Obama: Legalize immigrants to cover them with insurance

[chrmjenkins]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/18/obama-ties-immigration-to-health-care-battle/

President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered - a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

Republicans said that amounts to an amnesty, calling it a backdoor effort to make sure current illegal immigrants get health care.

"It is ironic that the president told the American people that illegal immigrants should not be covered by the health care bill, but now just days later he's talking about letting them in the back door," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

"If the American people do not want to provide government health care for illegal immigrants, why would they support giving them citizenship, the highest honor America can bestow?" Mr. Smith said.

But immigrant rights groups see the speech as a signal that Mr. Obama is committed to providing health care coverage for anyone in the United States legally, regardless of their citizenship status.

"It's the first time I've certainly heard, publicly, him talking more about legal immigrants," said Eric Rodriguez, vice president for research and advocacy at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). "I think that was certainly positive progress. We were absolutely concerned about not hearing that."

On Wednesday, hours before Mr. Obama's speech, the NCLR had given the administration a public scolding, demanding that Mr. Obama needed to make "a public commitment ... to ensure that those who are here legally are covered."

A White House spokesman did not respond to questions about where the White House would make the cutoff for eligibility, and Mr. Rodriguez said he's still waiting for an answer from the administration.

"We don't know where they mean to draw the line," he said. "Our biggest concern is that most people don't realize legal immigrants are currently barred from receiving health care benefits for the first five years in the country."

Under the 1996 welfare overhaul, most federal aid programs are restricted to citizens and legal immigrants who have been in the country for at least five years. Democrats have tried this year to chip away at that rule.

Immigration has dogged Mr. Obama in the health care debate. Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, shouted, "You lie," when the president, in an address to Congress last week, said his plans wouldn't cover illegal immigrants.

Lawmakers - who got an earful from constituents back home during August - have insisted on extra checks to make sure illegal immigrants do not have access to taxpayer-funded programs.

Senators have worked on language that would prevent illegal immigrants from buying insurance through a proposed insurance exchange envisioned in the health care reform package.

But the NCLR said that could lead to situations where some members of a family would be covered and others, including children of illegal immigrants, wouldn't be.

Mr. Obama said legalizing illegal immigrants is a way to take the sting out of the entire issue.

But Republicans said by pushing to legalize illegal immigrants, Mr. Obama is signaling that those here illegally eventually will get access to taxpayer-funded benefits.

Still, the push to pass a legalization bill is beginning to gain steam, even as advocates fret that the White House is moving too slowly.

On Thursday, Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat and an outspoken advocate for legalization, agreed to take leadership in writing a new, more generous bill.

"We simply cannot wait any longer for a bill that keeps our families together, protects our workers and allows a pathway to legalization for those who have earned it," Mr. Gutierrez said. "Saying immigration is a priority for this administration or this Congress is not the same as seeing tangible action, and the longer we wait, the more every single piece of legislation we debate will be obstructed by our failure to pass comprehensive reform."

I have often felt it ludicrous to think that a plan deporting the approximately 12 million workers already here is justified because our system provides financial incentives to businesses that can hire them. If we want to have serious reform, we need to work on making the ones here taxpayers and make it to where businesses would incur no benefit for hiring new illegals. It seems more logical to me to remove the incentive to come here as opposed to building bigger fences in hopes they work.

However, trying to accomplish two goals at once, neither of which is an easy-sell, is likely too large of a task for any President. Thoughts?

[leekohler]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/18/obama-ties-immigration-to-health-care-battle/



I have often felt it ludicrous to think that a plan deporting the approximately 12 million workers already here is justified because our system provides financial incentives to businesses that can hire them. If we want to have serious reform, we need to work on making the ones here taxpayers and make it to where businesses would incur no benefit for hiring new illegals. It seems more logical to me to remove the incentive to come here as opposed to building bigger fences in hopes they work.

However, trying to accomplish two goals at once, neither of which is an easy-sell, is likely too large of a task for any President. Thoughts?

Didn't work for Bush, won't work for Obama either. Illegal immigration is a very contentious topic. Most people are strongly against it, AFAIK.

[oculus42]

There's an extrapolation between saying "we need to solve this problem" and "Obama wants amnesty for all illegal immigrants."

Just saying.

[jav6454]

Don't legalize all illegals. That would just be plain wrong. Some of them know about the holes in the US system and if they be legal, they dam sure exploit them (like Food Stamp program) under the legal protection.

The argument make is to legalize the ones that have proof of living here since a determined amount of years (say 9 at minimum), have a stable household (single or married), proof of a job or jobs or simply proof that they have been actively working (if unemployed give how much they have worked continuously before being fired), and have a clean (no serious charges) criminal record.

Those that qualify for above are in my opinion the best candidates to make legal immigrants. Why? Simply because the qualifications above mean that they are here to live well and if you are given benefits they will correctly use them and will pay the system supporting them (ie Taxes).

On a funny note, Rep Congressman Wilson was sorta of right with his "You lie" remark.

[thegoldenmackid]

It won't happen...next. If it did, Obama would go down as a president with just epic Political Capital.

[leekohler]

On a funny note, Rep Congressman Wilson was sorta of right with his "You lie" remark.

Not really. If someone is here legally, then they aren't illegal.

[chrmjenkins]

There's an extrapolation between saying "we need to solve this problem" and "Obama wants amnesty for all illegal immigrants."

Just saying.

No one implied he said that. Obama is smart enough to not make a comment that could be extrapolated like that.

Don't legalize all illegals. That would just be plain wrong. Some of them know about the holes in the US system and if they be legal, they dam sure exploit them (like Food Stamp program) under the legal protection.

And this would be different than the legals exploiting the system? How can you be sure who would do it?

[Zombie Acorn]

You have to penalize employers higher than what they can take back from hiring the illegals to start with. They say time is money, give them a year minimum if caught hiring illegally.

We have a 10% unemployment rate, that doesn't include illegal workers. If you are telling me that Americans won't do these jobs when their family is hungry I will tell you that you are full of crap.

[leekohler]

You have to penalize employers higher than what they can take back from hiring the illegals to start with. They say time is money, give them a year minimum if caught hiring illegally.

We have a 10% unemployment rate, that doesn't include illegal workers. If you are telling me that Americans won't do these jobs when their family is hungry I will tell you that you are full of crap.

Agreed- amnesty is extremely unpopular. I don't see this going anywhere.

[abijnk]

There's an extrapolation between saying "we need to solve this problem" and "Obama wants amnesty for all illegal immigrants."

Just saying.

No body said that.


On a funny note, Rep Congressman Wilson was sorta of right with his "You lie" remark.

Um, how?

[Zombie Acorn]

Um, how?

If he grants blanket amnesty to the illegals that we weren't covering I would agree, and it would be the downfall of his presidency.

[jav6454]

Um how?

Not really. If someone is here legally, then they aren't illegal.

Obama is trying to make them legal to go into the program, it's a bypass, but in the end they are getting covered.

[chrmjenkins]

Obama is trying to make them legal to go into the program, it's a bypass, but in the end they are getting covered.

And they are also legal, tax-paying citizens in the process before they ever get health-coverage. The whole point of this new healthcare program is to leave no one out so that we don't have people misusing the system and going to the emergency room, making costs much higher than they would be. Even with this system in place, illegals will still be here, and they'll still be showing up in those emergency rooms. They will still be failing to pay tax dollars that support that system. So, you have a choice. Spend the time, resources and money to deport them, or make them legal and tax-paying.

[leekohler]

Obama is trying to make them legal to go into the program, it's a bypass, but in the end they are getting covered.

It's still not covering illegal immigrants.

[kavika411]

Didn't work for Bush, won't work for Obama either. Illegal immigration is a very contentious topic. Most people are strongly against it, AFAIK.

Bush's name mentioned in the first reply, in less than five words. That's got to be a record, even for Lee. ;)

That aside, I give better odds of Acorn lasting into October than of Obama going down this path. Political suicide.

[Zombie Acorn]

It's still not covering illegal immigrants.

Im not going to eat any red apples.

*paints the red apple green*

see.

[fivepoint]

Im not going to eat any red apples.

*paints the red apple green*

see.

:) And I'd say anyone who said they weren't going to eat any red apples, and just painted one green and ate it... would most certainly be a LIAR.

[chrmjenkins]

Im not going to eat any red apples.

*paints the red apple green*

see.

OK, so If I'm following your analogy, the illegals are simply labeled "legal", have had no official paperwork submitted regarding their status, and most certainly won't be paying taxes. After all, we're talking superficial only. Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how the plan will go forward.

[Zombie Acorn]

OK, so If I'm following your analogy, the illegals are simply labeled "legal", have had no official paperwork submitted regarding their status, and most certainly won't be paying taxes. After all, we're talking superficial only. Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how the plan will go forward.

Its a bait and switch. America is against granting amnesty to people who broke the law to be here. To say we won't offer illegal immigrants health insurance and then to grant amnesty and offer them insurance is dishonest at best. He can go ahead and try it though, I am not sure who the republicans are putting up in 2012 but it won't take much.

[kavika411]

and most certainly won't be paying taxes..

I assume you are talking about income taxes. If so, I see your point: this newly legalized population would fall squarely into an income tax paying bracket, as opposed to an income level that does not in fact pay income taxes.

[chrmjenkins]

Its a bait and switch. America is against granting amnesty to people who broke the law to be here. To say we won't offer illegal immigrants health insurance and then to grant amnesty and offer them insurance is dishonest at best. He can go ahead and try it though, I am not sure who the republicans are putting up in 2012 but it won't take much.

It's only a bait and switch if the official plan was to let immigration persist precisely as it does, with illegals continuing to work unchecked. It is acknowledged by a striking majority that some sort of reform needs to take place. Deporting every single one of the estimated 12 million immigrants is not feasible. Therefore, it stands to reason that at least some of them will be allowed to enter a process to make them legal (again, he has said nothing about granting amnesty). If the health care reform he wants passes, it stands to reason that these new legal citizens will be a part of it, since their tax dollars go toward it. Him acknowledging this fact is not surprising. What is surprising is that he did it publicly.

I assume you are talking about income taxes. If so, I see your point: this newly legalized population would fall squarely into an income tax paying bracket, as opposed to an income level that does not in fact pay income taxes.

Should they fall in that level, they're no different than the low-income Americans who already fit in this category. If we're willing to cover those Americans, it is logical we would cover these people as well. Besides, we're not magically inventing costs. These illegal immigrants still get sick and still show up at hospitals and receive care. That money has to come from somewhere.

[Zombie Acorn]

It's only a bait and switch if the official plan was to let immigration persist precisely as it does, with illegals continuing to work unchecked. It is acknowledged by a striking majority that some sort of reform needs to take place. Deporting every single one of the estimated 12 million immigrants is not feasible. Therefore, it stands to reason that at least some of them will be allowed to enter a process to make them legal (again, he has said nothing about granting amnesty). If the health care reform he wants passes, it stands to reason that these new legal citizens will be a part of it, since their tax dollars go toward it. Him acknowledging this fact is not surprising. What is surprising is that he did it publicly.

We don't need to deport them. Penalize the business owners with jail time for hiring illegal aliens, problem solved. +10 reputation points from the public for Obama at the same time.

[chrmjenkins]

We don't need to deport them. Penalize the business owners with jail time for hiring illegal aliens, problem solved. +10 reputation points from the public for Obama at the same time.

Sure. I can see that going down well:

"I'm going to rectify the situation by putting a business owner who contributed to the economy in jail on your tax dollar dime." Penalize them with fines. Our jail system is strained as-is. That's the problem with having laws you don't enforce. You can't enforce laws you chose not to before without it causing public backlash and having its own economic repercussions.

[nbs2]

OK, so If I'm following your analogy, the illegals are simply labeled "legal", have had no official paperwork submitted regarding their status, and most certainly won't be paying taxes. After all, we're talking superficial only. Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how the plan will go forward.

Before this is settled, we need to figure out how the legalization process would work - is it a grandfathering or will there be a continual process.

Obama's statement - "I will not eat red apples"
Wilson's reort - "Liar"

If grandfathering, you have an issue of "I'll eat the ones that I already have."

If continually permitting illegals to legalize, then it is "Well, these apples look red, but they are really burgandy, and that's a different color. We must make that distinction."

OK. I know it's not the best analogy, but I am so ready for the weekend. Either way, Yes, on it's face, Obama's statement is valid - that he won't cover illegals - but by granting amnesty, he achieves the goal through an end around.

Another question is what happens as this would be a reward for beating whatever deadline is imposed (because I'm guessing that it isn't going to be a retroactive deadline - are you really going to exclude people already here?).

Do I think the statement matters? No - it's political suicide if he does it. What he gains in Hispanic swing voters, will easily outweigh the hit he takes in anti-Obama voters (who were already anti-Obama anyway). I am not totally familiar with his historic stance on immigration, but I'm guessing that he was already supportive of some sort of amnesty program - meaning that those who were single issue on that point were already lost to him.

Question - I don't have citations handy, but I do recall hearing that illegals have been leaving the US rather steadily since the economy went down the toilet - it's just too expensive to stay here. For the discussion on how to cull the number if illegals, the combination of strengthened Mexican and weakened American economies along with high costs of living in the US seem to be a better deterrent than deportation/fines/walls/border patrol. Trashing your house really is the most effective route (maybe Jeff Goldblums drunken tirade was right, nuking the planet would have made the aliens go away).

[chrmjenkins]

Before this is settled, we need to figure out how the legalization process would work - is it a grandfathering or will there be a continual process.

Obama's statement - "I will not eat red apples"
Wilson's reort - "Liar"

If grandfathering, you have an issue of "I'll eat the ones that I already have."

If continually permitting illegals to legalize, then it is "Well, these apples look red, but they are really burgandy, and that's a different color. We must make that distinction."

OK. I know it's not the best analogy, but I am so ready for the weekend. Either way, Yes, on it's face, Obama's statement is valid - that he won't cover illegals - but by granting amnesty, he achieves the goal through an end around.

Another question is what happens as this would be a reward for beating whatever deadline is imposed (because I'm guessing that it isn't going to be a retroactive deadline - are you really going to exclude people already here?).

Do I think the statement matters? No - it's political suicide if he does it. What he gains in Hispanic swing voters, will easily outweigh the hit he takes in anti-Obama voters (who were already anti-Obama anyway). I am not totally familiar with his historic stance on immigration, but I'm guessing that he was already supportive of some sort of amnesty program - meaning that those who were single issue on that point were already lost to him.

One of the main objections against illegals is that they are not tax-paying citizens, and thus do not contribute to society. By legalizing them, you aren't re-branding them superficially, you're rectifying the legitimate concern many people have. The real concern is not whether or not he is lying, it's who should be allowed to be legalized. The only way you can take a hard-line on him using this to get healthcare to illegals is if you assert that illegals should never be allowed to have healthcare, regardless of status. As it stands, Obama introduced no conditions or timelines, so any conjecture that he is lying is reading into the statement. It's not an end-around, it's an acknowledgment of facts and refutation of the absolute "Those who were illegal at one time should never be allowed healthcare."

[Zombie Acorn]

Sure. I can see that going down well:

"I'm going to rectify the situation by putting a business owner who contributed to the economy in jail on your tax dollar dime." Penalize them with fines. Our jail system is strained as-is. That's the problem with having laws you don't enforce. You can't enforce laws you chose not to before without it causing public backlash and having its own economic repercussions.

It wouldn't be retroactive. It should be illegal to hire illegals. The costs would be much less than a) deporting 12 million illegals or b) empowering illegal activity through amnesty.

[nbs2]

One of the main objections against illegals is that they are not tax-paying citizens, and thus do not contribute to society. By legalizing them, you aren't re-branding them superficially, you're rectifying the legitimate concern many people have. The real concern is not whether or not he is lying, it's who should be allowed to be legalized. The only way you can take a hard-line on him using this to get healthcare to illegals is if you assert that illegals should never be allowed to have healthcare, regardless of status. As it stands, Obama introduced no conditions or timelines, so any conjecture that he is lying is reading into the statement. It's not an end-around, it's an acknowledgment of facts and refutation of the absolute "Those who were illegal at one time should never be allowed healthcare."

I understand your point - that making people contributors entitles them to the benefits that all contributors receive.

The problem is that by granting amnesty, all that really happens is that a label is changed - there are plenty of unproductive Americans to envelop the unproductive illegals and there are plenty of productive illegals who can match even the most productive Americans. There is no direct disincentive for someone to have entered the country illegally (concerns about treatment, services, wages, etc are all indirect disincentives that discourage, but do not address the central decision to enter the country illegally).

I don't know what was intended by either Obama or Wilson (who I also suspect of making his comment more for the publicity than any real belief or political action). The statement that illegals should be granted amnesty does, as you assert, not directly contradict the statement that he would not grant healthcare to illegals. However, the timing and interplay of the two remarks does create a line that implies - "I am not covering illegals currently in the US, but if we change all of the illegals into legals, there won't be any illegals to cover." In the end, it just smells like someone cooked fish in the microwave.

[Macky-Mac]

.... It should be illegal to hire illegals......

it already is of course

[Ugg]

One of the main objections against illegals is that they are not tax-paying citizens....

That of course is totally false. While it's increasingly difficult to hire someone with dodgy papers, it's still done and my guess is that a substantial number of those who are here illegally are actually paying taxes. As a matter of fact, the IRS and Social Security have enormous amounts of money contributed under false numbers. Of course, none of this money can be claimed back. Why not use this to provide health care?

Another issue that is all too frequently overlooked, is that many illegals have children who were born in the US and are therefore American citizens. Citizens of course are entitled to government benefits. Period.

[Zombie Acorn]

it already is of course

with adequate punishment. If I am making 20,000 a year off of working illegals instead of regular American workers a fine up to that amount is not going to dissuade me from using them because of the chances of being caught.

[Zombie Acorn]

That of course is totally false. While it's increasingly difficult to hire someone with dodgy papers, it's still done and my guess is that a substantial number of those who are here illegally are actually paying taxes. As a matter of fact, the IRS and Social Security have enormous amounts of money contributed under false numbers. Of course, none of this money can be claimed back. Why not use this to provide health care?


Most of the illegals around here are paid under the table. I know quite a few roofing businesses who "subcontract".


Another issue that is all too frequently overlooked, is that many illegals have children who were born in the US and are therefore American citizens. Citizens of course are entitled to government benefits. Period.

Their kids can be covered, they cannot.

[Macky-Mac]

with adequate punishment. If I am making 20,000 a year off of working illegals instead of regular American workers a fine up to that amount is not going to dissuade me from using them because of the chances of being caught.

How are you going to police such laws? What happens of course is that illegals buy fake green cards and social security cards, and present them as proof that they're legal to work. So how are you going to prove who's legal and who's illegal? How much of a police intrusion into your own life are you prepared to tolerate to prove that you yourself aren't an illegal?

[pooryou]

How are you going to police such laws? What happens of course is that illegals buy fake green cards and social security cards, and present them as proof that they're legal to work. So how are you going to prove who's legal and who's illegal? How much of a police intrusion into your own life are you prepared to tolerate to prove that you yourself aren't an illegal?

Easy, the info gets checked against a national database or "sorry no workie".
In fact, it's quite pathetic if things aren't that way already.

[Zombie Acorn]

How are you going to police such laws? What happens of course is that illegals buy fake green cards and social security cards, and present them as proof that they're legal to work. So how are you going to prove who's legal and who's illegal? How much of a police intrusion into your own life are you prepared to tolerate to prove that you yourself aren't an illegal?

If I owned a business I would invest in a background check system like most other businesses have done so I don't get my ass thrown in the slammer. Background checks are fairly common place in the workplace these days.

[Macky-Mac]

Easy, the info gets checked against a national database or "sorry no workie".
In fact, it's quite pathetic if things aren't that way already.

You say "easy"....but is it really? what "info" are you going to check? We already have social security numbers and other IDs that are easy enough to fake. Identity theft is widespread as it is.

Are you going to issue everybody a national identity card? Do a police investigation first to verify each person's credentials? There isn't currently such a "national database" so how much is it going to cost to set one up and how much of your personal information are you going to have to submit to this database?

If I owned a business I would invest in a background check system like most other businesses have done so I don't get my ass thrown in the slammer. Background checks are fairly common place in the workplace these days.

yet another government imposed burden on private business! How much money should you, the business owner, be expected to spend investigating the background of a potential dishwasher for your restaurant?

[Eraserhead]

it already is of course

+1

Easy, the info gets checked against a national database or "sorry no workie".
In fact, it's quite pathetic if things aren't that way already.

There are national databases for all sorts of things like that. It doesn't mean they can't have entries faked and also you have privacy issues if you give every business access to the database.

[NC MacGuy]

Easy, the info gets checked against a national database or "sorry no workie".
In fact, it's quite pathetic if things aren't that way already.

They are supposed to be. Every employee must have an I-9 submitted with suitable I.D for an employee before they can legally be hired.

If our govt. were doing their job, the restrictions in place would be enough. Enforce and verify what's already on the books instead of deeming it broke and starting a new program or can the excessive paperwork that's put on the shoulders of the company having to file the forms.

http://www.formi9.com/i-9.pdf

BTW, "illegal aliens" have officially morphed into "undocumented workers."

I for one certainly think if people want to emigrate here from wherever & get a job, pay taxes, learn the language and don't break laws excessively they should have an opportunity to do just that. Frankly, if more naturalized citizens worked as hard as the "undocumented workers" I've seen and came into contact with, we'd be a much better country.

[mgguy]

It is acknowledged by a striking majority that some sort of reform needs to take place. Deporting every single one of the estimated 12 million immigrants is not feasible. Therefore, it stands to reason that at least some of them will be allowed to enter a process to make them legal (again, he has said nothing about granting amnesty).


A striking majority does want reform, but they don't want the same type of reform. Many want legalization, while many others want deportation. How then can you then say that it therefore "stands to reason" that legalization will be the necessary outcome, at least for some? Where is the logic in this "reasoning?"

We don't need to rely on deportation alone to reduce the illegal immigrant population. They will leave on their own if they are denied employment, education for their children, free health care, and the other necessities that draw and keep them here. Perhaps all won't leave, but a sizable number will eventually and it should also reduce the flow of illegal immigrants in the future.

With regard to whether Obama lied in his claim that illegal immigrants won't be covered under his plan, he probably wouldn't have made that statement if he believed that the door to legalization could not be opened and they could not then get coverage after amnesty had been given to remove their illegal status.

[mgguy]

Another issue that is all too frequently overlooked, is that many illegals have children who were born in the US and are therefore American citizens. Citizens of course are entitled to government benefits. Period.

Sadly, this is true. But the parents of these children are not entitled to stay with their legal children while they are here getting these benefits. If the parents have to leave, my guess is that they would take their children with them.

What happens of course is that illegals buy fake green cards and social security cards, and present them as proof that they're legal to work. One of the side benefits of checking the validity of SSNs for employment is that it would reveal cases of identity theft, which would be of great value to those whose SSNs have been used fraudulently by some illegal immigrants.


Frankly, if more naturalized citizens worked as hard as the "undocumented workers" I've seen and came into contact with, we'd be a much better country. But so would their source country if they returned home or stayed home in the first place. Many countries from which these people come would benefit greatly by their hard work and ingenuity if they stayed home, rather than continuing to slide downhill because their young able-bodies workers are leaving to come here for material gain, leaving behind those who are unable or unwilling to follow behind them.

[Macky-Mac]

They are supposed to be. Every employee must have an I-9 submitted with suitable I.D for an employee before they can legally be hired.

If our govt. were doing their job, the restrictions in place would be enough. Enforce and verify what's already on the books instead of deeming it broke and starting a new program or can the excessive paperwork that's put on the shoulders of the company having to file the forms.....

Doesn't the existing law require verification to be done by YOU, the employer? (similar to requiring bars and liquor stores to do the ID checks)

IIRC, employers don't submit these I-9 forms to the government, but rather after examining and verifying their employees' documents, they're required to keep the forms on file and ready for inspection should the guv'ment come around to see if YOU are following the law.

I suppose if you want them to do a better job of enforcement then you'll have to get ready for them to come visit you more often, just to make sure you're doing your job....and I should warn you, should you fail to spot somebody's fake ID, Zombie Acorn wants you put in jail. :eek:

[jav6454]

Im not going to eat any red apples.

*paints the red apple green*

see.

+1

Sorry, but the fact of making illegals into legals is not a solution. That would only broaden the problem, because now you have an extra 12 M new Americans that need healthcare and can claim benefits.

Health care should be reformed regardless if illegals get covered. I for one refuse to let my tax dollars go to cover someone who should not even be in this country and is at the hospital because he/she is drunk or got into a fight, etc. I don't want to see that when I go to the hospital in case of an emergency. Even worse, I hate to encounter a flood of people who shouldn't be there or don't pay taxes (illegals), and I, that pay taxes and should be there, can't get help as I should unless I am literally dying because the hospital is bugged down. If I do get help in the end, it ends up costing me more $$$ than what it should, because what was supposed to be my share went to some illegal.

If you don't pay taxes and are not legal here, you should not have any benefit, including labor. I agree, policing the system is difficult, but it's because of American greed that we are in this mess right now. How? Well, the lowest bidder gets the job (in pretty much everything), so where do they cut cost? Labor. If you can get cheap labor, you get more contracts and more $. Where do you get cheap labor? Illegals, pay under the table. It simply promotes illegals here.

So how do we fix healthcare? Let leave it up to Congress and Obama to figure it out, but I won't support it if it means it will cover illegals or involves some scheme to make illegals, legal. It's putting lipstick on the pig, it's still a pig. (no, that was not an insult.)

[.Andy]

Health care should be reformed regardless if illegals get covered. I for one refuse to let my tax dollars go to cover someone who should not even be in this country and is at the hospital because he/she is drunk or got into a fight, etc. I don't want to see that when I go to the hospital in case of an emergency.
Is one of the main reasons undocumented Canadians end up in US hospitals due to them getting drunk or getting into fights?

[anjinha]

So how do we fix healthcare? Let leave it up to Congress and Obama to figure it out, but I won't support it if it means it will cover illegals or involves some scheme to make illegals, legal. It's putting lipstick on the pig, it's still a pig. (no, that was not an insult.)

I don't think Obama is suggesting a scheme to make illegal immigrants legal just so they can have healthcare. He is suggesting to make them legal (as in tax-paying citizens) the right way so that they earn the right to healthcare.

[Zombie Acorn]

Is one of the main reasons undocumented Canadians end up in US hospitals due to them getting drunk or getting into fights?

they said "aboot" one too many times at the bar.

[CorvusCamenarum]

I fail to see how granting amnesty or providing a path to legality would change anything.

Pre-reform: An illegal walks into an ER. The ER has to treat him regardless of his ability to pay.
Post-reform: An illegal walks into an ER. The ER still has to treat him regardless of his ability to produce an insurance card, public or otherwise.

Where's the incentive?

[Badandy]

I fail to see how granting amnesty or providing a path to legality would change anything.

Pre-reform: An illegal walks into an ER. The ER has to treat him regardless of his ability to pay.
Post-reform: An illegal walks into an ER. The ER still has to treat him regardless of his ability to produce an insurance card, public or otherwise.

Where's the incentive?

Allowing illegals to get all the benefits would mean they would have checkups, tests, non-critical surgeries covered.

For example: I have a shoulder issue called shoulder subluxation. My shoulder joint will momentarily dislocate if I move it the wrong way (it happens in basketball) and it causes really short, severe pain and then soreness. It happens maybe once per month. If I wanted my insurance would cover it. An illegal, AFAIK, could not get that operated on.

Also, in your above example: The hospital would get reimbursed by the insurance company for someone's trip to the ER if they were covered.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Allowing illegals to get all the benefits would mean they would have checkups, tests, non-critical surgeries covered.

For example: I have a shoulder issue called shoulder subluxation. My shoulder joint will momentarily dislocate if I move it the wrong way (it happens in basketball) and it causes really short, severe pain and then soreness. It happens maybe once per month. If I wanted my insurance would cover it. An illegal, AFAIK, could not get that operated on.

Also, in your above example: The hospital would get reimbursed by the insurance company for someone's trip to the ER if they were covered.

Maybe I should have phrased it differently. Where's the incentive for the illegal to suddenly decide to pony up the time, effort, and expense to square himself with the law? He gets treated in some form or another either way.

[anjinha]

Maybe I should have phrased it differently. Where's the incentive for the illegal to suddenly decide to pony up the time, effort, and expense to square himself with the law? He gets treated in some form or another either way.

If he's illegal a hospital only has to stabilize him, not treat him.

[jav6454]

Is one of the main reasons undocumented Canadians end up in US hospitals due to them getting drunk or getting into fights?

Illegal Canadians, I haven't heard of such thing. However, I highly doubt a Canadian will visit our healthcare system when theirs is working just fine.

[leekohler]

Illegal Canadians, I haven't heard of such thing. However, I highly doubt a Canadian will visit our healthcare system when theirs is working just fine.

I once overheard a Canadian student here in Chicago on his cell phone talking about how messed up our health care system is. He was being forced to move back to Canada because he lost his job and his insurance. "I need health insurance. This US bulls*** is stupid. How do people put up with this s***?"

[chrmjenkins]

It wouldn't be retroactive. It should be illegal to hire illegals. The costs would be much less than a) deporting 12 million illegals or b) empowering illegal activity through amnesty.

You don't empower illegal activity through amnesty unless you intend to allow it to continue. The idea of reform is that at the point it begins, there should be far fewer here illegally because they can't find work.

I understand your point - that making people contributors entitles them to the benefits that all contributors receive.

The problem is that by granting amnesty, all that really happens is that a label is changed - there are plenty of unproductive Americans to envelop the unproductive illegals and there are plenty of productive illegals who can match even the most productive Americans. There is no direct disincentive for someone to have entered the country illegally (concerns about treatment, services, wages, etc are all indirect disincentives that discourage, but do not address the central decision to enter the country illegally).

I don't know what was intended by either Obama or Wilson (who I also suspect of making his comment more for the publicity than any real belief or political action). The statement that illegals should be granted amnesty does, as you assert, not directly contradict the statement that he would not grant healthcare to illegals. However, the timing and interplay of the two remarks does create a line that implies - "I am not covering illegals currently in the US, but if we change all of the illegals into legals, there won't be any illegals to cover." In the end, it just smells like someone cooked fish in the microwave.

I suppose I can put it this way. It seems people would rather be upset that he's even considering the problem, whereas they'd be happy if he just ignored it.

A striking majority does want reform, but they don't want the same type of reform. Many want legalization, while many others want deportation. How then can you then say that it therefore "stands to reason" that legalization will be the necessary outcome, at least for some? Where is the logic in this "reasoning?"

Because it's economically infeasible to deport 12M individuals back to Mexico. Moreover, you'll have a hard time selling the costs of that kind of a action to a group who is most likely conservative. Legalization, at least for some, may not satisfy their palate, but no one can escape the facts of the costs and what is pragmatic in the situation.


We don't need to rely on deportation alone to reduce the illegal immigrant population. They will leave on their own if they are denied employment, education for their children, free health care, and the other necessities that draw and keep them here. Perhaps all won't leave, but a sizable number will eventually and it should also reduce the flow of illegal immigrants in the future.

That's a big hope, especially considering their children being born in the US would entitle that child to all the services the US has to offer, including healthcare and public school use.

Maybe I should have phrased it differently. Where's the incentive for the illegal to suddenly decide to pony up the time, effort, and expense to square himself with the law? He gets treated in some form or another either way.

At the point of care he could be subjugated to a legal process to ensure he at that point either becomes legal or is deported. This is on top of laws that should be preventing him from even being hired.

[leekohler]

Because it's economically infeasible to deport 12M individuals back to Mexico. Moreover, you'll have a hard time selling the costs of that kind of a action to a group who is most likely conservative. Legalization, at least for some, may not satisfy their palate, but no one can escape the facts of the costs and what is pragmatic in the situation.


I disagree. Many conservatives are not concerned with the pragmatic, only the ideological. I think it would be extremely easy to convince most of them that deportation is the answer. I think they'd spend any amount of money for deportation, just like they'll spend any amount of money on wars in places like Iraq. Actually, cost would probably be ignored entirely. All they'd have to say is "We're cutting your taxes, and deporting the Mexicans!" Do you have any idea how popular that would be?

The last eight years has shown that conservatives do not care about pragmatism in the least. Their big thing is ideology- no matter how much harm it does.

[imac/cheese]

Is one of the main reasons undocumented Canadians end up in US hospitals due to them getting drunk or getting into fights?

Hockey games are definitely violent and alcohol is quite prevelant.

[jav6454]

I once overheard a Canadian student here in Chicago on his cell phone talking about how messed up our health care system is. He was being forced to move back to Canada because he lost his job and his insurance. "I need health insurance. This US bulls*** is stupid. How do people put up with this s***?"

Interesting, thanks for that input leek

[leekohler]

Interesting, thanks for that input leek

He said much worse, but it's not fit for a family site. ;)

[NT1440]

+1

Sorry, but the fact of making illegals into legals is not a solution. That would only broaden the problem, because now you have an extra 12 M new Americans that need healthcare and can claim benefits.



You guys realize that if illegal immigrants were made legal, theyd have to start paying taxes and all that jazz right?

[jav6454]

You guys realize that if illegal immigrants were made legal, theyd have to start paying taxes and all that jazz right?

Yes, but how long (given the proper method of legalizing them) will it take for them to start paying. Also, how willing will they be now that they their whole paychecks be reduced in taxes. Consider, how much will the legalization cost and how long until you get all that investment back.

[NT1440]

Yes, but how long (given the proper method of legalizing them) will it take for them to start paying. Also, how willing will they be now that they their whole paychecks be reduced in taxes. Consider, how much will the legalization cost and how long until you get all that investment back.

As long as its recouped within a decade or so does it really matter? Economics on a global scale doesn't really move at the same level of urgency as our day to day finances.

[abijnk]

Yes, but how long (given the proper method of legalizing them) will it take for them to start paying. Also, how willing will they be now that they their whole paychecks be reduced in taxes. Consider, how much will the legalization cost and how long until you get all that investment back.

It seems you are assuming they are getting paid reasonably. Being citizens also offers them the protection of minimum wage, which is probably a nice raise for a fair part of illegal workers.

[jav6454]

It seems you are assuming they are getting paid reasonably. Being citizens also offers them the protection of minimum wage, which is probably a nice raise for a fair part of illegal workers.

Yes with this I agree. However, I wonder how many contractors are going to like it. My assumption, none of them. Cheap labor means more competitiveness.

As long as its recouped within a decade or so does it really matter? Economics on a global scale doesn't really move at the same level of urgency as our day to day finances.

I don't know much of global economics, but I think the thing we need less right now is more spending.

[xlii]

Why not just give every illegal alien $1,000,000 dollars and then they can go buy their own insurance.

[NT1440]

I don't know much of global economics, but I think the thing we need less right now is more spending.

I guess I'm more of a "actually get something done now for once and not push it off to the future" kind of guy. I'd rather the country go through a tough time right now getting all the reforms we need (healthcare, education, infrastructure, immigration) to come out better for it down the line rather than continue our steady (but accelerating) decline which continues to make us an even bigger laughing stock to the world.

[jav6454]

I guess I'm more of a "actually get something done now for once and not push it off to the future" kind of guy. I'd rather the country go through a tough time right now getting all the reforms we need (healthcare, education, infrastructure, immigration) to come out better for it down the line rather than continue our steady (but accelerating) decline which continues to make us an even bigger laughing stock to the world.

True, but like many have said, giving an amnesty to those not legally living here is not a solution. It will just promote a tidal wave of people wishing to come here.

[NT1440]

True, but like many have said, giving an amnesty to those not legally living here is not a solution. It will just promote a tidal wave of people wishing to come here.

Why/how? If we make it damn clear that this is a one time only thing, and afterword ramp up border protection it shouldn't be a big problem. That being said, I'm entirely against such measures.

[jav6454]

Why/how? If we make it damn clear that this is a one time only thing, and afterword ramp up border protection it shouldn't be a big problem. That being said, I'm entirely against such measures.

The one time thing keeps happening and happening.

[Badandy]

Why/how? If we make it damn clear that this is a one time only thing, and afterword ramp up border protection it shouldn't be a big problem. That being said, I'm entirely against such measures.

It's always a one-time thing.

[NT1440]

The one time thing keeps happening and happening.

It's always a one-time thing.

So you both realize that immigration, legal or otherwise, is always going to occur? Good.:)

[imac/cheese]

Yes with this I agree. However, I wonder how many contractors are going to like it. My assumption, none of them. Cheap labor means more competitiveness.

The argument that contractors enjoy hiring illegal workers because they do not have to pay as much in wages is not valid in my opinion.

[jav6454]

The argument that contractors enjoy hiring illegal workers because they do not have to pay as much in wages is not valid in my opinion.

May not, but reality begs to differ.

[Zombie Acorn]

You guys realize that if illegal immigrants were made legal, theyd have to start paying taxes and all that jazz right?

The only reason illegals are attractive for hire is because they can be paid below minimum wage, if made citizens we would likely see a rise in unemployment in that sector causing them to lean on tax payers for support.

[Zombie Acorn]

The argument that contractors enjoy hiring illegal workers because they do not have to pay as much in wages is not valid in my opinion.

I know quite a few contractors, and that is exactly why they hire them. Most of the illegals around here don't speak English, its going to be tough running a crew if you can't talk to them, and if you have to pay them the regular wage everyone else gets I would rather hire someone I could communicate to.

[NT1440]

The only reason illegals are attractive for hire is because they can be paid below minimum wage, if made citizens we would likely see a rise in unemployment in that sector causing them to lean on tax payers for support.

You don't think employers would love having tons of minimum wage employees available legally with no risk to them or their business? Yes its a jump in prices, but still way lower than most Americans would be willing to work for. Frankly it seems like a win for everyone. The immigrants get a pay raise and employers can't get in trouble for illegal hiring purposes. Thats the best case scenario money wise without relying on breaking the law.

[abijnk]

The only reason illegals are attractive for hire is because they can be paid below minimum wage, if made citizens we would likely see a rise in unemployment in that sector causing them to lean on tax payers for support.

I would disagree with that analysis. Just because the contractor can't pay the workers as cheaply as before doesn't mean they wouldn't need them.

[imac/cheese]

I know quite a few contractors, and that is exactly why they hire them. Most of the illegals around here don't speak English, its going to be tough running a crew if you can't talk to them, and if you have to pay them the regular wage everyone else gets I would rather hire someone I could communicate to.

I understand that many contractors do hire illegals. I was simply stating that it is not a valid argument to maintain the status quo.

[Zombie Acorn]

You don't think employers would love having tons of minimum wage employees available legally with no risk to them or their business? Yes its a jump in prices, but still way lower than most Americans would be willing to work for. Frankly it seems like a win for everyone. The immigrants get a pay raise and employers can't get in trouble for illegal hiring purposes. Thats the best case scenario money wise without relying on breaking the law.

The laws aren't enforced these days anyways, the worst that happens is ICE raids your company and you lose your workers, drive your truck down to the local home depot and load up again.

[Zombie Acorn]

I would disagree with that analysis. Just because the contractor can't pay the workers as cheaply as before doesn't mean they wouldn't need them.

In economics if you raise the floor on wages you also raise the unemployment rate at the same time.

[NT1440]

The laws aren't enforced these days anyways, the worst that happens is ICE raids your company and you lose your workers, drive your truck down to the local home depot and load up again.

My god, people cry out against the status quo but want no part in changing do they?

[.Andy]

The only reason illegals are attractive for hire is because they can be paid below minimum wage, if made citizens we would likely see a rise in unemployment in that sector causing them to lean on tax payers for support.
Wouldn't it be best from a libertarian point of view to abolish minimum wage (it's big government and an imposition on the free market) and open up the borders (again big government and an imposition on the free market) to labour. That way there is free movement of labour, an increase in competition for jobs, and the price of labour and production of goods is driven down. Why doesn't the free market ideology hold fast when it comes to labour? Aren't borders just a tariff that decreases productivity and efficiency?

[Zombie Acorn]

My god, people cry out against the status quo but want no part in changing do they?

I already gave my opinion on changing it. The workers aren't the problem, its the employers.

[Zombie Acorn]

Wouldn't it be best from a libertarian point of view to abolish minimum wage (it's big government and an imposition on the free market) and open up the borders (again big government and an imposition on the free market) to labour. That way there is free movement of labour, an increase in competition for jobs, and the price of labour and production of goods is driven down. Why doesn't the free market ideology hold fast when it comes to labour?

I really wouldn't mind having free labor relations across North America. We don't operate in a free market though so many of the principles simply won't work. I am also anti-minimum wage and I don't buy American unless its the best cost/value ratio.

[NT1440]

I am also anti-minimum wage

Do explain, I'm HIGHLY interested :)

[Zombie Acorn]

Do explain, I'm HIGHLY interested :)

We have 10% unemployment, drop minimum wage level, supply and demand in the workforce meet or come closer to equilibrium and unemployment declines.

Lowered income > no income.

I assume we are still talking about companies that low wages pertain to since most illegals make below min wage.

[leekohler]

We have 10% unemployment, drop minimum wage level, supply and demand in the workforce meet or come closer to equilibrium and unemployment declines.

Lowered income > no income.


And companies further get to abuse their workers. And don't tell me employers will reward hard work. They don't. Instead, they reduce people's wages across the board and do more layoffs, increasing the workload on the remaining staff.

There needs to be a minimum wage that people can at least expect. It's not a lot of money.

[Zombie Acorn]

And companies further get to abuse their workers. And don't tell me employers will reward hard work. They don't. Instead, they reduce people's wages across the board and do more layoffs, increasing the workload on the remaining staff.

There needs to be a minimum wage that people can at least expect. It's not a lot of money.

Profit margins don't mean much if no one is willing to work for you. We have anti-monopoly laws. The most successful companies reward hard work, its not a coincidence.

[skunk]

We have 10% unemployment, drop minimum wage level, supply and demand in the workforce meet or come closer to equilibrium and unemployment declines.

Lowered income > no income.

I assume we are still talking about companies that low wages pertain to since most illegals make below min wage.Surely it is a good thing for the companies concerned to improve their working practices and methods to a point where their increased efficiency makes paying a decent wage a viable proposition? Otherwise it becomes a race to the bottom.

[Zombie Acorn]

Surely it is a good thing for the companies concerned to improve their working practices and methods to a point where their increased efficiency makes paying a decent wage a viable proposition? Otherwise it becomes a race to the bottom.

It should be in the hands of the companies to decide, I personally don't think that many companies would try to shaft their employees these days because of the bad PR that they would receive. If all of their employees have to take a small pay cut below minimum wage to stay on in bad economic times though its better in my mind than having to lay off a portion of them.

Paying a decent wage is more than meeting government laws, its healthy for your workforce.

[leekohler]

It should be in the hands of the companies to decide, I personally don't think that many companies would try to shaft their employees these days because of the bad PR that they would receive. If all of their employees have to take a small pay cut below minimum wage to stay on in bad economic times though its better in my mind than having to lay off a portion of them.

Paying a decent wage is more than meeting government laws, its healthy for your workforce.

You really haven't worked that long in the real world, have you? Companies don't care about bad PR in relation to their employees. All they care about, especially now, are their shareholders. Everyone I know is going through layoffs AND having their salaries cut- all while being told that the company is doing great and is very profitable. I'm moving to a different, cheaper apartment next weekend because of this. And trust me, I don't pay a lot for rent. I'm also considering a second job.

Companies are using the economy to shaft employees left and right. And It's going to get worse.

We agree on one thing- paying a decent wage IS good for your workforce. Too bad corporations don't see it that way.

[Zombie Acorn]

You really haven't worked that long in the real world, have you? Companies don't care about bad PR in relation to their employees. All they care about, especially now, are their shareholders. Everyone I now is going through layoffs AND having their salaries cut. I'm moving to a different, cheaper apartment next weekend because of this. And trust me, I don't pay a lot for rent. I'm also considering a second job.

Companies are using the economy to shaft employees left and right. And It's going to get worse.

We agree on one thing- paying a decent wage IS good for your workforce. Too bad corporations don't see it that way.

You really haven't had to run a business in the real world have you? Assuming I hire people who are of minimum wage work (which I don't) and the economy goes to crap would you rather I a) keep everyone on and drop their wage or b) fire 1/4 of them and pay the others their normal minimum wage?

Also you are talking about industries which aren't paying minimum wage to start, they are allowed to fluctuate with the economy.

On the same line of thought if I can't afford to bring someone on at 7.00 per hour but I can afford to bring them on at 5.00 per hour do you think the person would rather I not hire them, or hire them at the lower wage? You are advocating denying people work because of some artificial bar you have set.

Minimum wage hurts the poor class more than anyone else in a slumping economy. Also keep in mind that not all jobs come from corporate America.

[NT1440]

If there was no minimum wage, why do you think in this idealistic (aka, complete fantasy) world of yours the pay would increase when times are good?

Business would LOVE to pay Americans $5.00 an hour for the rest of their lives.

[Zombie Acorn]

If there was no minimum wage, why do you think in this idealistic (aka, complete fantasy) world of yours the pay would increase when times are good?

Business would LOVE to pay Americans $5.00 an hour for the rest of their lives.

The first federal minimum wage wasn't set till 1938, everyone wasn't working for 5 dollars (equivalent) an hour back then. The fantasy world you speak of wasn't that long ago.

Labor is like any other commodity it has to adhere to the laws of supply/demand.

[leekohler]

The first federal minimum wage wasn't set till 1938, everyone wasn't working for 5 dollars an hour back then. The fantasy world you speak of wasn't that long ago.

Labor is like any other commodity it has to adhere to the laws of supply/demand.

And why do you think they set a minimum wage in the first place?

You really haven't had to run a business in the real world have you? Assuming I hire people who are of minimum wage work (which I don't) and the economy goes to crap would you rather I a) keep everyone on and drop their wage or b) fire 1/4 of them and pay the others their normal minimum wage?

Also you are talking about industries which aren't paying minimum wage to start, they are allowed to fluctuate with the economy.

On the same line of thought if I can't afford to bring someone on at 7.00 per hour but I can afford to bring them on at 5.00 per hour do you think the person would rather I not hire them, or hire them at the lower wage? You are advocating denying people work because of some artificial bar you have set.


And soon everyone else decides to do the same thing. It IS a race to the bottom. The reason I gave you examples form my own life is that everyone is doing it now. I have no doubt they'll keep doing it to see how much they can get away with.

[Zombie Acorn]

And why do you think they set a minimum wage?

I wasn't alive during the time, but if I were to guess it was probably purely political, a poor man's champion move. Also it sounds good to set a price floor for workers without them realizing the consequences.

[Zombie Acorn]

And soon everyone else decides to do the same thing. It IS a race to the bottom. The reason I gave you examples form my own life is that everyone is doing it now. I have no doubt they'll keep doing it to see how much they can get away with.

Right now the economy is in a slump, corporations have to adjust accordingly.

[leekohler]

I wasn't alive during the time, but if I were to guess it was probably purely political, a poor man's champion move. Also it sounds good to set a price floor for workers without them realizing the consequences.

In case you don't believe us about the race to the bottom, here's your answer:

Minimum wages were first proposed as a way to control the proliferation of sweat shops in manufacturing industries. The sweat shops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their workers, and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay "fairly."

Sorry-corporations aren't the saints you like to think they are.

Right now the economy is in a slump, corporations have to adjust accordingly.

Uh-huh. Pay the employees crap and hand out bonuses to the execs. Please.

[Zombie Acorn]

In case you don't believe us about the race to the bottom, here's your answer:



Sorry-corporations aren't the saints you like to think they are.

Purely a cultural phenomenon and nothing to do with corporations. Women and children were deemed less worthy then men at the time.

[abijnk]

In economics if you raise the floor on wages you also raise the unemployment rate at the same time.

True, to a point. There would definitely be a rise in unemployment, but I doubt it would very big.

Women ... were deemed less worthy then men at the time.

And we are, despite laws, still paid differently than men. Remove protections against that and you will only see the gap get bigger.

[leekohler]

Purely a cultural phenomenon and nothing to do with corporations. Women and children were deemed less worthy then men at the time.

Wow- we have nothing left to discuss. You just illustrated the need for minimum wage laws. I'm shocked. That doesn't happen much.

[Zombie Acorn]

Wow- we have nothing left to discuss. You just illustrated the need for minimum wage laws. I'm shocked. That doesn't happen much.

Shocked at what? The fact that our culture didn't value women and children as equal persons back in the early 1900s and does now? I would have thought this came up pretty often in history courses. 50 years previous to that Americans had slaves.

[leekohler]

Shocked at what? The fact that our culture didn't value women and children as equal persons back in the early 1900s and does now? I would have thought this came up pretty often in history courses. 50 years previous to that Americans had slaves.

Shocked that you illustrated the need for minimum wage laws all by yourself, and further shocked that you don't understand how you did it.

[skunk]

Shocked at what? The fact that our culture didn't value women and children as equal persons back in the early 1900s and does now? I would have thought this came up pretty often in history courses. 50 years previous to that Americans had slaves.If you are willing to regress to 1938, why not go the whole hog? It's only a small baby step back to reintroducing slavery.

[Zombie Acorn]

True, to a point. There would definitely be a rise in unemployment, but I doubt it would very big.



And we are, despite laws, still paid differently than men. Remove protections against that and you will only see the gap get bigger.

Statistically speaking there are other factors including women being less experienced (usually due to child related activities), less company loyalty (its not uncommon for a woman to leave work to take care of children), and not putting in as many hours (again usually tied to kids) that make up for the price difference in the work force.

[leekohler]

Statistically speaking there are other factors including women being less experienced (usually due to child related activities), less company loyalty (its not uncommon for a woman to leave work to take care of children), and not putting in as many hours (again usually tied to kids) that make up for the price difference in the work force.

So- what if certain women never have kids? Why are they still paid less?

And company loyalty? Why should anyone have that? A company will drop you like a hot potato if it serves them to do so.

Zombie- I used to have similar illusions about the world (hard work reaps rewards, etc.). I really did. But having lived through it for what is now most of my life, I know better. Hard work is only part of it. There have to be many other factors as well.

[Zombie Acorn]

If you are willing to regress to 1938, why not go the whole hog? It's only a small baby step back to reintroducing slavery.

Not allowing people to work because of an artificial bar in a slumping economy relates to slavery how? :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Statistically speaking there are other factors including women being less experienced (usually due to child related activities), less company loyalty (its not uncommon for a woman to leave work to take care of children), and not putting in as many hours (again usually tied to kids) that make up for the price difference in the work force.You are seriously defending the position that women should be paid less than men for the same work?

[Zombie Acorn]

So- what if certain women never have kids? Why are they still paid less?

Statistics report generalities or trends, not specific instances.

[Zombie Acorn]

You are seriously defending the position that women should be paid less than men for the same work?

There is a reason for the statistical salary gap. Reread what I quoted and what I posted.

[leekohler]

There is a reason for the statistical salary gap. Reread what I quoted and what I posted.

We saw. Trust me.

[skunk]

Not allowing people to work because of an artificial bar in a slumping economy relates to slavery how? :rolleyes:I would have thought that was obvious: you seem to be in favour of regressing to the utterly exploitative days before minimum wage legislation was introduced in 1938, and you said that 50 years before that Americans owned slaves. Why not be logical and remove all artificial bars to full employment? If workers were owned outright, I doubt if any would lose their jobs.

[skunk]

There is a reason for the statistical salary gap. Reread what I quoted and what I posted.You really need to open your eyes. Seriously.

[Zombie Acorn]

We saw. Trust me.

You don't seem to "get it" then, when women report lower earnings there are many factors that go into the statistics. When I hire 5 personnel for the same job I will most likely give the one with the most experience the most amount of money or he/she will go to another company. Women usually have a dual role with children and may end up spending years out of the work force.

I am probably going to get in trouble for posting another anecdote, but my mother currently runs her own hotel, she gets paid more than every man working under her and probably more than many of the other hotel GMs.

[Zombie Acorn]

I would have thought that was obvious: you seem to be in favour of regressing to the utterly exploitative days before minimum wage legislation was introduced in 1938, and you said that 50 years before that Americans owned slaves. Why not be logical and remove all artificial bars to full employment? If workers were owned outright, I doubt if any would lose their jobs.

Ridiculous once again. I don't know why you always regress to some sort of nonsense like this.

Federal minimum wages of 1938 were for all workers to my knowledge, the women/children minimum wage was set way before that. It is feel good legislation to make someone a poor man's champion, the poor man doesn't realize that he just lost his job because of it.

[leekohler]

You really need to open your eyes. Seriously.

Why, when rose-colored lenses make everything look so pretty? ;)

Zombie believes the market can do no wrong. And really, if there were no human equation to consider, he'd be right. But there is a human equation, and that affects the market considerably. There is no such thing as a perfect system.

[Zombie Acorn]

Why, when rose-colored lenses make everything look so pretty? ;)

Zombie believes the market can do no wrong. And really, if there were no human equation to consider, he'd be right. But there is a human equation, and that affects the market considerably.

Exactly why I think minimum wage laws should be abolished. We have people who need jobs here.

[skunk]

Zombie will make a fine boss, one day.

[leekohler]

Exactly why I think minimum wage laws should be abolished. We have people who need jobs here.

Hmm...so how low should the wages go? If there's no minimum, the trash can is the limit. And you would also have no right to tell anyone they pay their workers too little. There's one small rule in the market you guys love to keep quiet about. Can you guess what it is?

[Zombie Acorn]

Zombie will make a fine boss, one day.

It would have to be a very harsh economy before I would consider sacrificing employee moral. Unfortunately it is a harsh economy and we have high unemployment. I am not an advocate of paying low wages, but I do think people should be allowed to work.

[Zombie Acorn]

Hmm...so how low should the wages go? If there's no minimum, the trash can is the limit. And you would also have no right to tell anyone they pay their workers too little. There's one small rule in the market you guys love to keep quiet about. Can you guess what it is?

You act like the economy doesn't regulate itself in anyway at all. Like I said before labor is a commodity like any other. If you pay your workers crap wages and are hitting high profit margins I can steal your workers away and make less profit margins/put you out of business.

Your argument is about the same as scare tactics over the free market selling oranges, doesn't every company want to sell their oranges for 500 dollars a piece? Yeh, luckily we aren't in fantasy land though and the law of supply and demand hold true.

[leekohler]

It would have to be a very harsh economy before I would consider sacrificing employee moral.

Unfortunately, you aren't every boss in the country.

You act like the economy doesn't regulate itself in anyway at all. Like I said before labor is a commodity like any other. If you pay your workers crap wages and are hitting high profit margins I can steal your workers away and make less profit margins/put you out of business.


You can't steal every worker. Others will always be able to find workers to work for what they pay- or should I say, what they don't pay. I'm not living in a fantasy land. It's quite real.



Your argument is about the same as scare tactics over the free market selling oranges, doesn't every company want to sell their oranges for 500 dollars a piece? Yeh, luckily we aren't in fantasy land though and the law of supply and demand hold true.

You just proved my point again. The rule I'm talking about? Get as much as you can, for as little as you can.

[Zombie Acorn]

Unfortunately, you aren't every boss in the country.

I think you guys underestimate some of the people in management positions, they aren't all cold hearted bastards who only care about a bottom line. In fact companies that operate in that way are doomed for failure unless they have some cornering technique on the market (which is usually illegal). Low employee moral = low productivity and crap service quality.

[abijnk]

Statistically speaking there are other factors including women being less experienced (usually due to child related activities), less company loyalty (its not uncommon for a woman to leave work to take care of children), and not putting in as many hours (again usually tied to kids) that make up for the price difference in the work force.

That's just sick...

[skunk]

I think you probably mean "morale". You certainly don't mean "ethical".

[leekohler]

I think you guys underestimate some of the people in management positions, they aren't all cold hearted bastards who only care about a bottom line. In fact companies that operate in that way are doomed for failure unless they have some cornering technique on the market (which is usually illegal). Low employee moral = low productivity and crap service quality.

You really do believe this, don't you? Wow. I'll give you another ten years. I used to believe it too. I don't blame you. It all sounds great. I wish it were true as well.

Truth is- there are a lot of companies who treat there employees badly and do quite well.

[Zombie Acorn]

That's just sick...

Not really, unless you are going to argue that women are a) less likely to leave the workforce due to children (men statistically make more when they have a kid because they are less likely to move from employment while women are more likely). b) Women are more experienced statistically than men (also not true). c) Women put in more hours than men statistically (also not true).

I don't get involved emotionally when dealing with statistics. It may sound **** that women make 4/5 of what men do but there are underlying causes.

I think you probably mean "morale".

My bad.

[MacNut]

Screw the minimum wage, we need a living wage. The amount of money it takes to survive.

[Zombie Acorn]

Screw the minimum wage, we need a living wage. The amount of money it takes to survive.

Why not just mandate everyone gets paid 40k minimum?

You really do believe this, don't you? Wow. I'll give you another ten years. I used to believe it too. I don't blame you. It all sounds great. I wish it were true as well.

Truth is- there are a lot of companies who treat there employees badly and do quite well.

And as long as there are companies who treat their employees like **** someone else will always have an opportunity to run them in the ground.

[CorvusCamenarum]

And we are, despite laws, still paid differently than men. Remove protections against that and you will only see the gap get bigger.

That myth has been debunked so many times it's becoming laughable.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/

That's just two; I could dig up tons more.

[NT1440]

Why not just mandate everyone gets paid 40k minimum?

You mean like, *GASP* a MINIMUM WAGE *GASP* :rolleyes:

[Zombie Acorn]

You mean like, *GASP* a MINIMUM WAGE *GASP* :rolleyes:

I was joking of course. At a 40k minimum we would have about 30%+ unemployment

[MacNut]

Why not just mandate everyone gets paid 40k minimum?50 years ago people got by, they may have struggled but they survived. Now you don't have a chance in hell of surviving. Prices on everything have gone up faster than the wage people are paid.

[skunk]

I don't get involved emotionally when dealing with statistics.Maybe you should. Statistics are not the whole story.

[NT1440]

I was joking of course. At a 40k minimum we would have about 30%+ unemployment

Source to back up that ridiculous claim?

[leekohler]

And as long as there are companies who treat their employees like **** someone else will always have an opportunity to run them in the ground.

Sorry zombie, but those companies are the minority, not the majority. Everybody wants to work for a company that rewards hard, smart work. There just aren't that many of them.

[Zombie Acorn]

Source to back up that ridiculous claim?

You really think I am going to hire on fast food employees for 40k a year? You don't see where unemployment would come from if we were mandated 40k minimum wage? lol ridiculous indeed.

[abijnk]

That myth has been debunked so many times it's becoming laughable.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba392
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/

That's just two; I could dig up tons more.

Neither of those sources state that the gap is nonexistent (as should be the case). They don't say that because, like it or not, it is still there. Sure, its not very big, especially today, but the fact that it is still there at all says something. Removing those protection certainly wouldn't help the situation, either.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Neither of those sources state that the gap is nonexistent (as should be the case). They don't say that because, like it or not, it is still there. Sure, its not very big, especially today, but the fact that it is still there at all says something. Removing those protection certainly wouldn't help the situation, either.

First of all, the method by which this "gap" is calculated is ridiculous; something like average "male" wage versus average "female" wage across all occupations, which fails to take into account several factors, such as the fact that men tend to work longer hours at more demanding jobs, be it construction work or staying late at the office for the board meeting. By this methodology, the only way the so-called gap can disappear completely is if men and women are perfectly equally represented in every field of work, have perfectly equal amounts of education and experience, and work perfectly equal amounts of hours. Good luck with that.

It also doesn't stand up to basic common sense. If a company's goal is to maximize profit, then why on earth would they employ someone to do job X for Y dollars when there's someone else evidently willing to work for less?

[NT1440]

You really think I am going to hire on fast food employees for 40k a year? You don't see where unemployment would come from if we were mandated 40k minimum wage? lol ridiculous indeed.

The problem with your kind of thinking is that its purely hypothetical, I think society would be better and booming if everyone could earn a good living.

[Zombie Acorn]

The problem with your kind of thinking is that its purely hypothetical, I think society would be better and booming if everyone could earn a good living.

They can, they just have to be qualified in something so that their productivity can be distributed to the rest of the US/world. If you impose a $40k minimum wage we would be poorer and more unemployed. If you impose a $100k minimum wage very few people would be deemed qualified to work. Thats the problem with artificial bars, they aren't representative of the real world.

The intent is good, but the results would be disastrous.

[CorvusCamenarum]

The problem with your kind of thinking is that its purely hypothetical, I think society would be better and booming if everyone could earn a good living.

The sad reality, though, is that not everyone can earn a good living. How do you define good? Average? Above the average? It doesn't matter really, because no matter what bar you set, a certain portion of everyone will fall below that bar as a matter of course. Half of everyone, after all, is below average.

[.Andy]

Half of everyone, after all, is below average.
It all depends on how mean you are.

[skunk]

It also doesn't stand up to basic common sense. If a company's goal is to maximize profit, then why on earth would they employ someone to do job X for Y dollars when there's someone else evidently willing to work for less?Which is a completely different argument and neatly encapsulates the reasons for having a minimum wage. Now you are talking about employing someone for less money to do the same job, in this case because of their gender. Race to the bottom and gender discrimination. Excellent.

[callmemike20]

Maybe you should. Statistics are not the whole story.

Numbers don't lie, people do.

[Gelfin]

Numbers don't lie, people do.

Four out of five studies agree that people who tell lies with numbers are 62.4% more effective liars.

[Badandy]

The problem with your kind of thinking is that its purely hypothetical, I think society would be better and booming if everyone could earn a good living.

And the problem with your kind of thinking is that it's unrealistic. Mandating everyone to make $20 per hour would be ludicrous. An intro economics course (not to mention some critical thinking) would explain why.


It all depends on how mean you are.

And it's quite clear your preferred mode of argumentation is obfuscation.

[.Andy]

And it's quite clear your preferred mode of argumentation is obfuscation.
I thought it was an incredibly clever pun but you've one-upped me :D!


(Tries desperately to think of a way to incorporate median into a post....)

[Gelfin]

I thought it was an incredibly clever pun but you've one-upped me :D!


(Tries desperately to think of a way to incorporate median into a post....)

And thus we embark on the standard deviation from the topic in these threads.

[abijnk]

And thus we embark on the standard deviation from the topic in these threads.

We really do need to establish a pun police force around these parts...

[leekohler]

We really do need to establish a pun police force around these parts...

The MR Pun Police™ have been in existence for quite some time. They write tickets for most violations, but for the most egregious, the punishment is far worse. ;)

[DiamondMac]

Four out of five studies agree that people who tell lies with numbers are 62.4% more effective liars.

Fox told me 7 out of every 3 people believe that