In article , Mark & Juanita wrote:
CW wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote:



"Mark & Juanita" wrote

That hasn't exactly been working out too well for the Europeans
either.
Suburbs around Paris have been in flames the past couple of weeks
because
of some of those "guest workers". Britain is having similar problems.

The French couldn't administer a cluster f*ck, and the British let many
of
those folks in starting about 40 years ago out of colonial guilt, not
to work.


Not going to disagree with either of your assessments there. However,
the
same problem is prevalent across Europe -- Spain, Denmark, Sweden, etc.
The thing that we do have going for us is that the immigrants we have
coming in at least share the same religious background, even if they
don't share the same language.



Muslim? Buddhist?

Get back to me with the stats on the number of muslims and buddhists
coming into the country to pick crops (legally or illegally). Then we can
discuss your snipe.

You're arguing with a crybaby. He's going to put you in the bozo bin, too, if
you're not careful.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:20:59 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "CW"
wrote:
Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying attention. Ever
picked apples? I have.

Yep. I've picked apples, too. Enough to know that the idea that using American
labor to pick them would cause apples to cost fifteen bucks apiece is sheer
lunacy, a fictional number with no factual basis whatsoever, invented for no
purpose other than scaring people into believing the lie that our economy
would collapse without the cheap labor provided by illegal aliens.

Do the math. You claim an apple picker can easily make $20 an hour. Now let's
suppose that the picker's wage is only one-fifth of the retail price of an
apple. That means $100 retail worth of apples picked in an hour, or (at $15
per apple) one apple every nine minutes.

That's one damned lazy apple picker.

And one damned stupid grower, who's paying that lazy-ass picker three dollars
_per_apple_.

I notice that the man said a "good picker" can make $20 an hour..

No, he didn't. This is what he said:
Message-ID:
"A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour. "

In my experience, the pay is ZERO $ an hour and you get paid based on how many
boxes you fill..

Of course. But my point is that there is _no_way_ that apples are going to
cost anywhere near fifteen dollars apiece anytime in the foreseeable future,
no matter _who_ picks them. That's just another scare story put forward by the
apologists for illegal immigration. The math just doesn't add up.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:58:08 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:


I notice that the man said a "good picker" can make $20 an hour..

No, he didn't. This is what he said:
Message-ID:
"A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour. "

In my experience, the pay is ZERO $ an hour and you get paid based on how many
boxes you fill..

Of course. But my point is that there is _no_way_ that apples are going to
cost anywhere near fifteen dollars apiece anytime in the foreseeable future,
no matter _who_ picks them. That's just another scare story put forward by the
apologists for illegal immigration. The math just doesn't add up.

I can tell you from experience that apples won't get that expensive... it would
have worse consequences..

I central California they solved the labor problem by plowing over the orchards
and building houses..
What do they do to make up for the loss of crops?
They import fruit and vegetables from Mexico..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:02:53 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Even back in the 40's when my mother was home on the farm, the whole
family worked, but my granddad did hire migrant workers at the peaks of the
season (chopping cotton and picking cotton). There were people who
followed the harvest or other crop seasons from Texas on north throughout
the year. From what I understand however, they were all American citizens
or here legally.
I recently read a book, ( "A Painted House" by John Grisham),about cotton
growers in Arkansas during the 50's and the family did most of the farming but
needed Lots of help picking...
A lot of the book revolves around conflicts between the 2 sources of hired
seasonal pickers.. "hill people" that came down once a year in large family
groups and "Mexicans" that were trucked in from Mexico..

Some things never change?


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Dec 2, 1:33 pm, "CW" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "CW"





wrote:
Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for
a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out
the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying
attention. Ever
picked apples? I have.
Yep. I've picked apples, too. Enough to know that the idea that using
American
labor to pick them would cause apples to cost fifteen bucks apiece is
sheer
lunacy, a fictional number with no factual basis whatsoever, invented
for no
purpose other than scaring people into believing the lie that our
economy
would collapse without the cheap labor provided by illegal aliens.

Do the math. You claim an apple picker can easily make $20 an hour.
Now let's
suppose that the picker's wage is only one-fifth of the retail price
of an
apple. That means $100 retail worth of apples picked in an hour, or
(at $15
per apple) one apple every nine minutes.

That's one damned lazy apple picker.

And one damned stupid grower, who's paying that lazy-ass picker three
dollars
_per_apple_.
Problem is, you can't get "'Murricuns" to do the work at any price...

Problem is, that's a commonly-repeated myth, but it's still a myth. That
just
isn't true.

It's a myth only for those who are not in the position of trying to find
workers...

--

Doug Miller's only contribution to this group is to argue. He does nothing
else. He does not seem to care if he is right or wrong as long as he is
arguing. He has joined the rest of the idiots in my bozo bin.

You don't say.......................................

On Dec 2, 3:19 pm, mac davis wrote:


I can tell you from experience that apples won't get that expensive... i

My impression was that the OP was using the $ 15 marker as an
illustrator for 'expensive'.
I was not surprised to see the same-old Arguemaster sink his mossy
fangs into that as a 'wrong' thing to say/do. Some people have NO life
and anything better to do that nit-pik all day. I love the defensive
strategy of calling somebody a 'cry-baby'....how old are we???
Having said that, 'I' think apples could very well be $ 14.98 some
day. Of course, everybody will be making $ 3000.00 per day at that
time.

I guess what I'm trying to say is...this is ****ing ridiculous. (Not
aimed at you, mac...but in general terms)

I envision a headline now: "MILLER SHOOTS HIMSELF AS APPLES HIT THE 15
DOLLAR MARK IN HEAVY TRADING"


*shaking my head in disbelief.*

(too bad the Arguemaster can't read my posts)

Not boxes, bins. A bit over $12.00 per bin. A good picker can pick about two
bins per hour.
"mac davis" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:20:59 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In my experience, the pay is ZERO $ an hour and you get paid based on how
many
boxes you fill..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

In article , "CW" wrote:
Not boxes, bins. A bit over $12.00 per bin. A good picker can pick about two
bins per hour.

Still waiting for your explanation of how the apples wind up costing $15
apiece...

"mac davis" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:20:59 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In my experience, the pay is ZERO $ an hour and you get paid based on how
many
boxes you fill..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

mac davis wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:02:53 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Even back in the 40's when my mother was home on the farm, the whole
family worked, but my granddad did hire migrant workers at the peaks of
the
season (chopping cotton and picking cotton). There were people who
followed the harvest or other crop seasons from Texas on north throughout
the year. From what I understand however, they were all American citizens
or here legally.
I recently read a book, ( "A Painted House" by John Grisham),about cotton
growers in Arkansas during the 50's and the family did most of the farming
but needed Lots of help picking...
A lot of the book revolves around conflicts between the 2 sources of hired
seasonal pickers.. "hill people" that came down once a year in large
family groups and "Mexicans" that were trucked in from Mexico..

Some things never change?

Mom's family was in North Texas. From what she has said, there were two
distinct groups, the migrant Mexican workers and blacks. I don't recall
her mentioning any conflicts regarding that. The migrants pretty much
moved themselves from job to job (they weren't "trucked" in). Mom's family
worked alongside the hired people, the whole idea was to get things done
quickly.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

John Horner wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:08 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

I've never met a nurse who was paid as a sub-contractor. In fact I
suspect their union would go ballistic over it.


You must not be familiar with travel nurses. They go from job to job
as temps. Here in California many hospitals rely on travel nurses
for a significant portion of their staffing.


As my daughter did for several years.....as an employee of a temp service as
I suspect most are....no vehical deduction allowedG....Rod

Doug Winterburn wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

So how did the farmers get their crops in, say, 40 years ago, before
there was the massive flood of illegals we have now?

Child slave labor! In the case of strawberries, my mother sent myself
and two brothers and two sisters off very early each morning during
the season to pick berries. The berry growers had their own old
school buses that made a regular route through the neighborhoods to
gather up all their little and big workers - there were many adults
who also worked the fields. As I recall, we were paid 25 cents/flat.
The laundry costs may have been more than we made, but mom was
probably very happy to have all five of gone from dawn to dusk. And
yes, it was back breaking work for a ten year old, but that and
mowing lawns (push reel mower) was my summer income. I suspect that
most folks over 50 had some similar summer jobs as kids.

Even worse my Dad had a small Raspberry field....10-20 seasonal pickers plus
us kids....I was both a "rich" owners kid and the top picker. When the Gov.
decided that kids under 12 could no longer pick we had to hide the families
with ten year olds from prying eyesG......Over the 40 years he had the
patch he had many a mom teach her kids what work and a honest days pay was
all about.......Sadly that era is mostly gone as kids aren't allowed to
work. The societal change from most Mom's raising kids to most working
(rising house payments) seriously dried up the urban labor pool as well.
Rod

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:12:17 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:05:43 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

Totally off topic, but I think government went to hell when they invented
a career called "politician"..

Now, kids are groomed almost from birth to run for and hold office..

The poster child for that is now a "temporary resident of Iowa".

WWE announcer voice
CT's own, Chrissssss Dooooodd!.
/WWE announcer voice.

... snip
We deserve what we get, as we continue to elect on name recognition
and govern without the benefit term limits.

Another poster child: Hillary Clinton. She moved to New York solely to
run for office and now claims that her qualification for office is that she
was married to the president and has been in the white house before
(paraphrasing). That, and it's "her turn".

Chuckle, and now the outrage of Rudy's infidelity while he was mayor
and the police coverup! Good ole Bill was getting his in the same
house he lived in while the secret service (appropriate name huh)
guarded the door. And the politician TERM LIMITS in congress!!!

BTW on topic, been married to my favorite pal for 23 years and she is
still the greatest! (no need for security in our house except S&W)
Kenneth

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:06:43 GMT, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:05:43 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

Totally off topic, but I think government went to hell when they invented a
career called "politician"..

Now, kids are groomed almost from birth to run for and hold office..

The poster child for that is now a "temporary resident of Iowa".

WWE announcer voice
CT's own, Chrissssss Dooooodd!.
/WWE announcer voice.

Daddy was a Senator, Chris has never had a real job, and now he hasn't
even been bothering to vote in the Senate, as he pursues a
Presidential campaign that doesn't even register in the primary polls.
He can't register in the primary polls, because he has nothing to show
for 30 something years in Washington, and no real platform. I'm
quite sure he feels he should run for Prez. based simply on seniority,
he's due the job!

Dodd is such a pompous ass that he told the Hartford Courant, "Though
I haven't done well in the polls, at least I'm enjoying myself." All
CT voters should be glad for that! G

The idiot has actually rented a home and enrolled his children in
school in Iowa, so he can "be close to the people", while ignoring the
job we pay him to do.

We deserve what we get, as we continue to elect on name recognition
and govern without the benefit term limits.

WELL SAID! We deserve what we get. Case in point Teddy (dunk 'em and
leave 'em) Kennedy. And people attack candidates for minor
infractions. In this country you can buy away manslaughter with enough
money!
Kenneth

On Dec 2, 10:32 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Just Wondering wrote:
CW wrote:
Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying attention. Ever
picked apples? I have. You won't find enough Americans to get the crops in.
You couldn't pay most people enough to do the work. It is not because of low
pay. A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour. Mexican labor
is what keeps the fruit producers going.

So how did the farmers get their crops in, say, 40 years ago, before there was
the massive flood of illegals we have now?

They were picked by Americans, of course, and we all paid $15 apiece for our
apples at the grocery store. Don't you remember?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Don't know about 40 years ago, but I did pick apples one fall about 35
years ago. Close enough?

It was all a game of politics.

Orchard was in northern Westchester County, New York. The growers
wanted to bring in the Jamaicans, which they did every year. Before
the state would let them in, though, they sent around a number of
people on the unemployment rolls. They were paid at so much per box
or minimum wage - whichever came to more. Even though we started on
RI Greenings - which are very large cooking apples and were easy
picking on very small trees - they were very slow and none of them
were in the box rate bracket. Most of them didn't last more than the
first day, none lasted more than several days. They all came up with
reasons why they could not continue. Some were truly not fit for the
work, but most of the reasons were bull****.

Finally the state relented and allowed the growers to bring in the
Jamaicans. Those guys were fast. I was well above minimum wage, but
not at their level. I considered it a great day when I could pick 2/3
of what a Jamaican did. Mid-way through the season, I was the only
non-Jamaican there.

Great bunch of guys. I'll never forget one Friday, though. From the
next tree, one of the guys yelled out to me "Hey, come out with us
tonight. We're gonna have some drinks, get some cock". Whoa. I
don't know about that. Don't want to hurt any feelings, but.... One
of them started to laugh and explained "Oh, that's what we call
p*ssy". Oh.

So. One of the richest counties in the country, and there weren't
enough locals to get the crop in. There would be more in a poorer
area, but probably not enough. CW is right.

But he's also wrong. It could be done. Because the real answer is
for our government to grow a set of balls and require that those on
welfare and unemployment take jobs like those, or not get their
"entitlements". Work or go hungry.

There would still be areas in farm country when a big crop would
require outside help. So, bring people in from the cities. Bring
back the CCC if we have to. Unfortunately, I don't think our
politicians - or most of us - are willing to be tough enough to do it.

John Martin

In article , John Martin wrote:
[snip]

So. One of the richest counties in the country, and there weren't
enough locals to get the crop in. There would be more in a poorer
area, but probably not enough. CW is right.

But he's also wrong.

Of course the price of apples, pears, and most other agricultural products
would rise, without cheap illegal labor to pick them. But ChronicWhiner's
claim that apples would go up to fifteen dollars apiece, and pears eighteen,
is just nuts. No relationship to reality at all.

It could be done. Because the real answer is
for our government to grow a set of balls and require that those on
welfare and unemployment take jobs like those, or not get their
"entitlements". Work or go hungry.

Bingo!

There would still be areas in farm country when a big crop would
require outside help. So, bring people in from the cities. Bring
back the CCC if we have to. Unfortunately, I don't think our
politicians - or most of us - are willing to be tough enough to do it.

You are. I am. There's a start.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

dpb wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

CW wrote:

Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying
attention. Ever
picked apples? I have. You won't find enough Americans to get the
crops in.
You couldn't pay most people enough to do the work. It is not because
of low
pay. A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour.
Mexican labor
is what keeps the fruit producers going.


So how did the farmers get their crops in, say, 40 years ago, before
there was the massive flood of illegals we have now?


Combination -- mostly the itinerants were still around, just there
weren't the other 10-20 M of so besides in the case of the seasonal
picking and so on. Earlier ('30s and so on), there were the Okies and
similar of Steinbeck fame...

The difference now is the US demographics are far different and welfare
programs mean the unemployed don't starve so they don't/won't work at
all in large numbers...

--

If that's true, then the answer isn't turning a blind eye to illegal aliens,
it's changing welfare to workfare.

Doug Winterburn wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:


So how did the farmers get their crops in, say, 40 years ago, before
there was the massive flood of illegals we have now?


Child slave labor! In the case of strawberries, my mother sent myself
and two brothers and two sisters off very early each morning during the
season to pick berries. The berry growers had their own old school
buses that made a regular route through the neighborhoods to gather up
all their little and big workers - there were many adults who also
worked the fields. As I recall, we were paid 25 cents/flat. The
laundry costs may have been more than we made, but mom was probably very
happy to have all five of gone from dawn to dusk. And yes, it was back
breaking work for a ten year old, but that and mowing lawns (push reel
mower) was my summer income. I suspect that most folks over 50 had some
similar summer jobs as kids.


That's not slave labor, it's parents realizing and taking advantage of a great
opportunity to instill a work ethic in their children. Something we could use a
little more of nowadays.

Just Wondering wrote:
dpb wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

CW wrote:

Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying
attention. Ever
picked apples? I have. You won't find enough Americans to get the
crops in.
You couldn't pay most people enough to do the work. It is not
because of low
pay. A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour.
Mexican labor
is what keeps the fruit producers going.


So how did the farmers get their crops in, say, 40 years ago, before
there was the massive flood of illegals we have now?


Combination -- mostly the itinerants were still around, just there
weren't the other 10-20 M of so besides in the case of the seasonal
picking and so on. Earlier ('30s and so on), there were the Okies and
similar of Steinbeck fame...

The difference now is the US demographics are far different and
welfare programs mean the unemployed don't starve so they don't/won't
work at all in large numbers...

--

If that's true, then the answer isn't turning a blind eye to illegal
aliens, it's changing welfare to workfare.

It's certainly true it's a part of it; not all. Nothing is so
simplistic. It doesn't help that we have labor laws that make it almost
impossible to hire teenagers for summer labor for farm work any more.

I don't argue the general idea of "work for pay", but realistically what
do you think the chances are of accomplishing that?

Again, I'm not saying I like the status quo, simply that there is a need
that the "send 'em back" crowd doesn't want to recognize. That there
should be legitimate ways is a given imo but as I've noted elsewhere,
neither political party wants a solution very much because it's too
convenient as a campaign weapon against the other and each have very
competing vested interests in how they wish to see it resolved in (they
think at least) their favor.

--

Just Wondering wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:


So how did the farmers get their crops in, say, 40 years ago, before
there was the massive flood of illegals we have now?


Child slave labor! In the case of strawberries, my mother sent myself
and two brothers and two sisters off very early each morning during
....
That's not slave labor, it's parents realizing and taking advantage of a
great opportunity ...[snipped for purpose ]...

Depends on whether were the parent or the child...

But, seriously, the current labor laws make it almost impossible for us
to hire summer labor as high school kids for much farm labor any more.

--

Just Wondering wrote:
dpb wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

CW wrote:

Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00
for a pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as
throwing out the illegal either don't live in farm country or are
not paying
attention. Ever
picked apples? I have. You won't find enough Americans to get the
crops in.
You couldn't pay most people enough to do the work. It is not
because of low
pay. A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour.
Mexican labor
is what keeps the fruit producers going.


So how did the farmers get their crops in, say, 40 years ago,
before
there was the massive flood of illegals we have now?


Combination -- mostly the itinerants were still around, just there
weren't the other 10-20 M of so besides in the case of the seasonal
picking and so on. Earlier ('30s and so on), there were the Okies
and similar of Steinbeck fame...

The difference now is the US demographics are far different and
welfare programs mean the unemployed don't starve so they
don't/won't work at all in large numbers...

--

If that's true, then the answer isn't turning a blind eye to illegal
aliens, it's changing welfare to workfare.

What I'd like to see is a system where people on Welfare get rewarded
to work. On the current system if you get a minimum-wage job then you
lose more in benefits than you make in wages, so why bother?

Workfare was tried--it was called "WPA" and "CCC" and now it's called
"Pork Barrel Politics".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:07:57 -0700, Just Wondering wrote:

Child slave labor! In the case of strawberries, my mother sent myself
and two brothers and two sisters off very early each morning during the
season to pick berries. The berry growers had their own old school
buses that made a regular route through the neighborhoods to gather up
all their little and big workers - there were many adults who also
worked the fields. As I recall, we were paid 25 cents/flat. The
laundry costs may have been more than we made, but mom was probably very
happy to have all five of gone from dawn to dusk. And yes, it was back
breaking work for a ten year old, but that and mowing lawns (push reel
mower) was my summer income. I suspect that most folks over 50 had some
similar summer jobs as kids.


That's not slave labor, it's parents realizing and taking advantage of a great
opportunity to instill a work ethic in their children. Something we could use a
little more of nowadays.

I don't think that they pay slaves, though...
My guess is that those quarters added up to a pretty good amount for a kid at
that time..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

mac davis wrote:

I don't think that they pay slaves, though...
My guess is that those quarters added up to a pretty good amount for a kid at
that time..

It was much better than when I was back in school and went on the dole
for a 25 cent/week allowance...

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:21:46 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Americans did those jobs just fine back then because there were people who
needed jobs to live and took even low paying jobs until something better
came along.

We should certainly go back to that kind of thinking and end the
ridiculous welfare for life nonsense we have now.

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

They import fruit and vegetables from Mexico..

Good, then maybe the illegals can stay home and pick crops in their
own country. Works for me.

dpb wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

dpb wrote:

The difference now is the US demographics are far different and
welfare programs mean the unemployed don't starve so they don't/won't
work at all in large numbers...


If that's true, then the answer isn't turning a blind eye to illegal
aliens, it's changing welfare to workfare.


I don't argue the general idea of "work for pay", but realistically what
do you think the chances are of accomplishing that?


About the same chance as there is of getting rid of the illegal aliens -
somewhere between slim and none.

J. Clarke wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:

dpb wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:


CW wrote:


Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00
for a pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as
throwing out the illegal either don't live in farm country or are
not paying
attention. Ever
picked apples? I have. You won't find enough Americans to get the
crops in.
You couldn't pay most people enough to do the work. It is not
because of low
pay. A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour.
Mexican labor
is what keeps the fruit producers going.


So how did the farmers get their crops in, say, 40 years ago,
before
there was the massive flood of illegals we have now?


Combination -- mostly the itinerants were still around, just there
weren't the other 10-20 M of so besides in the case of the seasonal
picking and so on. Earlier ('30s and so on), there were the Okies
and similar of Steinbeck fame...

The difference now is the US demographics are far different and
welfare programs mean the unemployed don't starve so they
don't/won't work at all in large numbers...

--

If that's true, then the answer isn't turning a blind eye to illegal
aliens, it's changing welfare to workfare.


What I'd like to see is a system where people on Welfare get rewarded
to work. On the current system if you get a minimum-wage job then you
lose more in benefits than you make in wages, so why bother?

Workfare was tried--it was called "WPA" and "CCC" and now it's called
"Pork Barrel Politics".


At least we got more for our money with WPA and CCC (a little something here and
there) than we do now (which is nothing).

Just Wondering wrote:
dpb wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

dpb wrote:

The difference now is the US demographics are far different and
welfare programs mean the unemployed don't starve so they
don't/won't work at all in large numbers...


If that's true, then the answer isn't turning a blind eye to illegal
aliens, it's changing welfare to workfare.


I don't argue the general idea of "work for pay", but realistically
what do you think the chances are of accomplishing that?


About the same chance as there is of getting rid of the illegal aliens -
somewhere between slim and none.

Yep, so effort would be better served towards something achievable...

--

Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:

dpb wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:


CW wrote:


Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00
for a pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as
throwing out the illegal either don't live in farm country or are
not paying
attention. Ever
picked apples? I have. You won't find enough Americans to get the
crops in.
You couldn't pay most people enough to do the work. It is not
because of low
pay. A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour.
Mexican labor
is what keeps the fruit producers going.


So how did the farmers get their crops in, say, 40 years ago, before
there was the massive flood of illegals we have now?


Combination -- mostly the itinerants were still around, just there
weren't the other 10-20 M of so besides in the case of the seasonal
picking and so on. Earlier ('30s and so on), there were the Okies
and similar of Steinbeck fame...

The difference now is the US demographics are far different and
welfare programs mean the unemployed don't starve so they
don't/won't work at all in large numbers...

--

If that's true, then the answer isn't turning a blind eye to illegal
aliens, it's changing welfare to workfare.


What I'd like to see is a system where people on Welfare get rewarded
to work. On the current system if you get a minimum-wage job then you
lose more in benefits than you make in wages, so why bother?

Workfare was tried--it was called "WPA" and "CCC" and now it's called
"Pork Barrel Politics".


At least we got more for our money with WPA and CCC (a little something
here and there) than we do now (which is nothing).

Yes...actually they were both pretty successful, overall for what their
objective was.

--

Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:

dpb wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:


CW wrote:


Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about
$18.00
for a pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as
throwing out the illegal either don't live in farm country or
are
not paying
attention. Ever
picked apples? I have. You won't find enough Americans to get
the
crops in.
You couldn't pay most people enough to do the work. It is not
because of low
pay. A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour.
Mexican labor
is what keeps the fruit producers going.


So how did the farmers get their crops in, say, 40 years ago,
before
there was the massive flood of illegals we have now?


Combination -- mostly the itinerants were still around, just
there
weren't the other 10-20 M of so besides in the case of the
seasonal
picking and so on. Earlier ('30s and so on), there were the
Okies
and similar of Steinbeck fame...

The difference now is the US demographics are far different and
welfare programs mean the unemployed don't starve so they
don't/won't work at all in large numbers...

--

If that's true, then the answer isn't turning a blind eye to
illegal
aliens, it's changing welfare to workfare.


What I'd like to see is a system where people on Welfare get
rewarded
to work. On the current system if you get a minimum-wage job then
you lose more in benefits than you make in wages, so why bother?

Workfare was tried--it was called "WPA" and "CCC" and now it's
called
"Pork Barrel Politics".


At least we got more for our money with WPA and CCC (a little
something here and there) than we do now (which is nothing).

However the unions felt that CCC took food out of the mouths of union
members who could have been doing the same work and WPA was criticized
for overpaying liberal intellectuals to do nothing much.

And both did something that would be political suicide today, they
allowed able bodied men into the program.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:


At least we got more for our money with WPA and CCC (a little
something here and there) than we do now (which is nothing).


However the unions felt that CCC took food out of the mouths of union
members who could have been doing the same work


One thing I appreciate about the CCC is that they built and improved hiking
trails and campgrounds in the national forests that are still around for you and
me to enjoy to this day. If the federal government had been required to hire
union workers to do that work it would have been cost prohibitive and never
would have happened.

Brian Henderson wrote:

We should certainly go back to that kind of thinking and end the
ridiculous welfare for life nonsense we have now.


Actually the welfare reform act did...as one of the few actual political
achievements of the 90's.....lifetime welfare benefits are limited to 5
years. There are many incentives and programs for education and job skills
and the overall welfare rolls have fallen by 50 %.

The realistic problem is basic bottom tier wages are too low to buy food,
shelter and medical....while many professions have jumped in purchasing
power especially doctors, lawyers and politiciansG....the bottom tier has
fallen significantly but many basic living costs have not. For example in
1976 (in the NW) a janitor made roughly $4.00 an hr today he would make
roughly between $8-$11 and yet if wages had simply kept abreast with
inflation his wages would be $15.80......$4.00 was not a flush living in
1976, ten dollars today is considerably worse. A medical plan in 1976 was
$25.00 today roughly $300-400 per month.......Third world imports and legal
and illegal immigration has flooded the bottom tier thus driving down wages
while the top tier steadily protects itself from competition...not a fair
playing field by any means.....Rod

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:12:50 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:21:46 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Americans did those jobs just fine back then because there were people who
needed jobs to live and took even low paying jobs until something better
came along.

We should certainly go back to that kind of thinking and end the
ridiculous welfare for life nonsense we have now.

For sure... I spent quite a few years in property management and learned all
about welfare.. what a rip off..

In my parents day, welfare or "the dole" was something that you avoided if
possible and if you got it, you wanted to get a job and get off of it..

I rented to several 2nd or 3rd generation "career welfare recipients"... they'd
never had a job or any income other than from our tax bucks...
They lived better than I did, drove better cars, usually ate better and had
little or no stress in their lives..
I complained a few times about tenants driving expensive classic cars and was
told that the people driving them were smart enough to not have them in their
names... and that it would cost more toenforce the rules then to just pay the
welfare.. that's just wrong, IMHO


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:15:45 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

They import fruit and vegetables from Mexico..

Good, then maybe the illegals can stay home and pick crops in their
own country. Works for me.

Hasn't worked so far... not sure why but might be different picking seasons or
just lotsa of workers??


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing