• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Build the Wall!

"Build the Wall" !! The very name of the thread is amusing!
... And sad. as heard by clicking here.

By the way, is Mexico still paying for it?

At one point the thread segued into the claim that increasing the price of steel was a way to encourage its use. You can't make this stuff up, folks!

Then there's this:
Like it or not, its the liberals who prevented Trump from putting up his wall. And the wall might not have fixed the problem of labor flooding the country anyway. But because of the liberals we will never know.
Uh ... you can't have it both ways. Either 52 Senators is a majority or it ain't. Especially when the 52 belong to a Party that has scorched the filibuster rule whenever it wants to. More especially when the Oval Office was occupied by a "President" who got his rocks off diverting money "liberals" had allocated elsewhere to his border grifting activities.
Wikipedia said:
Several political scientists described the legislative accomplishments of this Congress as modest, considering that both Congress and the presidency were under unified Republican Party control. According to a contemporary study, "House and Senate GOP majorities struggled to legislate: GOP fissures and the president frequently undermined the Republican agenda."

A Texas Newspaper has an article titled "Trump’s Border Wall is a Vortex of Stupidity that Trump and the GOP Can’t Escape."
Texas Observer said:
“This is the stupidest day in American history,” wrote Matt Christman during the Donald’s inauguration, “a record that will be broken by every subsequent day in American history.” PolitiFact says: Mostly true. But it feels especially true these days, in the swampy mire of one of the dumbest policy debates in the history of American politics. I’m speaking, of course, of the matter of The Wall.

The Wall started as an applause line at President Donald Trump’s campaign rallies. It was an effective rhetorical tool not because it made any degree of practical sense, but because it was a symbol of Trump’s showy commitment to a hard line on immigration. The wall was emphatically not like the vehicle barriers and fences that already dot the U.S.-Mexico border, which Trump surely did not know existed at the time. The Wall would be built coast to coast, it would be beautiful — maybe as high as 40 feet — and it would be fully paid for by Mexico, making it a double humiliation for the “enemy.” It was clear from the beginning that it was a simple expression of racial resentment.

Then he won, and essentially forgot about it for two years. Of course, he talked a lot about The Wall, but he clearly didn’t care enough to do much about it. With one of the largest GOP congressional majorities in recent history, he failed to secure funding for the kind of wall he had promised in the campaign, because even Republican lawmakers understood that The Wall was a boondoggle. At the end of that two years, with an incoming Democratic majority in the House, Trump has partially shut down the government.

Trump is doing this because he wants to have a fight; the substance of the thing doesn’t matter. But in the process of having that fight, The Wall has gone from a stupid idea to a vortex of stupidity that’s sucking in everything it touches. In the intersections of these various stupidities, and our ability to watch them bounce off each other in real time, The Wall actually helps clarify some truths about Trump’s first term.

Why is the idea of a coast-to-coast wall stupid? No one who has visited Big Bend needs this explained, and support for The Wall is lowest in border communities, where people actually understand what day-to-day life is like there.
I'm not going to hunt for a cite, but one of the hacks who developed political speeches for Trump back in 2015 reports that Trump thought the Wall idea to be "stupid" when it was first floated. He changed his tune when he heard the applause it generated.

I started this post by linking to a song on YouTube. This song is much more appropriate in understanding Trump's Wall.
 
Fundamentally, unions work by restricting the supply of labor. Things which actually benefit labor as a whole are going to hurt unions.

Thus we have the Republicans who hate both labor and unions and we have the Democrats that like the union contributions. Labor doesn't make meaningful campaign contributions and thus it's nobody's priority.
I 100% agree with you on both counts. Unions do work by restricting labor, and non organized labor will not be represented in our political structure.

Which is exactly why all the middle class needs to be unionized before whats left of them gets entirely slaughtered.

Which means you can't have independent professionals.
 
In the very short term, automation does result in a loss of jobs. Management will try to tell you otherwise... that their robot jobs will be offset by technician jobs. But the reality is that the technology would not help if it did not reduce overall overhead. So in the very short run there will be job loses no argument. But in the longer run, the automation increases productivity which increases everyone's standard of living which then leads to more sales and more job hiring.

Contrast such a business model using technology with your prefered liberal business model making profit by flooding the country with cheap labor. We get less technology, less automation, less standard of living, and EVERYONE is poorer except those at the very top.

From what I've seen automation is more about doing more with the same number of workers rather than actual layoffs. That does result in less hiring, though.
 
Except in the field said workers were actually trained for! Coal workers have been displaced by automation since the 1980s, not cheap labor. Yet, coal miners are first to blame Obama and Hilary Clinton for killing coal. And the right-wingers love to echo the sentiment. And few of those workers want to shift over to the hospitality industry.

Yup. It used to be that the jobs that got displaced by automation were sufficiently low-skill that retraining was no big deal. Now, however, the jobs being automated are higher skill, even with retraining the workers will never match their previous income level because they're entering into a new field and their previous work experience means little. I don't know what the right solution is, but it's obvious that digging their heels in and trying to pretend the jobs can be resurrected doesn't work.
 
Like it or not, its the liberals who prevented Trump from putting up his wall. And the wall might not have fixed the problem of labor flooding the country anyway. But because of the liberals we will never know.

We know it wouldn't have worked. It was purely political.
 
The Motley Fool comments on immigrant labor:

Immigration surprises​

There are some things about immigration that might surprise you, though. Consider these:
  • A 500-page report on the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that immigrants have little to no adverse effect on employment levels of non-immigrant workers or on earnings of non-immigrants.
  • A recent report by the National Bureau of Economic Research looked into causes of a declining national employment rate and found that an increased use of robots, as well as trade with China, were the main contributing forces, while immigration "did not even move the needle."
  • The American Immigration Council recently pointed out the economic value of immigrants, saying: "Immigrant-led households across the United States contribute hundreds of billions of dollars in federal, state, and local taxes each year. Residents of immigrant-led households wield nearly a trillion dollars in collective spending power (after-tax income)." It also noted that "millions of immigrant business owners account for one in five of all self-employed U.S. residents and generate tens of billions of dollars in business income each year."
  • While it's clear that many immigrants fill jobs that require little education and lots of physical exertion, it's good to remember that immigrants are employed across the entire spectrum from blue collar to white collar. In healthcare, for example, according to 2015 U.S. Census data, about 16.7% of the 12.4 million people who work in the industry are immigrants. The highest proportion of immigrants in healthcare are found at the highest level -- 27.9% of doctors and surgeons are immigrants.
  • Recent immigrants are, overall, more educated than past cohorts. Economist Jed Kolko explains: "Among immigrants age 25 and older residing in the U.S. in 2015, 48% of those who arrived after 2010 have a bachelor's degree, versus 35% of those who arrived between 2006 and 2010 and 27% of those who arrived in 2005 or earlier. By comparison, 31% of native-born adults have a bachelor's degree."
 
Prof-labor candidates would also be pro-antitrust action - something neither Mr. Trump nor the GOP has promoted.
 
Like it or not, its the liberals who prevented Trump from putting up his wall.
This wasn't that long ago. How can you forget that the GOP didn't really care about the wall (especially in the Senate). They expressed their indifference by barely including any funding for it, when the GOP had control of Congress.

article said:
In their two years in control of Congress, Republicans did not prioritize Trump’s border wall. They approved $1.6 billion for border security projects for fiscal 2018, but only a fraction of that was to be used for construction of a wall. They were willing to kick in another $1.6 billion for fiscal 2019, a fraction of what the project could ultimately cost.
But blame the "liberals" all you'd like. That'll help you also overlook Trump was so desperate for funding, he waded into the Pentagon budget and reassigned money there in an attempt to fund his wall.
article said:
The Trump administration has notified Congress that it plans to divert $3.8 billion from the Defense Department's budget to build the border wall.

This is in addition to more than $11 billion that's already been identified to construct more than 500 miles of new barriers along the southern U.S. border with Mexico. That includes money that Congress has appropriated and funding that was previously diverted from military construction and counternarcotic operations.

The latest funding diversion takes $1.5 billion originally allocated for buying equipment for National Guard and Reserve units, such as trucks, generators and spare parts, as well as fighter jets and ships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab
Fundamentally, unions work by restricting the supply of labor. Things which actually benefit labor as a whole are going to hurt unions.

Thus we have the Republicans who hate both labor and unions and we have the Democrats that like the union contributions. Labor doesn't make meaningful campaign contributions and thus it's nobody's priority.
I 100% agree with you on both counts. Unions do work by restricting labor, and non organized labor will not be represented in our political structure.

Which is exactly why all the middle class needs to be unionized before whats left of them gets entirely slaughtered.

Which means you can't have independent professionals.
Why not? You don't consider a medical doctor a professional? They are highly unionized under one of the most powerful unions in the United States called the AMA (American Medical Association). :You don't consider Airline Pilots professionals? They are represented by the ALPA Airline Pilots Association union. A lot of other professionals including archetects and safety engineers are represented too. That is exactly why those professions are able to make a living wage. I guess they are not totally independent but they seem to still do their jobs well. You don't see that many plane crashes because of the ALPA do you?

Its past time that you IT guys started forming your own association and/or union because you need one.

During a layoff from US Steel (around 2015 or so), I found temporary work fixing robots for a pharmaceutical firm Express Scripts. When I got called back to US Steel, I remember being very surprised how Express Scripts IT people were all applying for my old job. Those IT computer nerds who I considered smarter than I was were actually after my old job that paid far more money. To say the least, I was very surprised.
 
Last edited:
Uh ... you can't have it both ways. Either 52 Senators is a majority or it ain't.
I'm just saying the liberals were the opposition to the wall. If those liberals would have voted even close to what Trump expected of the republicans (who were shivering in their boots) we would have had Trump's wall. Again, I'm not so sure a wall would have worked anyway nor that it was the best way to fix illegal immigration..

But the reason it did not get built was because of the opposition.
 
Last edited:
the liberals were the opposition to the wall.
They were a minority. If Cheato's majority party was unable to complete his vanity project it's not the fault of the minority.
Republicans will blame the Biden Administration for its inability to accomplish his agenda, and Dems aren't even a majority.
the reason it did not get built was because of the opposition.
Repetition doesn't add verity (contrary to Trump's belief).

The reason it didn't get built was because it was never intended to be built.
Not by "the opposition", not by Republicans and certainly not by Trump.
There was never ANY benefit to Trump or his party to complete the stupid thing.
A completed wall would have had imperceptible (if any) impact on illegal immigration or drug flow, and would have become an international laughingstock, a huge, ugly standing symbol of Republican stupidity, racism and environmental abuse.
An incomplete wall, OTOH, is a constant clarion call to bigots and deluded conservatives, urging them to support the Republican agenda under the pretext that a completed wall would have cured all ills. And an incomplete wall serves Trump's vanity perfectly well as a symbol of victimhood (an essential ingredient) as well as a testament to His Mighty Power.
 
Fundamentally, unions work by restricting the supply of labor. Things which actually benefit labor as a whole are going to hurt unions.

Surely I misunderstand what you're saying. You cannot think that historically unions have been bad for labor, can you?

Beginning in the 1870's, Americans moved in large numbers from farms to factories. Wages and conditions in the factories were not good:
Yet factory wages were, for the most part, very low. In 1900, the average factory wage was approximately twenty cents per hour, for an annual salary of barely six hundred dollars. According to some historical estimates, that wage left approximately 20 percent of the population in industrialized cities at, or below, the poverty level. An average factory work week was sixty hours, ten hours per day, six days per week, although in steel mills, the workers put in twelve hours per day, seven days a week. Factory owners had little concern for workers’ safety. According to one of the few available accurate measures, as late as 1913, nearly 25,000 Americans lost their lives on the job, while another 700,000 workers suffered from injuries that resulted in at least one missed month of work. Another element of hardship for workers was the increasingly dehumanizing nature of their work. Factory workers executed repetitive tasks throughout the long hours of their shifts, seldom interacting with coworkers or supervisors. This solitary and repetitive work style was a difficult adjustment for those used to more collaborative and skill-based work, whether on farms or in crafts shops. Managers embraced Fredrick Taylor’s principles of scientific management, also called “stop-watch management,” where he used stop-watch studies to divide manufacturing tasks into short, repetitive segments. A mechanical engineer by training, Taylor encouraged factory owners to seek efficiency and profitability over any benefits of personal interaction. Owners adopted this model, effectively making workers cogs in a well-oiled machine.

One result of the new breakdown of work processes was that factory owners were able to hire women and children to perform many of the tasks. From 1870 through 1900, the number of women working outside the home tripled. By the end of this period, five million American women were wage earners, with one-quarter of them working factory jobs. Most were young, under twenty-five, and either immigrants themselves or the daughters of immigrants. Their foray into the working world was not seen as a step towards empowerment or equality, but rather a hardship born of financial necessity. Women’s factory work tended to be in clothing or textile factories, where their appearance was less offensive to men who felt that heavy industry was their purview. Other women in the workforce worked in clerical positions as bookkeepers and secretaries, and as salesclerks. Not surprisingly, women were paid less than men, under the pretense that they should be under the care of a man and did not require a living wage.

Factory owners used the same rationale for the exceedingly low wages they paid to children. Children were small enough to fit easily among the machines and could be hired for simple work for a fraction of an adult man’s pay. The image below shows children working the night shift in a glass factory. From 1870 through 1900, child labor in factories tripled. Growing concerns among progressive reformers over the safety of women and children in the workplace would eventually result in the development of political lobby groups. Several states passed legislative efforts to ensure a safe workplace, and the lobby groups pressured Congress to pass protective legislation. However, such legislation would not be forthcoming until well into the twentieth century. In the meantime, many working-class immigrants still desired the additional wages that child and women labor produced, regardless of the harsh working conditions.

Attempts by labor to organize were met with extreme violence. It wasn't until the late 1930's that unions were finally successful. Attached is a graph showing a strong inverse correlation between labor membership and income inequality. It is no coincidence that beginning in the 1980's union membership declines and inequality rises — Ronald Reagan was a staunch foe of unions.

400px-United_States_union_membership_and_inequality%2C_top_1%25_income_share%2C_1910_to_2010.png
 

Which means you can't have independent professionals.
Why not? You don't consider a medical doctor a professional? They are highly unionized under one of the most powerful unions in the United States called the AMA (American Medical Association). :You don't consider Airline Pilots professionals? They are represented by the ALPA Airline Pilots Association union. A lot of other professionals including archetects and safety engineers are represented too. That is exactly why those professions are able to make a living wage. I guess they are not totally independent but they seem to still do their jobs well. You don't see that many plane crashes because of the ALPA do you?

Note that I said independent. You can't have a freelancer, you have to work for some business that can magically pay you more than you could make if you were simply on your own. You're talking about professional organizations, not unions. None of them negotiate wages & working conditions.

Its past time that you IT guys started forming your own association and/or union because you need one.

So they have to pick the guy with seniority rather than the one that's qualified?? Unions are about workers that are pretty much cookie-cutters and that utterly does not describe IT.

While there certainly are some issues I can't imagine a union not making it worse.
 
Speaking as a Canadian, we are very much in favour of you guys building a wall.

In fact, if you pay for it, we'll build the wall ourselves. We'll even make it out of ice and pretend to be zombies and shit for tourists if that'll help get the thing up quicker.
 
Fundamentally, unions work by restricting the supply of labor. Things which actually benefit labor as a whole are going to hurt unions.

Surely I misunderstand what you're saying. You cannot think that historically unions have been bad for labor, can you?

Unions work by keeping people out of the union jobs. You see the benefits to the people who get the union jobs, you're missing the harm to those who aren't allowed in.
 

Which means you can't have independent professionals.
Why not? You don't consider a medical doctor a professional? They are highly unionized under one of the most powerful unions in the United States called the AMA (American Medical Association). :You don't consider Airline Pilots professionals? They are represented by the ALPA Airline Pilots Association union. A lot of other professionals including archetects and safety engineers are represented too. That is exactly why those professions are able to make a living wage. I guess they are not totally independent but they seem to still do their jobs well. You don't see that many plane crashes because of the ALPA do you?

Note that I said independent. You can't have a freelancer, you have to work for some business that can magically pay you more than you could make if you were simply on your own. You're talking about professional organizations, not unions. None of them negotiate wages & working conditions.

Its past time that you IT guys started forming your own association and/or union because you need one.

So they have to pick the guy with seniority rather than the one that's qualified?? Unions are about workers that are pretty much cookie-cutters and that utterly does not describe IT.

While there certainly are some issues I can't imagine a union not making it worse.
Your imagination is pretty limited. There are plenty of unions that do not represent “cookie cutters”.
 
False statements can often be changed into true statements by judicious insertion of quantifiers like "some" or "many." OTOH, phrasing an insight into an absolutist (and therefore false) form runs the risk that the reader will focus on the falsehood, and ignore the insight.

My mother marched alongside Cesar Chavez and his National Farm Workers Association. She would have been disappointed to learn that her efforts reduced the pay and working conditions of grape pickers instead of improving them.

I posted an excerpt describing wages and conditions of factory workers circa 1900 — did you read it, Loren? — as well as a graph showing that improvement in lower-class income coincided with periods of high union membership. Income inequality in America began soaring in the early 1980's. Was it coincidence that this was a time that government priorities switched from the "Great Society" to union busting?

We can all agree that when employment in an industry is declining, previously negotiated labor contracts can have the effect of retarding the decline of wages in that industry. Had Loren phrased his insight with such a condition — and thereby changed a false statement into a true one — I wouldn't have clicked 'Reply.'

Fortunately he did not, and I was led to quote a description of factory conditions in the U.S. before labor was organized, and to post a graph that depicts the beneficial role of labor unions in helping millions of workers to attain the "American Dream."

And BTW, I worry that making an arbitrary distinction between professional "organizations" and non-professional "unions" operates as an unnecessary insult against millions of Americans.
 

Which means you can't have independent professionals.
Why not? You don't consider a medical doctor a professional? They are highly unionized under one of the most powerful unions in the United States called the AMA (American Medical Association). :You don't consider Airline Pilots professionals? They are represented by the ALPA Airline Pilots Association union. A lot of other professionals including archetects and safety engineers are represented too. That is exactly why those professions are able to make a living wage. I guess they are not totally independent but they seem to still do their jobs well. You don't see that many plane crashes because of the ALPA do you?

Note that I said independent. You can't have a freelancer, you have to work for some business that can magically pay you more than you could make if you were simply on your own. You're talking about professional organizations, not unions. None of them negotiate wages & working conditions.

They are ALL unions because (as you have already correctly mentioned) they ALL limit entry to the profession. Limiting entry is what counts for high wages and good working conditions in our free market driven economy.

You can freelance, be represented in a union and still maintain independence. Those are called local trade unions. While everyone in a local trade union still makes the same hourly wage they do not at all make the same income. Some of them find more work than others and some of them are willing to work more overtime (which is a big deal).

But ALL of them are smarter than the people who think they can make more money by not working in a union.
 
Ask you Trump loving friends to tell you about an experience they had with some foreign language speaking brownish hued person. Be sure they document their experience with some written backup.

When that fails ask them to take you to some foreign language speaking brownish hued person who isn't like what he described.

When that fails you should have broken his spirit.

Relay what you just documented to all those who will listen.

rinse, repeat.
 
So, watching a rare bit of live football, and a political ad for some wannabe US Senate candidate in Ohio pops up. He is going on about being a Pro-Trump candidate, and that our biggest problem is illegal immigration and we need to build a wall and secure our nation.

And I'm thinking... are they still going on about the damn Wall and illegal immigration?! 1 million dead to Covid, supply chains are struggling and causing inflation, and Omicron is busting up our hospitals... but Central Americans crossing the border illegally is our big issue?


I saw a post on the social media from a die-hard Trump supporter friend - he's currently in lock down with Covid and is spending his time raging - and very high on his list of things he's angry about is "border security."

Build the wall, keep the brown folks out, dey turk our jerbs...the whole nine yards.

And here I am in a border state, with an infamous "papers please" law still mostly on the books, an infamous sheriff (thankfully out of office) who raided businesses on the regular, realizing that my old friend really, really doesn't get it.

He sits there in Michigan worried about the "hordes" of people crossing much closer to where I am, and he still doesn't get it. We don't have an illegal immigrant problem. We have an illegal employment problem. The reason all these people are coming across the border nowhere near Michigan is that we're paying them to come here. At the risk of going all Mitt Romney...if the jobs were not there, they would not come. Supply and demand is a thing, and businesses that rely upon immigrant labor are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year to reward them for crossing the border.

I mean, if you were working a job in...I dunno...Michigan, and someone offered you ten times your hourly wage to take a boat across the St. Clair River and work there, wouldn't you take it? I'd say that's a pretty good deal. Problem with this deal is that if you get caught, you pay the price. You get deported by very polite Canadian border guards, while the business based in Ontario suffers absolutely no consequences whatsoever and hires someone to fill the job who managed to NOT get caught.

Oh, and here in the dusty southwest? That "papers please" law that caused such a kerfuffle actually had an employer sanctions clause that was supposed to punish businesses who hired illegals. The infamous sheriff had a lot of photo ops where he featured workers sitting on the curb in zip ties and made a big deal of loading them into vans for deportation. The number of store managers or landscaping company owners he rounded up and arrested?

Zero. The number of statewide businesses who were actually sanctioned for hiring illegals? One. Thousands of illegals got zip ties on their wrists and loaded into a van. Companies that hired them? One...exactly one got a slap on the wrist. Not a zip tie to be seen.
 
Back
Top Bottom