| |
| ▲ | convolvatron 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in using immigration to address labor shortages. however, not having an official policy, such a labor visa with clearly defined rules, combined with a stable population of 'illegals' that don't have the same labor protections, is and was not really a fair or sustainable situation. | | |
| ▲ | wagwang 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's inherently unfair because its used to drive down wages of the lower classes. Outside of highly skilled work that cannot be sourced from within the country that is critical for nation security, the moral response is to just pay the workers more. | | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the moral response is to just pay the workers more. While I don't disagree, and while I firmly believe in UBI (which is the natural conclusion to your logic), without a comprehensive plan in place, just "paying people more" will be a bit of a death spiral since that is a core contributor to inflation on a large scale. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you look at the massive increase in, for example, CEO salaries over the last few decades why was nobody worried about inflation then? "Pay people more" seems to be just fine as long as it's only certain people. Once the wrong kind of people, whose wages have stagnated for decades, want an increase in pay then our entire economy is suddenly at risk. I feel that the main driver behind the inflation we've seen in the last few years has primarily been greed, but nobody seems interested in trying to fight inflation on that front either. Inflation is a problem, but we need a better way to deal with it besides "the average worker still gets paid like it's 1975" | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | > CEO salaries over the last few decades why was nobody worried about inflation then? Because it’s economically insignificant. Total CEO pay across the Russell 1000 excluding Musk is in the tens of billions. Paying a few people more isn’t inflationary. (It’s other kinds of problematic.) | | |
| ▲ | franktankbank 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | What other kinds of problematic is it? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What other kinds of problematic is it? There seem to be social consequenes to that sort of income inequality. There are solid arguments for enabling founders to become fabulously wealthy. The argument seems a bit more stretched for managers. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wagwang 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's no evidence that tight labor markets lead to a inflation death spiral, food in america is supposed to be expensive because America is a wealthy nation. The elites like to dress this up as something that is bad for the lower class but it's quite the opposite, the lower class in wealthy high cost of living, low immigration countries do very well, not that there are many of these countries left. |
|
| |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Agreed. Immigration for a labour shortage is a tale as old as time. Mass migration was very common post WW1/2 Europe. People went where there were jobs and labour shortages. Policy around this type of thing is important. My post is more about the general dysfunction and solution schemes we see in some governments. I think having the ICE example might bring about some bots and trolls, though. I don't care for the ICE example, it's just a part of the quote. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | The US policy seems pretty clear: Allow companies who employ undocumented workers to benefit and profit from it, while making sure only the individual workers shoulder the criminal and livelihood risks. | | |
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I thought the policy is that you can't hire without documentation. Do you mean that there is a scheme in place, outside of the legal framework? | | |
| ▲ | array_key_first 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, there is a legal scheme in place: you're not allowed to validate the authenticity of provided documentation as a company. If someone is undocumented, they can forge documents and that's completely allowed. The reason we have this loophole is because many industries, particularly in the South, rely directly on immigrant labor. The republicans cannot risk alienating their consistency or further hurting the already brittle economy of Red states. That's why we get a constant flow of completely ineffective and performative solutions, like ICE. Just start locking up executives who have employees that are undocumented, and the problem would disappear before your very eyes. But, building a wall is easier, and you can see a wall. | | |
| ▲ | ndiddy 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The reason we have this loophole is because many industries, particularly in the South, rely directly on immigrant labor. The republicans cannot risk alienating their consistency or further hurting the already brittle economy of Red states. One example of this playing out was when the Florida state senate (Republican supermajority) shot down a bill that would have required businesses to use E-Verify to validate the authenticity of their employees' documentation. https://www.cfpublic.org/politics/2025-05-05/bill-to-expand-... > Bill Herrle, state executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses, said the bill would have made the state’s labor shortage worse and dampened productivity and entrepreneurship in the state. He said his group was relieved that it didn’t pass. > “When I talk to small business owners now, I’m finding them busy doing a job they’d like to hire someone to do’’ Herrle said. “They’re working the line. They’re working in the kitchen. They’re working the register. And when a small business owner is doing that, guess what they’re not doing? They’re not being an entrepreneur. They’re not spending time trying to find ways to build and grow their business.’’ | |
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | According to 8 USC 1324, it looks like what you're talking about could quickly land you in prison for up to 5 years. So, it's a scheme maybe, but not a legal one. | | |
| ▲ | array_key_first 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about - 8 USC 1324 is related to harboring or bringing an alien. Companies hiring people with what they believe are genuine documents, by reasonable inspection, is perfectly legal. Please note this just means you have to look at them. The companies are doing this "unknowingly". Of course they're not stupid, they're fully aware they're hiring a lot of undocumented people. But nobody, on record, knows that. To them, all their employees have documents which appear valid. It is pretty easy to forge I-9 documents. Part of this is because the US has incredibly poor identification infrastructure. Often, not even US citizens can be reliably identified, as seen in commercial banking. The other part is that companies cannot choose to not hire people because they think they are undocumented. You can't hire someone because they're too brown and not American sounding enough. That's not to say that I think the solution is universal identification or legalization of racism in hiring practices. | | |
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay, I can see for that one that you might say that you didn't pay them to enter the country and that you didn't help them find a home and so you aren't technically harboring. But, what about this one? 18 U.S.C. § 1546 This says, "having reason to know." So, you actually don't have to really know, you just have to have reason to know, to be incarcerated. That really seems like I should check, if only to cover my own ass. Like if the picture wasn't clear but you accepted it anyway, you had reason to know? Seems pretty loose for anyone that wants to enforce it. I'm clearly not an attorney, so if you are, please correct me. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ryandrake 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's written policy and then there's policy as-enforced. |
|
|
|
|
|
