Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes

[piezoe]

"We love the uneducated" -- Donald J. Trump

So why is it that Republicans so love the uneducated? I suppose it is because the uneducated largely man their sweatshops, and in turn vote for their masters. It's a profitable lose-win relationship.

What the U.S. desperately needs is better educated Republicans*!

______________________
*gwb-trading is an outlier and notable exception.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Let us not be so naive to believe that the economists quoted don't understand the full ramifications. They're responding to all the absurd and misguided, popular nonsense that raising the minimum won't accomplish anything other then putting teenagers out of work because everything will just shift accordingly and we will be right back where we started. I read this nonsense all the time from traders right here, who obviously have only the most rudimentary understanding of macro economics.

"Economists" rank right above "journalists" these days in order of factual reporting and non-biased, non-narrative based information.

See my previous posts if you're after more depth regarding the many effects of raising the minimum -- most of them good, by the way! The good far out weighs the bad. Don't look for Germany, the number one exporter, to be copying the U.S. by reducing wages well below what it takes to survive. Apparently Germans understand economics much better than Americans do! Read Economist John Quiggan's book if you want to understand what's wrong with Republican supply-side economics -- there is a long list.

Yeah, that's what I'll do. I'll waste the time to go seek out economic posts by someone (you or authors you recommend) whose economic ideas I have found hilariously inept in the past. Maybe on a really, really slow day when I need a giggle.

 

[Tsing Tao]

We still have textile sweatshops in the United States manned by immigrant women working for less than minimum wage. American Apparel (a very popular brand in malls here) was widely publicized for abusively using this cheap labor. Against the media negative publicity the company responded with a marketing campaign claiming is was "sweat-shop free" which was immediately torn apart with bad publicity after its own employees revealed further on-shore sweat-shop practices (and that the company did not really provide medical, "high wages", and all the other stuff they claimed). Yet despite all the publicity (including Immigration enforcement in 2009 forcing the firing of over 25% of their sweat-shop workforce) the brand kept selling and very little was done to stop the practices.

It was only their failure to keep up with desired fashions, bad financial practices, and endless sexual harassment claims against their CEO Dov Charney (gotta love the risque advertising they had in this context) that caused their demise -- they maintained their onshore sweatshop to the bitter end in 2017 despite layoffs.

So you're saying that the labor laws have no effect, then, is that it?

 

[Buy1Sell2]

It was only their failure to keep up with desired fashions, bad financial practices, and endless sexual harassment claims against their CEO Dov Charney (gotta love the risque advertising they had in this context) that caused their demise -- they maintained their onshore sweatshop to the bitter end in 2017 despite layoffs.

You admit it then?!---That the market took care of the miscreant?

 

[gwb-trading]

You admit it then?!---That the market took care of the miscreant?

Not for any reasons doing with their labor force.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Not for any reasons doing with their labor force.

I just don't get your line of thinking here. Either you say the laws in place didn't work (like gun laws, for instance) and therefore it's not the law that actually polices businesses, or the laws work and AA was taken down by a combination of laws and market forces (you call these "financial difficulties" and blame the issue on "marketing" decisions, but have no possible way to determine what bad press affected sales at AA).

The fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of companies operate under practices compliant with the law - not because of the law - but because of how society would view their non-compliance. Sweat shops would not return if labor laws were rescinded. No matter what extreme examples you throw out. You can always find exceptions to any rules.

If anything, policies like "affirmative action" and stuff like that might suffer. But almost all practices that, by now are deemed socially acceptable, would not reverse.

 

[gwb-trading]

So you're saying that the labor laws have no effect, then, is that it?

Can you imagine if we rescinded the existing labor laws and reverted to the old days where 100% of the labor force worked long hours with no benefits couple with widespread child labor across the U.S. --- instead of merely having a tiny percentage of the labor force being abused by companies not following labor regulations.

The bottom line is that claims that public outcry and exposure in the era of fast social media exposure would shut down employers in the U.S. who abuse labor standards is simply untrue. All the public exposure has mainly been greeted with a big public yawn and minimal government enforcement action. ("As long as it is those low wage workers, immigrants, etc. and not my middle class job - I'll just switch the channel to another of the 400 channels with nothing on").

Employers would be glad to rollback labor laws in the U.S. if they could make the government do this. Many are already effectively doing this by classifying hourly employees as independent contractors to avoid overtime wage payment, workplace comp coverage, etc.

 

[gwb-trading]

I just don't get your line of thinking here. Either you say the laws in place didn't work (like gun laws, for instance) and therefore it's not the law that actually polices businesses, or the laws work and AA was taken down by a combination of laws and market forces (you call these "financial difficulties" and blame the issue on "marketing" decisions, but have no possible way to determine what bad press affected sales at AA).

The fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of companies operate under practices compliant with the law - not because of the law - but because of how society would view their non-compliance. Sweat shops would not return if labor laws were rescinded. No matter what extreme examples you throw out. You can always find exceptions to any rules.

If anything, policies like "affirmative action" and stuff like that might suffer. But almost all practices that, by now are deemed socially acceptable, would not reverse.

During the bad publicity period sales went UP at American Apparel. Financial difficulties means that insiders stole most of the money or spent it on hookers & blow leaving inadequate cash for the company as they failed to update their product line to keep up with young consumer tastes.

 

[Tsing Tao]

During the bad publicity period sales went UP at American Apparel. Financial difficulties means that insiders stole most of the money or spent it on hookers & blow leaving inadequate cash for the company as they failed to update their product line to keep up with young consumer tastes.

haha...ok, if "Financial difficulties" means "insiders stole the money and spent it on hookers and blow" then I had better revise my last presentation to the board describing why a particular company is a bad buy because of their financial difficulties.

I did some reading to better understand AA's "sweat shop" practices you claimed. From what I see, in 2009 they had an immigration audit by ICE that resulted in them firing 1800 employees in the LA area whose backup paperwork they could not provide. They were paid taxable wages, at minimum wage levels, received health benefits and promotional opportunities regularly (according to the complaint filed). Some workers even lamented that, now that they were fired, they would "have to go get a job at one of those sweatshop companies being paid under the table".

Part of the financial difficulties arose when they had to payer higher than minimum wage to get talent that wasn't as experienced, and so productivity plummeted when labor costs spiked. I'm sure there were a good deal of other factors like fashion, marketing, etc.

But I don't know how you can consider "sweat shop" employment when one is paid a minimum, taxable wage, works regular hours and is paid overtime when applicable, gets health benefits, etc.

At the very worst, they are guilty of employing illegal immigrants. But then there are probably a lot of companies that have this "issue".

 

[newwurldmn]

I hardly think wanting to preserve or bring back minimum wage manufacturing jobs is the right direction for the U.S. Quite the opposite. We can accommodate most of those who are not skilled with job tasks that are not easily moved off shore. We must expand the size of our skilled work force. That's where we can be fully competitive. We should be looking to compete on quality, innovation, engineering and design rather than price. Lets not pine for the sweat shop days of yore. The purpose of automation is not only to maintain profits but also to relieve mankind of drudgery. As a matter of fact, via automation, we can compete quite effectively with off-shore sweat shops, if that's our desire.

I disagree with your post. There are lots of manufacturing jobs that aren't coal mining and sweat shops. And not everyone is cut out to be an engineer or a knowledge worker.