Immigration Debate

I meant for more info on the topic, not that we were already aware of it ;-)

I said I wasn't going to get into this, but here I am:

My home (the center of the universe!) has one of the largest immigrant populations in Georgia. Percentage-wise, probably one of the largest in the country.

I applaud the "rounding up" and deportation of illegals. The largest employer in our county is Northeast Georgia Medical Center. It is the backbone of our economy. Yet I actually bartered for an appendectomy in 2003. The surgeon said that he had so many indigent patients that he wasn't getting paid for all his work. Lucky for us both that he needed yard work and I needed major surgery. One of my other good friends worked in administration at the hospital at the time, and I was joking with him about my $15,000 bill. He told me that there were probably a lot of $20 band-aids on there because my insurance was paying for the 200 indigents who paid nothing at all for their band-aids that day.

We all pray that we don't get hurt around here or have an emergency illness. The emergency room is clogged up 24/7/365 with uninsured patients who are waiting to see someone for a head cold.

Just the other night the news was all about Grady Hospital in Atlanta. It's drowning in debt, and it's the only level 1 trauma center in the area. The biggest concern is not that if it closes that a lot of people will die en route to other trauma centers; it's that the indigents will be sent to other private hospitals, which will founder and eventually collapse under the financial burden.

That's one example. Our communities are not set up to handle all the freebies. Gwinnett County just passed a law (ordinance? I don't remember) stating that the county will no longer grant contracts to companies who can't/won't document every single employee. I don't blame them. The schools are funded by property taxes. Most of the illegals are renting, with multiple families living in one home. A half a dozen kids or more from one house, and none of them are paying into the system.

Those kids don't speak English, and the teacher has to make concessions for them. That means that Joe resident's legal kid is not getting a full lesson, either.

Shall I talk about how many wrecks we have around here (many fatal) involving unlicensed, uninsured, undocumented guests of our country? Crime? Gangs?

I've worked with Mexicans, Ecuadorans, Colombians...many are fine workers, good people who are just looking for a new life. God bless 'em. I welcome anyone who immigrates to this country--I'm only 1/16th Native American myself. But if I had the opportunity to move to, say, Italy, I hope that I would have the integrity to do it legally, not to mooch off their system, and I would learn Italian.

That's all I want, dadgummit. Play by the rules. Pay your dues. Make a place better instead of trashing it...

Scooterbug,
I'm not trying to be glib or condescending, but have you ever hired someone? If you have, you should know that it is virtually impossible to discriminate based on race. Further, it is in your interest to hire the best candidate for the job, regardless of race. I know that doesn't always happen, but in practice, race does not play a role in hiring. Blacks may have been employed because they work for less, but that's likely because they offered less to their employer....

I don't know how you can say that unless you hire at a place which elects to hire based on race. It would be very easy if you operate a business employing <150 people, to discriminate based on race. You can employ some "token" people of a particular race, but it would still be easy to discriminate on who you chose to hire. I think you must be living in a different world than I.

Some people care more about hiring a particular race, than hiring the best candidate. Look no further than our very own Florida State Park. First choice of candidate is non-white and female, because they need their quota.

Your last sentence sounds very racist to me. It sounds as though you think it is likely that a black person doesn't have as much to offer as a white person.

No, your sources said that if employers have to choose between paying several highly skilled and highly paid workers and a large number of low skill and low pay workers to produce the same amount, they will choose the former. They did not say that raising the minimum wage to help people earn above the poverty level would cause massive unemployment.

It's not arbitrary, which is why it is reevaluated to reflect inflation at certain intervals. The minimum wage is just that - the bare minimum you can pay someone by law. The current minimum wage is $5.15. I used to make $5+ an hour as a seasonal agricultural worker w/o a high school diploma over 10 years ago. You can't live on that. The last time I saw a "hiring" sign at a local fast food restaurant they were offering $9-11 an hour to start, so $7.25 in 2 years isn't exactly the assinine $100K you suggested.

Have mercy. Have you ever picked up an economics textbook? Here is a 50 year study on the minimum wage and its effect on jobs.

http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm

Your last sentence sounds very racist to me. It sounds as though you think it is likely that a black person doesn't have as much to offer as a white person.

WHAT? Only here can I be accused of being a racist when I am against something because, for one reason, it is racist. If I follow your line of thinking, I am not capable of original thought, so it comes from the economist I quoted. Who happens to be

Here's more information on it. I swear it's like beating my head against a wall.

A Glimmer of Hope: The Unusual Backlash Against Minimum Wage
by Thomas Sowell (August 6, 2006)


It was a common political move when Chicago's city council voted recently to impose a $10 an hour minimum wage on big-box retailers. There is nothing that politicians like better than handing out benefits to be paid for by someone else.

What was uncommon was the reaction. Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley denounced the bill as "redlining," since it would have the net effect of keeping much-needed stores and jobs out of black neighborhoods. Both Chicago newspapers also denounced the bill.

The crowning touch came when Andrew Young, former civil rights leader and former mayor of Atlanta, went to Chicago to criticize local black leaders who supported this bill.

While the $10 an hour minimum wage was politics as usual, the unusual backlash against it provides at least a glimmer of hope that more people are beginning to consider the economic consequences of such feel-good legislation.

A survey has shown that 85 percent of the economists in Canada and 90 percent of the economists in the United States say that minimum wage laws reduce employment. But you don't need a Ph.D. in economics to know that jacking up prices leads fewer people to buy. Those people include employers, who hire less labor when labor is made artificially more expensive.

It happens in France, it happens in South Africa, it happens in New Zealand. How surprised should we be when it happens in Chicago?

The economic consequence of political largess -- whether in the form of minimum wage laws or medical or other benefits mandated to be paid for by employers -- is to make labor artificially more expensive.

Countries with generous employee benefits mandated by law -- Germany and France, for example -- have chronically higher unemployment rates than unemployment rates in the United States, where jobs are created at a far higher rate than in Europe.

There is no free lunch. Higher labor costs mean fewer jobs.

Since all workers do not have the same skill or experience, minimum wage laws have more impact on some than on others. Young, inexperienced and unskilled workers are especially likely to find it harder to get a job when wage rates have been set higher than the value of their productivity.

In France, where the national unemployment rate is 10 percent, the unemployment rate among workers less than 26 years old is 23 percent.

Among young people from the Muslim minority, the unemployment rate is even higher.

In the United States, the group hardest hit by minimum wage laws are black male teenagers. Those who refuse to admit that the minimum wage is the reason for high unemployment rates among young blacks blame racism, lack of education and whatever else occurs to them.

The hard facts say otherwise. Back in the 1940s, there was no less racism than today and black teenagers had no more education than today, but their unemployment rate was a fraction of what it is now -- and was no different from that of white teenagers.

What was different back then? Although there was a minimum wage law on the books, the inflation of that era had raised wage rates well above the specified minimum, which had remained unchanged for years.

For all practical purposes, there was no minimum wage law. Only after the minimum wage began to be raised, beginning in 1950, and escalating repeatedly in the years thereafter, did black teenage unemployment skyrocket.

Most studies show unemployment resulting from minimum wages. But a few studies that reach different conclusions are hailed as having "refuted" the "myth" that minimum wages cause unemployment.

Some of these latter studies involve surveying employers before and after a minimum wage increase. But you can only survey employers who are still in business. By surveying people who played Russian roulette and are still around, you could "refute" the "myth" that Russian roulette is dangerous.

Minimum wage laws play Russian roulette with people who need jobs and the work experience that will enable them to rise to higher pay levels. There is now a glimmer of hope that more people are beginning to understand this, despite political demagoguery.

And one more

http://www.neoperspectives.com/minimumwage.htm

With Bob posting this morning at 2am, and others following suit at 6am, I hereby dub you guys the Early Morning Debate Club.

After 6thGen liberates the Middle Oil East, I want him to join guard duty of our nothern border where he can look for terrorists wearing L.L. Bean. Operation Peter Principle.

WHAT? Only here can I be accused of being a racist when I am against something because, for one reason, it is racist.

So please tell us what you really think about black people by your quote, "Blacks may have been employed because they work for less, but that's likely because they offered less to their employer."

What do you mean that the blacks offer less? To me, that reads only one way.

Well I just stopped by, (I've been busy, flaunting my deviancy) and wanted to say how glad I am to see, by SoWal standards, a civilized debate on a political topic.

I haven't been paying much attention to the whole Immigration Debate, and am enjoying the opportunity to read the opinions expressed here without the usual 'smack down' tactics employed on other threads.

A breathe of fresh air? We'll see.......................please continue.

So please tell us what you really think about black people by your quote, "Blacks may have been employed because they work for less, but that's likely because they offered less to their employer."

What do you mean that the blacks offer less? To me, that reads only one way.

Are you stupid? That's the only answer, isn't it, that I'm a racist? Blacks offer less because that's what the data shows. That's what the market dictated. My employer puts a dollar value as to my services. I am more valuable to them than some, so they paid me more than those folks, but I'm not as valuable as others, so they pay me less than the other folks. Black teenagers offered less, first, because they are teenagers and therefore lack experience. Second, I don't know, you'll have to ask the employers that were paying the white kids more. Considering the lack of lawsuits with merit, the white teenagers had more skills to offer, be it work ethic, education, or how fast they could punch numbers on the Publix cash register. White teenagers also had the advantage of having more profitable businesses nearby that could afford to pay them an arbitrary minimum wage. The businesses weren't in the black community, because it was a poorer community. By setting an arbitrary floor, they didn't allow black kids in black neighborhoods the opportunity to decide for themselves if they would accept less than what some old, white ahole in DC determined was a living wage. Rather than addressing anything at its core, Smiling Joe, just call me a racist, because I know how to read market data. Or better yet, post a poll and get all your friends from the other south Walton boards to vote for you.

Are you stupid? That's the only answer, isn't it, that I'm a racist? Blacks offer less because that's what the data shows. That's what the market dictated. My employer puts a dollar value as to my services. I am more valuable to them than some, so they paid me more than those folks, but I'm not as valuable as others, so they pay me less than the other folks. Black teenagers offered less, first, because they are teenagers and therefore lack experience. Second, I don't know, you'll have to ask the employers that were paying the white kids more. Considering the lack of lawsuits with merit, the white teenagers had more skills to offer, be it work ethic, education, or how fast they could punch numbers on the Publix cash register. White teenagers also had the advantage of having more profitable businesses nearby that could afford to pay them an arbitrary minimum wage. The businesses weren't in the black community, because it was a poorer community. By setting an arbitrary floor, they didn't allow black kids in black neighborhoods the opportunity to decide for themselves if they would accept less than what some old, white ahole in DC determined was a living wage. Rather than addressing anything at its core, Smiling Joe, just call me a racist, because I know how to read market data. Or better yet, post a poll and get all your friends from the other south Walton boards to vote for you.

Are you PUI?

Scooterbug,
I'm not trying to be glib or condescending, but have you ever hired someone? If you have, you should know that it is virtually impossible to discriminate based on race. Further, it is in your interest to hire the best candidate for the job, regardless of race. I know that doesn't always happen, but in practice, race does not play a role in hiring. Blacks may have been employed because they work for less, but that's likely because they offered less to their employer. Setting a floor does not allow them to choose to work for less, nor does it allow an employer to hire workers with limited skill. As for France, I'd argue different based on what I've studied in economics, but I've met Frenchmen and I've been to Paris a few times, so I realize that race plays a part in hiring, more than it does here, but state regulation of employers is far more responsible for high unemployment.

Are you stupid? That's the only answer, isn't it, that I'm a racist? Blacks offer less because that's what the data shows. That's what the market dictated. My employer puts a dollar value as to my services. I am more valuable to them than some, so they paid me more than those folks, but I'm not as valuable as others, so they pay me less than the other folks. Black teenagers offered less, first, because they are teenagers and therefore lack experience. Second, I don't know, you'll have to ask the employers that were paying the white kids more. Considering the lack of lawsuits with merit, the white teenagers had more skills to offer, be it work ethic, education, or how fast they could punch numbers on the Publix cash register. White teenagers also had the advantage of having more profitable businesses nearby that could afford to pay them an arbitrary minimum wage. The businesses weren't in the black community, because it was a poorer community. By setting an arbitrary floor, they didn't allow black kids in black neighborhoods the opportunity to decide for themselves if they would accept less than what some old, white ahole in DC determined was a living wage. Rather than addressing anything at its core, Smiling Joe, just call me a racist, because I know how to read market data. Or better yet, post a poll and get all your friends from the other south Walton boards to vote for you.

No, I'm not stupid. The first post above, is the one from which I quoted you. No where in there do you mention "teenage" blacks, which you drift to in your second post, above. You suggest, "Blacks may have been employed because they work for less, but that's likely because they offered less to their employer. "

Look up the definition of racist. For the record, I stated that the comment sounds racist, not that you are a racist. I missed the "data" showing that "blacks offer less." Isn't that about as general as saying that blacks like fried chicken?

I understand that some people have more to offer a business, and therefore should be offered more money in exchange, but to categorically state that blacks offer less, is discrimination, and if you are hiring and basing pay upon the black person's skin color ("they offer less," in your words), you are discriminating based on race, and that is illegal in the USA.

You sound very angry and defensive. I think you may be working too hard on SoWal.com.

Are you stupid? That's the only answer, isn't it, that I'm a racist? Blacks offer less because that's what the data shows. That's what the market dictated. My employer puts a dollar value as to my services. I am more valuable to them than some, so they paid me more than those folks, but I'm not as valuable as others, so they pay me less than the other folks. Black teenagers offered less, first, because they are teenagers and therefore lack experience. Second, I don't know, you'll have to ask the employers that were paying the white kids more. Considering the lack of lawsuits with merit, the white teenagers had more skills to offer, be it work ethic, education, or how fast they could punch numbers on the Publix cash register. White teenagers also had the advantage of having more profitable businesses nearby that could afford to pay them an arbitrary minimum wage. The businesses weren't in the black community, because it was a poorer community. By setting an arbitrary floor, they didn't allow black kids in black neighborhoods the opportunity to decide for themselves if they would accept less than what some old, white ahole in DC determined was a living wage. Rather than addressing anything at its core, Smiling Joe, just call me a racist, because I know how to read market data. Or better yet, post a poll and get all your friends from the other south Walton boards to vote for you.

The lack of lawsuits are due to lack of resources in hiring representation, and the lack of potential reward for the plaintiffs attorneys. Washington D.C. is the perfect venue that blows holes in your theory about whites/blacks. No city in the U.S. has a greater disparity of socio-economic classes living in extremely close range. The white ahole in D.C. behind minimum wage was FDR, one of the top 3 presidents in our history. Poor people have even less access to the legal system than the medical system.....numbnuts.

No, I'm not stupid. The first post above, is the one from which I quoted you. No where in there do you mention "teenage" blacks, which you drift to in your second post, above. You suggest, "Blacks may have been employed because they work for less, but that's likely because they offered less to their employer. "

Look up the definition of racist. For the record, I stated that the comment sounds racist, not that you are a racist. I missed the "data" showing that "blacks offer less." Isn't that about as general as saying that blacks like fried chicken?

I understand that some people have more to offer a business, and therefore should be offered more money in exchange, but to categorically state that blacks offer less, is discrimination, and if you are hiring and basing pay upon the black person's skin color ("they offer less," in your words), you are discriminating based on race, and that is illegal in the USA.

You sound very angry and defensive. I think you may be working too hard on SoWal.com.

First, I was not posting under the influence. I tend to get angry and defensive when I?m labeled a racist, because that, personally, is very offensive to me. My argument all along was that setting a minimum wage affected black teenagers? ability to obtain employment. I would like for black teenagers to be employed, which is why it?s maddening to be labeled a being a racist when you are advocating something that would significantly benefit them, both currently, but more importantly in the future when they would have more employable skills to earn far more than whatever current arbitrary minimum wage is out there. I don?t have time to go back and document every post number if you can?t keep up, or if you want to intentionally miss something in order to cherry pick an argument. I?m saying they offer less because that?s what 50 years of market data from employers demonstrates. Employers determined that they offer less to the marketplace, and I said I didn?t know why, but I speculated that education, work ethic or especially location might be a reason. I know you intentionally miss things when you are losing an argument, and that?s very cute on the internet, but if you are having this discussion in person, I?d suggest that you do not seriously and incorrectly label the other person something as inflammatory a racist, because there are consequences to such comments with others that are not as patient with your nonsense as I have been.

The lack of lawsuits are due to lack of resources in hiring representation, and the lack of potential reward for the plaintiffs attorneys. Washington D.C. is the perfect venue that blows holes in your theory about whites/blacks. No city in the U.S. has a greater disparity of socio-economic classes living in extremely close range. The white ahole in D.C. behind minimum wage was FDR, one of the top 3 presidents in our history. Poor people have even less access to the legal system than the medical system.....numbnuts.

I'd suggest you pick up The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes and Aselford Terence before you label FDR one of the top 3 presidents in our history. His only saving grace was his handling of the war, as his economic policies were a disaster. A little known fact is that Churchill helped set the British welfare state in motion with his advocation for a minimum wage, so I recognize that even great conservative politicians are known to make mistakes...jackass.

I'd suggest you pick up The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes and Aselford Terence before you label FDR one of the top 3 presidents in our history. His only saving grace was his handling of the war, as his economic policies were a disaster. A little known fact is that Churchill helped set the British welfare state in motion with his advocation for a minimum wage, so I recognize that even great conservative politicians are known to make mistakes...jackass.

And I suggest you take a breath and go listen to some Sly and the Family Stone.

I'm all for intelligent discourse and I enjoy reading it. But when it degenerates into name calling, it's no longer intelligent.
Words like "deviant" and "stupid" hardly help one attain one's goal of making a valid and well thought out argument.

I'm all for intelligent discourse and I enjoy reading it. But when it degenerates into name calling, it's no longer intelligent.
Words like "deviant" and "stupid" hardly help one attain one's goal of making a valid and well thought out argument.

When one's valid and well thought out argument is called racist when it is the antithesis of such, it hardly makes one want to type out anything other than "stupid" and "deviant". Why doesn't anyone here jump on anyone but me when it comes to name calling? It is like a ref in football, it's the retaliatory punch that always gets the flag.

You weren't called a racist. It was said that your choice of wording seemed racist. Big difference.
And my statement applies to anyone who resorts to name calling. That's my opinion, worth what you paid for it.

You weren't called a racist. It was said that your choice of wording seemed racist. Big difference.
And my statement applies to anyone who resorts to name calling. That's my opinion, worth what you paid for it.

Well, since we are splitting hairs, I didn't call him stupid, I asked if he was. Below is what was posted, I'm holding my breath for an apology, which everyone here is always so willing to do. "I didn't say you were a racist, but you might as well wear blackface and I'm turning you into the law because you refuse to hire black people."

Look up the definition of racist. For the record, I stated that the comment sounds racist, not that you are a racist. I missed the "data" showing that "blacks offer less." Isn't that about as general as saying that blacks like fried chicken?

I understand that some people have more to offer a business, and therefore should be offered more money in exchange, but to categorically state that blacks offer less, is discrimination, and if you are hiring and basing pay upon the black person's skin color ("they offer less," in your words), you are discriminating based on race, and that is illegal in the USA.

When one's valid and well thought out argument is called racist when it is the antithesis of such, it hardly makes one want to type out anything other than "stupid" and "deviant". Why doesn't anyone here jump on anyone but me when it comes to name calling? It is like a ref in football, it's the retaliatory punch that always gets the flag.

6thgen, I read in part the thesis about minimum wage, so I somewhat understand what you were trying to point out, however, the economists analysis of "facts" is IMO is racially slanted. Why weren't other minorities included like Latin American teenagers for example?

6thgen, I read in part the thesis about minimum wage, so I somewhat understand what you were trying to point out, however, the economists analysis of "facts" is IMO is racially slanted. Why weren't other minorities included like Latin American teenagers for example?

Probably because we don't have 50 years of data on Latin American teenagers. You'll have to ask him. This is valid criticism, rather than intentionally missing the point, so thanks. Data shows that black teenagers' unemployment shows a negative correlation with the establishment of and increases to the minimum wage. Not that it matters, but the economist was a black gentleman.

First, I was not posting under the influence. I tend to get angry and defensive when I?m labeled a racist, because that, personally, is very offensive to me. My argument all along was that setting a minimum wage affected black teenagers? ability to obtain employment. I would like for black teenagers to be employed, which is why it?s maddening to be labeled a being a racist when you are advocating something that would significantly benefit them, both currently, but more importantly in the future when they would have more employable skills to earn far more than whatever current arbitrary minimum wage is out there. I don?t have time to go back and document every post number if you can?t keep up, or if you want to intentionally miss something in order to cherry pick an argument. I?m saying they offer less because that?s what 50 years of market data from employers demonstrates. Employers determined that they offer less to the marketplace, and I said I didn?t know why, but I speculated that education, work ethic or especially location might be a reason. I know you intentionally miss things when you are losing an argument, and that?s very cute on the internet, but if you are having this discussion in person, I?d suggest that you do not seriously and incorrectly label the other person something as inflammatory a racist, because there are consequences to such comments with others that are not as patient with your nonsense as I have been.

Thinking back 50 years, I seem to recall history of blacks drinking at different water fountains than whites. Heck, even during my shorter lifetime, I recall the KKK picketing Kmart because Kmart hired blacks. Perhaps data doesn't mean everything.

Again, I stated that your one sentence sounded racist, not that you were a racist. I even defended you against someone in another thread who flat out called you a racist. Grow up.

Well, since we are splitting hairs, I didn't call him stupid, I asked if he was. Below is what was posted, I'm holding my breath for an apology, which everyone here is always so willing to do. "I didn't say you were a racist, but you might as well wear blackface and I'm turning you into the law because you refuse to hire black people."

Look up the definition of racist. For the record, I stated that the comment sounds racist, not that you are a racist. I missed the "data" showing that "blacks offer less." Isn't that about as general as saying that blacks like fried chicken?

I understand that some people have more to offer a business, and therefore should be offered more money in exchange, but to categorically state that blacks offer less, is discrimination, and if you are hiring and basing pay upon the black person's skin color ("they offer less," in your words), you are discriminating based on race, and that is illegal in the USA.

Now you are quoting me on things I didn't even type.

I stand by my remark that your statement that you think blacks have less to offer (than whites), is a blanket statement based on race, noting that blacks are inferior, and by the definition of racist, that sentence sound racist to me. You have not defended your statement that blacks have less to offer. Statistical data of our past 50 years mean nothing since blacks were heavily discriminated during much of that time, just as women were. In many cases, both still are.

This thread sure went downhill fast!