Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So the restaurant industry should get a pass because they have exploited a source of illicit labour, and become dependant upon it to maximize their revenue? That is not a sustainable business model.

What happens to their restaurants then if the source of their labour becomes legitimate, and eligible for higher wages? Do we need to turn a blind eye to a new set of illegal immigrants coming in to drive down the wage costs for these businesses?

Let's try this again:

You can really only have two simple arguments: either the industry will be destroyed by higher labor costs, or the industry will adapt to higher labor costs.

If you have people who argue that increased labor costs are going to destroy the industry only to turn around and argue that higher labor costs are fine and won't affect the industry all that much, then that is a pretty good indicator of a politician that shouldn't be listened to.

That's not an argument for or against any policy, law, or tax. That's just common sense.

If you think that businesses are going to survive higher labor costs that will result because you dramatically decrease the labor pool and remove cheap illegal labor, then that's fine. But then stop arguing that that same business isn't going to survive higher labor costs from an increased minimum wage.

If you think that a business is going to be destroyed by higher labor costs from an increased minimum wage, then that's fine. But then stop arguing that that same business won't be hurt by higher labor costs from a decreased labor pool. and removal of cheap illegal labor.

Heck, I would at least appreciate the integrity if someone would go on record and say that small businesses that employ cheap illegal labor deserves to struggle and go bankrupt when their labor costs go up due to having to employ lawful labor. At least then their argument would have consistency and they wouldn't be pretending that the bottom line somehow cares WHY their labor costs went up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Who says they will be eligible for higher wages, I bet they would still start out at minimum wages, but they might be eligible for benefits (401k, health care, etc.).

Labor that isn't legal often isn't paid a legal minimum wage either. And there also may be less cost to the employer due to not having to pay payroll taxes on illegal labor.

Who says they will be eligible for higher wages, I bet they would still start out at minimum wages, but they might be eligible for benefits (401k, health care, etc.).

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Who says they will be eligible for higher wages, I bet they would still start out at minimum wages, but they might be eligible for benefits (401k, health care, etc.).

You seem to think that they're being paid minimum wage in the first place. This probably isn't the case, so paying them minimum wage IS higher wages.

 d-usa wrote:
Let's try this again:

You can really only have two simple arguments: either the industry will be destroyed by higher labor costs, or the industry will adapt to higher labor costs.

If you have people who argue that increased labor costs are going to destroy the industry only to turn around and argue that higher labor costs are fine and won't affect the industry all that much, then that is a pretty good indicator of a politician that shouldn't be listened to.

That's not an argument for or against any policy, law, or tax. That's just common sense.

If you think that businesses are going to survive higher labor costs that will result because you dramatically decrease the labor pool and remove cheap illegal labor, then that's fine. But then stop arguing that that same business isn't going to survive higher labor costs from an increased minimum wage.

I don't recall making that argument

 d-usa wrote:
If you think that a business is going to be destroyed by higher labor costs from an increased minimum wage, then that's fine. But then stop arguing that that same business won't be hurt by higher labor costs from a decreased labor pool. and removal of cheap illegal labor.

Another argument that I did not make. We seem to be on a run of strawmen.

 d-usa wrote:
Heck, I would at least appreciate the integrity if someone would go on record and say that small businesses that employ cheap illegal labor deserves to struggle and go bankrupt when their labor costs go up due to having to employ lawful labor. At least then their argument would have consistency and they wouldn't be pretending that the bottom line somehow cares WHY their labor costs went up.

This is actually closer to what I said when I said that the exploitation of illegal immigrants for labour was "not a sustainable business model", but I never said that they should struggle or go bankrupt. I would rather that they adapted.

I was replying to another posters "it will increase costs, but they will cope" comment.

And I honestly didn't intent my argument as a "keeping labor cheap is a good reason to ignore the law" argument.

I think we just got our wires crossed.

Edit: ninja'd, nevermind

 d-usa wrote:
I was replying to another posters "it will increase costs, but they will cope" comment.

And I honestly didn't intent my argument as a "keeping labor cheap is a good reason to ignore the law" argument.

I think we just got our wires crossed.

Never worry, when I seen you quote me I thought that you were responding to me alone. The cheap labour argument was an atypical one for you to advance so I thought I'd ask if that was what you were actually trying to articulate.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So, what am I to infer from Ouze's Hillary "Deal with it" gif as his avater?

he doesn't have a Hillary "Deal with it" Gif... He has an A10 Warthog...

I think you're losing it Whembly XD

*had*

Right after the last Republican debate.

I paid attention when I was on vacay!

It wasn't after the last Republican debate. It was after her appearance at the "Lets Try And Hurt Hillary Clinton Politically" committee.

I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton. I'm less of a fan, however, of the infinite whoring out of 4 dead Americans by the Republican party, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, for partisan political purposes. I was excited by how well she did during the hearings because it seemed like perhaps we can finally drop the never-ending Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaazhhhi! hearings that are a fig leaf for the RNC's agenda - once you have prominent Republicans finally admitting the whole thing was a charade to hurt her in the polls, maybe we can finally move on.

So, instead of making a pretend story in your head about what you imagine I think about Hillary Clinton, you could read things I actually wrote, in this thread, about Hillary Clinton. Behold the ringing endorsements!



Literally the only reason I want to see Hillary Clinton win at this point it so you will lose your gak. And even then, just thinking about your 2 or 3 bumps per day with Today's Hillary Clinton Scandal Update is just exhausting to me mentally. Assuming she gets re-elected, we're looking at literally almost a decade more of today's Daily Caller \ Brietbart \ Drudge \ #TCOT talking point regurgitation.

Here is the only candidate I support, and more importantly, why:

 Ouze wrote:

Here is the only candidate I support, and more importantly, why:

That is.... actually quite amusing to me

From page 176 to here there have been a lot of 1 or so line posts made that, either intentionally or unintentionally, aren't having a positive effect on the discussion. "try again bro", "so you got nuthin", and posts of a similar vein are not conducive to good discussion and serve only to ruin whatever the discussion was and drag it down into the mud. This isn't what is going to happen in this thread. So general warning, people need to police their posts better or else steps will be taken

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Well, so much for no boots on the ground

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34681648

The US is sending special forces to Syria to assist anti-government rebels in fighting the so-called Islamic State (IS), officials have said.
There will be "fewer than 50" forces deployed in the region, in what will be the first time US troops are working openly on the ground in Syria.
There have been US special forces raids on IS militants in the country.
A senior administration official told the BBC this does not signal a change in US strategy in Syria.
The special operations forces will be focused on Northern Syria, the official said.

I have no idea what we're doing over there any more.

When you find someone who does, tell us and we can put him in charge.

There is literally no candidate of either party that I would trust to actually improve the situation, frankly. I haven't really heard a single one say "We can't make this better, so we can at least try to not make it worse" or something to that effect.

 Ouze wrote:
There is literally no candidate of either party that I would trust to actually improve the situation, frankly. I haven't really heard a single one say "We can't make this better, so we can at least try to not make it worse" or something to that effect.

Sanders is, IIRC, the only one to thus far even mention working with "the other side" or work with "everyone" to effect changes. To me, it shows that he understands you can't do much without half to 2/3ds of the elected people in congress

There have been a few who have thrown out some teamwork-style ideas. I actually did a quick refresher before I posted so I didn't look stupider than normal - I was sort of expecting Rand Paul to have favored noninvolvement (he doesn't).

Obviously everyone has their own opinion on this, but I personally think we should stay out of it, full stop, the end - and no candidate has endorsed that. Even Bernie has situationally approved of a military intervention.

 Ouze wrote:
There have been a few who have thrown out some teamwork-style ideas. I actually did a quick refresher before I posted so I didn't look stupider than normal - I was sort of expecting Rand Paul to have favored noninvolvement (he doesn't).

Obviously everyone has their own opinion on this, but I personally think we should stay out of it, full stop, the end - and no candidate has endorsed that. Even Bernie has situationally approved of a military intervention.

Ahh, you were referring to the ME.... I was referring to domestic policies, gotcha. And IIRC, during the CNN debate, Sanders tried to say he wouldn't use the military, but under goading from moderators eventually said that he'd use the DoD if "necessary", but not before that point.



I agree, we should completely get the feth out of dodge with the ME. We should leave Israel alone until such a time as they actually need aid (ie, they for whatever reason get to a point where they cannot defend themselves), and generally just steer clear of any involvement with those countries. The only involvement I think we should have is if THEY initiate contact saying, "hey, we want to negotiate peace, will you be an impartial moderator for our two sides?"

Yes, agreed - totally, on all counts.

We've been there for a long time and we've only ever made it worse.

 Ouze wrote:

We've been there for a long time and we've only ever made it worse.

Pretty broad statement there. I suspect that the Kuwaitis may disagree for example.

It might be political posturing, but Paul Ryan is already saying things that give me a tiny sliver of hope in the House.

 d-usa wrote:
It might be political posturing, but Paul Ryan is already saying things that give me a tiny sliver of hope in the House.

Me too.

He's a wonkey moderate with a dash of conservative appeal and a dash of knowing what he has to do to make things work.

We know he isn't going to make everyone happy at the same time... but, if he can foster an environment that everyone has a say, then things may be less bak gak insane.

Not much tho.

 whembly wrote:

We know he isn't going to make everyone happy at the same time... but, if he can foster an environment that everyone has a say, then things may be less bak gak insane.

Not much tho.

I'm much less interested in an environment where everyone "has a say", at least as it pertains to THAT room. I am much more interested in an environment where things get done. Compromise, discussion and negotiation. Not political hostages and the "usual" gak-fest we've had for the past 8-10 years.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I'm much less interested in an environment where everyone "has a say", at least as it pertains to THAT room. I am much more interested in an environment where things get done. Compromise, discussion and negotiation. Not political hostages and the "usual" gak-fest we've had for the past 8-10 years.

Have an exalt.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

We know he isn't going to make everyone happy at the same time... but, if he can foster an environment that everyone has a say, then things may be less bak gak insane.

Not much tho.

I'm much less interested in an environment where everyone "has a say", at least as it pertains to THAT room. I am much more interested in an environment where things get done. Compromise, discussion and negotiation. Not political hostages and the "usual" gak-fest we've had for the past 8-10 years.

Both parties share a burden on that... yes.

Let's see if Ryan can lead a change. But, the Democrats and President Obama will need to play that dance too. They weren't interested in any compromise either, as the shutdown theatric/debt limit ordeals/budget continuation benefits the Ds more than the Rs.

 whembly wrote:

Both parties share a burden on that... yes.

Let's see if Ryan can lead a change. But, the Democrats and President Obama will need to play that dance too. They weren't interested in any compromise either, as the shutdown theatric/debt limit ordeals/budget continuation benefits the Ds more than the Rs.

Ohh, I completely agree with you there.




And in other news, there's this little gem out of Texas:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/01/texas-homeschoolers-we-shouldnt-have-to-educate-our-kids-if-theyll-be-raptured-soon-anyways/

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/01/texas-homeschoolers-we-shouldnt-have-to-educate-our-kids-if-theyll-be-raptured-soon-anyways/

This would be comedy gold if it wasn't so tragically typical.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/01/texas-homeschoolers-we-shouldnt-have-to-educate-our-kids-if-theyll-be-raptured-soon-anyways/

This would be comedy gold if it wasn't so tragically typical.

Sounds like a "made for TV show" idea...

Quick... someone get TLC on this!

Oh god it's Honey Boo Boo all over again.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/01/texas-homeschoolers-we-shouldnt-have-to-educate-our-kids-if-theyll-be-raptured-soon-anyways/

This would be comedy gold if it wasn't so tragically typical.

Typical of what-revealing your own prejudice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/01/texas-homeschoolers-we-shouldnt-have-to-educate-our-kids-if-theyll-be-raptured-soon-anyways/

Hey what do you have against the real world Patridge Family? Why do you hate Buddha?

In their defense this is El Paso. I would be praying all the time for the rapture too if I lived in El Paso. Its Texas' deathworld experiment to see if we could develop our own atomic mutie force vs. New Mexico's atomic muties.

 Frazzled wrote:
Typical of what-revealing your own prejudice?

Yes. I am prejudiced against religious loons who spoil their own children's future because they're so arrogant they think they know the mind of God < This is literally listed out right as one of the gravest Sins any human being can make (for those who haven't read their NT, or selectively cheery pick it )

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And in other news, there's this little gem out of Texas:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/01/texas-homeschoolers-we-shouldnt-have-to-educate-our-kids-if-theyll-be-raptured-soon-anyways/

This part of that is surprising:

Like many homeschoolers, the McIntyre family in El Paso was given wide latitude in their children’s education. They had almost no oversight from educators. They were never required to follow a curriculum or have their children take standardized tests like children in public (and most private) schools do. The results weren’t pretty: The children learned almost nothing they couldn’t learn in Sunday school.

Texas DOES require home schooled kids to take the same standardized tests. That part is BS. My wife was a teacher in Texas, and is now working for the state here in IL. I'll just say that not every state has a strict of a set of home schooling rules as Texas does, sadly. in IL, you can just say "I'm homeschooling my child" and withdraw them with no penalty or oversight. NOT TRUE in Texas, where you have to take yearly standardized tests and maintain a minimal level on your results.

 LordofHats wrote:
selectively cheery pick it

Surely people don't do THAT. Surely.