Posted on 04/18/2009 6:37:49 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Does anybody really care what McCain thinks?—’cept MSM.
Looks like we need the roof to fall in for things to CHANGE and maybe TRUE leadership on behalf of the PEOPLE will emerge.
The events of the next 6 months will dictate that
If the roof caves in like you think, I see some terrible consequences on the horizon: martial law, possibly? a severe depression, as opposed to the mild recession that we seem to be recovering from @ the moment? skyrocketing inflation? civil war? a sign of weakness that may prime the pump for another terrorist attack or a series of them?
Forgive me for not being more optimistic on the future of our country, but I am beginning to expect the worst.
I don't know if you really do not understand or just like to place stuff on the net because it is cool., or you simply like to argue.
.I will attempt to make it clear for you one more time in case it is the first. If not, then it really does not matter one way on the other.
Legal employees are free to work anywhere they are asked, or hired. Illegal ones are not.
What an employer pays the employees is between the employer and employee.
What drives the pay scale is not, nor should it be, government mandate, or the wishes of the employee. It is what makes the business profitable, otherwise the business goes belly up, and hires NO ONE, and makes no goods, and provides no services, (unless subsidized by the govt, that is you and me, but that is another story.)
Now, if an employer is driven by profit, he actually wants to hire better people, not necessarily cheapest. The profit scale is a bell shaped curve, and it is optimal, ie, most profitable, at the junction when the employees are happiest and most productive. Henry Ford figured that one out way back when. He found out that happy employees are much more measurably productive than unhappy ones, regardless of pay.
That is, most bang for the buck for the employer. Too little pay is not necessarily profitable, it is simply less pay. If the employee that works for the less pay is less qualified, the business actually loses money, ie, it becomes less profitable..
So you see, simply hiring people because they work for less pay is not automatically reflected as higher profit. The less skilled employee makes mistakes which cost the company money. The less skilled employee is not knowledgeable in his work, which costs the company money. The less skilled employee makes wrong decisions, which cost the employer money. The less skilled employee needs to be taught, which costs the employer money. So, there is really disincentive to hire less skilled employees, except for companies who wish to be unable to compete, or simply run a business into the ground, wondering why it turned out that way.
On the other hand, hiring someone for more pay does not automatically make the company succeed, see GM.
I do not support illegal anything, but blaming the 10 per cent job loss on influx of illegals is a bit disingenuous at this point in time. Removing all illegals with a magic wand is not going to kick start this economy.
Wise business decisions ending in profit, both on paper and in real assets and productivity, in a successfully competitive business model, will.
And if that rate goes to 20%, would you still support it? How about 50%?
If an employee has legally filled all paperwork, played by the rules, immigrated to this country to make a better life, you would not hire that person simply because they are immigrants?? Just how many in this country are native born, and willing to work, and be productive, and how many in this country are not native born, are willing to work, and be productive? Why would you pick one and not the other?? Which group do you think deserves to be picked first, and who should go to the back of the line?? S
Should employers pick according to time in this country or skill level brought to the table?
Why not 100% — let’s just turn the country over to the Chinese. /s
Some would argue that a great amount of this country is held by the Chinese. How do we get it back? By disallowing a certain segment of society, here legally, with proper lawful procedure, established by federal law, from gainful employment, because they are willing to work for less than the homegrown article?
Do you really know what you want?
Remember the old Boy Scouts motto... “Be Prepared”.
I have no problem with legal immigrants who permanently reside in the United States working, on par with U.S. citizens, except in certain classes of jobs that require U.S. citizenship (such as a job that requires a security clearance).
However, I have problems with this "temporary guest worker" program. What the program would allow is the temporary importation of workers to the United States simply because a company does not want to pay the prevailing market wage here in the United States or wants to skirt U.S. labor law. If an employer's operations are physically present in the United States, and thus, gain all the benefits of U.S. law, then they ought to hire U.S. legal residents.
The problem with the guest worker program, or any other similar scheme cooked up by the lowlifes in congress, is not that they may be hired cheaper by employers, thus take away legit work from us citicens. That is a red herring, that forces the debate onto an outreach branch.
The principle should be that there should be guest nothing, except tourists on visa, sightseeing. If anyone wants gainful employment here, they need to apply for legal status first, and be granted it. Once granted, they should be availed of all the "stuff" afforded other legal residents, citizen or otherewise.
What they get paid is still between them and their employer.
What part of "guest worker program" did you not get?
The question being discussed, to which I commented on, was an expansion of said program. Guest workers are "legal," yes, but those programs are usually designed to supplement our workforce, not compete with it and certainly not to replace it.
Try reading what I wrote again and commenting on that before trying to sell your own agenda.
I do not support illegal anything, but blaming the 10 per cent job loss on influx of illegals is a bit disingenuous
I said nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about "illegals." I did not blame them; heck, I didn't even mention them!
Again, I am talking about "guest workers." Get it?
I apoligize for wasting your time, and mine.
Ping!
John McCain shold go smoke a thousand joints. It might clear his brains out. If that doesn’t work, a good enema might.
John McCain and George Bush II - the two main reasons the Obamnation is in the Oval Office.
cool. Still bush’s fault.
McCain is an elected public servant.
McCain would rather give jobs to anyone except the 7 Million Unemployed Americans.WTF?
McCain is the face of the dead GOP.
they two are drugs and illegal immigration are joined at the hip. it is all corrupt.
How many businesses have you owned & operated in the past 30 years?
Anyone who doesn't “think” that illegals have impacted the number of jobs available to AMERICANS is either naive or just not paying attention! I can take you to dozens of construction sites, restaurants, hotels, cleaning services, car washes and sweat shops throughout CA TODAY where illegals are working for a fraction of what those businesses would have to pay American citizens....and I won't even get into the BILLIONS that it is costing American taxpayers to allow those same illegals to stay here and receive food stamps, housing assistance, education and medical care!
Since 1971, I have been the employer (thus hiring and firing employees)in a roofing company, an auto mechanic shop, floor covering company, landscaping company, and as a sole proprietor in my last business, I have hired, and fired, perhaps 23 employees (need to look at my records to verify the numbers, but they are pretty close)
You?
Anyone who doesn't “think” that illegals have impacted the number of jobs available to AMERICANS is either naive or just not paying attention!
Of course illegals have impacted the number of available american jobs. The question is one of magnitude. When I buy gas at the station, it affects your supply. Blaming illegals for the 10% job loss, and not taking into account the economic conditions that are the primary cause is,..what. not correct? What is the proper phrase here?
I find I can take you to dozens of construction sites, restaurants, hotels, cleaning services, car washes and sweat shops throughout CA TODAY where illegals are working for a fraction of what those businesses would have to pay American citizens
And all those businesses need to be closed down, and thier assets confiscated, and levied large fines, to dissuade further hiring of same.
Those people are illegal, have no business being here, and should be deported asap
and I won't even get into the BILLIONS that it is costing American taxpayers to allow those same illegals to stay here and receive food stamps, housing assistance, education and medical care!
Agreed, agreed, agreed, and agreed.
You don't like illegals, neither do I.
Call me boneheaded, but I do not see the present unemployment figures being primarily due to illegals taking jobs away from citizens and legal residents. I think the poor choices made by politicians regarding the economic policies, the housing bubble pop, massive bailouts, tax increases and unbridles spending have impact
Unless of course, you wish to consider the cotribution they made in the development of the housing bubble, which then led the the present crisis, but that is another story.
“Call me boneheaded, but I do not see the present unemployment figures being primarily due to illegals taking jobs away from citizens and legal residents.”
You said it...I didn’t. I did say that anyone who “thought” that illegals didn’t affect the unemployment of Americans was either naive or just wasn’t paying attention.
BTW, I have OWNED & OPERATED businesses in CA for 30 years.
Good day!
This statement you placed in italics, made by me, was the leadin to your post.
I assumed that was the point you were alluding to in your subsequent statements.
It is one of magnitude. Yes, illegals to effect US unemployment. Illegals are not the primary cause of the 10% unemployment however.
But then, you knew that...so, what exactly is your point, that illegals effect US unemployment? That is a given.
What in your opinion is the cause of 10% unemployment (more in CA) in the US? Do you think that illegals are the mairn cause?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.