I can get paid $150 an hour doing a specific job here. What's the catch? The job is for two hours once a year and that's it.

So my question to these contractors is what are the terms of the job? How steady is the work? How dependable? Is it seasonal? Is it a guaranteed 40 hours a week?

Quoting hourly rates can be very misleading if the job is sporadic.

it isn't about the jobs -- it is that these people are BROWN!! Ask O'Reilly and the rest of them at Fox -- they are criminals who want to kill us! They are the new fags, just waiting to get Al, tbroz, and me!

We all know a few examples makes a scientific study of the issue. Sorry, this is BS. I think there is something to the arguement that Americans don't like dirty jobs, but realistically these jobs are paying $6/Hr. for legals and much less for illegals. For an American $7/Hr. at a McJob seems much more appealing.

This thing about native workers not being available is hogwash.

The most comprehensive recent study of immigrant workers comes from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that,, advocates stricter controls on immigration.

http://www.cis.org/articles/1999/sactestimony3-11-99.html

Excerpt:

The idea that there are jobs that Americans won't do is economic gibberish," Mr. Camarota said. "All the big occupations that immigrants are in — construction, janitorial, even agriculture — are overwhelmingly done by native Americans." But where they compete for jobs, he said, the immigrants have driven up the jobless rate for some Americans. According to his study, published in March, unemployment among the native born with less than a high school education was 14.3 percent in 2005; the figure for the immigrant population was 7.4 percent.

George J. Borjas, a professor of economics ... at ... Harvard University, said he believed that the flow of migrants had significantly depressed wages for Americans in virtually all job categories and income levels. His study found that the average annual wage loss for all American male workers from 1980 to 2000 was ... 4 percent, and nearly twice that, in percentage terms, for those without a high school diploma. The impact was also disproportionately high on African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, Professor Borjas found. "What this is, is a huge redistribution of wealth away from workers who compete with immigrants to those who employ them," he said

$34?! Where do I sign up?
I find this talking point about "jobs Americans won't do" dubious. The complete phrase should read "jobs Americans won't do for $10 an hour for a few hours a day, a few weeks out of the year."
If this landscaper offered $34 an hour for forty hours a week for a full year, there'd be a line of native born Americans snaking around the block.

Could part of the problem be that once a job has become associated with a particular group, people outside that group feel out-of-place in the job? I hope this doesn't come off as offensive, but honestly, I know I'd feel a bit uncomfortable taking a job if I'd be the only person there who couldn't speak spanish.

Supply and demand. That's not news.

Look, in Japan they don't immigration. Sure they have a demographic problem, but at least laborers make a good living.

Yeah, the 'we can't find people' is usually complaints I see from employers who make the job unworkable.

Yes, lots of Americans are lazy.

But when employers treat them like disposable dirt, why would they bother?

Basically I'm saying these employers are usually lying.

Making $9 an hour in Southern California is akin to making $4.50 in most other parts of the country.

Average rent in LA is now close to $1000 a month.

M,
I know I'd feel a bit uncomfortable taking a job if I'd be the only person there who couldn't speak spanish.

$34/hr for 40 hours and 52 weeks would cover a lot of discomfort.

These people want someone they can hire as needed for a few days work or a few hours work.

Day laborers.

I think part of the explanation here is that the $34/hour job is for experienced workers. If the only way to get that experience is by spending 10 years earning $8-12 an hour doing back breaking work, then there might not be enough native Americans to fill those positions. But quoting the $34/hour number is a red herring. Their problem is that they're not paying enough for the entry level workers to attract anyone into the field, so you end up with shortages at the higher levels.

So? Offer them $50/hour. Or does Kevin oppose increasing the wages of unskilled workers?

The work is hard, dirty, in all weather. We are breeding a nation of couch lumps who could barely survive one day of manual labor let alone a career of it.

Our nation's construction industry as a whole is in a major crunch for skilled craftspeople and this hole is being filled by immigrants. Not just Latino but Russian and other eastern bloc countries.

>>I know I'd feel a bit uncomfortable taking a job if I'd be the only person there who couldn't speak spanish.
Posted by: M

Better get used to it, honey. It's how millions have been forced out the building trades and other formerly high-wage occupations.

And you might want to brush up on Urdu, too.

"What immigration really does is redistribute wealth away from workers toward employers." Harvard economist George J. Borjas

Orbots: If this landscaper offered $34 an hour for forty hours a week for a full year, there'd be a line of native born Americans snaking around the block.

Excluding Miller's son, of course.

Why is everybody missing the point that another Republican told a bald-faced lie in attempting to refute facts or opinions being proffered by citizens or critics.

The GOP constantly does this to defuse situations that are making them look bad and show up their proposed policies as based on falsehoods and illogic, knowing that people will pay more attention to their immediate lie than the news story that follows that proves them to be a liar.

Miller should be hounded each and every day until he explains why his son didn't show up and when he will.

No way that she can't find laborers for $34 / hr. That's a salary of $70K a year. I am a college grad living in Manhattan and I don't even make that much.

So my question to these contractors is what are the terms of the job? How steady is the work? How dependable? Is it seasonal? Is it a guaranteed 40 hours a week?

Jeebus, people, read the article. This stuff is explained in the text.

$34/hr for 40 hours and 52 weeks would cover a lot of discomfort.

These people want someone they can hire as needed for a few days work or a few hours work.

Day laborers.
Posted by: Tripp

Exactly so.

OKAY, now I'm really angry...weeks ago I saw/heard John Mccain, speaking to a group "somewhere", make the challenge offer to pay ANYONE $50 an hour to pick lettuce for the summer season. That bit completely disappeared (thanks, I'm betting to our COA MSM) because he would have surely been made to "put up or shut up" on that one. Now this story about Miller and the fact that his son "never showed up"...It's about these REPUBLICANS getting away with every stupid lie they say...UGH!

This is work for senior laborers on government-contract jobs. It can be very good money while it lasts, but it's highly variable whether there's work or not.

It sounds like what they want is someone to do backbreaking work. Most Americans who are looking for work are simply too unfit physically to do this. And those who are young and fit would rather work in an office or as a trainer or some exciting job. That doesn't leave too many "native Americans" to do these jobs.

I think Construction Worker is right. Most people won't do manual labor if they can possibly find an alternative - because it is dirty, uncomfortable, exhausting and injury-prone.

Construction Worker,

We are breeding a nation of couch lumps

Exactly. We've got roofers who are using nail guns and hoists to bring the shingles up to the roof!

Sheet rock is being hoisted up and then it is zzzipp zziipp pow pow.

Construction workers today are nothing but slackers.

I would pick lettuce or clean toilets for $150k\yr plus benefits.

Proudly.

It's merely a matter of pay.

OOPS, MY BAD, love the GOOGLE...should have done before my post today...there are actually 10,100 entries for "John McCain $50 lettuce picking challenge"...so, I'm wondering why SOME group out there hasn't held his feet to the fire...could eat up all that presidential campaign fund, maybe...the hypocrical turncoat. "STRAIGHT SHOOTER"...my a--....

I live in the NE...am 67, and have bad knee...OR, I'd be right out there...

Boy this article has a lot of moving parts...
its an affirmative action government contract that the goverment insists pay workers an above market wages but can't find anyone to do it.

I wouldn't say this is the best case of the "free market" in action.

Oh, that's a good point. I live in nearly the lowest rent section of town - because we want to, not because we have to - and these apartments are $1050 a month, and four out of five are occupied by first, second generation immigrants.

There really aren't cheaper homes in our town.

>>I would pick lettuce or clean toilets for $150k\yr plus benefits.

Proudly.

It's merely a matter of pay.
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten

You bet ya. Where can I sign up?

"Of course there are jobs that few Americans will take because the wages and working conditions have been so degraded by employers. But there is nothing about landscaping, food processing, meat cutting or construction that would preclude someone from doing these jobs on the basis of their nativity. Nothing would keep anyone, immigrant or native born, from doing them if they paid better, if they had health care." - Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute

"Yet the operative color in the illegal immigration debate is not brown…it is green. American workers of all races are being economically raped by profiteers. In Southern California, which is the epicenter of illegal immigration, African Americans were once a significant presence in the construction industry. Today black participation in that sector is scant because contractors prefer sub-minimum wage foreign hirelings." David Podvin http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=25804&mode=nested

Why is it important that "native Americans" or "native-born Americans" be willing to do the work? Isn't the question whether US citizens will do the work irrespective of their place of birth? The nativism in this issue is expected but I surprised at how blatant people are getting.

It's a fine and unusual anecdote. (And perhaps a good example of how employers paying substandard wages for bad working conditions hurt the prospects of employers who pay more. Would you point yourself at a $7-an-hour industry because a tiny fraction of employers in in paid $12?) It does seem a little strange that people in other landscaping companies aren't willing to jump ship, though.

I am really shocked at the way the immigration law appears to work. Since immigration is such a big story right now I thought you might be interested in looking at different part of the immigration debate.

I thought you might be interested in my story and it might be helpful to Americans who find themselves in similar situations in the future.

I used to work for a small subsidiary of a big international bank. I had received excellent reviews and received a pay raise at the beginning of the year. I was laid off on May 8, 2006. I realize that New York is an ‘at will’ state and I can be laid off for any reason at any time.

The thing that might make my case interesting to you is that I was replaced by someone that we recently hired on an H-1B visa. Late last year we went through the visa application for him and he just received the visa a few weeks ago. We then went through a corporate restructuring and his job was eliminated. However, instead of laying him off, my company transferred him into my position and laid me off.

As I noted above, I have had excellent reviews from my boss and had not received one word of criticism of my performance either in writing or verbally.

My question to you is this: Does Congress really mean for our immigration law to allow a company to hire a foreigner and give him an H-1B visa and then replace an American with that newly hired worker?

those stories are insulting. tens of millions of people in this country who work crappy jobs for 11, 12, 13 bucks an hour would jump at the chance to work for 15 or 20, especially if it was tax free. i have nevere ever in all my years of job searching found any lanscpae company that was offering that much. there's not a chance in hell that any company advertising that kind of wage would run out of applicants. this is pure bullsh*t. it goes to show just how out of touch the people who write this garbage are with the modern world of work in this country. and ten million or so low wage temps would not disagree.

Sounds to me like we are in a very difficult inflationary spiral. The last month sowed inflation at 7.5% per annum. Is this a fluke? Evidently not.

If this inflationary spiral is real, then expect hoardes of people coming up north, because the Mexican economy will collapse with this kind of inflationary spiral.

The guy is lying. He's not paying immigrants $34 an hour for unskilled labor. Not even close.

My question to you is this: Does Congress really mean for our immigration law to allow a company to hire a foreigner and give him an H-1B visa and then replace an American with that newly hired worker?
Posted by: Neil Hecht

Yes.

Now that good-paying jobs are so abundant that we can't even find workers to fill them, it might be a good time to abolish welfare. What do you say Kevin?

It also sounds like the Bush economy is working extremely well for the poorest people in our country, when entry level jobs paying $15 an hour are there for the taking.

>>My question to you is this: Does Congress really mean for our immigration law to allow a company to hire a foreigner and give him an H-1B visa and then replace an American with that newly hired worker?
Posted by: Neil Hecht

As I said: 'Yes." Next question.

And furthermore the Thief Executive is demanding huge increases in HB1 visas as part of his 'comprehensive' immigration sell-out.

"In ways, we brought it on ourselves. When TV and stereos went overseas, did we say: 'Don't let them go?' I tell people to buy American cars and they say, 'Where are your clothes made? When my job went overseas, where were you?' " George McGregor, vice president of UAW Local 22

Doug T. has it exactly right, the $34 per hour number is not a real offer. When even Gary Miller calls bullshit, ya gotta look closer. This is a fine example, however, of the cheap labor vs. the anti-immigrant Republican divide.
One thing that needs to be pointed out from the article is that Smallwood wouldn't be paying anything like these numbers even on paper without a prevailing wage law.

here in nc, there is absolutely no job for an unskilled laborer that pays more than 8-10 bucks/hr, and the great majority of them pay around 6 bucks. even so, native americans leap at those jobs, when they can get them -- most of these jobs, though, simply don't exist; they have been filled w/illegal immigrants.

furthermore, most of the skilled and semi-skilled jobs in construction are subcontracted to companies that pay no benefits and offer salaries at a considerably lower level than a bonded and licensed contractor would be forced to pay.

this is one of the largest scams today, and one may find it anywhere in the country. who is it laying the brick and pouring the concrete and putting up the walls and ceilings in our fancy new architecturally designed and controlled buildings?
illegal immigrants, many of whom have no supervision at all, and whose faults, when discovered, are simply hidden away.

Guest Guards! The National Guard is also having trouble meeting its recruitment goals. Seems that it's just another line of work that Americans don't want to do. Why not have the Guard hire Guest Workers. The Guest Guards could then patrol the border. Brown & Root could handle the below-minimum wage / no benefit trifles without bloating the government bureaucracy.

"Our nation's construction industry as a whole is in a major crunch for skilled craftspeople and this hole is being filled by immigrants. Not just Latino but Russian and other eastern bloc countries."

I read an interesting article about where skilled construction workers used to come from. The main source was apprenticeship systems in trade unions. As unions declined would be electricians, etc have nowhere to get a low but livable wage job while they gain thier skills.

Perhaps today we use the developing world as our electrician incubators. A person is born in a country where the new guy on the electricians crew tests if the wires a live by touching them, builds up some level of skill, then sometimes immigrates to the US where he can start out as a low level electrician, but has some practical experience. If such people are in sufficient supply there is never a reason to hire and train a native born american.

With the baby boomers needing to be replaced now, however, immigration may not be keeping up completely with the demand but the system for generating mid level tradespeople inside the US is severly weakened.

"Yet the operative color in the illegal immigration debate is not brown…it is green. American workers of all races are being economically raped by profiteers. In Southern California, which is the epicenter of illegal immigration, African Americans were once a significant presence in the construction industry. Today black participation in that sector is scant because contractors prefer sub-minimum wage foreign hirelings." David Podvin http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=25804&mode=nested

Posted by: CFShep on May 18, 2006

Yes. This to me is the elephant in the room. The reality is that the people who have suffered the greatest economic impact due to illegal immigration in terms of jobs and wages are African Americans.(AA)

If we look at this historically, and go back to the 60s in America, what we would find are blacks working all the jobs that immigrants now dominate.

Following the riots and civil unrest of the 60s, blacks were persona non-grata in white homes. Today, domestic laborers are hispanic, or puertorican or guatemalan or anyone other than AA. The same goes for the construction industry, as well as the hotel and restaurant businesses. We no longer see AA in those jobs. i.e. People on the upper East side have hispanic nannies and presidential cabinet appts are derailed due to 'nannygate' undocumented workers with unpaid SS taxes.

The travesty of this is that while blacks fought for the right to work and be treated as full-class citizens, what happened is that American business owners/employers shifted their SLAVE WAGE labor pool to immigrants rather than hire AA citizens.

What is worse is the sterotypically 'racist' excuses that American employers give for hiring immigrants is that they 'feel safer' are 'not as lazy' and are 'want to work'. Mr. Cammorta's report makes this blatantly clear.

These stereotypes are so prevalent that Vincente Fox had the audacity to say that 'mexicans do the jobs EVEN your american blacks will not do'

Bottomline: immigration is about racist hiring practices and maintaining the racial economic divisions in this country in terms of the distribution of wealth.

"For many unskilled American workers, immigration amounts to imported outsourcing." Harold Meyerson Washinton Post 17May06

So here's the trajectory we're on: exporting wealth and importing poverty.

"Their presence in the labor market increases competition for low-skilled jobs, reducing the earnings of low-skilled native-born workers. . . . Because of their low earnings, low-skilled immigrants also tend to pay less in taxes than they receive in public benefits, such as income transfers (e.g., the earned income tax credit, food stamps), public schooling for their children, and publicly provided medical services. Thus while the presence of low-skilled immigrant workers may raise the profits of their employers, they tend to have a negative effect on the well-being of the low-skilled native-born population, and on the native economy as a whole." University of Illinois economist Barry Chiswick in testimony before Congress,

Kevin,
You can check this out easily. Call Volt or some other temp agency that handles laborers and ask what the charge is for that type of work.

It won't be $34 an hour. Trust me.

And I can say from experience that a lot of those temp workers are very good. Here in Seattle they are mostly not immigrants. We pay $19/hour to the temp agency. Their cut is 15% - 25% so the worker is getting about $15/hr.

I'm not against immigration or anything, but the story does not add up. There are a lot of people in this country who struggle to pay the rent, and they will never make $34/hour unless we have a big inflation. I work with them daily. The labor market is tight right now, but $34/hr for a laborer? No way.

My question to you is this: Does Congress really mean for our immigration law to allow a company to hire a foreigner and give him an H-1B visa and then replace an American with that newly hired worker?

Well, yeah. Because that's what their corporate sponsors want.

Hey, Mr D.

I've haven't been around much lately. But always good to see you.

My question to you is this: Does Congress really mean for our immigration law to allow a company to hire a foreigner and give him an H-1B visa and then replace an American with that newly hired worker?
Posted by: Neil Hecht

Yes.

Posted by: CFShep on May 18, 2006

I totally agree.

Isn't Microsoft one of the big employers pushing for more green card visas? They are not looking to hire unskilled workers either with those green cards.

Academia, is also pushing for the cards, to hire folks in the sciences to do research at the graduate level.

These folks get here and stay, and keep jobs that professionally educated Americans will not do for such meager pay.

Americans need to wake up...while unskilled workeers is the focus of the 'dialogue' underneath it is the very real, displacement of American educated professinal workers. India has a glut of engineers and so does China and Japan.

Let me get this straight...prevailing wages for residential landscapers in the area is $8/hr. Ms. Smallwood claims to be offering $34/hour for the same work in the same area and not one of those people working for $8/hour wants to take advantage of her offer???

Bullshit

>>Yes. This to me is the elephant in the room. The reality is that the people who have suffered the greatest economic impact due to illegal immigration in terms of jobs and wages are African Americans.(AA) elrapierwit

Um...yeah. It was no coincidence that the 1965 legislation vastly expanding low-skilled non-European immigration followed directly on the heels of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Doh.

Way to go TRIPP you hit the golden spike dead on the head with your blue steel hammer ! !

who is it laying the brick and pouring the concrete and putting up the walls and ceilings in our fancy new architecturally designed and controlled buildings? illegal immigrants, many of whom have no supervision at all, and whose faults, when discovered, are simply hidden away.

and who is hiring them, for the simple reason that illegals will work under the table and off the books ? American businesses, that's who.

and how is enforcement of existing immigration law trending, under the all-Republican/b> government ? towards zero:

Employer Investigations Conducted by U.S. Immigration Authorities, 1997-2003
1997
17,554 Arrests
7,537 Completed Investigations
778 Fines

1998 13,914 (A) 7,788 (C) 535 (F)
1999 2,849 3,898 297
2000 953 1,966 180
2001 735 1,595 78
2002 485 2,061 13
2003 445 2,194 124
(forgive the formatting)

"The travesty of this is that while blacks fought for the right to work and be treated as full-class citizens, what happened is that American business owners/employers shifted their SLAVE WAGE labor pool to immigrants rather than hire AA citizens."

Are you serious, its ALWAYS been this way. During the 1860's, the railroads were providing financing and steerage class tickets to any European their agents could sign up to buy and settle RR land out West. The US government itself was providing 160 acre lots to anyone willing to work the land via the Homestead Act.

Let's see what else happened during the 1860's? Oh yes, the Civil War. How many freed slaves do you think were given the same opportunity to start a farm with no money down?

"The reality is that the people who have suffered the greatest economic impact due to illegal immigration in terms of jobs and wages are African Americans."

Yet they are being groomed to vote Republican so that those nasty faggots can't get married.

Studipity has no color in the goood ol' U.S. of A.

These stereotypes are so prevalent that Vincente Fox had the audacity to say that 'mexicans do the jobs EVEN your american blacks will not do'

Bottomline: immigration is about racist hiring practices and maintaining the racial economic divisions in this country in terms of the distribution of wealth.
Posted by: elrapierwit

Of course it is.

Oh, come on. You're not gonna make me track back to the masses of stuff on this I already posted on this a couple of months back.

Been there. Done that. Didn't make a dent.

Not sure if I believe this. Hell, for $34 an hour, I'd do it on the weekends. In fact, it'd be good for me to get out of the office and outside.

The law of supply and demand rule everything. Something seems fishy with this story. This kind of wage, and you'd have lots of labor in no time flat.

Additionally, if this were a true equilibrium point, you'd have even more illegal immigration, as the equivalent wage level in Mexico would put you in the upper classes...

I'm convinced, we need to save the landscaping industry in So California. Without opening the borders and letting the illegals in, we risk uncut lawns and weed infestations......Please :[

As speaking of riots...if ya'll didn't see the implied threat in those 'immigration rights' demos, well, you're not paying attention.

Additionally, if this were a true equilibrium point, you'd have even more illegal immigration, as the equivalent wage level in Mexico would put you in the upper classes...
Posted by: Tony Shifflett

$70k/per year would put you in the top 5% here.

Stories like this join a very long line of similar immigration propaganda. Why, our own Kevin Drum noticed one instance, but not only failed to connect the dots, continues to support those who produce and transmit said propaganda.

Let's see what else happened during the 1860's? Oh yes, the Civil War. How many freed slaves do you think were given the same opportunity to start a farm with no money down?

Posted by: beowulf on May 18, 2006

Ummm, that is what was meant by the word travesty. It is ongoing, historically. Yet people will say that racism ended with EEOC and affirmative action. Despite, it being well-documented that white females are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action. As well as immigrant labor displacing AA in terms of the service and construction industries when it comes to the labor demand.

Again...it is a travesty...all the blood shed and all the protesting...yet still their is tremendous racism when it comes to economic opportunity in America.

Which was the point. No matter how far you go back in history, it does not alter the significance of that historical truth nor diminish the travesty of it.

Stories like this join a very long line of similar immigration propaganda. Why, our own Kevin Drum noticed one instance, but not only failed to connect the dots, continues to support those who produce and transmit said propaganda.
Posted by: TLB

Well, KD got taken in by a sloppy Photoshopped kitty in a sombrero, too. Same-same.

>>Despite, it being well-documented that white females are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action.

No. It's upper-class white females. Not white women in general.

Americans need to wake up...while unskilled workeers is the focus of the 'dialogue' underneath it is the very real, displacement of American educated professinal workers. India has a glut of engineers and so does China and Japan.

tech workers have been 'awake' for quite a long time. but the issue here isn't immigration, as it's illegal to pay H1Bs substantially less than native workers, and H1B workers are tied to the company that brings them over - you don't just hop off the boat from Mumbai and start looking for jobs; a company has to agree to sponsor you and then that company is responsible for a ton of paperwork and regulations. the problem with tech jobs is that they can be done overseas by people who don't need H1Bs or green cards - they just need a phone and an internet connection.

Yet they are being groomed to vote Republican so that those nasty faggots can't get married.

Posted by: Jenna's Bush on May 18, 2006

AA's were republican loooooong before gays became a part of the political issue. Besides, there are many many more gays than AA, that are stupid based on your criteria...they are called Log Cabin republicans.

AA's also had sense enough to leave the GOP after the New Deal.

If queer folk can place the dollar above their identity ...what does color have to do with?

orogeny: Bullshit

So, why didn't Miller send his son out and call her on it?

It wouldv'e been easy pickins, but he didn't.

Hmmmmmmmm.

Been there. Done that. Didn't make a dent.

Posted by: CFShep on May 18, 2006

Ahhhhh. I am a recent poster, here

Wasn't here. Didn't know. Gotcha.

I too think this story is BS. The $34/hour is a red herring. What does the company pay when the government job is over and they don't have to pay prevailing wage anymore? Even half that? If that's the case, call it what it is: a temp job. If an employer wants an experienced pro to fill a temp job they shouldn't be surprised when they have trouble finding one. Most experienced pros want a job with a future.

Likewise, while I don't live in CA, I think the locale is a big factor here. Even the national media is full of stories about how workers like policemen, EMTs, and nurses can't afford to live in the communities they serve. So, if you can't find affordable housing within 50 miles of work, and gas is $3.15, the high-paying temp landscape job doesn't look as attractive as it does on paper.

Lastly, the 'Americans don't want to do hard, dirty work' is just not credible to me. I work in a professional setting now, but the majority of my male peers have some sort of construction or labor experience in their background, even if it was just summers during college. Is Orange County really so densely populated with creampuffs that all of the young adults can sponge off of their parents, or take cushy office jobs because they don't really need the money?

beowulf: How many freed slaves do you think were given the same opportunity to start a farm with no money down?

Interesting question. Do you have links to any further info?

I've long wondered why there aren't more black people in states that were part of the post-Civil War westward expansion. You'd think that all those freed slaves would have been looking for something like that, especially after they got screwed out of the 40 acres and a mule deal. Lots of black cowboys, but that was a lousy job taken by young single men. Few black homesteaders apparently.

Sure, racism is probably the basic answer, but the details interest me.

After working in the horticulture industry in FL, I can tell you some of these guys make damn good money when they work their assess off. It's not strange to see a orange picker rake in $30,000/ for 8 months work. Never did I seen an Anglo picking oranges, I mean are these the jobs we want to protect?

No. It's upper-class white females. Not white women in general.

Posted by: CFShep on May 18, 2006

No. It is across the board. The majority of white females working today are not upper-class. They are waitresses, secretaries, stenographers, clerks, whereas, prior to affirmative action females simply were not hired.

I do not consider HS diploma upper class. Do you?

Ahhhhh. I am a recent poster, here

Wasn't here. Didn't know. Gotcha.
Posted by: elrapierwit

See below:

http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue39/Steinberg39.htm
Immigration, African Americans, and Race Discourse
Stephen Steinberg

...
After 1965, demographic trends favored blacks. The nation's declining birth rate sharply reduced the number of workers, providing for a tight labor market that has always been the sine qua non of black employment. I remember that during the depth of the racial crisis in the 1970s, economists issued reassuring forecasts that, given the sharp decline in the birth rate, labor market conditions would improve for blacks around the turn of the century. But, alas, something happened on the way to the new millennium. The 1965 Hart-Cellar Act was passed, which would result in the influx of over 25 million legal immigrants over the next four decades. Not to mention millions of undocumented workers who gravitated to the same urban labor markets where blacks were concentrated.

Why did the United States open its door to millions of immigrants at a time that deindustrialization was generating unemployment? One answer, or so we are told, is that the huge upsurge of immigration was unanticipated when the Hart-Cellar act was passed in 1965. But even after immigration rose from a trickle to a flood, it came to be viewed as a blessing in disguise, which is to say, a conservative policy in liberal garb. I say this because the champions of mass immigration were not liberals, and certainly not ethnic activists, but free-market economists (now tagged as "neoliberals") who saw mass immigration as a panacea for a variety of economic ills.
.....
Other cheerleaders of "greatly increased immigration" contended that immigration lowered inflation (never mind that it does this by depressing wages!). Others argued that immigrants lowered the deficit by propping up domestic manufacturing, and generating economic activity through "enclave economies" (never mind that this amounts the creation of a sub-proletariat of immigrant workers!). Still others exulted that immigrants provided the energy and spirit to renew the fading American spirit of enterprise and innovation (never mind that it amounted to disinvestment in black labor, whose family roots go back to the beginning of the nation!). Quite a pile of expectation to pile on the plate of an uprooted immigrant struggling to make ends meet.
.....
Upon closer examination, however, the three explanatory factors that Lim invokes to explain why employers prefer immigrants to blacks can be seen as little more than circumlocutions for racism. Let me explain:

* By its very nature, the much-ballyhooed ethnic economy is a racist structure whose hiring practices are in massive violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ethnic nepotism and racial exclusion are two sides of the same coin.

*Network hiring is a device that employers use to prevent blacks from even getting their foot in the door. This is racism, plain and simple! It is a working-class variant of "the old-boy network" that affirmative action was designed to counteract. In other words, network hiring is a mechanism of discrimination, and indeed one that employers use precisely because it insulates them from allegations of racism since they are not directly implicated in the recruitment of workers.

*The concept of "social capital" presumes that immigrants have traits that blacks lack. When employers use these prejudgments as the basis of hiring decisions, they are engaged in acts of prejudice. I fear that Lim has committed the fallacy I alluded to earlier: in this case, using the concept of "social capital" as a smoke screen for shifting the blame for discrimination from employers who actually make hiring decisions to hapless blacks who are denied employment. This illogical argument is advanced even though no evidence is proffered to validate the supposition that there are not black workers in abundance who have precisely the traits that are ascribed to immigrants and who could be readily hired, but for the prejudgments of employers.
.....
There is also a need to take off our political blinders and to confront the neoliberal underpinnings of current immigration policy. There is nothing progressive about flooding the lower echelons of the labor market with desperate immigrants who depress wages for each other as well as native workers. It is also problematic when the nation imports workers to fill higher echelons of the job pyramid, instead of upgrading the skills of native workers. For example, we import thousands of nurses from the Philippines and the Caribbean and then shut down nursing schools that traditionally provided channels of upward mobility for working-class women. Indeed, the traffic in nurses has become an export industry, with the additional irony is that there is a shortage of nurses in the Philippines.

My point is that the left has to get beyond liberal sentimentality on immigration policy, and face some hard choices.
......
To state the obvious, immigration is not a benevolence program for the "huddled masses" of the world, and it behooves us to confront the downside of current immigration policy, not only for blacks, but also for other low-wage earners, including immigrants and their children who are the first to suffer the consequences of the relentless influx of new arrivals.
^^^^^^^^^^

Kevin.

Because the claim to be offering $9-$15 for unskilled tenders, $20 for supervisors, and upwards of $34 for experienced laborers, Pegs my BS meter. I called "Lalo", the guy who helped me turn a hardscrabble clay pan parking spot into [see attached]. To ask what he pays his workers, light laborers 6.00, heavy labors 8.00, skilled workers 11.00 - 13.00 [those that can handle heavy machinery] . You are being conned/conning yourself.

Just for a comparison, yesterday I was called for a design engineering ProE-CAD/10yrs-expr contract work at 28.00 max for a defense contractor which I was willing to take. I have 25 years of design experience, 15 of which is as a Degreed [top 5 school] Aeronautical Engineer.

Kevin, this post shows you are out of touch with reality.

I just finished a long walk through downtown DC, which is booming with dozens of new buildings going up. Of the hundreds of construction workers, I saw maybe a half dozen blacks, a handful of white supervisors and all the rest were Latinos. Considering that there is high unemployment among blacks hereabouts, why do so few try for these jobs? Seems to support the jobs-Americans-won’t-do thesis.

Part of the problem has got to be the way the culture plays up brain work and denigrates those who do hand work—much to our disadvantage. People can find just as much satisfaction in working with their hands—more than working in an office, in my opinion—but who wants to work in an occupation that gets no respect?

Personally, I respect the person picking up trash by the side of the road way more than the wall street rich guy. The former is doing a necessary and useful service, the latter, just pushing papers around to serve number one.

I sound like the old leftists of the first half of the 20th. Their ideas are still valid. We forgot them, went over to the wealth creation side and doomed our movement.

Look, I have no idea if it really is the case that Americans will not do landscaping work for $10, $20, or $34 and hour. However, I do know that Americans won't pay for landscaping in which the labor is $20 or $34 per hour. At that rate, it makes more sense to do it yourself.

I sound like the old leftists of the first half of the 20th. Their ideas are still valid. We forgot them, went over to the wealth creation side and doomed our movement.
Posted by: James of DC

Not a thing wrong with that, sugar. Once upon a time the left supported those who did the hard work.

"Of course I believe in the free enterprise, but in my system of free enterprise, the Democratic principle is that there never was, never has been, and never will be room for the ruthless exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few."
President Harry S. Truman

I won't clean toilets all day for $50/hr unless I couldn't find another job doing something I actually want to do. My father was a laborer who didn't go to college and told me that if I didn't want to do physical labor to go to school, etc., etc. That's what I did.

Here in grad school, I can't name anyone who would, for an extended period of time, work in the hot sun in the fields.

That said, if I were stranded on a desert island, I'd rather be with a farmworker than a lawyer or software engineer.

Joe Bob: Is Orange County really so densely populated with creampuffs that all of the young adults can sponge off of their parents, or take cushy office jobs because they don't really need the money?

Yes.

Yancey Ward: I do know that Americans won't pay for landscaping in which the labor is $20 or $34 per hour. At that rate, it makes more sense to do it yourself.

Funniest thing I've seen today. Really.

There are men who pay $100 or more to get their hair cut.

There are women who pay twice as much.

They don't do it themselves.

They don't go to the guy/gal charging $20.

Really. Funniest damn thing on this thread.

AforG

Luv ya. Always.

Cyn

This is such a joke, there are not jobs that are given to unskilled labor for a over 25 hour work week. If we would take people that are on welfare and capable of working and have them do the jobs that the migrant workers are doing we could save alot of money. This would both benefit us taxpayers, the business owners and the workers by giving them a good paying job to earn their check. Please don't get me wrong, I was a single mother and have been on assistance so I support welfare but I also believe in self-help. You can not make it anywhere in this country on the little $5.15 an hour that it set for minimum wage(unless you are a waitress then its $2.25 p.hr.)I would like to see any of the so called policy makers try to pay bills and eat on that they couldn't do it. If we could take these people off welfare rolls by giving them long term employment at a decent wage the benefits would be boundaryless. We wouldn't have jobs that Americans won't do ecause Americans will have to do them.

Really, Yancey, you don't think people like Donald Trump pay somebody $20-30 an hour do do landscaping around their mansions?

Really?

Remember, not all of the labor positions being advertised were for $34, only some of them. There were also positions for much less per hour, so it's not like Trump and ilk would be paying for a slew of $34/hr workers, but simply for one or more of the most skilled who can take care of their prize roses and or tulips or exotic trees, etc, and supervise the lower skilled workers.

But, yeah, sure, old Donald would get out on his hands and knees and dig up weeds and fertilize his plants before paying pocket change (for him) to some skilled workers to do it instead.

LOL.

I think you've lost your grip on reality with this one, dude.

el loco: Never did I seen an Anglo picking oranges

So? This thread isn't about Anglos vs. Latinos, it's about legal vs. illegal workers.

As the anti-H1B people like to say, it's about American workers. That's a category they define to mean native-born citizens, naturalized citizens and LPR's. Pretty broad, and plenty of Latinos in all three categories.

That was a lousy story. All implication with no context or specificity. Benefits? Sounds like a lot of travel- is that included in paid time? Does the company provide vehicles? Seasonal work? On call? Etc., etc. What kind of job market? What are people making in other, less strenuous entry-level jobs?

I loved this:

""This is a pretty pampered little town. The kids don't expect to work hard," Wade says. "A lot don't expect to work at all. They just float."

Wade fired one employee three times, the last time for going to look at girls on the beach instead of spraying weeds. The employee — his son — now works in the restaurant industry."

And that's indicative of what? Every son of the boss I've ever worked with has been a douchebag.

A certain percentage of Americans were taught at their father's knee that they are superior to others of color or differing place of origin. These prejudices are called racism and nationalism.

Racism replaces empathy for the plight of others. "A poor Mexican who cannot make ten dollars a day in Mexico should stay home and starve with his family.", they say. "Family values" indeed.

It is ironic that the forbearers of many of these same Americans were victims of similar prejudices. Some were transported here as indentured servants, or petty criminals. Others were victims of political repression. Many were subject to famine in Europe and came pennyless to America, lived in slums and worked for starvation wages. Remember the racist signs saying "No Irish Need Apply"?

Right wingers don't like evolution because is speaks of common origins.

Karl Rove knows how to market these prejudices for political gain. He knows how to appeal to little men who do not want to join the family of man.

A right winger would rather lose his right arm than abandon a cherished prejudice.

It's not the money, it's the fear and hatred by petty Republicans. That's what the debate is about.

I wonder if "Yvonne" knows anyone who has ever been on welfare. It's not some cushy gig that Reagan liked to portray it as. The people I knew on welfare often had jobs or lost them or couldn't afford to take their young children to expensive day care (or had recently given birth and their jobs didn't allow them to take time off--a real concern in some of the lower-skill jobs).

All these people pushing for welfare recipients to "work the fields" should spend 5 minutes with people who have actually been on welfare.

Lawn service is an industry that would not exist in its present form if it weren't for illegal immigration. It's part of the reason we have huge McMansions dotting the landscape with oversized, overchemicaled lawns. Without this pool of cheap labor, the landscaping business would be restricted to servicing businesses and large institutions. It would thus be regular non-seasonal work performed by professionals. Everyone else would get off the couch and mow their own damned lawn, which is what they should be doing anyhow.

What makes sense and what (some) Americans actually do are two different things.

Examples:

Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Bush's decision to deploy 6000 National Guard troops to the border when he's only hired 250 of the 10,000 or so extra border patrol agents he was authorized to hire (if I recall the blurb correctly).

Bush's decision to guard the border with Mexico, while dedicating no new resources to the actual source of terrorists: persons legally entering the country and overstaying their visas or entering through the Canadian border where several attempts have been made and likely many more have been successful. (Can you point to any story of any Islamic terrorist captured at the Mexican border or who entered there? - I don't recall any, but I sure recall a number related to the Canadian border!)

Bush's decision to fund guarding the Mexican border while doing virtually nothing to secure our ports.

Bush's decision to prioritize Iraq despite more Al Queda being located in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Syria, Egypt . . .

Bush's decision to send fewer troops to Iraq than requested by his most knowledgeable and least obsequious generals.

Etc, etc, etc.

gq: All these people pushing for welfare recipients to "work the fields" should spend 5 minutes with people who have actually been on welfare.

Conservatives can't let anything interfere with their self-centered delusions born of faith-based "reasoning".

Truth and facts are irrelevant.

The self-serving perceptions of truth embraced by the Right are the only "truths" that matter.

Just ask Tom DeLay - he flat out admitted it.

If the conservatives' faith-based perceptions are that welfare is a cushy gig, then this is a unalterable truth that obviously cannot and will not be denied or contradicted by any observable fact, so no need to go in search of such facts.

It's about bargaining power. American's have rights, and that gives them bargaining power. Illegals don't have rights and so don't have any bargaining power. They take what they are given.

Back breaking labor, short handled hoe, even at $15 an hour, your thinking about your health - better to do something less back braking if you have to take low pay.

I agree with the reference to Japan. By the way they have the broadest distribution of wealth in the world, unions, and their companies dominate most of the high dollar industries and have single handedly chased America into the post industrial age.

Legalize the current crop of illegals, and the employers will just import new illegals, because only if they are illegal will they not have any bargaining. We want to give them some measure of legality to give them some protection, but they aren't worth as much if they are illegal to prospective employers of immigrant labor.

Right wingers don't like evolution because is speaks of common origins.

Left-wingers become even less enamored of it when they realize it inexorably leads to different destinations.

"A poor Mexican who cannot make ten dollars a day in Mexico should stay home and starve with his family.", they say.

No, that's not what they say. They say a poor Mexican is the responsibility of the Mexican government, a responsibility that government has been ducking by playing people like you for fools.

CFShep: Luv ya. Always.

Back at ya!

Smack a couple of "trolls" for me while I do something productive.

The thing that got me about this story was the guy offering money up north, but had no takers, the qualifier being that had no "qualified applicants." How many unqualified applicants did he have? To get to the $34/hour level from this lady, you have to have some experience first, presumably.

And if the guy making $60k/year detailing cars is living well and happy doing that, why should he try for the backbreaking landscaping job?

Bill Gates decries the lack of engineers and programmers and yet the wages remain stagnant. I wonder why that is?

Also, am I the only one who keeps reading "native american workers" to be what we used to call "Indians?"

Maybe it is because here in MN we actually do have Native Americans, although with the legalized gambling few work outside the reservation, so I can't say I see a large number of native american workers on a daily basis.

Advocate for God,

And how many pay $100 for a haircut? Out of the hundreds of people I know, I don't know a single one (and if any are, they are being excessively overcharged, in my opinion), but then I don't hang around the excessively rich like you.

CFShep: Luv ya. Always.

Back at ya!

Smack a couple of "trolls" for me while I do something productive.
Posted by: Advocate for God

Ok. But only because I've got this allergy thing goin' on and am otherwise unfit (or merely too unattractive) for other productive labor.

sniffle.

;-)

To state the obvious, immigration is not a benevolence program for the "huddled masses" of the world, and it behooves us to confront the downside of current immigration policy, not only for blacks, but also for other low-wage earners, including immigrants and their children who are the first to suffer the consequences of the relentless influx of new arrivals.
^^^^^^^^^^
Posted by: CFShep

ITA

It seems that this issue is no different from the 'southern strategy' where rednecks are seduced into voting against their own economic interests by painting the issue as one which benefits 'blacks' or any other ppl of 'color'.

Such that those who are pro-immigrant out of some liberal sense and who feel safe in their 'professional jobs' will soon find themselves out of work.

Racism and its many facets is quite entertaining and fascinating to watch as the 'middle class' is induced to vote against their own economic interests time and time again. The corporations just get richer and richer.

A for G,

You really think the average American is Donald Trump? Wow. Talk about no grip on reality.

Such that those who are pro-immigrant out of some liberal sense and who feel safe in their 'professional jobs' will soon find themselves out of work.

Racism and its many facets is quite entertaining and fascinating to watch as the 'middle class' is induced to vote against their own economic interests time and time again. The corporations just get richer and richer.
Posted by: elrapierwit

Yep. 'Xactly so. It's always about whose ox is getting gored.

And how many pay $100 for a haircut? Out of the hundreds of people I know, I don't know a single one

know many women ?

Derek Copold at 2:30 p.m,

Exactly! But don't tell Advocate for God!

Left-wingers become even less enamored of it when they realize it inexorably leads to different destinations.

ummm.... would you care to expand on that ?

Well, I just had to stick around for this one . . .

Yancey: And how many pay $100 for a haircut? Out of the hundreds of people I know, I don't know a single one (and if any are, they are being excessively overcharged, in my opinion), but then I don't hang around the excessively rich like you.

You know what all your friends and co-workers pay for haircuts?

You must be excessively nosy!

I merely know what some stylists charge.

I have no idea how many customers they have or who they are (I'm afraid I just never grill my friends about what they are paying to get their haircut - I know that's probably unusual, but it's just the way it is), but that of course is irrelevant.

Clearly there are people charging high rates for haircuts and clearly there are people paying those rates, since the people charging the rates continue to charge them.

But if you think Donald Trumps landscapers are all making $7-8 an hour for primping his mansions, you are welcome to your fantasy.

Paying more often ensures better privacy and security, surely something the wealthy value and there are a lot of wealthy folks in CA.

Do you really think Trump pays the same rate for maids as a mid-level manager in a moderate-sized corporation?

Yancey Ward: Living dangerously and evincing a touching but ridiculous unfamiliarity with AforG...

>>>hides to watch the coming eviceration if Himself didn't really leave.

Of the hundreds of construction workers, I saw maybe a half dozen blacks, a handful of white supervisors and all the rest were Latinos. Considering that there is high unemployment among blacks hereabouts, why do so few try for these jobs? Seems to support the jobs-Americans-won’t-do thesis.

Posted by: James of DC

How do you job from the numbers you see working to the supporting the supposition of 'jobs Americans won't do" theory? This is totally illogical. Based on what you saw there could be myriad reasons for what you observed, including many workers who were black called in sick, and the latinos are subbing for the day...or how about they rotate the shifts every two hours and the numbers reverse to a handful of Latino supervisors and mostly rednecks doing the labor, after the noon sun abates, or how about it will be a handful of black supervisors and mostly latinos doing the work during the off-season. Geez...the way some folks draw conclusions is just plain nonsensical.

Nothing you SAW supports the supposition. Did go to the unemployment office and ask folks if they had declined to do that work? Did you find out how the latinos were offered the jobs?

Cleek,

Lots, but I still don't know any that pay $100 to get it done, and even if they did, I don't see it taking 8 hours/day for 2 weeks a year, do you?

evisceration...arrgh.

I'm really not up to my usual standard today.

This is absolute bs. I now live in a brownstone in NYC, and I am paying $25 an hour for a gardener who -- get this -- is native born. Westchester to be specific. Oh, not that this matters, but he appears to be of European descent.

CF,

Advocate is merely amusing when he equates Donald Trump with the average American, as he has now done twice. Good for the occasional laugh.

Yancey: You really think the average American is Donald Trump?

Who said the average American was who was hiring these landscapers?

Not me.

Maybe you dreamed it up while smokin' some good weed, eh?

cleek: know many women ?

Yancey swore off women years ago because they cost more than $5 an hour.

BTW, Yancey, explain to us all again how someone, not even Donald Trump but merely a common attorney, making $200-300/hr is going to get out and do his own lawn (several hours worth of work for several people given the size of some attorneys' houses I know of) simply because someone is charging him $30/hr to supervise a couple of people making $8/hr.

Even at $46/hr total, the attorney's rate of $200-300/hr makes it economically idiotic for him to do his own yardwork, instead of relaxing at his country club (where he's likely paying more for dues each month than he will for yard work each month even at $46/hr) or working.

You seem to have a very loose grasp on reality today, not that it's ever been very tight.

but I still don't know any that pay $100 to get it done

i know a few, and i'm married to one. i consider myself lucky when she gets out of there under $70. all her friends go to the same place.

I don't see it taking 8 hours/day for 2 weeks a year, do you?

guess i wasn't following that sub-thread enough to know why that matters.

elaine: This is absolute bs. I now live in a brownstone in NYC, and I am paying $25 an hour for a gardener who -- get this -- is native born. Westchester to be specific. Oh, not that this matters, but he appears to be of European descent.

Don't tell Yancey.

Facts confuse him and challenging his delusions could be dangerous for his mental health.

gq: All these people pushing for welfare recipients to "work the fields" should spend 5 minutes with people who have actually been on welfare.

Ummmm, if you read Yvonne's post, it said she HAD been a RECIPIENT of welfare. She also described how difficult it was to make ends meet. Slow down and read for content not just to retort.

Advocate,

Where do you live, Beverly Hills? The average American is not even an attorney that can charge those rates. Care to try again?

elaine: I now live in a brownstone in NYC, and I am paying $25 an hour for a gardener who -- get this -- is native born. Westchester to be specific.

As long as he's not from NJ, it's ok.

Yancey: Advocate is merely amusing when he equates Donald Trump with the average American, as he has now done twice. Good for the occasional laugh.

Well, no I haven't.

Not even once.

But, again, don't let any facts get in the way of what you think is a good dig.

Kevin Replies to my comment that this article is hokum:

Subject: Re: the claim to be offering $9-$15 for unskilled tenders, $20 for supervisors, and upwards of $34 for experienced laborers, Pegs BS meter.

Maybe. But why not call the folks from the LAT article if you're so skeptical? They aren't arguing that day laborers all get paid a ton of money, just that when they advertise good paying jobs they still don't get many native applicants.

To which I reply:

Kevin,

You have the pulpit, you wanted the Job, don't resell the article without research, run an ad on craiglist for those wages...are you as gullible as you pretend or is it...see no evil...hear no evil?

Earlier this year I told you immigration would be a particularly good wedge issue to use this year, you disagreed. The number of post should indicate you do not have you finger on the pulse of the electorate.

Here, Yancey, how about some real facts that don't reference Donald Trump . . .

Note that the average across the country is $44 for a woman for larger salons, which means quite a few across the country must charge in excess of $60 or so.

But, again and again, don't let little facts like what elaine and this article provide get in the way of your delusions.

On a recent weekday afternoon, Orlando Pita, hairdresser to celebrities such as Jennifer Connelly, Naomi Campbell and Kirsten Dunst, received a client in his new salon, Orlo, on the third floor of a nondescript walk-up on Gansevoort Street.

Pita, 42, stood mesmerized behind the woman's brunet head, puzzling in a way that suggested he was examining a compelling piece of abstract art. He worked in silence, his scissors venturing only the most tentative stabs. With each move, he stepped back, occasionally blowing the hair with a drier, watching the way it waved under the heat, his brow pressed in concentration.

The entire process lasted about 80 minutes. And each minute cost about $10: Pita charges $800 for a haircut.

If that seems like an extraordinary sum to charge, consider that New York has always been the hub of the outrageously expensive coiffure. But what's different now is that there seems to be a race for the stratosphere, as if a haircut were the new It luxury item, as fetishized as a Kelly bag or a pair of Jimmy Choos.

As big-ticket hairdressers sprout all over Manhattan – with an especially dense concentration in the district formerly known for meatpacking – stylists, salon owners and customers are loudly debating exactly how much is too much.

Pita defended his $800 price tag, a new high for the city, and a fee that is the equivalent of twice the annual income of the average citizen of Bangladesh.

"Your hair is one of the first things people notice about you," he said. "You can spend a lot on clothes, but you wear your hair every day. The luxury market is not about needs, or 'Is it worth it?' It's about 'What can I spend?' "

Michael Gordon, the founder and president of Bumble & Bumble, which opened a salon on West 13th Street in May that is a curling iron's throw from Orlo, said he didn't buy that. At 40,000 square feet, with the most expensive haircut going for $250 but most much less, the Bumble & Bumble salon is pure populism next to Orlo's exclusivity.

"On the one hand, there is probably nothing you're going to buy that you're going to wear every day for six weeks," Gordon said. "On the other, it concerns me that some of the stuff is ego-driven, bravado, a competition to see who can be more expensive."

Robbin McClain, the editor in chief of American Salon, a trade magazine, said her antennae first perked up several years ago upon hearing that John Sahag, the onetime tonsorial minister to clients like Jennifer Lopez, was charging $400 for a cut.

"At that time, that seemed really outrageous," McClain said.

In the last year, several high-profile hairdressers have opened salons with big ambitions or big price tags. Leading the fray was Sally Hershberger, whose eponymous salon opened on West 14th Street last fall. Hershberger, who became famous for the shaggily demure style worn by Meg Ryan, charges $600.

According to a report by American Salon, the average women's haircut in the United States costs about $21 for a cut in a salon with fewer than six chairs, up to $44 for a salon with more than 13 chairs. So what makes a haircut that costs 14 to 18 times the average, high-priced salon haircut in the rest of the country worth it in New York?

"Look, even $250 is expensive," Hershberger said over a high-protein breakfast, her hair scrunched in a style college students typically refer to as "bed head." "But you have to remember, hair is the first thing people notice. When you get a face-lift, people say, 'Hey, you look great, did you change your hair?' "

At Orlo, Pita said, he at first had misgivings about charging such a high price. "I toyed with it at first," he said. "Eight hundred dollars is a lot of money, but so is five, six, seven hundred dollars." But he said his price was a practical one, in line with the fees he charges for his work in the fashion industry doing runway shows and magazine shoots.

His explanation didn't wash with McClain of American Salon. "To me, that honestly doesn't make that much sense," she said. A stylist on a shoot or a fashion show is paid by a corporate source, typically willing to spend the kind of money necessary to achieve perfection in an image that might reach millions of people.

"When you're on a shoot, someone else is paying for it, but when someone is in the salon, they're paying for it themselves," McClain said. "I don't get it."

Kenneth Battelle, who runs the Kenneth salon in the Waldorf-Astoria and whose clients have included Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Gloria Vanderbilt, Brooke Astor, Lauren Bacall and Marilyn Monroe, said that charging $800 for a haircut was "an ego trip."

"And anyone who pays that much money to go to the meatpacking district to have their hair done is a meathead," he added. (Battelle charges $155 and does not accept tips.)

Advocate,

A lot of my friends and many of my neighbors get landscaping services, and they are not Donald Trump or even high priced attorneys. Now, they are not like average Americans either, but it landscaping cost 2 or 3 times what it does now, then many of them would drop it.

At the risk of believing you even care about the issue beyond the idiotic belief you have that you are a "troll" stomper, see Derek's comment at 2:30- That is the point I was making, but did it more poorly than he did apparently.

And how many pay $100 for a haircut? Out of the hundreds of people I know, I don't know a single one

know many women ?

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006

LOTs.

Cleek, most women in the midwest, who earn 100plus or spouses earn 200+..pay at least $65.00 for a quality hair cut...i.e. not one of those Cut and Go shops...but a professional master stylist

And that is for the cut alone, it does not include shampoo, conditioner, color, highlighting or styling. That is all additional.

Folks on the East and West coast pay $100.00 EASILY, for just a cut.

Look up some of the professional salons on the net like Sasson.

BTW...these salaries are NOT those of 'wealthy' Americans like Trump...they are basically upper middle class.

ummm.... would you care to expand on that ?

Natural selection means that within a species people will have different abilities due to genetic variations, and some will be less "favored" than others in certain departments, and no amount of social tinkering will change that.

Now you can deny this, but to do so is to pretty much give up on evolution (unless you're the last of the Lamarckians).

Yancey: Now, they are not like average Americans either, but it landscaping cost 2 or 3 times what it does now, then many of them would drop it.

Maybe even as fast as most Americans are exchanging their pickups and Hummers and V8 Mustangs in for Kias due to high fuel costs.

LOL.

Simply depends on where your priorities are.

Some folks prioritize haircuts.

Some landscaping.

Congratulations for being and having friends who are very, very practical (in your value system at least) about what you and they spend their money on.

Just remember, in a free-market economy, which I believe you believe in, people will and are justified in making choices about expending money that you will not agree is practical or economically sound.

Snuck off to get the Preakness line up.

1--Like Now, Garrett Gomez, 12-1
2--Platinum Couple, Jose Espinoza, 50-1
3--Hemingway's Key, Jeremy Rose, 30-1
4--Greeley's Legacy, Richard Migliore, 20-1
5--Brother Derek, Alex Solis, 3-1
6--Barbaro, Edgar Prado, Even
7--Sweetnorthernsaint, Kent Desormeaux, 4-1
8--Bernardini, Javier Castellano, 8-1
9--Diabolical, Ramon Dominguez, 30-1
******
Came back to watch some folks get sucker punched by AforG. Troll wacker extraordinaire.

Too funny and always on my 'morning line' at 5-3.

Now I really am going to go take some Theraflu and read something unimproving for a change.

elrapierwit, please watch where you're swinging that blade. it appears you've sliced the wrong person.

Natural selection means that within a species people will have different abilities due to genetic variations, and some will be less "favored" than others in certain departments, and no amount of social tinkering will change that.

that's not exactly what "natural selection" means, but, i'll assume i know what you're trying to say... so, can you provide any conclusive evidence that these, ahem, "different abilities" are strictly genetic ?

so, can you provide any conclusive evidence that these, ahem, "different abilities" are strictly genetic ?

"Conclusive"? To your satisfaction? I doubt it, as you seem to be too emotionally invested in denying this conclusion.

"Strictly genetic"? Well, only if we're talking about potentialities. Of course, there are things in the environment that will help people reach their maximum potential. For example, a natural runner will only become a world champion after a lot of practice and training. But if you didn't inherit the potential, no amount of training will win you a Gold medal.

Just remember, in a free-market economy, which I believe you believe in, people will and are justified in making choices about expending money that you will not agree is practical or economically sound.

But they're not allowed to break the law in the process, which is what many of them are doing, though they won't admit it, not even to themselves sometimes.

Just think about dependency on “cheap” foreign oil and “cheap” foreign labor.
Think about what this dependency does for US and for the countries we import “cheap” oil and “cheap” labor from.
Think what we need to do to resolve this problem and please be consistent.

Also, do you approve breaking laws to save our country from terrorism ?
Do you approve breaking laws to feed a family ?
Please be consistent .

I doubt it, as you seem to be too emotionally invested in denying this conclusion.

why so defensive? all i've done is ask you to clarify and defend your statement. unless you're some kind of master psychic, you can't know much of anything about my "emotional investment" here.

Well, only if we're talking about potentialities

now now, no ducking the question. which "abilities" are you talking about, and do you have any proof that this has happened to any measurable degree within human sub-groups ?

Think what we need to do to resolve this problem and please be consistent.

I think we should stay the hell out of other countries and mind our own business. I also think we should secure our own border and stop letting other countries use us as a relief valve for their social discontent.

Also, do you approve breaking laws to save our country from terrorism ?

No. I did not vote for Bush, nor do I support his obnoxious violations of civil liberties.

Do you approve breaking laws to feed a family ?

As a way of doing business? No.

But that's really not the issue here. The issue is that you're trying to pull heartstrings to get us to take on a problem that countries like Mexico should taking on for themselves, and until they are given the proper incentive to do so, we'll continue seeing this problem.

elrapierwit, please watch where you're swinging that blade. it appears you've sliced the wrong person.

Natural selection means that within a species people will have different abilities due to genetic variations, and some will be less "favored" than others in certain departments, and no amount of social tinkering will change that.

that's not exactly what "natural selection" means, but, i'll assume i know what you're trying to say... so, can you provide any conclusive evidence that these, ahem, "different abilities" are strictly genetic ?

Posted by: cleek

Hmmm, no problem, lol How did I flub up? It looks like you were one posting the question about how many women...help me out..

BTW...I have not made any post on 'natural selection'

I guess this makes us both..off- target

Yancey: And how many pay $100 for a haircut? Out of the hundreds of people I know, I don't know a single one (and if any are, they are being excessively overcharged, in my opinion), but then I don't hang around the excessively rich like you.

As someone who does hang around the excessively rich all day long (many of them, gasp! Republicans) I can say that's cheap, laughably cheap, for a woman's haircut anywhere in New York. Not to mention the cost of going in for touchups....

Agreed with Stefan (for once):

a decent men's cut here in the city is in the $100 range (you get what you pay for when it comes to hair).
$175-300 is pretty standard for women

Agreed with Stefan (for once):

Sooner or later, it had to happen.....

Hmmm, no problem, lol How did I flub up? It looks like you were one posting the question about how many women...help me out..

Yancey Ward was the person saying $100 was crazy for a haircut, not me.

BTW...I have not made any post on 'natural selection'

yes, i know. i replied to two different people in the same post. big deal.

Copold: But if you didn't inherit the potential, no amount of training will win you a Gold medal.

There's always luck.

Run fast enough to win third place and hope the first two fall or come up lame before reaching the finish line.

Then, there's steroids and growth hormones and other performance enhancing drugs.

Soon, there will likely be genetic modification, for those who can afford it.

The issue is that you're trying to pull heartstrings to get us to take on a problem that countries like Mexico should taking on for themselves, and until they are given the proper incentive to do so, we'll continue seeing this problem.

If those "incentives" consist only of pushing workers back across the border, to the ultimate economic detriment of America I suspect, then it's unlikely to happen while other disincentives are applied by nations such as the US which basically stole what would have been some of Mexico's most productive regions.

To be sure, many of Mexico's problems are self-inflicted, but their history is also different and hardly the fault of the current crop of citizens.

America's fortunes have been due in part to both luck and a willingness to steal resources from others, whether it be Native Americans or Mexico or a host of other Central and South American countries which corporate America exploited with resulting influx of corporate profits to feed the American economy.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall Mexico ever stealing land from any of its neighbors and its indigenous population, kept poor like America's (at least until the advent of Indian casinos), is much larger than America's because we killed the native population rather than assimilating it.

An underclass of native Americans in populations as large as exists in Mexico, avoided by our mass murdering of those populations, would have changed America's dynamic in at least some significant respects I suspect.

But we'll never know, now will we.

I thought there was something fishy about that article when I read it. Exactly how widely did this woman advertise? It sounds like she kept it pretty limited. You're not necessarily going to find the workers you want by advertising in ONE local newspaper and a few landscaping shops. Try blanketing the wider region with advertising. Try anticipating where willing legal workers would be and advertise there. She also doesn't say a thing about the labor conditions.

Yeah, sure, blame the Mexican Government. It's OK if they build millions of cars for the "Big Three automakers" for around $5.00 an hour. These jobs used to be in Detroit. Those were corporate decisions that took those jobs away.

It's OK if Mexican women work in the hundreds of border gristmills (maquiladoras) for a few dollars an hour for high tech industries. That's OK because you get cheap goods. They get a really hard life. That's mighty good of you.

If you paid a fair price and the corporations paid a fair wage, they would live comfortably in Mexico and the flow to the North would stop.

Or you want to blame job loss on the undocumented immigrant?

If the US military and CIA spend billions to train foreign police and military and they, in turn, prevent Latin American peasants from challenging the wealthy landlords in order to earn a decent living, you are complicit because you pay taxes to finance these actions. The poor are oppressed. They travel thousands of miles through dangerous territory, preyed upon by bandits, precariously hanging on freight trains, to build a better life in the US. Now you want to spend hundreds of billions on a fancy fence to keep them out.

You say they are "illegal". I say they are desperate and courageous.

It is a matter of empathy, a high moral value, lacking on the Republican side of the debate.

The Japan analogy was hilarious. Sure, there's no immigration there but it's also ONE OF THE MOST RACIST SOCIETIES ON EARTH, to the point that the UN commissioned a report condeming their intolerance. Foreigners cannot frequent the same bars as native Japanses.

Anyway, some of these "Democrats" sound like flag waving Republicans to me.

wilder: I thought there was something fishy about that article when I read it. Exactly how widely did this woman advertise? It sounds like she kept it pretty limited. You're not necessarily going to find the workers you want by advertising in ONE local newspaper and a few landscaping shops. Try blanketing the wider region with advertising. Try anticipating where willing legal workers would be and advertise there. She also doesn't say a thing about the labor conditions.

"Sounds like" or you can point to evidence that reasonably suggests that she did?

Since she is a government contractor and needs the workers to perform her duties under the contract and can't pay them any less by government rules, there doesn't seem to be any incentive for her to skimp too much on the advertising or not look too hard for workers, since she can't do the work she's set up to do otherwise.

Additionally, regardless of how believable it seems, no one yet has proposed a motive for her to lie about this.

She's not a liberal what with pics of Bush on her walls and Miller had the opportunity to call her on it and prove her a liar and refused.

So, until you can propose a motive for her to make this up, your point would not appear to be well taken.

Despite the snark, some things are plainly true. One is that in most of the country, the jobs "Americans don't want" are being done by Americans.

So aren't we really looking at why these jobs are being done by illegals in areas where there are a lot of illegals, and not by Americans or legal immigrants?

...the US which basically stole what would have been some of Mexico's most productive regions.

Yeah, I know, we took the half with all the highways.

If you look at Mexico, it has far more natural resources than the American Southwest. The War of 1845-48 was unjust, I don't disagree, but it's not the reason for Mexico's backwardness, nor is it even a major contributor.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall Mexico ever stealing land from any of its neighbors and its indigenous population, kept poor like America's (at least until the advent of Indian casinos), is much larger than America's because we killed the native population rather than assimilating it.

No, it was more a matter of the U.S. attracting more settlers than Mexico did. That was a matter of difference between the way England and Spain dealt with their territories, not because of Mexico's supposed saintliness.

The American native population suffered, and was poorly treated. However, it was not so much exterminated (and there are all sorts of tribes still around) as it was overwhelmed, a fate I'd rather not inflict on the U.S., thank you.

And given the military capability, Mexico of the 19th century would have taken land if it could have, just like any other power of the time.

At any rate, none of this excuses opening the border to whomever wants to cross it through malign neglect. None of this excuses overwhelming neighborhoods and demographically upsetting the population. If you want to ease your little guilty white conscience, get your ass over to Mexico and help the poor people out on your own dime. Stop setting aside the law to do it on ours.

I really think someone should follow up and demand specifics from this woman who claims she can't fill a $34/hr job. This is the kind of hogwash that gives us Republicans a bad name. Unlike the Dems we do not tolerate this kind of hyperbole.
Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation has shown that the vast majority of job categories labled as "jobs Americans won't do" have over 80% native born citizens currently filling them. The tiny sub-categories of seasonal fruit pickers and such could easily be filled by a narrowly tailored job-contracting program, not requiring a full fledged guest worker boondoggle with all of its assorted drawbacks.

Yeah, sure, blame the Mexican Government.

We can certainly blame the American government and even American business for some of the problems in Latin America, but the ultimate responsibility for Mexico's welfare lies with the government of Mexico, which has historically been anything but a patsy of American interests.

If you paid a fair price and the corporations paid a fair wage, they would live comfortably in Mexico and the flow to the North would stop.

I'm not a free trade fanatic. I would be all in favor of a tarrif penalizing products made in such conditions, if not banning them altogether. I'm also for getting rid of ag subsidies that would stop dispossessing poor farmers Latin America. That, however, does not preclude favoring a controlled border and hardline on illegal immigration, both on the illegal aliens themselves and those who employ them.

By the way "Advocate of God" -- if you'd like to expand your reading list beyond the Chomskyite thumb suckers, read any history of early California and see how the natives were treated by the original conquistadors; you might not support reconquista so strongly with a little more education.

Copold: If you look at Mexico, it has far more natural resources than the American Southwest. The War of 1845-48 was unjust, I don't disagree, but it's not the reason for Mexico's backwardness, nor is it even a major contributor.

Yeah, all that gold in California, and getting California was the real reason Tyler attacked Mexico, was really a burden to the US and Mexico should be happy we took it.

That's the ticket.

At any rate, none of this excuses opening the border to whomever wants to cross it through malign neglect.

Since virtually no one (and certainly none on this thread) is advocating this, a pointless rant.

None of this excuses overwhelming neighborhoods and demographically upsetting the population.

Since this is not happening, another pointless, yet clearly racist, rant.

If you want to ease your little guilty white conscience . . .

I have no guilty conscience to ease.

How about you?

Stop setting aside the law to do it on ours.

No one's talking about setting aside the law, but changing it.

That you characterize it so, pretty much shows where you're truly coming from.

The Repubs have everyone talking about immigration-- an issue that doesn't really matter... Really, who cares? Where I live the Republicans don't care, and you can go find illegal immigrant workers everywhere!!!!
Ten bucks an hour to work in the feilds does not sound to inviting to me or anyone I know. It is hard work, and is best suited to people who know how to do it, not kids who want to play video games. It is easier to make coffee for a boss at 10 bucks an hour--everyone knows that.

One of the BS things that employers put out is, "We need more workers..." "We could hire X many but can't find them." etc. But really, anyone can just say that if they had more people producing more (an oversimplified example) they could afford to pay them. Why? Because more product would be sold and more income generated! Doh. That's just a sneaky way of saying, "I can imagine this company just being bigger." It doesn't prove anything much.

"However, it was not so much exterminated (and there are all sorts of tribes still around) as it was overwhelmed, a fate I'd rather not inflict on the U.S., thank you."

Man, that is totally insane. They were largely exterminated, with on the order of 90% population loss. The 'good' news is that a large fraction of this was from disease, and thus not intentional on our forefathers part, the bad news is that another large fraction was us intentionally ethnically cleansing land we wanted. We shot them, burned thier villages, marched them off to reservations wherever we thought they would be out of the way and didn't give a shit if they could feed themselves or not, then marched them off again when we decided someplace else would be more out of the way. We destroyed some resources thier cultures depended on, put others in trust managed by us, then stole or failed to collect the revenues of the trusts. We broke up thier families, sent thier children through re-education camps, made it obvious we would wipe them out if they did not abandon thier culture for ours then wiped them out anyway after they did.

A bunch of poor mexican immigrants aren't going to do ANY of that to the United States.

What about housing?

Often, jobs are located where people can't afford to live ior there is no public transportation to the job.

I once managed a restaurant in the Hamptons. There is NO affordable housing, but lots and lots of jobs in the summer. The owner rented a crummy house, filled it to the brim with guys from the Dominican Republic who did the jobs in the restaurant. There was no other way to get the help.

Yeah, all that gold in California, and getting California was the real reason Tyler attacked Mexico, was really a burden to the US and Mexico should be happy we took it.

You mean Polk. Tyler was out of office by then. And the gold deposits in California weren't discovered until after the war.

What the U.S. saw was a relatively unsettled piece of land that could consolidate its place on the North American continent, and like any power of the time, it went to war to get it.

Since virtually no one (and certainly none on this thread) is advocating this, a pointless rant.

No. That's pretty much what's going on right now. The border is open sieve thanks to the neglect of the Bush Administration, and other administrations before it, and because of this neglect, we now have the Senate proposing an increase in immigration that could expand our population anywhere from 100 million to 200 million in the next two decades. That's effectively an open border.

How about you?

I'm open to foreign aid, or modifying our subsidies and other things to help. I'm not for throwing the doors wide open, though.

That you characterize it so, pretty much shows where you're truly coming from.

Yeah, America.

The 'good' news is that a large fraction of this was from disease...

That predates the existence of the U.S.

...the bad news is that another large fraction was us intentionally ethnically cleansing land we wanted.

I don't deny this or the rest of what you've written. But all of this came as a result of population pressures.

A bunch of poor mexican immigrants aren't going to do ANY of that to the United States.

The process will be slower and more pacific, no doubt, but by letting in the number of people the Senate bill is proposing (100-200 million in two decades), the end will be similar. The American people will be overwhelmed and the country as we know it will disappear.

Now you may be all for this, but at least face to what we're looking at.

I once managed a restaurant in the Hamptons. There is NO affordable housing, but lots and lots of jobs in the summer. The owner rented a crummy house, filled it to the brim with guys from the Dominican Republic who did the jobs in the restaurant. There was no other way to get the help.

Oh my, the little darlings in the Hamptons can't find good help. The Humanity!!!

reservations = concentration camps

One of the 'pundits' over at WashPo had the nerve to equate any of this immigration fiasco to the 'Trail of Tears' wherein tens of thousands of peaceful Cherokee Confederacy peoples were unlawfully (against a ruling by the US Supreme Court) and brutally dispossessed, forced marched a thousand miles, and the few survivors 'settled' in barren wilderness.

And this country dares to lecture any other about 'genocide'.

I can say that's cheap, laughably cheap, for a woman's haircut anywhere in New York. Not to mention the cost of going in for touchups....
Posted by: Stefan on May 18, 2006

YES!!..ITA

The difference between Japan and us is we're a nation of immigrants. At some point in the last two hundred years, an ancestor of yours came to this land. Immigration is what made this country, and made it great.

The companies mentioned in the article have contracts with the government, which require a certain level of wages, so this article is accurate. If you're willing to work for the wages stated in the article, go ahead and apply. Put your money where your mouth is, or else shut your trap. I personally won't do that kind of labor, but mean what you say, and say what you mean:

Diversified Landscape, in Riverside:

http://tinyURL.com/jey7t

Sierra Garden & Landscaping:

http://tinyurl.com/fe97p

Yancey Ward was the person saying $100 was crazy for a haircut, not me.

BTW...I have not made any post on 'natural selection'

yes, i know. i replied to two different people in the same post. big deal.

Posted by: cleek on May 18, 2006 at 4:30 PM

OIC...you are a 'unconventional' poster....there really is no way to discern, that Yancy made the statement since it is posted with your name.

...whatever....i will scroll past your comments

Derek--

100-200 million? That is in the Senate bill? Excuse me if I am a little bit incredulous. That figure is higher than the entire population of Mexico and Central America combined.

So, uh, yeah.

Ya'll are just (mostly) idiots.

You say they are "illegal". I say they are desperate and courageous.

It is a matter of empathy, a high moral value, lacking on the Republican side of the debate.

Posted by: deejaays on May 18, 2006 at 4:57 PM

They are desperate, courageous AND illegal. If you have empathy, where is it for the millions of law-abiding American citizens who cannot earn a living wage to support an American standard of living due to the glut of illegal immigrants who take jobs from HS graduatss. This is not about republicans..it is about American citizens demanding to have the laws of their country enforced.

What type of morality are you espousing that says empathy is a reason to break the law. There are others who demand vigilante style justice for their empathetic views...who is to say which empathic moral view should prevail?

After all, it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.
i.e. the millions that desperately enter this country illegally.

It is just as wrong to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.
i.e. your empathy that displaces American citizens from jobs, along with employers seeking profits at the expense of impoverished citizens.

Derek--

While I got you on the line, can we discuss some of this talk about Mexico and the US, westward expansion and so forth? I'm a little confused here.

From what I recall "Manifest Destiny" was US policy long before there were large numbers of immigrants in the eastern states. If you recall, much of the westward expansion, and particularly the expansion in the South came out of a desire to expand the plantation system westward. So, if you replace "immigration policy" with "slavery policy" your point about the difference between the US and Mexico might make some sense.

But your real point seems to be: brutal territorial expansion--everybody does it! Except when they don't. And then, just trust me on this, they would if they could.

Mexicans just didn't care all that much about opening up new cropland on which to set up slave plantations. Was this because they were "better" than Americans? Well, yes, I'd say so, at least in that one regard...

your empathy that displaces American citizens from jobs

Posted by: elrapierwit on May 18, 2006 at 7:37 PM

Really? Is that why unemployment remains low? And what exactly is an American standard of living? SUVs, fried food and iPods? For those unable to make a living wage, there are two alternatives:

1) Welfare
2) Education.

Really? Is that why unemployment remains low? And what exactly is an American standard of living? SUVs, fried food and iPods? For those unable to make a living wage, there are two alternatives:

1) Welfare
2) Education.

Posted by: Wuk Kim on May 18, 2006

What makes you presume unemployment is low? The sector where immigrants dominant, has high unemployment for American citizens...i.e. those with HS educations...additionally, unemployment for Hispanics and Blacks have consistently been higher and double that of the national umemployment rates, respectively.

Moreover, unemployment figures do not accurate reflect the numbers of unemployed...only those who are collecting unemployment checks are counted in those figures. Those who no longer collect checks are not counted as unemployed...which is why the figures 'remain low' ...they are nothing but the tip of an iceberg.

Sure, there are nunances and variations in how unemployment is calculated (by the way, I know for a fact that they don't calculate these figures by the methods you suggest). But the larger question remains on how to best support the underclass.

My argument centers around the idea that preserving dead end jobs like those favored by undocumented workers is a bad idea. I'm sure that when the ATM was invented, bank tellers re-educated themselves and found more productive roles to fill. And recent data suggests that rather than taking jobs away from Americans, the undocumented are taking jobs that would have otherwise been automated.

Would that it were possible to find any entry level job starting at $15 an hour. It's only with the backing of a strong Northeast Union (Philly Carpenters Local 8) that I was able to find an entry level job starting at $13. And it's no couch potato job, either. And there are plenty of hard working Americans working as laborers making less than that who would be delighted to do landscaping or field work for $15 an hour. It's insulting to say Americans just won't do the work, we have enough energy to plant your rosebushes and then go home to play video games later. Give us decent entry level jobs now!

Since she is a government contractor and needs the workers to perform her duties under the contract and can't pay them any less by government rules, there doesn't seem to be any incentive for her to skimp too much on the advertising or not look too hard for workers, since she can't do the work she's set up to do otherwise.

Additionally, regardless of how believable it seems, no one yet has proposed a motive for her to lie about this.

She's not a liberal what with pics of Bush on her walls and Miller had the opportunity to call her on it and prove her a liar and refused.

So, until you can propose a motive for her to make this up, your point would not appear to be well taken.

Posted by: Advocate for God on May 18, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

____________________

Well Advocate for God, I arrived at my conclusions by looking at the source.

"Maybe potential employees don't know about her tiny Riverside firm. "

""Last July I ran an ad in the Riverside Press-Enterprise," she says. "I got only two responses.""

That's just one newspaper, no? And for just one month at that.

"Last week Smallwood wrote a flier that says she would pay $34 with experience and $14 without. The notice cautions that no application would be accepted "without verification of proper identification that allows you, by law, to work in the USA."

The flier is up in more than a dozen landscaping supply stores. So far, Smallwood says, there have been no calls."

So I stand corrected when I originally said "a few." Even so, why would she assume that the only willing laborers would frequent supply stores, or that she wouldn't find an abundance of willing legal laborers, say, a few counties over? Sounds to me like she cast too small a net.

kokblok wrote:
100-200 million? That is in the Senate bill? Excuse me if I am a little bit incredulous. That figure is higher than the entire population of Mexico and Central America combined.

The numbers were based on the percentage increases in the bill in total immigration. Even Barbara Boxer has acknowledged these numbers.

Yes, this number is about the population of Mexico and Central America (or greater at the higher end), but we aren't just talking about Mexico and Central America now. We're talking about the whole f'en globe. There are five billion people living in countries poorer than Mexico, and when our neighbors to the south run out of poor people to ship north, corporations will start looking for coolie labor elsewhere. So all you supporting this bill had better ask yourself how many people you really want coming here, because there's no shortage of warm bodies.

As to your points about the Mexican War, I never said the war was just. It was an aggressive war of conquest, and there were slave interests pushing for it, but there were also other commercial interests, as well as an expanding native (ie, non-immigrant) population. There was also the strategic interest in having a straight containable border from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the policy was later pursued with the Gadsden purchase in 1853.

The fact is, despite how much we may not like it, this was how things were conducted back then, and you have other examples in Latin America where stronger countries took a chunk of weaker nations, such as the War of the Pacific, which closed in Bolivia from the Pacific. If Mexico had had the military power to do so, she would have merrily taken back the Louisiana Purchase, taking control of the Mississippi, arguing that Napoleon had no authority to give up the land. That they couldn't do this was not due to any noble attitude. It was due to the fact that the central government was constantly putting down insurrections and changing constitutions. The Texas Revolution was one of many uprisings Santa Ana confronted at the time.

Now, you say turnabout is fair game. Well, fine, I agree. But let's call it what it is.

At any rate, given the numbers implied by the Senate bill I think those of us in the Southwest might be better off going back to Mexico. We certainly won't be able to expect anything good from Washington after that. And though Mexico may be dysfunctional, at least they can maintain a serious immigration policy.

Volt takes a /bit/ more than 25%, tomtom...

And they don't cover unskilled work. At all.

Come to Minnesota! I need a summer job! HOLY SHIT! Landscaping is hard work but I've done it before.

Uh, small caveat: I'm brown.

Personal Story: My family has lived in Texas since... well since a long time ago, they were there when it became its own republic so we've been US citizens since Texas became a state. I was born in Minnesota.

America's "minimum wage" is obviously pretty attractive to low-skill workers from the rest of the world.

Is there some way to insulate America's native low-skill workers from the effects of globlization? Doubt it. Democrats seem to want no fence and no real ID card work-permits, no, no, no, but want to make all low-skill jobs "workable" and pay $15/hr. That seems to be an open invitation to all of Mexico to relocate.

Can we treat Mexicans totally differently than we do immigrants from Ethiopia, Bosnia, the Phillipines? Should Mexicans get much easier work permit requirements (effectively) and a much quicker path to citizenship? In Seattle, we can't even really stop illegals from voting because no picture I.D. card with any security standard at all is required to vote and it is impossible to check up voters because no real residence address is required for them either.

Hmmm, which party created that situation and refuses to tighten it up?

Effectively, Mexicans (and others) can become voting citizens without having to jump through any hoops. You might call it naturalization by deliberate sloth.

This problem is not just Republican business owners who want cheap labor, it is Democrat politicians who want a huge, faceless pool of potential voters and a Mickey Mouse registration process as well.

The "country as we know it" is ALWAYS disappearing.
My goodness, it is called c h a n g e and it is always happening.
The change in demographics is not an earthquake, but a process. We can handle that.
What is scarier to me is the growing concentration of power and wealth in a small segment of the population.

It's not just the pay. One of my husband's relatives owns a large landscaping outfit and the hours required at certain critical times of the year are quite demanding. He hires immigrants because they'll work the demanding schedule.

Varecia: He hires immigrants because they'll work the demanding schedule.

We're not discussing immigrants in general, we're discussing illegal immigrants in specific.

Copold: The American people will be overwhelmed and the country as we know it will disappear.

No, since these new immigrants will be Americans, no overwhelming will occur.

Italians didn't overwhelm "Americans". They became Americans.

Germans didn't overwhelm "Americans". They became Americans.

The Irish didn't overwhelm "Americans". They became Americans.

Jews didn't overwhelm "Americans". They became Americans.

Again, pretty much showing that racism is driving your agenda, nothing else.

The change in demographics is not an earthquake, but a process.

No, Clare. 100 million people in 20 years is not a process. It's a tsunami.

Just because something is "Change", doesn't mean it's good.

What is scarier to me is the growing concentration of power and wealth in a small segment of the population.

And importing tens of millions of unskilled and low-skilled immigrants will really help even things out?

No, since these new immigrants will be Americans, no overwhelming will occur.

They'll be Americans in name only. Waving a wand or passing or hopping a flight and getting a job here does not magically endow someone with love and loyalty for the U.S., nor does it acculturate them. You bring in this large amount of people all of sudden, and all you'll do is erect another Tower of Babel, and that story did not come to a good end.

The other groups you're talking about did not enter in such large numbers in such a short space of time, and there were legitimate concerns raised about those immigrants which precipitated a long period of time when these groups were cut off from their sources of immigration, and that assisted assimilation.

Again, pretty much showing that racism is driving your agenda, nothing else.

Fine. If a love for my country as it is is racism, then make the most of it.

Also, it turns out that Cyndi Smallwood is not some impartial citizen. She's an open-borders lobbyist.
http://langamp.com/borderblog/?p=2519

So once, again, Credulous Kevin has been had.

Fine. If a love for my country as it is is racism, then make the most of it.

Posted by: Derek Copold on May 19, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Your country "as it is" probably means white people.

If there's one thing I've learned about the US is that white people like to live by themselves.

Wuk Kim: If there's one thing I've learned about the US is that white people like to live by themselves.

I'm glad you don't indulge in that root of racism, over-generalization.

Your country "as it is" probably means white people.

I don't want a pure white country. However, I don't whites reduced to a minority either. I'm sure that makes me a "racist" in most liberals' eyes, but I don't really care about their opinion anymore, as I've found most to be pathetic half-men consumed with self-hatred.

If there's one thing I've learned about the US is that white people like to live by themselves.

Every race has this tendency, not just whites. However, only whites are vilified for it. Your name appears to be Asian. Care to review the immigration policies of most Asian nations? They're not very welcoming of others.

And, FWIW, I grew up in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, hardly a bastion of whiteness.

We at The Beachwood Reporter have researched this issue extensively and issued the report The Great American Jobs Machine:Jobs Americans Won't Do/Jobs Americans Will Do at beachwoodreporter.com/people_places_things/the_great_american_jobs_machine.php#more

Aria Giovanni - Crissy Moran - Tyler Faith - Ashton Moore - Krystal Steal - Jenna Jameson - Stormy Daniels - Briana Banks - Alexis Amore - Brittany Andrews - Tera Patrick - Gina Lynn - Jill Kelly - Sophia Rossi - Summer Skyes - Jesse Capelli - Lonnie Waters - Natalia Cruze - Terri Summers - Anita Dark - Ginger Jolie - Breana - Crystal Klein - Kelle Marie - Jamie Lynn - Barbie Griffin - Zdenka Podkapova - Tall Goddess - Sky Lopez - Penny Flame - Nikki Nova - Tanya James - Avy Scott - Monique Alexander - Mason Marconi - Bobbie Eden - Britney Foster - Coco Johnsen - Maliyah Madison - Lacey Duvalle - Kylie Wyld - Kira Eggers - Jessica Darling - Jana Cova - Dru Berrymore - Deja Chan - Dani Woodward - Amber Rain - Allysin Chaynes - Tyler Fox - Taylor Ann - Nakita Kash - Charlie Laine - Domino - Becky Le Sabre - Kaylani Lei - Katja Kassin - Nautica Thorn - Victoria Red - Nikki Tyler - Jesse Jane - Monica Sweetheart - Katsumi - Devon - Kyla Cole - Veronica Zemanova - Erica Campbell - Sophie Sweet - Zoe Britton - Jane Darling - Sophie Paris - Lanny Barbie - Veronika Simon - Carli Banks - Monica Miller - Tabitha Tan - Clara Hamilton - Monika Benjar - Dorothy Black - Lizzy Merova - Holly Morgan - Susana Spears - Peaches - Aneta Smrhova - Angel Dark - Nikki Loren - Anette Dawn - Cassia Riley - Nelli Hunter - Jana Mrazkova - Angelina Adelle - Lux Kassidy - Denisa D - Eva Shine - Amy Reid - Natasha Nicolas - Mia Stone - Bettie Ballhaus - Evelyn Lory - Zuzana Drabinova - Katerina Sage - Celeste Star - Sandy Simmers - Silvie Thomas - Zafira - Adrienne Coyne - Lolli Winters - Valentina Vaughn - Stacy Silver - Tiffany Diamond - Brigitte Hunter - Bella Star - Giovana - Milli-Jay - Roxy Carter - Kia Kovicova - Simona Style - Amber Easton - Sonya Smitts - Mindy Vega - Jelena Jensen - Andrea Truman - Sydney Moon - Lenka Gaborova - Veronica Vanoza - Lauren Mai - Natalli Di Rossa - Nikki Blonde - Mora Black - Eniko Reti - Rachel Grace - Lucie Lansen - Jessica Fiorentino - Jody Paige - Allegra - Sylvia Saint - Mellie Williams - Adriana Malkova - Ashley Robbins - Nikki Miller - Chloe Anderson - Isabella Garland - Adele Stephens - Alex Arden - Angel Cassidy - Justine Sands - Mackenzie Mack - Martina Fox - Monique Dane - Tanya Danielle - Sandra Shine - Gina Black - Evelyn Baum - Lee Ann - Tiffany Rousso - Aneta Stone - Michelle Thorne - Monica Moore - Janet Peron - Michelle Afferty - Carmen James - Vanessa Aniston - Ashton Gray - Nikita Blonde - Veronica Carso - Katerina Hovorkova - Monica Silva - Hanna Harper - Eva B