consequences in georgia

[Jamisjockey]

and yet there is a shortage of round eye high sunblock number workers.   you figure it out  in a state with 9 percent unemployment

Welfare.  Unemployment benefits.  Social Security.  Medicaid.  School lunches.  Wic.  Chip.  And several generations of people who believe that Uncle Sugar will take care of them.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

makes an old man wanna either cry or smack someone

[Bigjake]

We can't find help to drive trucks for the low end wage of $17.50 an hour.  (rounding a bit).  Figure that out.   Of course that's  a rhetorical question,  this area is so union heavy it's sickening.  If the job doesn't pay $30 ish an hour,  to bolt cars together or some other equally brainless task,  they won't touch it. 

[Boomhauer]

We can't find help to drive trucks for the low end wage of $17.50 an hour.  (rounding a bit).  Figure that out.   Of course that's  a rhetorical question,  this area is so union heavy it's sickening.  If the job doesn't pay $30 ish an hour,  to bolt cars together or some other equally brainless task,  they won't touch it. 

Where the hell are you? I'll come drive for you, right f***ing now! Seriously, short notice move. Don't have a CDL and no experience, but I can get one

[Lanius]

IOW, employers of illegal aliens privatize the profits and socialize the costs.

According to Milton Friedman, companies are under no obligation to behave responsibly, and their only responsibility lies with their shareholders.
Why do you complain then? Business is just being business.. what better way of ensuring profits is by arranging for costs to be socialized?

[Balog]

According to Milton Friedman, companies are under no obligation to behave responsibly, and their only responsibility lies with their shareholders.
Why do you complain then? Business is just being business.. what better way of ensuring profits is by arranging for costs to be socialized?

If he actually said that, he's wrong.


As in many things, I believe the Bible has the answer here...

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

[Ron]

According to Milton Friedman, companies are under no obligation to behave responsibly, and their only responsibility lies with their shareholders.
Why do you complain then? Business is just being business.. what better way of ensuring profits is by arranging for costs to be socialized?

That is why I am not opposed to giving illegals some form of legal status. Give them some protections under the law to keep them from being exploited and let those that want to work, work. They are worth more to our country than the lazy detritus that refuses to work. Give em status and get em on the tax rolls.

That is the inherent danger of our mixed semi fascist, semi socialist government and semi market economy. Our big corporations have too much influence on our corrupt poli critters. We need to curtail both corporate and individual welfare entitlements.

[makattak]

That is why I am not opposed to giving illegals some form of legal status. Give them some protections under the law to keep them from being exploited and let those that want to work, work. They are worth more to our country than the lazy detritus that refuses to work. Give em status and get em on the tax rolls.

That is the inherent danger of our mixed semi fascist, semi socialist government and semi market economy. Our big corporations have too much influence on our corrupt poli critters. We need to curtail both corporate and individual welfare entitlements.

Influence wouldn't matter (anywhere near as much) if the government weren't involved in things not authorized by the Constitution...

[Lanius]

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

He did say that. At the link is a long and rather turgid article explaining his reasoning.
There is some nod towards ethical norms though. The end result is always the same anyway.. corporations mostly behave in a psychopathic manner.

[Ron]

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

He did say that. At the link is a long and rather turgid article explaining his reasoning.
There is some nod towards ethical norms though. The end result is always the same anyway.. corporations mostly behave in a psychopathic manner.

"America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
  

"Dr. Franklin, what have you given us?" "Madam, we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it!" – Benjamin Franklin

It's the old adage that if a people cannot rule themselves as individuals on the personal level, someone or some entity will rule over them.

[Balog]

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

He did say that. At the link is a long and rather turgid article explaining his reasoning.
There is some nod towards ethical norms though. The end result is always the same anyway.. corporations mostly behave in a psychopathic manner.

And I should care that he said this because why?

[roo_ster]

According to Milton Friedman, companies are under no obligation to behave responsibly, and their only responsibility lies with their shareholders.
Why do you complain then? Business is just being business.. what better way of ensuring profits is by arranging for costs to be socialized?

1. When an employer hires an illegal alien, he is breaking the law.  If the law is to be no barrier to a businessman, then fraud, murder, arson, theft, etc. are legitimate means that can be used against his enterprise.  Friedman was a libertarian, not an anarchist.  Readings of his writings that lead to anarchist outcomes can be assumed to be in error much the same way that readings of the Pope's writings that end up supporting abortion and atheism can be assumed to be in error.

2. You misunderstand Friedman at his fundamentals.  "IOW, employers of illegal aliens privatize the profits and socialize the costs," is corporatism and rent-seeking behavior, not profit-seeking behavior. Friedman is on record in support of profit-seeking behavior and condemning rent-seeking behavior.

3. WRT immigration, Friedman is on the record saying you can't have open borders when running a welfare state.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

State officials, meanwhile, said they don’t have any figures to compare today’s farm labor shortages with what was going on in Georgia’s $69 billion industry the same time last year. But having 11,080 open farming jobs is a cause for concern, given that Georgia food and fiber farmers produce 81,000 full-time equivalent positions annually, said John McKissick, who teaches and researches agricultural economics for the University of Georgia.

[dogmush]

State officials, meanwhile, said they don’t have any figures to compare today’s farm labor shortages with what was going on in Georgia’s $69 billion industry the same time last year. But having 11,080 open farming jobs is a cause for concern, given that Georgia food and fiber farmers produce 81,000 full-time equivalent positions annually, said John McKissick, who teaches and researches agricultural economics for the University of Georgia.

So somewhere less then ten percent of the migrant labor force didn't show up this year.  And we can't compare this fluctuation in a, by definition, temporary workforce with past, unrelated to legislation, fluctuation.

The terms mountain and molehill are starting to occur to me.

[roo_ster]

So somewhere less then ten percent of the migrant labor force didn't show up this year.  And we can't compare this fluctuation in a, by definition, temporary workforce with past, unrelated to legislation, fluctuation.

The terms mountain and molehill are starting to occur to me.

But, if you lay on the ground real flat-like and take a photo from that perspective, you can make that molehill look awfully big.

[henschman]

OK, since the other thread got locked, I guess I'll continue what I was saying here.

I believe that the one and only legitimate role of government is to protect people's rightful liberty.  I fail to see how it is a violation of anyone's liberty for someone to travel here from another country and engage in voluntary exchange with other folks.  I see laws which prohibit this as illegitimate violations on the rightful liberty of individuals. 

Many people who are otherwise very pro-capitalist become total socialists when it comes to the issue of immigration and jobs.  People act as if jobs are some sort of fixed quantity public good that all citizens have a right to, and claim that someone is stealing "their" job when an employer decides to contract with someone else for his labor. 

A job is not property.  A job is a voluntary association, which means its existence depends on the consent of both the employee and the employer.  In a free society, the only duty people have toward one another is to leave each other alone to do as they please with their lives.  No one has a duty to provide ANYTHING to anyone else, including his consent to form an employment relationship.  So no, you don't have a right to a job, or to a minimum sustenance.  You just have a right to be left alone, as long as you do the same to others. 

Some quotes from the other thread:

Well, being an American, I take issue when someone violates my nation's sovereignty and the very clear and unambiguous will of the citizenry.

Neither "national sovereignty" nor the "will of the citizenry" alone are legitimate justifications for the initiation of force, if there is no underlying threat to liberty.  Threats to national sovereignty CAN constitute threats to the liberty of individuals, but they do not in this case, for reasons explained above (people do not have a right to jobs).  As for the will of the citizenry, a majority can be just as tyrannical as a dictator.  No one's liberty should ever be up for a vote. 

Then, their employers inflict upon me the costs required to provide medical care (9000 anchor babies are born in Dallas County's public hospital per year), gov't schooling, policing, welfare benefits to the families of anchor babies, etc.  IOW, employers of illegal aliens privatize the profits and socialize the costs.  This is wrong when mega-corps do it and it is wrong when small business *expletive deleted*birds with business models that require breaking federal law and screwing their neighbors do it.

The problem here is not immigration -- it is redistribution of wealth.  Private employers do not commit this violation -- it is all done by the government.  People should not be punished for violations they did not commit.  One violation of our liberty cannot serve to justify further violations of it.  We should concentrate on ending the prior violations rather than committing further ones in order to try to "patch things up."  That is how we got into so much trouble in the first place -- bad laws cause unintended consequences, so we pass more bad laws to try to "fix" them, which themselves have unintended consequences... ad nauseum.  We end up with a convoluted hodgepodge of government intervention that causes complex problems, which are harder and harder to deal with.  The only solution is to start dismantling the whole wretched system. 

Hell, I think immigration is great.  It will help to speed up the inevitable -- the collapse of the welfare state.  That is something I feel cannot come soon enough.  The sooner it happens the less painful it will be. 

[roo_ster]

OK, since the other thread got locked, I guess I'll continue what I was saying here.

I believe that the one and only legitimate role of government is to protect people's rightful liberty.  I fail to see how it is a violation of anyone's liberty for someone to travel here from another country and engage in voluntary exchange with other folks.  I see laws which prohibit this as illegitimate violations on the rightful liberty of individuals. 

Full stop.

That position precludes the existence of the sovereign nation state.  Which precludes such a polity coming up with such things as the Constitution if the United States.

You are welcome to head on out and found your anarcho-commune on some unclaimed island with 1000 of your closest friends, but I am going to insist that we abide by such basics as the COTUS in these parts.

Many people who are otherwise very pro-capitalist become total socialists when it comes to the issue of immigration and jobs.  People act as if jobs are some sort of fixed quantity public good that all citizens have a right to, and claim that someone is stealing "their" job when an employer decides to contract with someone else for his labor. 

A job is not property.  A job is a voluntary association, which means its existence depends on the consent of both the employee and the employer.  In a free society, the only duty people have toward one another is to leave each other alone to do as they please with their lives.  No one has a duty to provide ANYTHING to anyone else, including his consent to form an employment relationship.  So no, you don't have a right to a job, or to a minimum sustenance.  You just have a right to be left alone, as long as you do the same to others. 

You are aware that the USA is not Galt's Gulch?

"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive."
----William F. Buckley

Neither "national sovereignty" nor the "will of the citizenry" alone are legitimate justifications for the initiation of force, if there is no underlying threat to liberty.  Threats to national sovereignty CAN constitute threats to the liberty of individuals, but they do not in this case, for reasons explained above (people do not have a right to jobs).  As for the will of the citizenry, a majority can be just as tyrannical as a dictator.  No one's liberty should ever be up for a vote.

Uh, yes they are. 

No nation state sovereignty, no COTUS, and off to anarcho-commune-ville.  COTUS says Congress has the authority to declare war and the POTUS is CIC.  Protecting national sovereignty is and has been a legitimate cause for war/violence since time immemorial.  So, stay the heck off my lawn/country <shakes cane or rifle>.

The problem here is not immigration -- it is redistribution of wealth.  Private employers do not commit this violation -- it is all done by the government.  People should not be punished for violations they did not commit.  One violation of our liberty cannot serve to justify further violations of it.  We should concentrate on ending the prior violations rather than committing further ones in order to try to "patch things up."  That is how we got into so much trouble in the first place -- bad laws cause unintended consequences, so we pass more bad laws to try to "fix" them, which themselves have unintended consequences... ad nauseum.  We end up with a convoluted hodgepodge of government intervention that causes complex problems, which are harder and harder to deal with.  The only solution is to start dismantling the whole wretched system. 

Hell, I think immigration is great.  It will help to speed up the inevitable -- the collapse of the welfare state.  That is something I feel cannot come soon enough.  The sooner it happens the less painful it will be. 

Your argument may be valid when the welfare state is gone.  Until then, I am mindful of my taxes and how they are spent and how I can alleviate my tax burden.

As for as your wish for collapse, that is fine & dandy for young & dumb single men with Rambo-esque delusions of TEOTWAWKI.  The rest of us with wives & kids don't look forward to societal collapse with such a light heart and mind.  I'd much rather see a political solution, fought out in the political realm.  Something like Paul Ryan's Medicare reform is a good first step, changing it from an open-ended entitlement to a defined contribution plan, with further steps (hopefully) leading to the elimination of gov't provided/funded health care insurance.

Also, employers of illegal aliens and illegal aliens are most certainly responsible for their actions.  When they don't pay their hospital bills they are no better than eat and run thieves.

[RoadKingLarry]

That is why I am not opposed to giving illegals some form of legal status.

I heartily agree-
Detainee
and
Deportee

[MillCreek]

As for as your wish for collapse, that is fine & dandy for young & dumb single men with Rambo-esque delusions of TEOTWAWKI.  The rest of us with wives & kids don't look forward to societal collapse with such a light heart and mind.  I'd much rather see a political solution, fought out in the political realm. 

This should be a sticky.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution today:

Nearly half of the 132 Georgia businesses polled in a private survey this month say they are experiencing agricultural labor shortages.

And of those who reported shortages to the Georgia Agribusiness Council, more than a third said immigrants are concerned about the state’s new anti-illegal immigration law.

The council started doing the survey after farmers complained the new law is scaring migrant farmworkers away from Georgia and putting hundreds of millions of dollars in crops at risk. [emphasis ours]

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/14950054/exclusive-cbs-atlanta-investigates-migrant-labor-shortage-on-ga-farms

Currently, there are 11,000 vacancies in the farm industry. CBS Atlanta News wanted to know how these vacancies were affecting farmers and what it would be like to work on a farm for a day. CBS Atlanta's Mike Paluska worked on a blackberry farm in Wray, GA. Paluska picked blackberries with migrant workers for more than ten hours. In that time, Paluska earned roughly $60 after picking 17 boxes of blackberries at $3.50 a box.

Out of 200 workers on the farm 200 were picking blackberries. Farm owner, J.W. Paulk said that is 100 workers less than last year.

"I would say right now we have lost over $100,000 and by the end of the season it will be over $200,000 in lost sales," said Paulk.

Paulk said he has tried recruiting from the local labor pool but has had no luck.

"We put in job requests with the local Department of Labor, and we have not had a single person come," said Paulk.

Governor Nathan Deal released a statement last week. In that statement he said that farmers could use probationers to fill the 11,000 vacancies left behind by migrant workers. It was a statement Paulk said he was shocked to hear.

"It's a joke. No disrespect to the governor. But, it is a skill," said Paulk. "It's something that is very meticulous, and I am doubtful that (probationers) would be suitable labor for us."

Paluska learned first-hand that working in the fields is a skill. Most of the skilled laborers doubled the amount of blackberries picked. At times, Paluska even slowed down the line while quality control checked to make sure his blackberries were suitable to be shipped."

Paulk said local workers are far and few between. "Normally, they do not last usually less than a day because of the heat, and because they just can't pick fast enough to make a decent wage."

[dogmush]

Yet another panicy article in it's entirety.

In keeping with our prohibition against “cut and paste drive by posts” (a link to an article with no substantive commentary by the poster) you must provide, in your own words, a brief summary of the article AND your reasons for believing it will be of interest to APS members.

jus' sayin'


After reading the article in question I have to once again raise my eyebrows and ask "And? So what?"  No one ever said picking fruit was easy.  And of course it takes some technique.  But lets be realistic not as much technique as actual skilled labor (i.e. welding well, fixing cars, plumbing, electrical work)  I have faith that the reporter in question (or just about anyone) could learn the correct blackberry picking technique in a week or two of actually trying to.

Which brings us to this gem:

In that time, Paluska earned roughly $60 after picking 17 boxes of blackberries at $3.50 a box.
.....
Most of the skilled laborers doubled the amount of blackberries picked.

Most of the folks at that farm are making about $120 a day. Taxed? or cash under the table?  Even taxed that's $90-$100 a day take home.  Tell me again how that's an unlivable wage?  Please.  Kick everyone in ATL off of unemployment, charter busses to take them to the farms, hell even offer the farmers some cash for two weeks to offset the picking learning curve, and the tax-payers would save money, and have blackberry cobbler.

The problem in GA isn't lack of labor, it's lack of incentive to work in the existing labor force.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

we disagree on less than you think


the reality is the folks don't wanna work.

the guy with the 100-200 k in losses is probably less mellow than you about it

[dogmush]

the guy with the 100-200 k in losses is probably less mellow than you about it

Well, that is probably true, and understandable.

However if his buisness was actually dependent on him committing a crime* (i.e. illegally hiring workers) then I'm less then concerned with his blood preessure.

I could easilly make $100-$200k a year more if I committed crimes. But I'm not a criminal.  If your livelyhood depends on committing crimes, don't be surprised when they make laws to try and stop you.

*I don't claim to know the intricacies of agri-buisness.  But it sure seems like the farmer's saying without hiring illegal labor he'll lose that money.  If that is the case, then he should lose it.

[grampster]

If unskilled pickers only were able to pick half as stated, wouldn't the farmer still be better off than with no pickers?

I would say that a state that is heavy into agriculture (for example) and that provides unemployment benefits, medicaid, welfare inter alia could certainly and legitimately pass a law that requires any able bodied person over 16 applying for any of those tax funded benefits would be required to present themselves to a job center to be assigned work.  the law could be written in such a fashion as the person would have a choice; work or no benefits.  That way a person's freedom would not be interfered with.  You want your neighbor to support you?  Then support your neighbor.  Otherwise you are free to go live in another state.

[Jamisjockey]

OK, since the other thread got locked, I guess I'll continue what I was saying here.

I believe that the one and only legitimate role of government is to protect people's rightful liberty.  I fail to see how it is a violation of anyone's liberty for someone to travel here from another country and engage in voluntary exchange with other folks.  I see laws which prohibit this as illegitimate violations on the rightful liberty of individuals. 

Many people who are otherwise very pro-capitalist become total socialists when it comes to the issue of immigration and jobs.  People act as if jobs are some sort of fixed quantity public good that all citizens have a right to, and claim that someone is stealing "their" job when an employer decides to contract with someone else for his labor. 

A job is not property.  A job is a voluntary association, which means its existence depends on the consent of both the employee and the employer.  In a free society, the only duty people have toward one another is to leave each other alone to do as they please with their lives.  No one has a duty to provide ANYTHING to anyone else, including his consent to form an employment relationship.  So no, you don't have a right to a job, or to a minimum sustenance.  You just have a right to be left alone, as long as you do the same to others. 

Some quotes from the other thread:
Neither "national sovereignty" nor the "will of the citizenry" alone are legitimate justifications for the initiation of force, if there is no underlying threat to liberty.  Threats to national sovereignty CAN constitute threats to the liberty of individuals, but they do not in this case, for reasons explained above (people do not have a right to jobs).  As for the will of the citizenry, a majority can be just as tyrannical as a dictator.  No one's liberty should ever be up for a vote. 
The problem here is not immigration -- it is redistribution of wealth.  Private employers do not commit this violation -- it is all done by the government.  People should not be punished for violations they did not commit.  One violation of our liberty cannot serve to justify further violations of it.  We should concentrate on ending the prior violations rather than committing further ones in order to try to "patch things up."  That is how we got into so much trouble in the first place -- bad laws cause unintended consequences, so we pass more bad laws to try to "fix" them, which themselves have unintended consequences... ad nauseum.  We end up with a convoluted hodgepodge of government intervention that causes complex problems, which are harder and harder to deal with.  The only solution is to start dismantling the whole wretched system. 

Hell, I think immigration is great.  It will help to speed up the inevitable -- the collapse of the welfare state.  That is something I feel cannot come soon enough.  The sooner it happens the less painful it will be. 

My first counter argument is that the open border cannot exist with the welfare state.  This is why many freedom minded people get quite red in the face over ILLEGAL immigration

Points I raised in the other thread:
At this point, there is no real end to unemployment benefits.  We are literally paying people not to work.  So we're paying people not to work, and not plugging the hole in our southern border. Meanwhile, they squirt out anchor babies and those children get all the welfare benefits of any other citizen.
We are not nearly as free as we pretend. There is no freedom of association or choice when it comes to business association.  Sure, it seems free, but every aspect of hiring is regulated by the government.


Second, I think you overestimate the collapse of the welfare state. Many of the countries to our south have a heavy marxisit influence.  If this welfare state collapses, they will be just looking to replace it with another one.