Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI Trump also wants foreign workers. He acknowledged that many farmers and hotels have been hurt by the raids.

Why do you think only rich people should be able to afford strawberries at $15 per?

So we should exploit people so that low income people can afford strawberries??

More people can grow their own. Or be paid a higher wage with less downward pressure on wages, and might even be able to splurge on $15 strawberries sometimes.
And maybe they don’t need to be a year round readily available thing.

The world is changing. Maybe teach your kids some practical skills.

1. do you think people in urban areas (where most people in this country live) can grow their own food? Seriously? Oh, they should move to rural areas and live in communes and grow their own food?
2. If farmers pay a higher wage, you realize that the cost will be passed on to consumers, right? At that point, the only people who will be able to afford eating fresh produce is wealthy people. This is not just about strawberries, which is already kind of expensive.
3. We already import produce from other countries, especially during our winter. Or are you saying that we should all live a substance living, and only eat what we can farm?

I don't know about you, but I don't relish living like a third world country where we can't get fresh produce year round.

Farmers can't raise wages that much higher without going out of business. There is an inflection point where raising the wages causes food prices to go up so much so that the demand will go down so much so that it will not be viable for a farmer to stay in business. As it is, taxpayers already subsidize farmers.

Farmers have, in the past, tried to increase wages to attract American workers. It didn't work because this type of job is back breaking, something most Americans now are not used to.

If you are suggesting that Americans should go work on farms, I would suggest you and your children can go first.

This is a pretty uniformed theory. Less than 2% of Americans are engaged in farming. Other countries have 10% or more engaged as farmers. We have a very robust system where we consistently produce more than we need. On purpose. The idea that we would starve if we didn't have cheap labor is absurd.

Yes, we produce more than we need, but the need isn't being met for all Americans, but somehow, you or OP, thinks the answer is to make Americans work the farms. If only farmers would raise wages, but not increase prices to the consumers. That will surely solve the issue of low income people not being able to afford fresh produce. After all, farmers should not be farming for profit, right?

I suppose you agree with Trump's Ag chief that medicaid recipients should work the farms instead of foreign workers?

You guys live in la la land. Might as well promote living in communes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do idiots insist on posting drivel threads? Go educate yourself about on economic theory and unintended consequences, then look up stagflation in Japan.

The “look at Japan” argument is also really stupid. Do you see many Japanese people clamoring for more immigration?? I lived there, for years, and would prefer the stability there with a less flashy lifestyle than we have here. There has been deflation and wages are low, but daily life and essentials are much more affordable in Japan. There’s no use in high wages if the inflation is even higher.

Very very few Japanese people would trade what they have for mass immigration.

You prefer labor shortages and economic instability…okay? At least you have the gall admit you like a homogeneous society, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI Trump also wants foreign workers. He acknowledged that many farmers and hotels have been hurt by the raids.

Why do you think only rich people should be able to afford strawberries at $15 per?

So we should exploit people so that low income people can afford strawberries??

More people can grow their own. Or be paid a higher wage with less downward pressure on wages, and might even be able to splurge on $15 strawberries sometimes.
And maybe they don’t need to be a year round readily available thing.

The world is changing. Maybe teach your kids some practical skills.

1. do you think people in urban areas (where most people in this country live) can grow their own food? Seriously? Oh, they should move to rural areas and live in communes and grow their own food?
2. If farmers pay a higher wage, you realize that the cost will be passed on to consumers, right? At that point, the only people who will be able to afford eating fresh produce is wealthy people. This is not just about strawberries, which is already kind of expensive.
3. We already import produce from other countries, especially during our winter. Or are you saying that we should all live a substance living, and only eat what we can farm?

I don't know about you, but I don't relish living like a third world country where we can't get fresh produce year round.

Farmers can't raise wages that much higher without going out of business. There is an inflection point where raising the wages causes food prices to go up so much so that the demand will go down so much so that it will not be viable for a farmer to stay in business. As it is, taxpayers already subsidize farmers.

Farmers have, in the past, tried to increase wages to attract American workers. It didn't work because this type of job is back breaking, something most Americans now are not used to.

If you are suggesting that Americans should go work on farms, I would suggest you and your children can go first.

This is a pretty uniformed theory. Less than 2% of Americans are engaged in farming. Other countries have 10% or more engaged as farmers. We have a very robust system where we consistently produce more than we need. On purpose. The idea that we would starve if we didn't have cheap labor is absurd.

Depends on the job.

You ever get a roof replaced? You couldn’t pay me a million a year to walk around every day potentially to fall and break my back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI Trump also wants foreign workers. He acknowledged that many farmers and hotels have been hurt by the raids.

Why do you think only rich people should be able to afford strawberries at $15 per?

So we should exploit people so that low income people can afford strawberries??

More people can grow their own. Or be paid a higher wage with less downward pressure on wages, and might even be able to splurge on $15 strawberries sometimes.
And maybe they don’t need to be a year round readily available thing.

The world is changing. Maybe teach your kids some practical skills.

1. do you think people in urban areas (where most people in this country live) can grow their own food? Seriously? Oh, they should move to rural areas and live in communes and grow their own food?
2. If farmers pay a higher wage, you realize that the cost will be passed on to consumers, right? At that point, the only people who will be able to afford eating fresh produce is wealthy people. This is not just about strawberries, which is already kind of expensive.
3. We already import produce from other countries, especially during our winter. Or are you saying that we should all live a substance living, and only eat what we can farm?

I don't know about you, but I don't relish living like a third world country where we can't get fresh produce year round.

Farmers can't raise wages that much higher without going out of business. There is an inflection point where raising the wages causes food prices to go up so much so that the demand will go down so much so that it will not be viable for a farmer to stay in business. As it is, taxpayers already subsidize farmers.

Farmers have, in the past, tried to increase wages to attract American workers. It didn't work because this type of job is back breaking, something most Americans now are not used to.

If you are suggesting that Americans should go work on farms, I would suggest you and your children can go first.

DP.

Cheap black market labor subsidizes inequality and stagnates innovation.

For example, farming operations are generally pretty unsophisticated in the USA. Parts of Europe and Japan are much more technologically advanced when it comes to farming. But when labor is cheap, why would you modernize?

Same thing plays out around housing: by importing cheap labor that suppresses wages, UMC and upper classes afford more while LMC and working class has their wages undercut.

wages will rise to meet demand if you close the system, but the answer cannot be import cheap labor that undercuts domestic labor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI Trump also wants foreign workers. He acknowledged that many farmers and hotels have been hurt by the raids.

Why do you think only rich people should be able to afford strawberries at $15 per?

So we should exploit people so that low income people can afford strawberries??

More people can grow their own. Or be paid a higher wage with less downward pressure on wages, and might even be able to splurge on $15 strawberries sometimes.
And maybe they don’t need to be a year round readily available thing.

The world is changing. Maybe teach your kids some practical skills.

1. do you think people in urban areas (where most people in this country live) can grow their own food? Seriously? Oh, they should move to rural areas and live in communes and grow their own food?
2. If farmers pay a higher wage, you realize that the cost will be passed on to consumers, right? At that point, the only people who will be able to afford eating fresh produce is wealthy people. This is not just about strawberries, which is already kind of expensive.
3. We already import produce from other countries, especially during our winter. Or are you saying that we should all live a substance living, and only eat what we can farm?

I don't know about you, but I don't relish living like a third world country where we can't get fresh produce year round.

Farmers can't raise wages that much higher without going out of business. There is an inflection point where raising the wages causes food prices to go up so much so that the demand will go down so much so that it will not be viable for a farmer to stay in business. As it is, taxpayers already subsidize farmers.

Farmers have, in the past, tried to increase wages to attract American workers. It didn't work because this type of job is back breaking, something most Americans now are not used to.

If you are suggesting that Americans should go work on farms, I would suggest you and your children can go first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI Trump also wants foreign workers. He acknowledged that many farmers and hotels have been hurt by the raids.

Why do you think only rich people should be able to afford strawberries at $15 per?

So we should exploit people so that low income people can afford strawberries??

More people can grow their own. Or be paid a higher wage with less downward pressure on wages, and might even be able to splurge on $15 strawberries sometimes.
And maybe they don’t need to be a year round readily available thing.

The world is changing. Maybe teach your kids some practical skills.

Rabbits savage the strawberries. But if we all get poor enough, we’ll have to start eating the rabbits. So that might help. We grow various berries in our yard. It’s a nice thing to do if you have some space.

It might become a necessary thing to do.

I think what people don’t understand is that Trump is really about taking us back to the 19th century.

Before we had the Fed, there were depressions, crashes, and financial panics all the time. It’s in any US history book.

While this is still kind of a fringe idea, some people on the right wing side of the political divide want to get rid of the federal reserve.

In the end, the sort of plan (I use that term loosely) is to make the country much poorer for the vast majority. The 20th century will be undone and when we will be back to the 19th century.

That means you will be growing potatoes. That means you might have to work a really low wage job. It could get really ugly. Thinking ahead and being flexible is a good idea.

It remains to be seen what kind of political resistance there would be if we took some major steps in that direction. It’s simply too soon to tell.

But across the industrialized world, it’s clear that average citizens don’t want huge waves of immigration. I might personally disagree, but I’m clearly not in the majority.

Anonymous wrote:FYI Trump also wants foreign workers. He acknowledged that many farmers and hotels have been hurt by the raids.

Why do you think only rich people should be able to afford strawberries at $15 per?

So we should exploit people so that low income people can afford strawberries??

More people can grow their own. Or be paid a higher wage with less downward pressure on wages, and might even be able to splurge on $15 strawberries sometimes.
And maybe they don’t need to be a year round readily available thing.

The world is changing. Maybe teach your kids some practical skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have never employed anyone or otherwise run a competitive retail/agriculture type business.

Because the questions you are asking suggest either no employment history or solely white collar type history like a lawyer or someone who otherwise sits behind a keyboard all day.

Funny you mention this. My dad owned a business that employed illegal immigrants. He tried to hire citizens, and he tried to get his employees on visas, but it never worked out, the citizens tended not to be as reliable of workers and he was too small of a shop to be successful on the visa front.

You are correct that my dad would not have been able to stay afloat if he had to hire citizens at higher wages, but that is only because literally every other similar small business was also employing illegal immigrants. If they were all subjected to the same playing field, then the industry would have to change and some businesses might not survive, but that would not be predicated on whether or not they employed illegal inmigrants.

Your dad's business was simply not economically viable. So he broke the law.

Hard to say it was not viable because we never had a control group. Every other small business in his industry did the same. All of those businesses would have had to operate on a very different model had there not been a supply of illegal immigrant labor.

From an economic standpoint, it does not matter that much whether the immigration is legal or illegal except that illegal immigrants are more exploitable and therefore easier to subject to bad working conditions and low wages. Over the past several years, much of the migration was authorized via TPS or whatever program, but legal or not, a surge of low skilled labor is going to have a similar effect on labor markets.

And yes, there are some industries that would not be able to survive without illegal immigrant labor. If prices go up due to labor costs, then people will have to make choices where to spend their money. Obviously they need food. They do not need pedicures.

Our world as we know it has been heavily shaped by the steady availability of cheap labor. Large houses on suburban lots requiring maintenance inside and outside come to mind. If cheap house cleaners and landscapers weren’t available, a lot fewer people would want those large suburban houses. Not to mention the people needed to build those houses. Suburban sprawl is enabled by cheap immigrant labor.

Same thing with plantation houses. They were only viable because of the cheap labor. People adapt though. Hopefully it doesn’t take a war this time.

How exactly did they adapt? Oh yes, the wealthy white slave owners lost some slaves, but still retained their power, and lots of people went hungry.

Today, the taxpayers fund the big farm corporations, and the smaller farmers are going bankrupt

https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2025/07/farm-bankruptcies-this-year-already-exceed-2024-levels/

So, yea, I guess we could go back to post 1865 where the rich farmers stayed rich, and the smaller farms went bankrupt, and food was scarce.

MAGA are telling poor people to make better food choices, but then at the same time say "we don't need cheap produce". So, you expect poor people to eat healthier while at the same time gutting food programs, medicaid, and increase food prices.

The mind of a MAGA. And if OP is not MAGA, OP is just as dumb.

Interesting take. Yes, war has a tendency to impoverish societies and cause hunger. The civil war created a lot of poverty. Should we not have fought it, and kept people enslaved?

Anonymous wrote:Well, why does Trump want to import foreign nationals to be air traffic controllers?

This thread isn’t in support of Trump.

Anonymous wrote:Why do idiots insist on posting drivel threads? Go educate yourself about on economic theory and unintended consequences, then look up stagflation in Japan.

The “look at Japan” argument is also really stupid. Do you see many Japanese people clamoring for more immigration?? I lived there, for years, and would prefer the stability there with a less flashy lifestyle than we have here. There has been deflation and wages are low, but daily life and essentials are much more affordable in Japan. There’s no use in high wages if the inflation is even higher.

Very very few Japanese people would trade what they have for mass immigration.

Well, why does Trump want to import foreign nationals to be air traffic controllers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If those jobs are so hard and low paying, why would you want to import millions more low skilled workers to further dilute wages and put downward pressure on working conditions?

Why do you accept at face value that it is the nature of things to pay people pennies to pick strawberries for hours under the hot sun?

Why do you feel so entitled to cheap restaurant food, landscaping services, childcare, pedicures, and thousands of other things that currently depend upon the availability of cheap labor?

So many people on DCUM claim we MUST have these people here because our economy depends on it. Yeah, well that same economy was working much better for the mostly white leisure class uC and UMC people than it was for anyone trying to climb the ladder from the bottom, and a big reason for that is downward pressure on labor wages.

TLDR why do you want to protect such an exploitative system, when what we really need to do is create upward pressure on wages and job conditions and that won’t happen with mass immigration whether it is legal or not.

I just can’t believe people are still trotting out the “Americans won’t do it” line when arguing against immigration enforcement. Let Americans decide if they’d rather pay $15 for strawberries or go work on the farm themselves.

Then I guess we won’t grow strawberries anymore in the US. It’s fine. We don’t need access to every fruit imaginable at all times.

Or you could try growing some of your own produce. People used to have gardens in their backyard instead of an expanse of grass for their dog to poop in.
My father picked strawberries as a summer job in high school. It was fine because he was surrounded by other high school kids. Nowadays any American teenager doing this would be the only English speaker.
See also scientific research-- lots of American kids are interested until they get their first lab job and get the cold shoulder from the 100% Chinese staff.

Why do idiots insist on posting drivel threads? Go educate yourself about on economic theory and unintended consequences, then look up stagflation in Japan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly have never employed anyone or otherwise run a competitive retail/agriculture type business.

Because the questions you are asking suggest either no employment history or solely white collar type history like a lawyer or someone who otherwise sits behind a keyboard all day.

Funny you mention this. My dad owned a business that employed illegal immigrants. He tried to hire citizens, and he tried to get his employees on visas, but it never worked out, the citizens tended not to be as reliable of workers and he was too small of a shop to be successful on the visa front.

You are correct that my dad would not have been able to stay afloat if he had to hire citizens at higher wages, but that is only because literally every other similar small business was also employing illegal immigrants. If they were all subjected to the same playing field, then the industry would have to change and some businesses might not survive, but that would not be predicated on whether or not they employed illegal inmigrants.

Your dad's business was simply not economically viable. So he broke the law.

Hard to say it was not viable because we never had a control group. Every other small business in his industry did the same. All of those businesses would have had to operate on a very different model had there not been a supply of illegal immigrant labor.

From an economic standpoint, it does not matter that much whether the immigration is legal or illegal except that illegal immigrants are more exploitable and therefore easier to subject to bad working conditions and low wages. Over the past several years, much of the migration was authorized via TPS or whatever program, but legal or not, a surge of low skilled labor is going to have a similar effect on labor markets.

And yes, there are some industries that would not be able to survive without illegal immigrant labor. If prices go up due to labor costs, then people will have to make choices where to spend their money. Obviously they need food. They do not need pedicures.

Our world as we know it has been heavily shaped by the steady availability of cheap labor. Large houses on suburban lots requiring maintenance inside and outside come to mind. If cheap house cleaners and landscapers weren’t available, a lot fewer people would want those large suburban houses. Not to mention the people needed to build those houses. Suburban sprawl is enabled by cheap immigrant labor.

Same thing with plantation houses. They were only viable because of the cheap labor. People adapt though. Hopefully it doesn’t take a war this time.

Ah yes the mud sill class Democrats Majoritarianism at its worst, the party of Jackson, the "We need forced labor party". I saw an illegal immigrant sitting in air conditioning at restaurant the other day, looked just as lazy as me.

The term **“mud sill class”** (more commonly “mudsill theory”) originated in the mid-19th century—and it’s deeply rooted in pro-slavery ideology.

---

### 🔍 Origins of the Term

* **Etymology**: Originally, a *mudsill* was a construction beam laid directly on wet, unstable ground—effectively the lowest foundation stone. By the 1680s, the term also had figurative use for society’s lowest class. ([Etymology Online][1])

* **Political usage**: The concept was explicitly formalized on **March 4, 1858**, by South Carolina Senator **James H. Hammond**. In what later became known as his **Mudsill Speech**, he claimed that every society needs a permanent lower class—“a class to do the menial duties…constitutes the very mud‑sill of society”([Wikipedia][2]).

---

### 🏛️ Role in Pro‑Slavery Rhetoric

* Hammond contended that enslaved African Americans fulfilled this foundational role naturally—due to supposed docility, adaptability, and physical strength—thus justifying the racial hierarchy of slavery as essential to civilization’s stability .

* He also claimed that Northern wage laborers were effectively slaves in all but name: transient, exploited, and poorly compensated([PBS][3]).

* The argument was embraced widely among Southern elites and echoed by other pro-slavery writers like Calhoun and Fitzhugh ([Wikipedia][4]).

---

### 📚 Historical Impact and Backlash

* **Northern reaction**: Hammond’s idea sparked outrage among Northern laborers. They reappropriated “mud-sill” as a badge of working-class pride—forming **Mud‑Sill Clubs**, rallying under banners at the Lincoln–Douglas debates, and even enlisting as “mud-sills” in Union regiments during the Civil War ([The Journal of the Civil War Era][5]).

* **Lincoln’s opposition**: Abraham Lincoln vehemently rejected the mudsill doctrine. He argued instead that labor precedes and enables capital, and that wage workers are not trapped permanently but can advance through free labor opportunities([Michigan Publishing][6]).

---

### ✅ Summary

1. **Term**: Built on a literal beam in architecture, then extended metaphorically to denote society’s lowest tier.
2. **Coined**: Politically by James H. Hammond in 1858.
3. **Justification**: Used to rationalize slavery and segregation by positing a “natural” lower labor class.
4. **Rejection**: Reclaimed by Northern workers as a points of pride and sharply opposed by Lincoln and Free-Labor advocates.

---

In short, the **mud sill class** concept began as an architectural analogy and was transformed by pro-slavery advocates like Hammond into a socially conservative argument for racialized labor hierarchy—only to be contested and redefined by Northern workers and abolitionists.

[1]: https://www.etymonline.com/word/mudsill?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Mudsill - Etymology, Origin & Meaning"
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudsill_theory?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Mudsill theory"
[3]: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3439t.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Africans in America/Part 4/Mudsill Theory"
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslavery_thought?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Proslavery thought"
[5]: https://www.journalofthecivilwarera.org/2018/12/mudsills-vs-chivalry/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Mudsills vs. Chivalry"
[6]: https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/jala/article/id/2297/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Abraham Lincoln's Republic of Rules: The Logic of Labor ..."