Jobs Americans Won't Do: Voodoo Economics from the White House.

National Review Online ^ | January 07, 2004 | Mark Krikorian

[Protagoras]

There is a balance. And there should be no welfare for non citizens. I understand it isn't the reality.

[Protagoras]

Which is not to say there should be welfare for citizens either.

[sarcasm]

Bottom line is that something needs to be done about all the millions of illegals that are already here!

Deport them.

[Dan Evans]

When you say you prefer Mexican immigrants to Americans, don't expect a lot of love in return. Even if you say it's just SOME Americans you're talking about.

[Happy2BMe]

That 1999 Hispanic voting record chart was quite interesting (19% voted Republican).

Give us a more recent one if you can plaese.

[sarcasm]

 

[sten]

This kind of elitist crap just gets my fur ruffled. The assumption that there are jobs that Americans are too good for, is purely absurd and evident of full fledged spin.

Boil it down... why wouldn't an American do a farm job? The lowest going wage would be $6/hr, the minimum an employer could legally pay for a worker. On top of that, the worker costs an additional 7.5% for matching social security tax, further increasing the cost to the employer to roughly $6.45. More could be included for workman's comp and various insurances, and the total cost to the employer would be roughly $7/hr.

Meanwhile, the American worker is going to receive his stipend, minus federal tax (18%), social security and medicare(7.5%), and state tax(at least %5). This let's him take home an amazing $4.24/hr.

Meanwhile, Jose and his band of merry illegals stroll up... "pssst... we can do it.. for $5/hr". The employer is amazed, thinks about (for about a second), and decides to save the $2/hr by setting the "going rate" for that position at $5/hr. The American says he is not willing, or able, to work for a net of $3.53/hr, and leaves. Leaving the illegal to happily collect a net of $5/hr.

And yes... I worked on a farm when I was younger. I would not say I am too good for farm work.

[sten]

On top of that, the increased workforce produced by allowing the illegals, and replacing Americans, puts downward pressure on other jobs the displaced Americans are forced to contend for. Its a simple result of supply and demand. The demand is not outpacing the supply, therefore the wages will start to drop.

And just so you know, not everyone can be a corporate attorney or market analyst. There will always be people that have no more ambition in life then to just do the required work in order to pay the bills. Does it make sense to punish these people because the people at the top want a bigger jet?

And do you think it stops at farm labor? Hardly. As stated by the CEO of Hewlett Packard, there are no jobs in America that cannot be shipped overseas. This means the accountant better be willing to compete with the $6/hr Indian or $3/hr Chinese guy. As a matter of fact, any job done in an office, with no customer interaction, could be shipped overseas and the fruits of that labor shipped back via phone, fax, internet, or fedex.

Of course, this is the exact reason the north went to war with the south. The economic advantage the south had in terms of cheap labor. Now, the US is utilizing extremely cheap labor to produce their goods. How is this any different from the pre-civil war south?

[eleni121]

I am just as frustrated as you are but Americans need to look at this thing rationally and seek solutions not add to the chaos by insiting on extreme solutions like mass deportations. The articles below position themselves on the issue and name the players involved. If Bush doesn't act, the Dems will. Bush's savvy in undermining the causes of the Left wing can be brought to bear on this.

In any case, the proposal is out there and the discussion can begin. compromise is possible but then again naybe not. Bush can say that he tried and nobody wanted to do anything. Win-win for Bush and that is what matters.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1028/p02s01-woam.html

http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/agworkvisa/revive110503.html

[sten]

As for not having the man-power to find and deport the illegals, what a crock. They don't seem to have any problem finding the man-power to issue over 10 million speeding tickets a year and have a presence on every roadway in America.

It's very simple, there are only so many employers... visit them all. This is the federal government we are talking about. They can do this. Maybe not in a single year, but over 4 years it can be done. And at a minimum, if an illegal shows up in a hospital, school, or police station... then they should be deported immediately.

Keeping out the illegals was one of the things they were paid to do in the first place. If they aren't going to do it, demand a refund on salaries paid and let's start de-funding the agencies supposedly tasked to do this work.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

Tough language for someone who didn't read closely what was written. The truth is revealed that you have progressed to the argument that I hear others make (when they understand, but don't ACT or sacrifice on that understanding): that it's just getting their money back. To construct your response you had to make a false assumption: that I also support the govvie taking it in the first place. Wrong.

Now for the real world: I, and several other colleagues that were laid off because terrs wrecked the business we worked at in NYC on 911, refused, on principle, to take unemployment. They offered small change to sell your soul to a criminal mafia that took it in the first place. Courage is being exorted by the mafia and telling them GO TO HELL, I won't participate in the scheme.

Another example: my 94 year old grandmother worked full-time until she was 79! just to avoid taking social security at all costs. Our family has refused collectively more than $50,000 over the decades of "entitlements" that most so-called "conservatives" don't think twice about taking. Why, because the objective is liberty not middle class socialism. What we need instead is a country where so-called conservatives put their money where their mouths are -- and refuse social security and other socialist subsidies (for businesses, farms, unemployment), even if they CAN'T afford it. What they do is up to them, but I am certain that we here will all live and die as truly FREE AMERICANS.

My policy choice is one that real conservatives were pressing for, but so far failed to achieve a serious hearing on, complete and total privatization of social security and the elimination of unemployment and the new wage insurance schemes. The first two programs were first proposed and advanced by the Socialist Party in the US and considered utterly repulsive by even the Democrats UNTIl post-WW1 when America started its love affair with socialism. The new "wage insurance" scheme was pitched in the 1990s by a group that Rumsfeld was involved in, and is part of the grander scheme to create socialist subsidies for those impact by unfair trade treaties.

Regardless of where the programs came from, the fact that people calling themselves conservatives and lauding the sacrifices of real heroes on battlefields don't have the courage to make personal financial sacrifices for their beliefs is the base of vulgar hypocrisy. When one is prepared to give everything to fight tyranny, a few months rent is but a small sacrifice.

[Happy2BMe]

Thank you for those Hispanic voting and party affiliation history chart facts, sarcasm!

As you know, facts can be very confusing.

But, let's take a shot at it:

Chart #1 - 1999 Hispanic Party Affilliation Chart

Chart #2 - U.S. Senate 2002 Midterm Latino Voting Record

Chart #3 - 2000 and 2002 Latino Voting Profile

From looking at chart #1 we see that Democrats enjoyed at 24.4% advantage over Republicans.

In chart #2 we see that 67% of the Latino vote went to the Democrats over the Republicans.

In chart #3 we see the continuing trend of Latino voters growing smaller with 53.7% of the Latino vote going to Democrats over Republicans.

Based on these trends, we can safely predict that at least 45% of all Latino votes will go to Democrats in 2004, 15% to Independent/Other, and a liberal estimate of 40% going to George W. Bush.

Upon reflecting on chart #2, one can safely predict that a minimum of 85 to 90% of all Black votes will easily go to the Democrats over Bush.

What conclusions can we draw from these historical Latino and Black voting trends as we go into the 2004 presidential election cycle?

[SteelTrap]

Bush wins 52-48

[sarcasm]

Cheat number three is for only ten states - I doubt that you can extrapolate from that.

[Happy2BMe]

And it doesn't say what states either.

Hmmm...

[sarcasm]

Latinos and the 2002 Election - Republicans Do Well When Latinos Stay Home

[SteelTrap]

Liberalism in general, but specifically for 2 reasons: encroachment on property rights (enviro-wackoism) and the capital gains tax exemption on selling primary residences. All land owners are doing is saying adios to the lack of support from their elected liberals and locking in profits they will reinvest elsewhere.

[Happy2BMe]

Well, it appears to be a good study, with the overall conclusion that Blacks will continue leaning heavily (95+%) towards Democrats and Latinos voting largely on individual preference moreso than voting as a block.

I still think it is a bit naive to assume that Latinos will not vote as a block - especially after the voting panorama is dramatically redrawn after the next few years (when millons more fresh, new votes come in from newly made Mexican-American voters).

That is likey the major concern and the rush to grab these votes between the two major parties.

"* There is no "Latino" voting bloc, as such — after controlling for party identification, income, and education, there is no difference between Latino voting and the voting pattern of non-Hispanic whites in either the Senate or gubernatorial races of 2002. This is not true of African Americans, who are a distinctive voting bloc even after controlling for education, income, and party identification."

[Dan Evans]

Those "hard-working, god-fearing", immigrants you want to be surrounded with are going to vote for liberals. Since you know liberalism is causing the problems in California, why make it easier for them to come here and vote? Or do you believe that in the future, Hispanics are Republicans?

[SteelTrap]

Exactly. But not Hispanics specifically - anyone with traditional beliefs and assets they want to pass to their kids. Of any background. Being born in Mexico does not mean they are automatically going to follow in the footsteps of the black electorate that swings heavily Democrat. Not a given I admit. But I have faith Hispanics can climb the economic ladder without the self-imposed limitation certain other segments of the minority electorate experience. Remember the big fear back in the 70's that Asian boat people were going to suck California social programs dry? Didn't happen because their cultural background gave them pride in self-reliance and shame for accepting welfare. I believe the same has happened/will continue to happen with Hispanics. Remember the Koreans with shotguns on the rooftops of their stores in LA during the riots? Those guys weren't Democrats.