2020 US Election (Part One)

[metalhead]

I dunno I feel like the problem is the part where you explicitly say you're fine with a regime of formal legal inequality (indeed, a regime where millions have no substantive legal protections at all and can be literally disappeared by the state at any time) for the sake of cheaper goods and labor. But I'm just a pinko commie so what do I know.

I struggle with this, because while it very obviously leads to exploitation, I also wonder how the migrant workers themselves feel about the reality of working in America without documentation.

If our attempt to eliminate exploitation and guarantee these workers a living wage and relatively safe working conditions just ends up in either farms going bust and the jobs disappearing, or in exploitation continuing anyway despite whatever legal status and rights we grant, is that better?

We're not tacitly sanctioning exploitation any more, but we're also cutting off an avenue by which people improve the economic situation for themselves and their families. So how do you make sure you are ending exploitation without eliminating the jobs? Subsidies? It's not simply a matter of prices going up, a lot of these farms compete with overseas producers. If they can't compete on price they end up out of business. And even if it is just higher produce costs - that creates larger barriers to providing poor people access to nutritious foods, and still decreases demand for pro

 

[Lexicus]

So you imply Trump supporters are stupid by sounding stupid like them.

Er, yes, it's called "mockery", perhaps you've heard of it. It's like when Alex Baldwin implies Trump is stupid by sounding stupid like him on Saturday Night Live.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I struggle with this, because while it very obviously leads to exploitation, I also wonder how the migrant workers themselves feel about the reality of working in America without documentation.

If our attempt to eliminate exploitation and guarantee these workers a living wage and relatively safe working conditions just ends up in either farms going bust and the jobs disappearing, or in exploitation continuing anyway despite whatever legal status and rights we grant, is that better?

We're not tacitly sanctioning exploitation any more, but we're also cutting off an avenue by which people improve the economic situation for themselves and their families. So how do you make sure you are ending exploitation without eliminating the jobs? It's not simply a matter of prices going up, a lot of these farms compete with overseas producers. If they can't compete on price they end up out of business.

Just use tariffs. Trade wars are fun and so easy to win.

And Mexico will pay for it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It would have worked if half the population had been committed into the Night Watch so they could have continuous full length surveillance and sufficient rapid response to react to the wildlings when they scaled the wall. Of course, if they had had that they wouldn't have needed such a wall.

Did someone say checkmate?

 

[rah]

Er, yes, it's called "mockery", perhaps you've heard of it. It's like when Alex Baldwin implies Trump is stupid by sounding stupid like him on Saturday Night Live.

You my lad, are not Alex Baldwin.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You my lad, are not Alex Baldwin.

Are you sure?

 

[Sommerswerd]

You my lad, are not Alex Baldwin.

*Alec*

 

[rah]

Damn, copied it from his post and wasn't paying attention. So much for being nit picking. Good spot. He's not him either.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It would have worked if half the population had been committed into the Night Watch so they could have continuous full length surveillance and sufficient rapid response to react to the wildlings when they scaled the wall. Of course, if they had had that they wouldn't have needed such a wall.

Did someone say checkmate?

Thinking about it... Why a wall anyway? Why not a trench instead? Why not dig a 2,000 mile Chasm of Doom with a moat at the bottom with pirannahs and sharks with lazer beams attached to their heads...

Can anyone explain why a 20 foot wide 30 foot deep trench would be any less effective than a 30 foot wall?

 

[rah]

Maybe you could toss a rope 20 feet across the width. And I think the wall was way taller than 30 feet. But then, I'm old and feeble and wrong about so many things.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thinking about it... Why a wall anyway? Why not a trench instead? Why not dig a 2,000 mile Chasm of Doom with a moat at the bottom with pirannahs and sharks with lazer beams attached to their heads...

Can anyone explain why a 20 foot wide 30 foot deep trench would be any less effective than a 30 foot wall?

Create jobs for sharks! MAGA!

 

[Lexicus]

I struggle with this, because while it very obviously leads to exploitation, I also wonder how the migrant workers themselves feel about the reality of working in America without documentation.

If our attempt to eliminate exploitation and guarantee these workers a living wage and relatively safe working conditions just ends up in either farms going bust and the jobs disappearing, or in exploitation continuing anyway despite whatever legal status and rights we grant, is that better?

We're not tacitly sanctioning exploitation any more, but we're also cutting off an avenue by which people improve the economic situation for themselves and their families. So how do you make sure you are ending exploitation without eliminating the jobs? Subsidies? It's not simply a matter of prices going up, a lot of these farms compete with overseas producers. If they can't compete on price they end up out of business. And even if it is just higher produce costs - that creates larger barriers to providing poor people access to nutritious foods, and still decreases demand for pro

The substandard wages they get mostly are living wages, because they can do more with less than pampered gringos can. The main problems they have are endemic wage theft and dangerous working conditions. At least, that was the impression I got from the undocumented people I worked with when I volunteered at a worker center in New Jersey. Most of those folks were employed in the logistics sector, so think big Walmart and Amazon distribution centers. There were lots of injuries, including multiple cases of pregnant women miscarrying after being forced to lift heavy loads.

Anyway, your argument here is essentially identical to the false conservative argument that raising the minimum wage will cause unemployment. Maybe think about that for a bit.

You my lad, are not Alex Baldwin.

Christ, the c and the x are right next to each other smdh
Tbf I'm also working with just text here so it's harder for me

Just use tariffs. Trade wars are fun and so easy to win.

And Mexico will pay for it.

I mean, unironically, we should absolutely be using tariffs to protect our industries from being undercut by enterprise in countries without labor standards.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I mean, unironically, we should absolutely be using tariffs to protect our industries from being undercut by enterprise in countries without labor standards.

That seems a bit unwarranted, since we are practically speaking a country that barely has labor standards.

 

[Lexicus]

That seems a bit unwarranted, since we are practically speaking a country that barely has labor standards.

Well, true enough, but we're still light-years ahead of China, Taiwan, Bangladesh, etc.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, true enough, but we're still light-years ahead of China, Taiwan, Bangladesh, etc.

Agreed, but I don't think that's a result of actual standards.

 

[Lexicus]

Agreed, but I don't think that's a result of actual standards.

It's the result of the fact that in those countries, organizations that advance workers' rights are dealing with overt terror and repression rather than (as is mostly the case here) legalistic hindrance.

 

[Farm Boy]

I scoff in your general direction. You know damn well what a grueling job is

Kind of, yes. But I'm not entirely certain that you and I discussing this would have a generally useful consensus.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's the result of the fact that in those countries, organizations that advance workers' rights are dealing with overt terror and repression rather than (as is mostly the case here) legalistic hindrance.

I think it would be an interesting experiment to open a factory deep in some red state and see just how badly you could get away with abusing the workers. My guess is that in the final analysis China wouldn't look all that bad. You'll never escape the reality that a "living wage" is never going to be the same expense in the third world as it is in the US, but I'll bet you could get away with running the same sort of "damn the labor code, full speed ahead" operations that are being run in places that outright don't bother with a labor code.

 

[Broken_Erika]

You my lad, are not Alex Baldwin.

Are you sure?

A Lexicus Baldwin?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm for calling him @Lexicus Baldwin for the foreseeable future.