Derby Trail Forums - free speech takes a hit

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)

- The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - free speech takes a hit (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14497)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

That stuff's all relative. If the cost of living goes up, the time lag between wages catching up is small.

Except that we're not paying the actual cost of food now; we're paying an artificially lowered cost, based on governmental subsidies and cheap (illegal labor). Take away these factors and the cost of food at the grocery will go up and stay up. Food was more expensive in the past, in today's dollars. And serving sizes were smaller and people ate less. The change in agricultural policies in the 1970's lowered the cost of making food, and the shift to large agribusinesses who use on cheap labor, rather than family farms, further deflated costs. I'd wager money on it, B, get rid of illegal immigration and food will be a LOT more expensive. It will be closer to what it should actually cost, but do you think people are going to accept that the very cheap ride they've been enjoying for the past 30 years will have to end?

Again, I don't have the answer- I spend more on food than the average person because a lot of my groceries are organic and small-farm stuff. And as a result, I eat less because I don't have as much in the house. I don't mind. But I know I'm a bit of an odd bird in that respect. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

My point if, if the cost of food goes up, then wages (for folks like you and I, too) also go up (and stay up).

Just as you see in any cost of living scenario; for example, compare the price of similar condos in NYC vs Cleveland, and also compare the salaries for the same job in NYC and Cleveland - you might make a helluva lot more money in NYC, but I will also be paying a helluva lot more in rent, so your lifestyle would be pretty much the same (even if the actual number relating to your salary is less impressive to your pals). IOW cost of living in NYC > Cleveland, so NYC wages > Cleveland wages.

Very much not true, B; take a look at any study on how much of one's salary goes towards housing and you'll see that it's much, much higher in NYC (and maybe SF) than anywhere else in the country- so much so that even though financial planners say you shouldn't spend more than 25 percent of your income on housing, they say the percentage has to be higher in NYC- I think they say 30 percent.

And my brother, a statistician, was made four different job offers in four different places, doing the same thing for each place (all four were universities) and yet the starting salaries were within a few thousand dollars of each other- so he elected to live in Nashville because the salary would go much farther than in NYC. The higher cost of living was not being offset by his salary.

Not to mention teachers and cops in the suburbs make A LOT more money than they do in the city. And private teachers get paid less than public school teachers (who are being paid less than their suburban counterparts).

But even assuming an increase in wages would happen, B, my argument was that the increase in wages would not be enough to offset the increase in food prices because the prices are currently so artificially low. By eliminating the illegal worker factor, the cost would increase beyond what an increase in wages would accommodate. So you're still looking at a higher food bill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

a closed border to me means no immigration, a controlled border means just that, a controlled documented immigration. like I said previously I really belive in an active immigration policy, one that brings many people to the US from a variety of countries, FAIRLY and with some security measures.

I don't claim to have all the answers on this issue, but on the border control part of it I do have some ideas that I would immediately pursue if I were in charge of things. I don't think its real complicated. In my mind what is going on is not much different than an invasion from a foreign country, admittedly one that we have allowed, or even invited. In this age of terror though it is not acceptable to have such a loose grasp on the border
Briefly:
Basically we need to really increase our border control assets. I would increase the US border patrol personnel in the region significantly. I would augment that with National guard deployments. I would look at the entire southern border not just specific pathes. I would install high tech hardware, cameras, drones, listening devices, etc, aimed at the border.

While doing this I would announce to Mexico that we will now be actively changing our posture and apprehending people. I would have a tough policy. like first offense, you are sent back. Second offense you're looking at some jail time.

What I think would be ideal is a large US "super" consulate in northern Mexico, where people that want to enter the US for work can be processed and given some type of work visa. You want to eliminate the demand for illegal entry by expanding the legal channels. When I enter Brasil on business I am fingerprinted and a photo is taken.

We need much more horsepower in terms of processing documents etc. We have now virtual gridlock in terms of passports.

We also will need active domestic enforcement against employers who hire illegals. the idea is to have visibilty, so that we can get an accurate count, and also I might add to be able to protect the rights of these workers. they are invisble now and therefore I think candidates for abuse.

These actions would stem the tide and channel the migration into legal path's.

Remember though that the border control issue is not only about migrant workers, its about keeping out unsavory types, criminals, terrorists, drug trade, customs control etc. As Somer said the big majority are just people that want work in order to support their families and have a decent life, and therefore are not a threat. I agree with that but my only point is that we have to have control over the numbers of people coming in, AND we need to be able to exclude certain people.

Left unchecked for too long, and an uncontrolled border is a recipe for ruin.
those are my thoughts, but I know that with that said none of it is easy.

ArlJim,
Thanks for taking the time to explain. You make some very interesting points.
I think the border should be controlled as well, but I don't really see that it can be. Since the "war on drugs" began so many years ago, are you aware that despite great efforts by many governmental agencies, less than 10% of illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, marijuana) are intercepted.
I really don't have the answer to how the border can be controlled, nor do those that are attempting to control it.