| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/19/2005 9:46:32 AM PST by Lead Moderator, reason:
Locked |
Posted on 01/18/2005 7:06:31 AM PST by ClintonBeGone
Edited on 01/18/2005 3:40:29 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
This is unacceptable because wages for menial labor are atrifically inflated by welfare. Why bother mowing lawns for $10 an hour when the government will pay you to sit on your couch and watch Jerry Springer? On the other hand, if not pushing the mower means junior doesn't eat tonight, you'll do if for a lot less. And you'll probably work on aquiring a skill that leads to more highly compensated employment.
I'm not going to dignify that with a response.
I didn't see any mention in the article about the rate of pay.
Defending criminal charges or paying fines can get expensive quickly.
People overpaid. That's what we did.
As an aside, I can do my job better than other people. Thus, my job is not under threat. Competition is good for everyone, and if someone comes along that can do my job better than I can at a cheaper price, I certainly can't expect too much sympathy from an employer--if I were the one doing the hiring, I'd hire the other guy, too.
The answer, superior, is to make yourself valuable enough that you can't be replaced. In certain industries, like manufacturing, that is difficult. C'est la vie. We can't go on living in the past. Times change.
Here is the web site of the Illinois State Health Department.
http://www.idph.state.il.us
On this page you will find the email site. I have contacted them about this article. Hopefully, you all will contact them also. This is very serious if people so sick are working in our food industry.
I'm also required by law to never exceed 55 mph on the highway. I break that one too. Thus far I have managed to evade the US Marshalls who are assuredly on my trail.
That is a policy problem. The answer, then, is not to further cripple the market by limiting the number of available workers, but to eliminate the interference in the market in the first place, like welfare and unemployment and whatnot.
Dear presidio9,
"This is unacceptable because wages for menial labor are atrifically inflated by welfare."
Then change the welfare laws.
"Why bother mowing lawns for $10 an hour when the government will pay you to sit on your couch and watch Jerry Springer?"
Staying on welfare isn't quite as easy as it once was. And welfare isn't so lucrative as to be better than a job at $10 per hour. If someone could find full-time work at $10 per hour doing menial tasks like mowing lawns, the individual would make about $20,000 per year.
Considering that we extend food stamps and Medicaid benefits to the working poor, someone supporting a family on such a wage would take a significant reduction in standard of living by taking welfare in preference to such a job.
Anyway, that someone might have to pay more for the person who mows the lawn because welfare artificially increases the cost of menial labor is not sufficient reason to break the law by hiring individuals who have broken our immigration laws.
Do you live in NY City, or nearby? If so, your experience may be a little different from most folks in the rest of the US. In our last house, we had a three-person team who worked for about 2 hours (six hours of labor total) for $95. We paid $10 extra because we had a long-haired dog whose sheddings ate vacuum filters by the case.
The team was all Americans, native-born, with that funny Maryland accent.
sitetest
When the companies relocate over seas they hire local cleaning services.
torts is civil
That's been my point all along: Get rid of welfare, and the problem will largely take care of itself.
BTW your $10 an hour equals $20m a year is flawed because it assumes steady employment.
The wellbeing of this country and its communities and its people is more important than the purity of free market libertarianism. To that end we interfere all the time in the "free market" for child pornography, crack cocaine, plastic guns, Kevlar piercing ammo, and streetwalkers.
Rampant illegal immigration is a direct threat to the well being of this country. It is not in the interest of this nation to see its standard of living reduced to a Third World level, whatever the purity of the "free market".
Larger markets and more opportunity for division of labor is a direct threat to the well being of this country?
Whatever you say, Comrade.
The penalty for driving 60 in a 55 is ever so slightly different than employing someone who you know or have constructive knowledge is an illegal immigrant.
In the former case, you get a $50 ticket.
In the latter case, you face from $100-$10,000 civil penalty for each illegal immigrant employed, and/or a $3,000 fine and six months in jail for a pattern of employing illegal immigrants.
Thanks for the reference. You'd think that for $6.90 an hour she could go to the Salvation Army store and buy some warmer work clothes - a few sweaters at 50 cents apiece, or something.
Who said anything about torts or civil ? Just your feeble attempt at a comeback.
"Depraved indifference" is grounds for murder other than "malice aforethought". Like drunkenly firing a gun into a crowd or killing someone while doing 90mph on a side street. Like a company that once deliberately hired illegals who couldn't read English to handle toxic chemicals and did not warn them about the danger they were in. When one of them died the owner was successfully prosecuted for murder.
But I'm glad you realize my point about the essential moral bankruptcy of your cause.
To you one-world globalists, the market comes before the nation.
So you're saying then that you did place an ad in the paper?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
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.