Federal Appeals Court allows suit against company that hires illegals

wow, your friends are sooo kewl

 

Not universally. When I was a line cook, I worked alongside these guys - they were paid the same as myself. As they should be. Many of them went on to become chefs in their own right.

They are hired in the restaurant industry, not because they are cheaper - but because they work hard, and they work well, without complaining. As I have said. In my trade, the quickest way out the door is through the Tunnel of Whining.

I think the best line comes from Anthony Bourdain, in Kitchen Confidential: You really want to become a Chef? Learn Spanish. Most of them can cook you under the table without breaking a sweat.

 

Let's do some math. I love math.

Let's take a major corporation with 10,000 employees and give them a $10.00 per hour raise. Let's say that will cost the corporation $15.00 an hour per employee to pull off.

That would be...

10,000 x 15 = 150,000 dollars per hour.

150,000 x 8 = 1,200,000 per day

1,200,000 x 5 = 6,000,000 per week

6,000,000 x 52 = 312,000,000 per year

312 million a year to pull off. That is less then one third of a billion dollars per year.

The productivity of the company would probaly go up 10 fold what it was as a result. Employee retention would go up to the point where you would need to win the lottery to get a job there because no one would quit.

That means administration costs would go down. Profits would go up. Prices to consumers could go down. Tax revenue would increase without a tax increase. People would not need social programs and tax budgets would go down.

Ok, so it'a all arbitray you say? Let's look at what corporations employ that many people and what they posted as earnings recently.

Genral Motors.

Record revenue of $54.4 billion http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/earnings/

General motors employes 335,000 people. But many are high paid executives. But let's do the math on the whole lot.

335,000 / 10,000 = 32.5 as a multiplication factor.

32.5 x 312 million = 10,140,500,000 cost to give all employees a rediculous raise or just about 20% of total profits.

Is 44.2 Billion dollars not a good profit? I'd say it is big time!

Factor in the benfits to the company like employee retention. Fator in the benefits to the tax base in the good old US of A. Factor in the fact moral will go up and thus production will go up. Factor in that most of those employess will be able to get new cars more often and will almost certainly buy GM cars. Factor in how this would affect the housing market when all of these people can now afford houses rather then rent.

The benefits would be felt in many industries as well as in the tax rolls.

How is this a bad thing? How is this not common sense? How is this not conservative thinking?

Math don't lie, greedy corporations lie.

 

No, but statistics can.

 

The same was said of the end of slavery, yet production was mechanized and it increased incredibly. Only a small percentage of labor in the farming industry is still labor intensive, which is fruit picking....and even that is on the verge of being mechanized.


http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/08/1822230


"Robots designed to help farmers have been built before, but this time, engineers from the University of Warwick have chosen to develop robots that will reduce farm labor costs. In recent months, they've built a robotic mushroom picker, an inflatable conveyor belt and a grass cutting robot that might also be used by golf course owners."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uow-rai030706.php


Side question: Has anyone been on a modern farm? I have, and it's so incredibly efficient compared to the older days.

 

Oreos...lmao. Not a bad idea. *evil grin*

 

I invested quite a bit of time in the subject of the Civil war. It was a cultural clash in best definition of culture. The Southern culture had a very Jefferson-like view on industry ie that heavy industry destroyed freedom...and to some point they're right. The two separate cultures had two separate goals, and that was clear showing of how they're respective states behaved (on a social and economic level).

It wasn't just a elite thing. Most people didn't own slaves in the south, but they were extremely eager to destroy the north in war. They hated everything about 'Republican' values at that time.

I'm sure Mexico thought the same of Texas...at first. Then the facts remains, that the white settler in mass,...decided to split-off from Mexico. An unwise decesion made by Mexico...to have such a liberal immigration policy.

I'd say one of the huge difference is that latin america is progressing so slow. It's not like Europe were we set things straight in the 40's, and basically stabilized an area that was acting retarded. Yes, Europe was (and still is to some point) behaving like a retard.

I'd even say the changes in immigration legislation before the 60's converted our country more leftwards. Our initial legislation only permitted those from western Europe, and then we expanded it to eastern europe...which had started it demise of accepting forms of socialism.

America's initial policy was not to immigrated from east europe, because we thought they were 'backwards', and we eventually opened up to them. This moved us a lot more left that in comparison to days previous. If one takes in consideration the legislation in the 20's, 60's and 80's...one see an increase pattern of bring in the poor and uneducated (from leftists countries), and thus an increasing pattern of moving the country leftwards. The culture has been shifting all this time, but you have to take a deep look at the history of it to appreciate it all.

The senate legislation that was offered, would have dramatically changed this country far more than any legislation before it...and not in positive ways.

 

I don't know how fruitful a discussion can be had by we blowhards engaging in a "authority" match over who has spent more time studying the Civil War or not (my undergrad and grad work at Berkeley was in comparative political development, heavily sociological and economic in perspective, but in my mind, nothing matters more than what we write now). Perhaps you weren't engaging in it and if so, I apologize. Let's look at what we are saying.

Regarding "culture" we are arguing semantics. Mine was a political and economic argument, which I don't define as "cultural." Economically, if the smallhold farmers were Jeffersonian in outlook, the landed southern elite weren't. They were squarely big-agrarian, and resented the financial strictures placed on them by a rapidly industrializing North and its associated credit systems. The non-elite Southerners, while resenting what they perceived as an invasion of their sovereign territory, had nothing to do with the drive to war. It was an elite-led conflict - Northern industry against Southern gentry.

On your other points, I have to say, I'm a bit lost. Your equating "left" with Eastern European and Central/South American immigration doesn't square with my experience.

Of the "new immigrants": Ask an autoworker from the Ukraine, paid more than he ever dreamed, what his politics are; a primary school teacher from Estonia, how he feels about Soviet socialism; a guy from Oaxaca working three jobs when he'll next be attending the local Spartacus rallies.

My point is I see no correlation between the "new immigration" and decidedly leftist politics (not that I think that would necessarily be a bad thing, were there a direct correlation - controls on child labor came about in response to pressure growing out of the immigration explosion, 19th-20th century). If anything, those folks coming from under the former Soviet curtain are about as left as my pet labs. Well, they are commies. They sleep, bark, generally get in the way, and do no work - yet still they demand 3 squares and a rack.

 

You can consider it semantics, but countries cultures are infused with their government.

Jefferson was extremely into the idea of keeping the country agrarian, until his very late years (in which he realized the importance of both). He didn't like the model Britain had become, and he feared that too much power in one hand would lead to corruption.

I don't think I was necessarily asserting that. Do you recall the comprimise of 1830, where Andrew Jackson imposed heavy tariffs on the south...which almost lead to a conflict. Things like this would also reoccur right before the civil war and were a factor as well.

I'd say there were many reasons for the Civil War, not just a difference between two different elite powers. Southern states overwhelming declared independence (ie the democratic process showed they were clearly decesive). If it had merely been two elites opposing each other, the southern representation wouldn't have been so uniform.

The Constitution wasn't even that uniformly accepted.

Partially, not fully.

Depends on the context...of coarse.

Context. Obviously a new immigrant that has seen the bs revolving around socialism would wise up...just as Cubans would. Latin America (for the most part) is still on it's journey towards realization.

Hell, we're on our own.

lmao...

I guess you would have to review the general history of things. Our government was fairly small...for long period of time. When immigration changed in the 20's, we saw a progressive movement start to flourish. This led to the dems moving further left. Not much in consideration now-a-days.

Then the 60's came, and chain immigration was invented. This primarily targetted central and south america, which were virulent left/authoritian at the time. This legislation had clauses that made the numbers grow...far beyond immigration levels of the past. We had maybe a couple of years of 2 million european immigrants at a time, but things stopped after we resolved/stabilized Europe.

You must realize the shifts in the parties. The republican party has moved more left economically (as has the democrats), and they've move more towards religious conservatism...which is essentially a demographic-ruling based on more catholics, which latin america essentially is.

Since immigration changes, taxes/welfare funds/etc in government have grown incredibly. The demograhics rule, and the point in two directions...left and religious.

 

I'll look forward to reading and thinking on your points later, Rick - they deserve considered time.

That, and my wife, a Braised Lamb Shank with Gratin of Great Northern Beans (I just pulled from the oven and plated), and a decent new world Syrah, are both screaming for attention:

 

I stick to finite math for that very reason.

 

Damn that looks good!

 

Will, it was. Braising is perhaps my favorite cooking - taking less than pristine cuts, transforming them into something incredible. The autumn has really settled in our way, and this is the time of year when I go nuts in the kitchen.

 

Back to topic:

Rick, before we move ahead, so that we are speaking in the same tongue:

I'd like to ask you: please define "culture."

 

Sounds reasonable.

When I referer to culture, I'm speaking of:

The ideas/beliefs and behaviours held in common by a subgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Some groups have a loose-knit set of commons...while others have a bit more fluid set of commons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The dictionary has my version in a different way:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture

5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.

 

Was the Syrah good?

 

I've never met a Syrah I didn't like.

 

Syrah was decent - at under 10, Smoking Loon, did a nice job. Will, agreed, I love syrahs. Especially with lamb.

 

OK, roughly, we're on the same page. Going to the earlier discussion, I agree that no one model, to include this notion of an elite Northern/Southern conflict, can explain the war. But I think the structure (which I distinguish from "cultural" arguments) of political and economic power was more deterministic. I do think the "ideas" that are propounded help to justify the very real division of power - economic, military, political structures - on the ground; but they are not the division itself.

 

I'm not sure what this all means exactly.

But here an interesting thing I looked at...Fort Sumter was promised to the south by secretary of state, as Lincoln was generally complying with the other forts as well.

What stirred the nest to bring Sumter to violence...in my belief was the change of heart Lincoln had or rather he thought the whole of America was about to split. I say this due to when his opinion changed. New York mayor expressed a desire (held by almost everyone) to leave the union after the south declared they'd remove a huge percentage of their tariffs. The mayor, along with his deep dislike of Lincoln had thought that New York's economy would suffer tremendolous if the south did such.

Days after hearing this, Lincoln, decided not to let the deal go through, and he reversed the secretary of states promise. A confederate general appraised what Lincoln was sending, and really overemphasised the threat. Lincoln was resupplying the fort with weapons, but not to the point the general had asserted. The south was left with an odd chose: war or allow more arms into the fort. Everyone knows the answer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Historically immigration has increased upon each immigration before it. Senate legislation would change the political landscape of the parties--radically. I have no doubt about that, like I have no doubt that federal taxes went from (around) 5% to 25% in the last 35 years...due to the demands of the changing demographic.

The culture of the 50's would have reprimanded us for going so left and not stopping the impediment of 'communist-like' actions. Open-border policy means we become whatever around us, with out the picking and chosing of a rational policy. The rest of the world is mostly third-world shitholes...if we pick from those countries, lets' make the best of our decesions.

Fuckin Frances immigration policy has become better before ours!? WTF!