeah, if you are living an unhealthy "American" lifestyle.
People have willingly lived in far more extreme places than TX, and AZ. I have been to many of these places, and I will say this: If the Temp's get above 130-140 degrees F, and it's still considered "spring" you need A/C. If a "heat wave" is 110, man-up, drink water, be healthier to give yourself the best chance to survive well through it, but you don't NEED A/C.
There are some places that do need A/C, but often times those aren't the private residence. I know that things like hospitals need to be completely regulated to best serve patients who enter, but thats not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
curtis wrote:Really really want to make a rebutal to the 'only unhealthy people die of heat complications' (paraphrased) but can't for another 12 hours at least (on phone and going work soon), if anyone does it I'll give you a cookie.
also the CDC says AC is the best preventative measure to combat heat exhaustion et al.
curtis wrote:Really really want to make a rebutal to the 'only unhealthy people die of heat complications' (paraphrased) but can't for another 12 hours at least (on phone and going work soon), if anyone does it I'll give you a cookie.
also the CDC says AC is the best preventative measure to combat heat exhaustion et al.
Yeah, if you are living an unhealthy "American" lifestyle.
People have willingly lived in far more extreme places than TX, and AZ. I have been to many of these places, and I will say this: If the Temp's get above 130-140 degrees F, and it's still considered "spring" you need A/C. If a "heat wave" is 110, man-up, drink water, be healthier to give yourself the best chance to survive well through it, but you don't NEED A/C.
There are some places that do need A/C, but often times those aren't the private residence. I know that things like hospitals need to be completely regulated to best serve patients who enter, but thats not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
Have a look at dollol eithiopia, the hottest INHABITED place on earth (according to wikipedia) has an average annual temp on 93.9F and has a daily maximum of 41C my C to F is bad but i think 41 is about 110F, this is quite fun when compared to your if spring is 130/140 you need A/C and if 110 suck it up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
curtis wrote:Really really want to make a rebutal to the 'only unhealthy people die of heat complications' (paraphrased) but can't for another 12 hours at least (on phone and going work soon), if anyone does it I'll give you a cookie.
also the CDC says AC is the best preventative measure to combat heat exhaustion et al.
Yeah, if you are living an unhealthy "American" lifestyle.
People have willingly lived in far more extreme places than TX, and AZ. I have been to many of these places, and I will say this: If the Temp's get above 130-140 degrees F, and it's still considered "spring" you need A/C. If a "heat wave" is 110, man-up, drink water, be healthier to give yourself the best chance to survive well through it, but you don't NEED A/C.
There are some places that do need A/C, but often times those aren't the private residence. I know that things like hospitals need to be completely regulated to best serve patients who enter, but thats not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
Have a look at dollol eithiopia, the hottest INHABITED place on earth (according to wikipedia) has an average annual temp on 93.9F and has a daily maximum of 41C my C to F is bad but i think 41 is about 110F, this is quite fun when compared to your if spring is 130/140 you need A/C and if 110 suck it up.
Edit: aww my first double post ...and hottest temp on record is only 136F measured in africa 1922 so where is it 130/140 in spring?
dogma wrote:ITT people overestimating their own hardship, and scoffing at that of other people.
How dare you suggest my life of leisure internet surfing with a hamburger in one hand and TV remote in the other is in anyway less challenging than surviving in a country whose only export is rocks with little opportunity to acquire food and medicine!
I watched an interesting little TV show a while back. It was made in the UK, and took jobs that were being given to immigrant workers, and instead got long term unemployed natives to try them. A bunch of them didn't show for work on the first day, and of the rest only the one guy working construction could handle the job. The waitstaff struggled, the factory workers were way off the pace, and the agricultural staff were an absolute disaster.
Thing is, if you're born here and you're willing to get stuck in and do some serious work, then it's extremely unlikely that you'll have to settle for picking turnips for a tick over minimum wage. And if you're not willing to work hard, then it's really, really unlikely you're going to be much use as a farmhand.
Which leaves a nice opportunity to have migrant workers from countries that don't provide our opportunities come in and work on the farms. They get paid more than they would get back home, and the money they send back improves the opportunities for their children's generation. It's a pretty decent arrangement all around.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of vested interests out there. There's folk who like to pretend they really honest and truly would get off their asses and work if only the immigrants weren't taking their jobs. And as long as the labour is illegal, farm owners can exploit the workers and keep them living in shameful working conditions. This leads to governments restricting the amount of legal immigrant labour, creating a black market, which in turn inevitably leads to the problems you see with any underground market.
The answer isn't increasing harsh punishments for people crossing the border (if punishment is the answer, then wouldn't it be smarter to punish the companies employing these people?) The answer is to build a better legislative environment, so that farms that want migrant labour can get it legally.
I seem to remember a word little country sandwiched between Kuwait and Iran that sees temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night. Freezing winters and driving rains. Seems I also recal A/C and heaters were hard to come by for a few months before engineers got around to it. You know after showers and shitters.
A/C is not a necessity, you really can't argue any other way. Humanity thrived without it for thousands of years. The Hopi live in the oldest continuously occupied structures in the known world, AC still a recent inclusion there. That said given a choice I'd eat a little leaner to pay the electric bill and keep cool.
@curtis People die, it sucks, I'm over it.
@immigration reform. I remember when they passed SB1070 here in AZ the President of Mexico gave a speech in Washington on how awful and overbearing it was. Odd considering until 2008 illegal immigration was a criminal violation in the Estados Unidos (probably misspelled). Mexico has some of the harshest immigration policies on the continents (yeah North and South). If Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama instituted the Mexican policies even supporters of immigration reform would go apeshit.
I can't speak for Alabamas law, but Arizonas doesn't allow the police to simply walk up to a "Hispanic looking person" and say, "you there brownie, show me yer papers." there is a process by which the officer arrives at a decision point where he suspects the person he is talking to might be illegal. I'm a little sketchy on the details but something along the lines of, "sir, do you know why I pulled you over?"
"que?"
"sir, do you know why I pulled you over?"
"no se"
"license, registration, and proof of insurance"
"Yo no tengo una licencia válida de conductores de estado, la visa, ni el gobierno publicaron documento de identificación. También, Mi vehículo es registrado en Sonora y probablemente robado. Yo no tengo seguro."
"Sir, I pulled you over because you don't have a license plate, I now also suspect that you do not have a valid drivers licence, auto registration, or insurance. What is your name and social security number should you choose to provide it, so I can ask dispatch to look you up. Que es su nombre?"
"no se"
Replace the Spanish portions with French(Liberians or worse Quebecois) or Pakistani and it's still valid. All just in AZ. Were a police officer to strut up and demand papers from my wife or say her grandmother (who doesn't bother to speak English) he'd probably find himself firmly unemployed. Since the grandmother in law immigrated here legally and has been a US Citizen for more than 50 years, it also happens to violate her Fourth Amendment rights if you skip the necessary steps; you know other than being offensive and racist. Turns out being brown doesn't make you illegal.
So now that it should be quite obvious I have a horse in this race: immigration reform is necessary, and this country needs to look out for number 1. With unemployment soaring illegals have the choice to naturalize or run once enforcement becomes the rule rather than exception. In 1900 fewer than 1/5 of my ancestors lived in the US. As the scion of a few immigrant families I believe that immigrants should be welcome, and documented.
@living wage. Purely in the US the cost of goods and services can also be linked to inflation. Everyone of my friends has been treated to a lecture on what the Federal Reserve is and how it works. I'll spare Dakka, but encourage you to find out for yourself. Aside from inflation there's just the plain cost of goods. Tariffs protect home industry, and the global market is kind to no one. A country with the industrial (now crumbling), technological, and agricultural resources the US has could close it's markets entirely and still thrive. Things are expensive and life is hard. Somehow we have forgotten that. I don't have the answers but I believe that a consumption driven economy is not sustainable, that printing money instead of specie only benefits the rich, that clumsy labor driven local economies should reassert thier roles, that my kitchen table should last a lifetime,
Also, I think Carthage should be Destroyed.
AustonT wrote:I seem to remember a word little country sandwiched between Kuwait and Iran that sees temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night.
And as we all know, every inch is a city full of people there to, right? Wait, what? Large stretches of area with no cities and towns? Centralized populations?
AustonT wrote:A/C is not a necessity, you really can't argue any other way.
And since no one has made that argument that A/C is necessary for all human survival I'm not sure what your point is. Makes me think you aren't really reading what people are posting, what with the refuting of non-existing arguments.
AustonT wrote:Humanity thrived without it for thousands of years.
Humanity thrived for a lot longer than thousands of years by finding habitable places, even in unpleasant areas. There is a reason that some areas still have no permanent habitations. There is a huge difference between being able to survive an area and setting up shop permanently. Through a great deal of resourcefulness humanity has learned to traverse some pretty nasty places but without technological advances we could never live there for extended periods. If you drop a human off in the middle of the antarctic with nothing and told him to live there he would die. Drop him off with minimal supplies he might be able to survive long enough to find help. Give him enough supplies (generator, cold weather gear, construction materials, and other people) and he can set up a working habitation. There are places in the world where if we didn't use technology we wouldn't be able to have permanent settlements without advances. Your argument seems to stem for a false notion that we are talking about comfort vs uncomfortable, which is not what is being referred to. Even the military puts soldiers through different environmental and survival training becuase there are still areas of the world that will kill you, even with training. Sometimes the training is more about surviving long enough for help to arrive becuase there is only so much time before you are just flat out fethed.
AustonT wrote:The Hopi live in the oldest continuously occupied structures in the known world, AC still a recent inclusion there.
You'll also notice they don't live in the worst parts of the land. There is a difference between living in an inhospitable area (though I would argue that, other than water conservation, it is far from the most difficult place to live) and an uninhabitable area. They also didn't survive by taking the attitude "people die, suck it up".
AustonT wrote:A/C is not a necessity, you really can't argue any other way.
And since no one has made that argument that A/C is necessary for all human survival I'm not sure what your point is. Makes me think you aren't really reading what people are posting, what with the refuting of non-existing arguments.
really? NO ONE has made the argument that AC is a necessity. NO ONE? the only thing that NO ONE has made the argument for is that it is necessary for "all human survival" you added that qualifier on your own.
Melissia wrote:Being able to obtain the basic necessities of life (fresh, non-rotten food; clean water, for both drinking and cleaning; shelter, including air conditioning and heating depending on the climate; and obtain viable transport from home to work, as otherwise they'll not be able to hold the job in the first place) without goin into debt.
AustonT wrote:Humanity thrived without it for thousands of years.
Humanity thrived for a lot longer than thousands of years by finding habitable places, even in unpleasant areas. There is a reason that some areas still have no permanent habitations. There is a huge difference between being able to survive an area and setting up shop permanently. Through a great deal of resourcefulness humanity has learned to traverse some pretty nasty places but without technological advances we could never live there for extended periods. If you drop a human off in the middle of the antarctic with nothing and told him to live there he would die. Drop him off with minimal supplies he might be able to survive long enough to find help. Give him enough supplies (generator, cold weather gear, construction materials, and other people) and he can set up a working habitation. There are places in the world where if we didn't use technology we wouldn't be able to have permanent settlements without advances. Your argument seems to stem for a false notion that we are talking about comfort vs uncomfortable, which is not what is being referred to. Even the military puts soldiers through different environmental and survival training becuase there are still areas of the world that will kill you, even with training. Sometimes the training is more about surviving long enough for help to arrive becuase there is only so much time before you are just flat out fethed.
since you mentioned permanent habitation, and failed to mention hunting and gathering I assume that you consider thriving to he associated with permanent habitation. Since the Neolithic revolution occurred around 8,000 BCE, 10000 on the absolute outside. And the first proto civilizations didn't show up until somewhere between 6,000 and 5000 BCE ( I tend to lean towards 5,000) I'd say that humanity has "thrived" for "thousands" of years
AustonT wrote:The Hopi live in the oldest continuously occupied structures in the known world, AC still a recent inclusion there.
You'll also notice they don't live in the worst parts of the land. There is a difference between living in an inhospitable area (though I would argue that, other than water conservation, it is far from the most difficult place to live) and an uninhabitable area. They also didn't survive by taking the attitude "people die, suck it up".
If you think the Hopi love in a hospitable part of the land I encourage you to give up your current lifestyle and join the traditionalist enclave of Hopi near Oraibi.
Since I said "people die, it sucks, I'm over it" directly to Curtis who quoted heat deaths I fail to see how you think the two clearly separated trains of thought were linked. Or do you also believe that I was talking about immigration reform in relation to Hopi living conditions and air conditioning?
AustonT wrote:really? NO ONE has made the argument that AC is a necessity. NO ONE? the only thing that NO ONE has made the argument for is that it is necessary for "all human survival" you added that qualifier on your own.
Not as a human necessity, no, they haven't. It has been argued that certain places would require them for long term habitation in areas that previously would not have been prosperous. Again, humans living in the Antarctic. Without portable generators and advanced materials (cloth, metal, ect) we couldn't have the permanent settlements that we do now. The argument that human beings can not survive w/o AC has not been put forth, just that certain areas would need it to sustain permanent settlements.
AustonT wrote:since you mentioned permanent habitation, and failed to mention hunting and gathering I assume that you consider thriving to he associated with permanent habitation. Since the Neolithic revolution occurred around 8,000 BCE, 10000 on the absolute outside. And the first proto civilizations didn't show up until somewhere between 6,000 and 5000 BCE ( I tend to lean towards 5,000) I'd say that humanity has "thrived" for "thousands" of years
You do know that the human animal didn't just pop up around 8000-10000 BC right? We've been talking about permanent habitation in relation to human settlements and the technology used to open up new areas that were previously just travel through country at best, or to be avoided at worst.
AustonT wrote:If you think the Hopi love in a hospitable part of the land I encourage you to give up your current lifestyle and join the traditionalist enclave of Hopi near Oraibi.
I actually specifically said they lived in a inhospitable area so again with refuting arguments that aren't being made. I also said of all the inhospitable areas that humans live i didn't think it was necessarily the most inhospitable. Our options are broader then either being hospitable or the worst place in the world to live. I also didn't say it was a fact, but that it was arguable that there may be a few rougher spots. There is certainly room for debate. Either way it goes back to my point that inhospitable and uninhabitable are not synonyms. The Hopi didn't accidentally make there villages in some places and not others.
Out of curiosity, how many years did you spend living a traditional Hopi lifestyle?
A character created by a third-rate philosopher whose work has since become regarded as an object of quasi-religious devotion.
You sure he's not Bob Galt's brother? Bob's one heck of a mechanic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
Who is John Galt?
A character created by a third-rate philosopher whose work has since become regarded as an object of quasi-religious devotion.
You sure he's not Bob Galt's brother? Bob's one heck of a mechanic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
Melissia wrote:Okay, I challenge you to go live in a concrete heat trap (IE, anywhere near a city) with no air conditioning during a Texas heat wave-- 115 degrees, 80% or higher humidity, no wind. And not only do that, but also do that while working a fourty hour work week, while only eating ramen noodles and drinking non-cooled water.
Many tougher people than you have died because of this kind of situation... you might live through it, but you'd certainly come out FAR worse for wear, and probably be too exhausted to really do your job properly, nevermind advance in it.
The human body tends to acclimate to whatever climate it is exposed to rather quickly (days to weeks). People have been living on the equator and in other extremely hot climates around the world far longer than A/C has been around.
I have worked in extreme heat as well, I used to run cable in Florida and would often find myself in peoples attics in mid afternoon when 110-120F would have been a blessing and 140-150 was the norm. At first I could barely stand 3-5 minutes but after getting used to it I could tolerate it till the job was done as long as I drank tons of water, usually hot out of the back of my truck.
Seriously, find an old steel mill worker who used to pull 12-16 hours days playing with molten steel and try telling him 115 degrees is too hot to work 40 hours a week when they worked in 150 degree mills in full body suits and thermal underwear.
Blah blah whatever. legally, in Texas warranties of habitability include insurance, just as heating is included in the north. It is viewed legally as a necessity for living.
AustonT wrote:I seem to remember a word little country sandwiched between Kuwait and Iran that sees temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night. Freezing winters and driving rains. Seems I also recal A/C and heaters were hard to come by for a few months before engineers got around to it. You know after showers and shitters.
Since the majority of Iraq is a dessert, I doubt that 80% humidity is something which occurs often in most areas of it.
See, that's the funny thing about using ranges to describe the climate of a large area of land, it generally doesn't mean anything. For example, the temperature in the United States ranges from 130 degrees in Death Valley to -60 degrees in Utah.
My God, the US is less hospitable than Iraq, those lazy soldiers have it easy!
Yeah, I don't buy that most of Iraq has eighty percent humidity....
Also, the human body is generally built to handle short periods of intense stress, rather than long periods of intense stress Long periods of intense stress breaks the body down and makes it become very unhealthy. Short periods are in many ways actually healthy for the body.
AustonT wrote:I seem to remember a word little country sandwiched between Kuwait and Iran that sees temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night. Freezing winters and driving rains. Seems I also recal A/C and heaters were hard to come by for a few months before engineers got around to it. You know after showers and shitters.
Since the majority of Iraq is a dessert, I doubt that 80% humidity is something which occurs often in most areas of it.
See, that's the funny thing about using ranges to describe the climate of a large area of land, it generally doesn't mean anything. For example, the temperature in the United States ranges from 130 degrees in Death Valley to -60 degrees in Utah.
My God, the US is less hospitable than Iraq, those lazy soldiers have it easy!
I spent a whole year in Iraq, I didn't find it humid.
It was fething hot in summer, and relatively cold on a night in winter, but it wasn't totally honking like the jungle in Africa.
Do you REALLY get to minus 60 in the states though!? That just sounds wrong to me. I trained in Tromso in northern Norway and it only got down to like minus 15 or something.
AustonT wrote:I seem to remember a weird little country sandwiched between Kuwait and Iran that sees temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night. Freezing winters and driving rains. Seems I also recal A/C and heaters were hard to come by for a few months before engineers got around to it. You know after showers and shitters.
Since the majority of Iraq is a dessert, I doubt that 80% humidity is something which occurs often in most areas of it.
See, that's the funny thing about using ranges to describe the climate of a large area of land, it generally doesn't mean anything. For example, the temperature in the United States ranges from 130 degrees in Death Valley to -60 degrees in Utah.
My God, the US is less hospitable than Iraq, those lazy soldiers have it easy!
I don't remember saying the whole country was at 80% humidity, I was giving a range and really just from my personal experience. Like when it does this:
after this:
I also hate to be the bearer of bad news but most of the populated portions of Iraq are defined by water.
In fact Lake Tharthar develops its own thunderstorms that general push East. You'll also note that the Med dumps its moisture off into Iraq on the frequent, so does the Persian Gulf and the Black Sea. So most of the time the temperature is high and the humidity is low. But there are plenty of reasons and situations where both are high.
Kuwait is much worse than Iraq IMO because its a sandy shithole with no real vegetation, and humidity blowing off the Gulf making it an unbearable mess.
I also wasn't talking about a 60 degree temperature shift across the entire country, just in one place. Nor was the range I gave for the whole country, just one place. So when the range is anything from 0-80% humidity and 10-140 degrees in one place of the course of a year it is pretty extreeme. But you cant employ the hyperbole that the whole country is constantly on the extreme end of both ranges all the time, since I certainly didn't imply or indicate that was the case. I can restate from the quoted piece with extra qualifiers:
I saw temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night. Freezing winters and driving rains.In one location
AustonT wrote:
I also hate to be the bearer of bad news but most of the populated portions of Iraq are defined by water.
You don't say. Its almost as abundant fresh water can facilitate human habitation in regions with high temperatures.
AustonT wrote:
So when the range is anything from 0-80% humidity and 10-140 degrees in one place of the course of a year it is pretty extreeme.
Unless this place was a desert that experienced an uncharacteristic rainstorm it did not see both 0% and 80% humidity. Also, you did not experience 140 degree heat, the world record temperature is 136 degrees. You may have seen a thermometer that displayed 140 degree heat, but most thermometers are wildly inaccurate.
Incidentally, many places in Arizona and New Mexico have experienced 60 degree temperature shifts as well.
While the discussion on how hospitable one region is compared to another and such is interesting, allow me to skew back somewhat to the OT.
Several thoughts about this.
First, if illegal immigrants represent such a economic boon and enforcing immigration laws and such is such a negative drain on the local economy, then states who do not attempt to enforce “federal” law as rigorously that border states that do such as Alabama, I would presume would be happy to see the illegal immigrants relocate to their state. In other words, Alabama’s loss is Tennessee’s and North Carolina’s gain!? If Alabama wants to commit economic suicide by aggressively enforcing “federal” law, why stop them?
My second thought is why do illegal immigrants think they must break the law to be in the US?
If the justification to break US immigration laws is because the conditions from where they come from are so intolerable, what is there to stop illegal immigrant from taking the next step and justifying other criminal acts because of how “intolerable” the conditions in their country of origin are?
If it is morally and ethically wrong to prosecute and deport illegal immigrants, why have immigration laws to begin with?
If there is no sense in having immigration laws, then what reason is there to monitor the borders or airports? Is it just to make sure that people are paying the proper duties and tariffs on items brought into the country (many designed to protect “American” jobs) which many believe uncontrolled immigration threatens?
Is it not contradictory that a political party who champion labor union’s causes, unions that vehemently oppose the terms of the NAFTA, including allowing Mexican Nationals to legally drive semi trucks throughout the United States that supposedly threaten US jobs and US lives, to essentially advocate for unchecked immigration, which many claim threatens US jobs and US lives?
Do illegal immigrants have an obligation to conform to the society of the country they immigrate to or does the country have an obligation to reorder its society to accommodate the illegal immigrant?
They could very well have entered legally, but then simply stayed longer than they were allowed to stay and thus become illegal. There's limits to the number of people allowed to immigrate in to the country. There's limits to how long they are allowed to stay. There are quotas and laws and restrictions and limitations and it's a just a whole fething mess. After the attacks on 9/11/2001, we've had more and more restrictions, and so the percentage of Mexican nationals entering illegally as opposed to legally has risen to nearly eighty percent. Hell, we've had several times as many immigrants entering illegally as are allowed to enter legally-- many of them may very well have been entering legally if they could.
What there is no limit to is how much paperwork you have to fill out and how many tests you have to pass to become citizen. Depending on the decade, it can get veritably labyrinthine. Some efforts are underway
You should read up on the 1990 Immigration Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
Lord of Deeds wrote:
Is it not contradictory that a political party who champion labor union’s causes, unions that vehemently oppose the terms of the NAFTA, including allowing Mexican Nationals to legally drive semi trucks throughout the United States that supposedly threaten US jobs and US lives, to essentially advocate for unchecked immigration, which many claim threatens US jobs and US lives?
No. One can advocate X without advocating what X advocates.
Personally, I think we complicate the whole illegal immigrant thing too much - probabaly because immigrating legally is an enourmous undertaking, and just getting temporary work visas isn't much easier. I favor a two-step solution.
1) If an illegal immigrant is found, the authorities take him to an immigration office, sit them down, and fill out all the paperwork to make him legal. Slap a small fine on them for not doing it right the first time, then cut them loose.
2) Make legal immigration simple. Basically a 'walk up to the border, fill out the paperwork, here you go' affair.
That has GOT to be much cheaper an option that our current policies, gives the immigrants legal protection from exploitation, gives us a real way to keep track of the people coming in (right now if they come in illegally, obviously we have no idea what they are doing once they get here), allows us to hammer the people who would pay them less-than-minimum wage and otherwise be abusive employers... the list goes on.
And once we've made it that simple, finding an illegal means he's Up To Something, and we can focus law enforcement attention on that sort of illegal, rather than the current scattershot effect of investigating people who just want to earn a living...
Current economic systems just don't turn without that. We can't get any cheap labor from American's anymore for so many reasons, and now we turn to Southeast Asians, Chinese, and illegal immigrants.
to the north.
