Ah dun voted fer th' anti-immigrant guy, now ah can't hire no immigrants! It ain't fair!

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This "problem" is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that capitalism can benefit the worker.

If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This "problem" is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that capitalism can benefit the worker.

If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found.

Oh, it's so cute... he thinks the United States exists in a bubble. Adorable.

 

[Elixir]

This "problem" is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that capitalism can benefit the worker.

If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found.

Oh, it's so cute... he thinks the United States exists in a bubble. Adorable.

Are you ready for Chinese lettuce? Oh, right - Cheato will slap a 500% tariff on it to protect the six figure salaries of 'Murrikin lettuce pickers.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This "problem" is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that capitalism can benefit the worker.

If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found.

Oh, it's so cute... he thinks the United States exists in a bubble. Adorable.

Oh, it's so cute... you think that I think that the United States exists in a bubble. Adorable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This "problem" is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that capitalism can benefit the worker.

If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found.

Oh, it's so cute... he thinks the United States exists in a bubble. Adorable.

Oh, it's so cute... you think that I think that the United States exists in a bubble. Adorable.

You might not want to admit it, but your statement indicates as such. The US isn't a closed system (i.e. exists in a bubble), which means if employment at a certain rate doesn't get people hired for a job... you can always look elsewhere for employees. Which is EXACTLY what happens in capitalistic America. If the US was a closed system, then wages would need to rise to meet the demand of the workforce. That it doesn't, means it is an open system, which is susceptible to using migrant workers.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You really are spending a lot of effort to defend low wages. Adorable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You really are spending a lot of effort to defend low wages. Adorable.

Wages will not grow to meet employment demand if employers can pluck migrant workers from abroad for a lower wage. This is reality, not justification for it.

If a company can hire migrant workers for $12 /hr instead of paying local workers the $20 /hr they'd want for the job, they are going to go the H-2B visa route. This flies in the face of your naive comment: "If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found."

They can find workers at a given wage, they just live outside the US and companies have been doing this for a long time. The only way to prevent that is to put the US work force in a bubble, so migrant workers can't come in to displace US workers at a given lower wage.

 

[Underseer]

You really are spending a lot of effort to defend low wages. Adorable.

Wages will not grow to meet employment demand if employers can pluck migrant workers from abroad for a lower wage. This is reality, not justification for it.

If a company can hire migrant workers for $12 /hr instead of paying local workers the $20 /hr they'd want for the job, they are going to go the H-2B visa route. This flies in the face of your naive comment: "If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found."

They can find workers at a given wage, they just live outside the US and companies have been doing this for a long time. The only way to prevent that is to put the US work force in a bubble, so migrant workers can't come in to displace US workers at a given lower wage.

H-2B is not supposed to be a means of getting employees for less money. Theoretically, it's only supposed to be used when you can't find any Americans with the skill set you need. This is yet another consequence of allowing unlimited bribe money campaign donations free speech and deregulation: the government serves the needs of the economic elites instead of the people or the law. It's exactly as the conservolibertarians want: the government serves the only people who matter.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You really are spending a lot of effort to defend low wages. Adorable.

Wages will not grow to meet employment demand if employers can pluck migrant workers from abroad for a lower wage. This is reality, not justification for it.

If a company can hire migrant workers for $12 /hr instead of paying local workers the $20 /hr they'd want for the job, they are going to go the H-2B visa route. This flies in the face of your naive comment: "If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found."

They can find workers at a given wage, they just live outside the US and companies have been doing this for a long time. The only way to prevent that is to put the US work force in a bubble, so migrant workers can't come in to displace US workers at a given lower wage.

H-2B is not supposed to be a means of getting employees for less money. Theoretically, it's only supposed to be used when you can't find any Americans with the skill set you need. This is yet another consequence of allowing unlimited bribe money campaign donations free speech and deregulation: the government serves the needs of the economic elites instead of the people or the law. It's exactly as the conservolibertarians want: the government serves the only people who matter.

Here I just advocated that the employers raise wages until they can attract workers, and here you just told me that I want government to serve the economic elites.

I wonder if you actually read anything other people post, or if it is easier to just assume where they stand on the issues.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

H-2B is not supposed to be a means of getting employees for less money. Theoretically, it's only supposed to be used when you can't find any Americans with the skill set you need. This is yet another consequence of allowing unlimited bribe money campaign donations free speech and deregulation: the government serves the needs of the economic elites instead of the people or the law. It's exactly as the conservolibertarians want: the government serves the only people who matter.

Here I just advocated that the employers raise wages until they can attract workers, and here you just told me that I want government to serve the economic elites.

What companies will do is hire out of country migrant worker for "lower" wages instead of increasing the wages until Americans are willing to do the job.

It is nice, though, that you think corporations should increase wages, though I'm not certain how you would go about making that happen, in a manner that is "capitalistic".

 

[laughing dog]

This "problem" is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that capitalism can benefit the worker.

If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found.

According to you, the USA is not a capitalist system. So, according to you, your solution is moot.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This "problem" is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that capitalism can benefit the worker.

If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found.

According to you, the USA is not a capitalist system. So, according to you, your solution is moot.

According to me we have a mixed economy. Do you know what that means?

 

[laughing dog]

This "problem" is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that capitalism can benefit the worker.

If the employer cannot find workers at a given wage, the employer must raise wages until workers can be found.

According to you, the USA is not a capitalist system. So, according to you, your solution is moot.

According to me we have a mixed economy. Do you know what that means?

Yes, probably more than you do. Which means it is not capitalism - as you persistently point out. So, if we do not have capitalism, then clearly your solution of invoking capitalism in this situation in the USA is pointless.

And even under "capitalism", a capitalist need not raise wages until enough workers are found. The capitalist can simply wait, or possibly import workers who are willing to work for the current wage, or rearrange his business operations to use fewer workers.

All in all, your response was a poorly conceived pointless observation.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Waiting is sometimes not an option, such as when the fruit will rot before harvest. You don't always have an option to import or rearrange. Sometimes all a businessman can do is raise wages.

Why are you struggling against raising wages?

 

[laughing dog]

Waiting is sometimes not an option, such as when the fruit will rot before harvest. You don't always have an option to import or rearrange. Sometimes all a businessman can do is raise wages.

Apparently not since there are plenty of business people who cannot figure it out.

I see that you have moved the goalposts from how capitalism can benefit the worker to business people raising wages. II presume you do understand that businesses can react to shortages by raising wages without capitalism being involved?

Why are you struggling against raising wages?

For the same reasons you defend Hitler.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It would have been easier if you had just admitted you don't know what a mixed economy is instead of accusing me of defending politicians you admire.

 

[laughing dog]

It would have been easier if you had just admitted you don't know what a mixed economy is instead of accusing me of defending politicians you admire.

Logically, there are two possible outcomes here.

1) If you truly believe I was struggling against raising wages, then your response is an admission you defended Hitler (whom I do not admire), or
2) you do not defend Hitler which means I am not struggling against raising wages.

Which one of the above is it?


I know the conventional understanding of Mixed_economy . I realize you are attempting to obscure the embarrassing facts that you
1) confused a market solution (raising wages to attract labor) with capitalism, and
2) proposed an unworkable solution (capitalism) in an non-capitalist economy,
by resorting to your MO of incoherent babble. But your response is counterproductive \.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually, no, there are more than two possible outcomes.

When I suggested wages go up until workers are found, I was told that it won't work for reasons progressive stack whatever. The solution HAS TO BE bringing back the cheap foreign labor, for reasons progressive stack whatever. Therefore there is a real actual foundation for saying those arguing against my proposal are arguing against wages going up. There is no foundation for saying I defend those you admire.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, no, there are more than two possible outcomes.

As usual, you are wrong.

When I suggested wages go up until workers are found, I was told that it won't work for reasons progressive stack whatever. The solution HAS TO BE bringing back the cheap foreign labor, for reasons progressive stack whatever. Therefore there is a real actual foundation for saying those arguing against my proposal are arguing against wages going up.

I was not arguing against raising wages. I pointed out your proposal was unworkable because, according to you, the USA is not a capitalist economy, so proposing capitalism is rather pontless.

Unlike you, I understand that markets do not require capitalism to work.

There is no foundation for saying I defend those you admire.

Which means there was no foundation for you to claim I was against raising wages and there is no foundation for you to say I admire Hitler - a man whose regime murdered my great grandparents and great uncle (something I posted to you before).

 

[Jobar]

Lawns are a stupid waste of land and resource.

Despite making my living off of 'em, I don't entirely disagree.

I've had customers that wanted lush monoculture lawns in truly terrible clay soils, and when I told them it was impossible without trucking in 4-6 inches of expensive topsoil and spending more than the property originally cost them (because the soil was so awful) they simply went to another landscaper- who cheerfully said they could do it, screwed them for whatever they could get, then promptly disappeared, leaving them with a few patches of high-cost bermuda or zoysia and a lot of bare ground and weeds, and a huge water bill trying to keep the grass from dying. One of the nicest yards I've seen only had old pines growing on it, covering the ground with the pinestraw; and the owner, scared because one of the trees blew down in a thunderstorm, had all the trees cut. I took the job clearing up the mess left behind, and when they asked me to make their yard 'look nice' again, I told them it was going to take years- and the easiest way was going to be to plant it back in pines. That woman tried to do the job herself, with help from her son; more than ten years later, that yard is still eroded, patchy, and weedy. I have no idea how much they've spent on it, but I'd bet it's many times the cost of good long-leaf pine trees.

A well kept lawn with multiple grass species and other low-growing plants such as clover, on good soil, in an appropriate climate, *can* be had; and the grass beats hell out of paving the land over. But far too many people want their monoculture golf green, and ignore the experts who tell them it's going to cost a hell of a lot more than it's worth.