“Americans won’t do those jobs” is the worst argument for mass immigration ever

[Anonymous]

California and the rest of the west coast have relied on Mexican labor for their crops since before they were part of the US. Just because the names of the countries changed doesn't make the traditional nature of this migratory farm worker population change. Pretending this is new or more predatory now or whatever is just rewriting history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meatpacking

Meatpacking used to be a stable, middle-class union job, with multiple generations of families working at the same plant. In 1960, the industry was 95% unionized, paying wages that were comparable to those in the auto and steel industries. Meatpacking was skilled labor. A meatpacker was trained like an old-fashioned butcher to take an animal from slaughter to final cuts.

In the 1960s, a company called IBP (Iowa Beef Packers) figured out that you didn't need skilled labor if you didn't care about your workers. Instead of workers doing a variety of jobs, IBP had workers do one cut all day long, maybe separate the hind quarter from the carcass, or slice a single cut of steak.

Meatpacking wages across the industry stayed high through the early 1980s, but then started to fall, as more companies adopted the IBP method. After all, anyone could be trained to do a single cut. By the mid-80s, wages had plunged and unions were disappearing. It was a race to the bottom and meatpacking was quickly becoming the worst job in America.

One reason it was now so awful, was that the IBP method resulted in a huge rise in repetitive stress injuries and debilitating knife cuts caused by inattention and fatigue. Doing one cut all day long on a speeding factory line was good for corporate profits but disastrously bad for actual humans.

Today, Places like Tyson Chicken and Smithfield Ham need an endless supply of 3rd world immigrants to keep wages low and unions busted, but also because it's a job that destroys the human body and spirit. Even if you're not injured, the work is so grueling that most immigrants can only do it for a couple of years before they move on. That's why you'll see that the ethnic composition of rural meatpacking towns goes through successive waves of foreigners-- Mexicans, Somalis, Sudanese, Guatemalans, Haitians-- as each group gets brought in and burned out, while management goes looking for another group of suckers.

Shutting down the immigration pipeline and deporting the illegals will go a long way to restoring the balance between workers and corporations. Likewise, we need to go back to a system with lots of small-scale regional meat processors staffed by skilled workers, something that will require breaking up these abusive corporations and overhauling the USDA inspection program.

Yes, prices of meat will certainly rise, but you already shouldn't be eating factory-farmed meat and you shouldn't be patronizing corporations that are actively wrecking America.

I could actually see a lot of automation in that job. XRAY machines, automatic slicing and dicing. Think about it. The actual picture is a little scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is not and should not be that "Americans won't do these jobs" but that we have inadequate citizen applicants to get the job done when the job is important and needed from generating food to nursing care.

From inception, the U.S. was built on free and then underpaid labor. Indentured servants > slaves > sharecroppers/Jim Crow blacks > Irish/Italian/Polish/Chinese immigrants > illegal immigrants from Latin America. Our food and several manufacturing sectors have ALWAYS paid below market-rate wages.

OP here. Yes, I read The Jungle. I thought we were supposed to be progressing past that. A lot of people on this thread are fine with those jobs continuing to suck as long as it’s not them who has to do them.

One side supports OSHA and safe working conditions, healthcare, education and a minimum wage. The other side is the GOP. Not the same.

To a point.

Dems support all those things in theory, but they don’t want to pay for them.

FTR, I’m a Dem.

Just look at how we’ve abandoned mom and pop shops to support Amazon, Walmart, and target. It’s because people prefer to pay less.

Ditto for using uber instead of (uninionized) taxis. Uber is cheaper.

And what about Airbnb? Hilton actually offers their workers good wages and benefits that mirror what is required in socialized countries in the EU, let many people opt for the cheaper Airbnbs despite the fact they are destroying the housing market…particularly for los wage workers and the elderly.

Most people only “care” in theory. Once it hits their own wallet, they sing a different tune.

Wrong! Walmart cannibalized small rural communities that manufactured one product - like etch-a-sketch. Walmart demanded that if a company wanted to be on its shelf, it had to be at a lower price point. So the company was forced to lay off all but the executives and ship production to China. Those former etch-a-sketch factory worker shopped at Walmart because they had little $$ and then they inadvertently did the same to the Mr. Potato head town.

Never shopped at Walmart after hearing about its unfair and predatory practices. They also are the company most responsible for employees on public assistance because they indeed work them to avoid paying benefits.

Yes, if you care about American workers, don’t shop there. But let’s also not forget that GWB also told us after 9/11 it was patriotic to shop, which in part fueled over-consumption in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is not and should not be that "Americans won't do these jobs" but that we have inadequate citizen applicants to get the job done when the job is important and needed from generating food to nursing care.

From inception, the U.S. was built on free and then underpaid labor. Indentured servants > slaves > sharecroppers/Jim Crow blacks > Irish/Italian/Polish/Chinese immigrants > illegal immigrants from Latin America. Our food and several manufacturing sectors have ALWAYS paid below market-rate wages.

OP here. Yes, I read The Jungle. I thought we were supposed to be progressing past that. A lot of people on this thread are fine with those jobs continuing to suck as long as it’s not them who has to do them.

My point wasn't to make a value judgment about who should be doing the work, it was to point out that America has quite literally never operated without an exploited underclass.

Yeah and it’s been great right? Slave insurrections, a civil war, riots, labor unrest, maintaining a surveillance state, welfare state, etc… Those are some real costs there that end up on taxpayers books.

If employers were bearing those costs directly that exploited underclass doesn’t look like such a good deal anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is not and should not be that "Americans won't do these jobs" but that we have inadequate citizen applicants to get the job done when the job is important and needed from generating food to nursing care.

From inception, the U.S. was built on free and then underpaid labor. Indentured servants > slaves > sharecroppers/Jim Crow blacks > Irish/Italian/Polish/Chinese immigrants > illegal immigrants from Latin America. Our food and several manufacturing sectors have ALWAYS paid below market-rate wages.

OP here. Yes, I read The Jungle. I thought we were supposed to be progressing past that. A lot of people on this thread are fine with those jobs continuing to suck as long as it’s not them who has to do them.

My point wasn't to make a value judgment about who should be doing the work, it was to point out that America has quite literally never operated without an exploited underclass.

Yeah and it’s been great right? Slave insurrections, a civil war, riots, labor unrest, maintaining a surveillance state, welfare state, etc… Those are some real costs there that end up on taxpayers books.

If employers were bearing those costs directly that exploited underclass doesn’t look like such a good deal anymore.

If you go back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s, a single earner could pay a mortgage and put kids through school on manufacturing and what you consider underclass jobs today.

Then, our society had to go to two income households just to get the same effect in the 70s and 80s.

What changed? Well, we eroded the value of the dollar. So while you will talk about a "living wage", ask yourself why people can't live on that wage? It wasn't always like this.

You're getting the cause of the problem wrong. Globalization and just having easy money policies by the government caused this.

And by the way, is every person who is earning big bucks as a project manager, administrator or a "lead" really worth the salary they command? We have a lot of jobs that pay high, but don't add much to the bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be real, cheap labor has always played a big role in how countries industrialize. Capitalism kind of runs on it. All the major economies we know today got to where they are by relying on low-cost labor, and honestly, they still do.

If you want to survive in a competitive capitalist system, you need access to cheap labor. If it’s not available at home, businesses usually turn to outsourcing and find it elsewhere.

That’s just how the global economy works. It’s not exactly fair, and yeah, it can be pretty messed up. But it’s the reality we live in.
Capitalism tends to go hand-in-hand with inequality and some level of labor exploitation. It’s not ideal, but it’s part of the system.

So, you're saying if we implement tariffs, globalist capitalism will go away and take their money with them, and we'll be left with a fairer more equitable economic system?

Long live Trump and his tariffs! Lets' do it!

Look, when globalist capitalism pulls out and takes the money with it, our economy is going to take a serious hit. We’ll end up poorer. Our standard of living will drop. Maybe the system will be more equitable, but being equitable is not the same as being prosperous.

Fairer and more equitable systems like Socialism struggle to create real wealth or long-term prosperity. History has shown.

Capitalism isn’t perfect, it’s got plenty of issues. But at the end of the day, it’s still the best system for driving progress and lifting people up economically. You can’t win in capitalism without exploitable cheap labor.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know why they can’t come do the work for a fair wage and decent work protections. Of course things will cost more but much less than kicking everyone out inhumanely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is not and should not be that "Americans won't do these jobs" but that we have inadequate citizen applicants to get the job done when the job is important and needed from generating food to nursing care.

From inception, the U.S. was built on free and then underpaid labor. Indentured servants > slaves > sharecroppers/Jim Crow blacks > Irish/Italian/Polish/Chinese immigrants > illegal immigrants from Latin America. Our food and several manufacturing sectors have ALWAYS paid below market-rate wages.

OP here. Yes, I read The Jungle. I thought we were supposed to be progressing past that. A lot of people on this thread are fine with those jobs continuing to suck as long as it’s not them who has to do them.

My point wasn't to make a value judgment about who should be doing the work, it was to point out that America has quite literally never operated without an exploited underclass.

Yeah and it’s been great right? Slave insurrections, a civil war, riots, labor unrest, maintaining a surveillance state, welfare state, etc… Those are some real costs there that end up on taxpayers books.

If employers were bearing those costs directly that exploited underclass doesn’t look like such a good deal anymore.

If you go back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s, a single earner could pay a mortgage and put kids through school on manufacturing and what you consider underclass jobs today.

Then, our society had to go to two income households just to get the same effect in the 70s and 80s.

What changed? Well, we eroded the value of the dollar. So while you will talk about a "living wage", ask yourself why people can't live on that wage? It wasn't always like this.

You're getting the cause of the problem wrong. Globalization and just having easy money policies by the government caused this.

And by the way, is every person who is earning big bucks as a project manager, administrator or a "lead" really worth the salary they command? We have a lot of jobs that pay high, but don't add much to the bottom line.

DP. The income gap wasn’t as wide today. CEO pay has gone through the roof. It’s as much, if not more, about corporate greed than government policies. But, the government should bill Walmart for every dollar it uses in public assistance. Then, we’d get somewhere. Look at the billionaire class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why they can’t come do the work for a fair wage and decent work protections. Of course things will cost more but much less than kicking everyone out inhumanely.

I’m pp, it could come out of CEO pay and shareholder dividends. It doesn’t have to be paid by consumers. Look how indoctrinated we are. Blame the little people. Let the little people cover it. No!

[Anonymous]

Every developed country imports low-cost workers to do menial tasks. To think this only happens in the US because of Democrats is naïve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is not and should not be that "Americans won't do these jobs" but that we have inadequate citizen applicants to get the job done when the job is important and needed from generating food to nursing care.

From inception, the U.S. was built on free and then underpaid labor. Indentured servants > slaves > sharecroppers/Jim Crow blacks > Irish/Italian/Polish/Chinese immigrants > illegal immigrants from Latin America. Our food and several manufacturing sectors have ALWAYS paid below market-rate wages.

OP here. Yes, I read The Jungle. I thought we were supposed to be progressing past that. A lot of people on this thread are fine with those jobs continuing to suck as long as it’s not them who has to do them.

My point wasn't to make a value judgment about who should be doing the work, it was to point out that America has quite literally never operated without an exploited underclass.

Yeah and it’s been great right? Slave insurrections, a civil war, riots, labor unrest, maintaining a surveillance state, welfare state, etc… Those are some real costs there that end up on taxpayers books.

If employers were bearing those costs directly that exploited underclass doesn’t look like such a good deal anymore.

If you go back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s, a single earner could pay a mortgage and put kids through school on manufacturing and what you consider underclass jobs today.

Then, our society had to go to two income households just to get the same effect in the 70s and 80s.

What changed? Well, we eroded the value of the dollar. So while you will talk about a "living wage", ask yourself why people can't live on that wage? It wasn't always like this.

You're getting the cause of the problem wrong. Globalization and just having easy money policies by the government caused this.

And by the way, is every person who is earning big bucks as a project manager, administrator or a "lead" really worth the salary they command? We have a lot of jobs that pay high, but don't add much to the bottom line.

DP. The income gap wasn’t as wide today. CEO pay has gone through the roof. It’s as much, if not more, about corporate greed than government policies. But, the government should bill Walmart for every dollar it uses in public assistance. Then, we’d get somewhere. Look at the billionaire class.

No the government should not bill Walmart for public assistance.

The government should cease all public assistance. Then the market signal will get back to Walmart in short order. They will raise wages or have labor shortages.

You are in favor of subsidizing failure. I'm for cutting it off. My solution brings much longer term sound finances.

[Anonymous]

Just stop subsidizing slave labor in China. Most of the stuff is garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is not and should not be that "Americans won't do these jobs" but that we have inadequate citizen applicants to get the job done when the job is important and needed from generating food to nursing care.

From inception, the U.S. was built on free and then underpaid labor. Indentured servants > slaves > sharecroppers/Jim Crow blacks > Irish/Italian/Polish/Chinese immigrants > illegal immigrants from Latin America. Our food and several manufacturing sectors have ALWAYS paid below market-rate wages.

OP here. Yes, I read The Jungle. I thought we were supposed to be progressing past that. A lot of people on this thread are fine with those jobs continuing to suck as long as it’s not them who has to do them.

My point wasn't to make a value judgment about who should be doing the work, it was to point out that America has quite literally never operated without an exploited underclass.

Yeah and it’s been great right? Slave insurrections, a civil war, riots, labor unrest, maintaining a surveillance state, welfare state, etc… Those are some real costs there that end up on taxpayers books.

If employers were bearing those costs directly that exploited underclass doesn’t look like such a good deal anymore.

If you go back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s, a single earner could pay a mortgage and put kids through school on manufacturing and what you consider underclass jobs today.

Then, our society had to go to two income households just to get the same effect in the 70s and 80s.

What changed? Well, we eroded the value of the dollar. So while you will talk about a "living wage", ask yourself why people can't live on that wage? It wasn't always like this.

You're getting the cause of the problem wrong. Globalization and just having easy money policies by the government caused this.

And by the way, is every person who is earning big bucks as a project manager, administrator or a "lead" really worth the salary they command? We have a lot of jobs that pay high, but don't add much to the bottom line.

The value of the dollar, yes, but also the hallowing of the middle class by Reagan - all related.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is not and should not be that "Americans won't do these jobs" but that we have inadequate citizen applicants to get the job done when the job is important and needed from generating food to nursing care.

From inception, the U.S. was built on free and then underpaid labor. Indentured servants > slaves > sharecroppers/Jim Crow blacks > Irish/Italian/Polish/Chinese immigrants > illegal immigrants from Latin America. Our food and several manufacturing sectors have ALWAYS paid below market-rate wages.

OP here. Yes, I read The Jungle. I thought we were supposed to be progressing past that. A lot of people on this thread are fine with those jobs continuing to suck as long as it’s not them who has to do them.

My point wasn't to make a value judgment about who should be doing the work, it was to point out that America has quite literally never operated without an exploited underclass.

Yeah and it’s been great right? Slave insurrections, a civil war, riots, labor unrest, maintaining a surveillance state, welfare state, etc… Those are some real costs there that end up on taxpayers books.

If employers were bearing those costs directly that exploited underclass doesn’t look like such a good deal anymore.

If you go back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s, a single earner could pay a mortgage and put kids through school on manufacturing and what you consider underclass jobs today.

Then, our society had to go to two income households just to get the same effect in the 70s and 80s.

What changed? Well, we eroded the value of the dollar. So while you will talk about a "living wage", ask yourself why people can't live on that wage? It wasn't always like this.

You're getting the cause of the problem wrong. Globalization and just having easy money policies by the government caused this.

And by the way, is every person who is earning big bucks as a project manager, administrator or a "lead" really worth the salary they command? We have a lot of jobs that pay high, but don't add much to the bottom line.

DP. The income gap wasn’t as wide today. CEO pay has gone through the roof. It’s as much, if not more, about corporate greed than government policies. But, the government should bill Walmart for every dollar it uses in public assistance. Then, we’d get somewhere. Look at the billionaire class.

No the government should not bill Walmart for public assistance.

The government should cease all public assistance. Then the market signal will get back to Walmart in short order. They will raise wages or have labor shortages.

You are in favor of subsidizing failure. I'm for cutting it off. My solution brings much longer term sound finances.

How's it a subsidy? Walmart is paying the government, not the other way around. The idea would be to make Walmart pay one way or another. If they refuse to pay a living wage, then the government will collect the difference and pay it back to the workers.

Also, it's not "failure" to have public assistance. You can't assume that just because someone is on public assistance that they are failures. There are lots of valid reasons why someone might need public assistance, and they aren't about being lazy or being failures. You have a very limited understanding of the human condition around you to think it's all failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be real, cheap labor has always played a big role in how countries industrialize. Capitalism kind of runs on it. All the major economies we know today got to where they are by relying on low-cost labor, and honestly, they still do.

If you want to survive in a competitive capitalist system, you need access to cheap labor. If it’s not available at home, businesses usually turn to outsourcing and find it elsewhere.

That’s just how the global economy works. It’s not exactly fair, and yeah, it can be pretty messed up. But it’s the reality we live in.
Capitalism tends to go hand-in-hand with inequality and some level of labor exploitation. It’s not ideal, but it’s part of the system.

So, you're saying if we implement tariffs, globalist capitalism will go away and take their money with them, and we'll be left with a fairer more equitable economic system?

Long live Trump and his tariffs! Lets' do it!

Look, when globalist capitalism pulls out and takes the money with it, our economy is going to take a serious hit. We’ll end up poorer. Our standard of living will drop. Maybe the system will be more equitable, but being equitable is not the same as being prosperous.

Fairer and more equitable systems like Socialism struggle to create real wealth or long-term prosperity. History has shown.

Capitalism isn’t perfect, it’s got plenty of issues. But at the end of the day, it’s still the best system for driving progress and lifting people up economically. You can’t win in capitalism without exploitable cheap labor.

By your own metrics some large number of people shouldn't see capitalism as beneficial. Let's be real here. I personally try to remove Google, Apple, Facebook, Netflix and Tesla from the companies I use. They could all ride off into the sunset for all I care.