 |
Reuters
|
The maker of steel frames for buildings is among an estimated 150,000 businesses across the desert state preparing for the measure that places Arizona at the vanguard of more than 100 U.S. states and municipalities taking on immigration enforcement. The law, passed days after a federal immigration overhaul died in the U.S. Senate in June, punishes first-time violators who knowingly hire undocumented workers with a 10-day suspension of their business licenses.
A second offense means they lose it.
“The only people who should be nervous are employers who hire illegals at cheap rates to gain unfair advantage over their competitors. They should be worrying a lot,” said John Kavanagh, a Republican state lawmaker who co-sponsored the bill.
“(Already) we have had businesses shut down, businesses that will not go ahead with acquisitions. It is going to get worse before it gets better,” said Julie Pace, one of the lawyers bringing the employers’ suit.
“Arizona will get bypassed economically. We will be known as tough but stupid from an economic perspective,” she said.
So, its OK for the corporations to break the law as long as it helps Arizona economically? Give me a break.
I think you are missing the point of her argument.
Her point is that by Arizona implementing stricter regulations, it would put them at an economic disadvantage with their neighbors. If all states were implementing such aggressive penalties than the businesses would have an even playing field.
It’s a fucking bluff. “Oh, we can’t afford to pay a livable wage to our few lowest-paid workers. We’ll just close up shop and liquidate instead.”
Suuuuure you will.
How about your Pres forgoing this years massive bonus – the one he got for “keeping costs down”? (Basically by using illegals) I’m sure he’ll survive having to defer trading in his 58″ yacht for that 70-footer he’s had his eye on.
– cause, don’t bullshit me, that’s what it’s about; they feel so totally entitled to being the sole recipients of profit that when the time comes to make do with less, the only people who ever have to make sacrifices are the powerless ones at the bottom. All over America, that is what has got to change.
Undocumented workers are used as easily abused servants, who function not only as labor but also to drive down the value of our labor. The first step to fixing our broken immigration system is by enforcing the laws on the people reaping profits off the backs of these people, not the immigrants themselves, who are just trying to better themselves. Then, we need a legal way to get these people into the country that makes sure that they are not screwed and that their labor isn’t significantly cheaper than domestic labor due to the cheating and tax fraud that goes hand in hand with employing the extra-legal immigrant.
Bully to Arizona.
I’m curious as to how the federal government plans to revoke state granted business licenses.
In other news Wal*Mart mysteriously leaves Arizona.
#5 These forces would not be even at play if we had not crashed the Mexican agrarian economy with out stupid, short sighted ag subsidies, then spiked grain prices with our murderous desire to turn food into fuel, when we should be investing in distributed, sustainable (i.e. does not need subsidies to even compete) energy.
Of course, this whole problem would disappear if we gave the DOD budget to nanosolar; they would have enough solar panels in five years to solve all of the world’s energy issues forever, and there would be far less need for war in general. I think we could even spare enough money to at least get our infantry body armor!
There is NO free market. Why do you think corps have billions in lobbyists? To ensure that no business is pandered too?
Your free market is an illusion. You have a corporatist market… government and business working hand in hand to ensure the concentration of wealth into tighter and righter hands. Unfortunately I can’t take credit for that comment.
Illegal labour is the best thing that happened to industry in the US. The corps can finally have an indentured workforce, totally disposable ready to work jobs that at one time in America would have been dependable, safe, honourable work. Do some research on the meat industry… IBP, ConAgra, Simplot… You’ll see how the illegals are the most desirable way for the corps to work. So, if Arizona DOES implement this all the corps will do is leave to the state next door and drag their illegals with them.
Then do it everywhere, till the slave trading bloodsuckers don’t have any place left to hide from the light!
This sort of law should be enforced by our Federal government. To bad they are all on the corporate payroll.
#7–#11==you know you are being trolled, and you jump in nonetheless? Must be true believers.
Yes, unless you believe business in America today cannot be improved on, lets not think about solutions by going to the extreme examples of any countervailing thought offered.
Good job comrades. Our plan to kill America by its own vices is coming along nicely.
#2 & #11
the Three-Headed Cat™
Don’t stop now!
I like it… 🙂
The other half of the story: Arizona recently passed a higher minimum wage thats higher than federal and also grows annually with cost of living.
Hiring illegals was a way around that law, now it is not.
Personally I believe this is the best and most effective way to handle the illegal immigrant problem: go after the employers. The “border fence” is just a stupid waste of resources, and so is local police playing the roll of INC, both of which are also happening in AZ as well.
The problem is not the golden goose everyone is rushing toward, but the pitiful excuse for a hen house so many are so desperately are trying to escape.
To blame the goose for not laying enough eggs doesn’t help solve the problem with the hen house(s).
this is just like the child labour exploitation in the 19th century. And before that the slave economies’ arguments.
Hey surprise, business survived emancipation and child labour laws.
If there is a genuine shortage of labour in AZ, raise the salaries and people will (legally) flock there.
#14
By what statistic do you claim that Swedish workers are more productive than the US? As far as I can tell, based on wealth per hours worked the US is ranked first. In terms of unemployment, Sweden is even more grim. I have seen rates as high as 20% but they are probably more like 8-10% given your method of calculation. The Swedish government claims about 5.5% but that figure is widely disputed. Regardless of calculation we should also account for the abnormally high rate of sick days taken by the Swedes (26 days lost per worker as opposed to say Canada at 7.5 lost days per worker).
If anything, I think that the AZ law will cause the people in other States like NM, TX and CA to put pressure on their politicians to sign similar laws to protect citizens and legal immigrants.
How long do you suppose it will be until people start complaining about the rising costs of goods and services in AZ?
Well, if normal supply and demand work, many illegals will move from AZ to CA, and maybe citizens will move from CA to AZ to fill the labor “shortage”. Just what CA needs to help with budget problems.
“How long do you suppose it will be until people start complaining about the rising costs of goods and services in AZ?”
Management at the better companies will bite the bullet and forego some executive luxuries and perks to remain price-competetive; others, run by monkeys who will refuse to unclench their fists, will pass their cost increases on to consumers, thus placing their firms at a well-deserved disadvantage in the marketplace.
And that (meaning minus the artificial injection of cut-rate labor from outside the economy) is how capitalism is supposed to work. The burden of sacrificing income in order to remain competetive is thereby shifted from those who can least afford it to those for whom it is much less of a hardship – management – and shareholders – must forego windfalls before the producing workers forego hard-earned pay.
The workers are the producers. Profit is to be taken AFTER the workforce is fairly compensated for making that profit possible in the first place.
#23, Natefrog, you haven’t seen our gas prices lately… Granted, not as bad as California, but…
I gotta give Arizona credit for being proactive on the demand side of the illegal immigration problem.
Likewise, I totally condemn the do-nothing congress for not getting a federal solution done — leaving leading states like Arizona at a competitive disadvantage to states that turn a blind eye to illegal employers.
I believe that a big fence will be a trillion dollar boondoggle that won’t work but will mostly just further enrich government contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater.
If just a fraction of the money sent on a trillion dollar fence were used to bust illegal employers would really make a difference in this problem without the ugly prospect of internment camps and massive deportation of weeping women and children.
#25. “is thereby shifted from those who can least afford it to those for whom it is much less of a hardship – management – and shareholders – must forego windfalls before the producing workers forego hard-earned pay.” Well said.
So I suppose there will legions of super hard working Arizonans who are just waiting for the chance fill all these long hour grueling dirty jobs that the illegals are now vacating. You gotta be kidding me. People s**t bricks when the price of bread goes up 10% are you AZ’s ready to pay when your cost of living goes up? Why don’t all you genusus go work in a steel fab or a meat packing plant and see how long you last.
Yeah, people will complain about the rising cost of goods and services. But the people complaining are those with more money, while the people at the low end will have higher wages to pay those higher costs. Maybe housekeeping or nannying goes up from $9 an hour to $15 an hour.
#31
If the cost of labor goes up, then all goods and services go up as well. The effect is that people, even at the lower end, are able to purchase less. In addition, there is the effect of reduced employment. If the price of labor goes up, companies only have two choices: raise prices or reduce labor costs. Many choose the former. Some choose the later and try couple that reduction with innovation which increases productivity and allows for fewer workers.
33,
That is a straw-man argument on par with those against the minimum wage. Even Henry Ford realized that paying the workers enough to afford the products they were making was a smart move. Raising wages means among other things more disposable income for the workers, creating more consumers of local goods and services.
#34
That is not a straw man argument. Clearly you have never run a business. This is microeconomics 101. How do you suppose Ford paid those additional labor costs? The first rule of economics is that there are no free lunches. Therefore those costs have to come from somewhere and they can only come from one of three places: 1. higher prices, 2. lower costs or 3. lower profit margins. That’s it. There is no magic here. It is one of those three. Now, in the case of Ford it was probably lower profit margin since he could increase volume without appreciable increasing manufacturing cost and reap higher overall profits. That is not true in every industry. Ask a restaurant owner what they think of minimum wage. Their answer is simple: higher fewer waiters, increase prices and/or reduce profits by eating the additional costs. While it is true that revenue volume can increase (which is your argument) on products that are not labor intensive, margins in labor intensive industries will shrink and/or prices will increase or they will hirer fewer laborers.
no doubt prices will increase,
people will leave to some degree,
stupid radio jocks will keep BS ing about it
sheriff will use it to his benefit (anything to get attention. I wonder what is next?)
some companies will get busted, others won’t.
bet it sucks to be a farmer now, poor dudes have been doing it for decades and now only az farmers get screwed. bullshit! I also dislike the way people come across on both sides as if everything is either black or white.
I believe there is a solution out there if only our congress can act and get something done. I think that is what makes it hard to accept. I can’t understand, how we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Isn’t that what they get paid for. You know in a business, managers Have to come up with a solution that works, or else they get fired. I guess in general this topic is not on the top of every americans list, at least not yet.
truth is someone always has to be on the bottom, do i want my kids future to be about working in fields, killing livestock, scubbing toilets, pumping septic tanks, working construction in the hot sun? Do you? Maybe if there is a recession, we just might see some unlucky americans doing it. that should be interesting.
#35, Thomas,
It is a strawman argument and you have little appreciation of “Micro Economics 101”.
The most economically powerful time in America’s history was right after WWII when the unions were strong up until Reagan and the right wing started killing the unions. The middle class bought products made by their neighbors. That meant high, well paid employment for America.
Micro Economics is the flow of money in the economy. The more hands the money passes through then the richer the economy. When the money stops flowing because it left the country or ended up in someone’s saving account, the benefit also stops.
During the late 1950s , 60s, and 70s, highly paid steel workers bought cars. Highly paid auto workers bout houses. Highly paid carpenters bought TVs. Highly paid electronic workers bought clothes. Well paid clothing workers bought kitchen appliances. And kitchen appliance workers made long distance telephone calls. And the telephone workers took trips on airplanes. And on and on and on.
In today’s service economy, that has diminished greatly. Most service industry personnel can’t afford to buy a new car, TV, kitchen appliances, or whatever. The money has stopped flowing. Instead it has accumulated to the top.
Damn I hate it when I have to condense a rebuttal. But once again, Doctoral theises have been written on this. And I ain’t no Economics Phd.
***
Your profit / cost arguments also fail. If you are a business owner, then you too will fail because you don’t understand. Even in labor intensive businesses, payroll is not the only cost. Paying a low salary to a low efficiency worker is not cost effective. Giving a decent wage and good conditions to a good worker will give a higher profit in the end. Cheat your workers and you end up cheating your customers.
There are several restaurants around here I will not eat at. I refuse to one more time put up with shoddy service, badly prepared food, and dirty washrooms. The owner of one place has complained to me he can’t get good help. Yes, he pays them shit, treats them like shit, and they constantly leave. He hired a bunch of Mexicans. Very few eat there now. Across the road is a nicer place. Clean, good food, and a little more expensive. The staff is consistent and knows many of the patrons. The place is always busy and the owner is making money.
Oh ya, the second place doesn’t use “Mexican” help.
#37
Sorry but you are clueless and you don’t realize you are clueless. Unions and minimum wage are not the same thing. Unions relate to a series of workers in a specific industry colluding whereas minimum wage relates to the government setting the base wage for all industries. Furthermore, there were barriers to relocating production 30 or more years ago which have since eased substantially. Therefore, it is far easier for some industries to move production where labor is cheaper and that has happened on a massive scale. For those that cannot move, the price of goods and services goes up. Some call that inflation.
> Micro Economics is the flow of
> money in the economy
Wrong. Again, I suggest you actually take a class on economics prior to making such statements. Microeconomics is the study of how scarcity is managed by individuals, households and firms. It relates to how people make choices about their resources. Macroeconomics is the study of how nations or societies deal with scarcity.
You mentioned steel workers. Were it not for government intervention no steel would be manufactured in the US. The cost of labor overseas is substantially cheaper given the same levels of productivity. Labor in this country is competing with labor in other countries. If we cannot compete on price, then we have to compete on other metrics such as productivity, location, etc. Take the example of my friend from England who mentioned that none of the UK’s coal comes from the UK even though it sits on one of the world’s largest coal deposits. It is cheaper to mine and ship the coal from the Ukraine than it is it get it from England because of the high cost of labor.
***
In addition to taking a class on economics you should also try running a business, specifically a labor intensive business, at some point in your life. You really come off as someone that has no clue how the real world works. If the price of labor goes up, all things being equal, business owners only have three choices: raise prices, lower costs, or lower profit margins. If a given worker is more productive than others, then the increase in wage may be worth it. Since they were getting that labor at a cheaper price previous to the increase, it still means the additional cost comes from one of those three areas. If they do not raise prices and do not lower costs somewhere else, then they are accepting lower profit margins in the hopes of higher overall revenue due to the worker’s increased productivity.
Your example of the restaurant shows perfectly why you do not understand how to run a business. To get more productive labor we agree that the owner needs to pay more. Again, the three choices I mentioned come into play. Assuming he cannot cut costs elsewhere, he can either hire fewer but better workers or he can raise his prices or he can eat (no pun intended) into his margins. If his margins are healthy, then perhaps that is the better solution. However, historically, restaurant profit margins are notoriously thin so I suspect that leaves him with raising prices. A busy restaurant means they are making lots of revenue but not necessarily lots of profit.