On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:33:15 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister MidgetPost by LoboOn Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:27:16 GMT, Sinister Midget
Post by Sinister MidgetPost by Lobohttp://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm#Back83
</quote>
A COMPARISON OF THE U.S. TO OTHER RICH NATIONS
The following statistics are a 1991 comparison of the United States
with Northern Europe, Japan and Canada. The comparison is especially
revealing because all these nations are more liberal and democratic
than we are. Their voter turn-outs are 50 percent higher; their
corporate lobbying systems are much less developed; their taxes are
higher, their safety nets larger, their societies more equal, their
labor unions stronger.
And what may depress many conservatives is that these nations beat us
on statistic after statistic after statistic.
Why are hordes of people lining up to move to the US? Why do hordes of
people try to sneak into the US?
Every nation has similar problems. (Well, almost any nation.) But I
can't locate anything that shows anyone even approaching the numbers
the US gets.
I'll be glad to shown that I'm wrong.
You are not wrong. There is great incentive to earn $5.15/hr. (US
minimum wage - actually higher in individual states) if you are only
earning $.50/hr. or don't even have a job in Mexico or other Latin
American countries.
But if you're earning $0.50/hour in one location, then you move to
another location making $5.15/hr, there's a huge offset in cost of
living. There might be a small gain overall, and there might not be.
But it hardly seems worth risking life, limb, rape, murder and
everything else to only be a tiny bit better off.
They are more than a tiny bit better off. There are jobs which pay
upwards of 20 - 30 times what they can earn at home.
Post by Sinister MidgetFor those who are illegally resident, it's even worse. They have to
stay under the radar to avoid being caught. That leads to all sorts of
forms of exploitation, threats and fear.
Illegals in the US (once they're safely across the border) lead open
lives. The ones w/o regular jobs wait in designated areas in towns and
cities across America to be picked up for temp jobs. Those with full
time jobs simply go about their business, buy houses and cars and even
do banking.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/news/economy/illegal_immigrants/
</quote>
Banks are seeing an untapped resource in providing home loans to
undocumented U.S. residents
...
"Banks are counting on the fact that we do a lousy job with interior
enforcement," said Celent's Grealish. "Once you're in the country and
you haven't done anything wrong, the chances of being deported are
very slim. Banks are banking on that."
<quote>
Millions openly marched in the streets several weeks ago across the US
demanding citizenship.
Post by Sinister MidgetThere are plenty of other places where people would be better off and
not be living in fear forever.
The days of living in fear and working in US sweatshops is over.
Post by Sinister MidgetPost by Lobohttp://www.alternet.org/story/34690/
</quote>
A Rising Tide in Mexico
By Chuck Collins, AlterNet. Posted April 13, 2006.
The next president of Mexico could be a left populist who puts the
needs of ordinary Mexicans ahead of international corporate investors
-- if the U.S. refrains from meddling.
....
From the outside, Mexico appears to have had a decade of stability.
But the reality is that poverty and insecurity are rising. Real wages
have plummeted, and many communities in rural Mexico are now ghost
towns after being devastated by the loss of 2 million agricultural
jobs. Mexican farmers, after NAFTA, are unable to compete with the
imports flowing in from subsidized U.S. farmers, particularly in corn.
<quote>
At the same time a fair number of manufacturing jobs have moved south
of the border. Not as many as the union thugs would have us believe,
but enough that many of those destitute agricultural workers should be
employed for as good or better income.
Many of the new factories are highly automated and didn't supply as
many jobs as was touted. Another factor is that many of the Mexican
jobs subsequently went to countries that paid even less for labour.
Post by Sinister MidgetI sure see a lot of fruits and vegetables available in a couple of the
chain groceries here that aren't native to the US, too. They're coming
from someplace. Since they're particularly popular with a lot of the
Mexican and Latin American people, my guess is they aren't coming from
India or Canada. I could be wrong I suppose.
Yes. There are still many jobs in that sector, but not enough. The
Mexican farm workers are now being displaced by other countries which
can produce for less.
Post by Sinister MidgetPost by LoboThere are millions of jobs, paying $10-$15/hr., for landscapers,
plumbers, construction workers, as well as in the service industry.
(Some even get to drive big fancy tractors, harvesting corn.)
These are the so-called jobs that Americans (we are told) won't do. But
I guess thos same Americans are OK with $7/hour working in McDoodoo's
or parking cars for tips.
That is not the only jobs the immigrants take. They are taking a lot
of jobs in the construction industry which is driving the wages down.
I also think the statement by the American admin that there are jobs
Americans won't take is a pile of BS. The only reason these jobs are
by-passed is because of very low pay. Working wages have gone down in
real terms in the last 10-15 years, mainly due to oversupply of
labour.
Post by Sinister MidgetPost by LoboThis is a bonanza for these immigrant workers. It is also a bonanza
for the companies that hire these people. Not so good for the working
American though.
The bonanza for the companies hiring is the key. They can get away with
paying little or nothing for benefits. In worst cases, they don't
withhold taxes or anything else. _THAT'S_ the industry that needs to be
stopped.
Yes. Here in Canada, one CANNOT work w/o a social security number. If
an employer hires someone w/o one, that employer cannot use the wages
paid as an expense for tax purposes.
Post by Sinister MidgetPost by LoboThere is a reason that the US borders are wide open to immigrants. If
you need some plumbing done, would you pay $35/hr if you can get it
for $15/hr? If you need factory workers, would you pay $15/hr or
$7.50/hr? The above doesn't even take into consideration the fact that
with illegals, companies don't even have to pay all those "extras"
that increase his cost of labour.
That doesn't explain _why_ they're open, only the effect of their
_being_ open.
The law of supply and demand. If you keep the supply of labour high,
the wages stay low. Wage stagnation of the average worker should be a
cause of concern if allowed to go on for too many years. Unions used
to balance this but they no longer have the strength they once did.
Post by Sinister MidgetThey're open because the pols are too gutless to do anything about it.
So every 20 years we give citizenship to people who came illegally,
make new laws that (we are told) will prevent it from ever happening
again, then wait until 20 years later so we can do it another time.
I'm with Charles Krauthammer on this. We should legalize everybody
here. 100% of them. No exceptions except for a few classes of criminal
and people who are a threat (including gang members and leaders, people
wiht terrorist connections, etc). But, something else has to happen
first.
Build a wall. It can be done, no matter what the naysayers claim. Build
it and patrol it. If one wall isn't enough, build 2 and put the patrols
in between. Put cameras, patrol dogs, towers, whatever it takes. We
stop as close to 100% of the illegal entry as possible along the
border.
A few years later, maybe 2 or 3, we talk about integrating 100% of
those already here.
Absorbing illegal aliens isn't a very palatable answer to most people.
But a majority could be convinced only if they really believe this is
the last time we need to go through this.
We can talk about guest worker programs, increasing the level of
immigration and anything else. But it's not going to be a seller to
most people if they think it's all just an excuse to do nothing.
Those who want to compare to the Belin wall should remember that _it_
was designed to keep people in.
Building a wall is well within the means of the US government. It will
occur when American corporate interests feel they have enough labour
to keep wages depressed.
Post by Sinister MidgetPost by LoboThe American taxpayer has to pick up the tab for schooling and health
care. Of course, the latest Bush tax cuts offsets these effects
somewhat for those in that bracket. They also don't feel the pinch
because their kids don't go to public schools or state hospitals
anyway.
What bracket is that? I got a tax cut. I'm not rich. Not even close.
And I don't make anywhere near the upper levels of income.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
</quote>
Average Value of Tax-Cut Benefits in 2004
Middle 20 percent $547 $100
Top one percent $1,320 $33,672
Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center
The distribution of these middle-class provisions stands in stark
contrast, however, to the distribution of tax benefits under the
remaining tax-cut provisions. The top one percent of the income
spectrum will receive an average tax cut of almost $33,700 from all of
the other tax-cut provisions in 2004, while the middle fifth of
households will receive an average tax cut of just $100. The other
tax cuts provide those at the top of the income scale with average tax
benefits more than 300 times larger than the benefits that those in
the middle of the income spectrum are receiving. This gap will widen
even further over time.
<quote>
Post by Sinister MidgetMy kid is going to parochial school. I decided to make it work because
public schools have been destroyed in a lot of places. Even moreso in
this area. It's tough going. But we're committed to doing it. The
lovely and gracious Mrs. Midget is back in school, too, so she can
eventually go back to work and make enough to help this work.
The tax cuts didn't make this possible. The tax cuts barely made a
dent. But the tax cuts gave a slight bit of wiggle room to get us
moving in the right direction. What made it possible was our deciding
to do it. Even if it requires doubling the workload. If the missus
doesn't get what we hope, it may take that just to get him through
school and ino college.
I still pay the same taxes for the lousy schools we don't even use. I'm
not bitching about the principle of it. But I wouldn't mind if that
part changed.
Isn't the money you spend on schooling tax deductible? Have you
compared these reductions to your school tax?
Post by Sinister MidgetMy gripe is that the schools here aren't even state certified any more,
and I _still_ pay more and more each year for crappy results. If they
improved or at least stayed the same (and were accredited) I'd not be
so opposed to them. But my boy still wouldn't set foot in them.
The US schools are not doing a very good job in educating. I feel many
of the schools here in Canada are suffering similar problems.
Post by Sinister MidgetPost by LoboI think highly of capitalism where an individual owns the means of
production and there is free *and* fair trade. But what I am seeing,
especially in the US, is a form of corporate socialism where companies
are in bed with the state. This path can easily lead to fascism.
I don't totally disagree with that. What I see though, an area that
many like to deny, it's across the board. Politicians of every stripe
are involved, almost at the same level. The people that buy them go by
differing names, but they're just as bad on both sides.
Yes. Both the democrats and republicans are equally controlled too
much by big business.
Post by Sinister MidgetFor the record, I don't believe every politician is on the take. But
I'm not sure I could accurately name both of the ones that aren't.
I'm not saying that all the politicians are on the "take" but most of
them are very involved in 'pork barreling' - a time honoured system of
bring home the bacon to their respective constituents in the form of
fat government contracts (mostly in the massive defense budget).
Post by Sinister MidgetAs for the individual owning the means of production, that's a fairly
inefficient way of doing things for large scale products. Being part
owner among a group might be useful. Some businesses are like that
already. Being sole owner of something small could work in most cases
and fail in others.
It has been found that there is a size, beyond which corporations
become less efficient. There are industries in which size may be more
efficient but at costs that do not take into consideration damage to
the environment or social structures.
Post by Sinister MidgetI'm not sure the US is the only one involved in corporate socialism.
Perhaps you mean something different than what that term brings to my
mind.
By corporate socialism I mean the tax breaks and outright subsidies
given to large corporations.There are also special compensations given
to postpone or evade paying environmental costs. There has also been
too much use of the government's political and military power to get
special compensations in foreign countries. The 'free' markets are
being manipulated by powerful financial and corporate interests within
the government of all nations. Some more than others.
"He who pays the piper, calls the tune."
Examples are $10 billion tax breaks given to Exxon and the $50 billion
'farm' subsidies given to agri-business.
The gains accrue mainly to the wealthy who can afford to invest more
of their money. Those earning less have to put their money towards
daily living expenses such as food and shelter. This is widening the
gap between the rich and poor at the expense of the middle class.
These people have very little political power other than to vote. But
once their candidate is elected, they have little control over events.
Here in Canada, when a particular party has a majority, the people
have little control of what they actually do. Promises get forgotten
and priorities change. A healthy democracy needs checks and balances
from an effective opposition.
If the vested interests of all political parties merge, there is no
longer a true democracy and one is simply voting for the "lesser
evil". Most give up voting when this happens. Another factor is the
cost of entry into politics. It now takes a billion $ to run for
president. This is turning the US into an oligarchy - a country that
is run and controlled by the wealthy minority.
Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner - GOP $800/plate fundraiser 2000:
"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some
people call you the elites; I call you my base." - George W. Bush
This was meant as a joke but it also speaks the truth.