clocker bob wrote:Well, yeah, it's in English, so yes, it carried. There are very few jobs that people are unwilling to do. If there were, this country wouldn't have been built, by immigrants of every color.

So if the country was built by immigrants, why stop now? Is it fully built? What's the cut-off for closing the doors? I read a contradiction here.

There are jobs that people wish they would receive more money for, and the only solution to that problem has always been organized labor / threat of strike.

If every time someone wanted more money, they'd go on strike, the industrial economy would collapse. Which is pretty much what happened here in the '70's. Now, there are some who would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing in the long run, but that's another argument.

clocker bob wrote: I love how an organized union labor work force can be blamed for earning higher wages, supposedly leading to inflation, but if a CEO earns a 400 million dollar retirement package, that's not inflationary, that's proof that the system works.

vockins wrote:I didn't say the bonus wasn't inflationary, dipshit.

Did I place quotes around words of yours indicating that you said that, dipshit? I was speaking rhetorically about the type who only see one side of the coin when it comes to blaming wage increases for inflation, the workers' side.

vockins wrote:I didn't say shit about bonuses. I'm not arguing for 400 million dollar bonuses, the IMF, the NSA, or mind control weather machines located outside of Seattle.

Then don't argue the point. Don't speculate that I put words in your mouth.

vockins wrote:There's nothing, nothing, supposed about the scenario I described. Examples abound - real, historical and contemporary, concrete examples of wage increases affecting the cost of living.

In an internalized economy, money is like rain that falls to the soil then condenses back to the clouds and then falls again as rain. If there is an rise in the cost of living, it is accompanied by a rise in the population's ability to absord the increase- if income is distributed equitably through the population. The people benefitting from the higher cost of living are the same people who have to pay the higher prices; a zero-sum game.

In an internalized economy with a central bank that prints fiat currency to stimulate demand and promote liquidity in the monetary supply, the purchasing power of the money continually devalues, which will inaccurately be described as rising prices, but still, cost of living will not outpace purchasing power, if income is distributed fairly to all classes.

In a globalized economy of globalized workers competing for globalized capital, the two examples above are useless. The advantage owned by capital in a global market results in surplus profits accumulating in vaults or in speculation or in unneccessary debt creation, because the elites in control of a global economy can only make so much war to stimulate demand so they just park it in the control apparatus of central banking.

In a globalized economy, the only hope of the workers is to successfully organize within their country, and then organize across borders if they can. The money to live well for everyone has always been there and will always be there, the workers just need to know how to take it. Ideally, they would slaughter like dogs everyone who stole it from them, but God would say organize and demand it peacefully.

vockins wrote:Your plan does absolutely jack shit to improve worker purchasing power and quality of life.

Okay. If you agree that the profits of the globalized economy are not distributed fairly among the classes, then you tell me how workers should regain control of their earning power without controlling the population of a union and the actions of the union.

vockins wrote:Your bizarro world isolation plan is attemping to get value from nothing.

If you truly believe that the well is dry and we are trying to get value from 'nothing', then you are hopelessly clueless about international finance. We are the value; we get back what we give- currently, we get back less than we give.

There is more wealth than ever, so much of it that trillions of it is in circulation as gambling chips betting on the abilities of other oligarchs to make money. Organized labor has been crushed, and the blood is in the vaults to prove it.

vockins wrote:Decreasing the number of people in a country does not equate to greater purchasing power in the long term. There are no examples of that ever happening. It is batshit nuts.

I never said that.

I said that if there is a surplus of labor in a country's economy, say 11,000 carpenters when there is only work for 10,000, and the extra 1000 came across the border two weeks ago, the ability of the original 10,0000 unionized carpenters to get fair value for the labor will be progressively diminished by the introduction into the labor pool of 1000 undocumented workers willing to take 75% of a union carpenter's wage.

Union workers will still be hired, but the stability of the union will erode if it does not include all carpenters. Union carpenters with bills to pay will take the devil's bargain and compete for the 75% pay jobs with the undocumenteds, sacrificing their solidarity for short-term gains.

In this manner do the globalists make the workers crush their fellow workers. I am making the case that an increase in the population of laborers, combined with the disorganized easily exploited status of the new laborers, into an economy tied to global capital will erode the value of a man's labor in the market.

clocker bob wrote:
See if you can juggle these three oranges without dropping them, vockins:

vockins wrote:Is this an argument? I urge you to visit a different fruit stall.

It's a crude metaphor for rising prices returning to the workers as higher wages in an internalized economy not subject to globalist meddling. No comprende?

sparky wrote: what is your evidence to refute the statistics provided (again, UK only, but as I said, the principles carry) stating that immigration does not create unemployment or overall wealth destruction?

I can't do UK. I'll do US.

Let's try some math.

If 'a' represents union membership

and

'b' represents real wages adjusted for inflation

and

'c' represents illegal immigration

and

'd' represents outsourcing, temp jobs, and all other various schemes to make workers work harder for less money

And 'a' and 'b' are declining as quickly as 'c' and 'd' are rising, I will blame 'c' and 'd', because even though fake free trade and global capitalism gave me 'c' and 'd', wherever they came from, I'm still stuck with them, and if I have control over 'a', I can reduce the effects of 'c' and 'd' and improve the 'b' outlook.

sparky wrote:Cheap, ill-treated foreign labour (whether exploited abroad or at home) built up the outstanding wealth apparent in our countries. It seems unnecessarily cruel to pick on them now. They are the easy target and they are the wrong target.

A target is a target. To build the strength we need to attack the larger target, we must fortify ourselves against the damage caused by the innocent, helpless, just trying to get along brown target.

Then, when we are strong enough to be a threat to the bigger target, our strength attracts those even more egregiously exploited to our cause, and we kill the capitalists, free the wealth, and ride off into the sunset until the next layer of parasites rises from the working class to rebuild the exploitation system all over again.

I saw it all in a movie- or maybe it was a book.

Man is internally defective- he wants more than his fellow man, and he will not pay close attention to what he is doing to get it. Defective men build defective economies. We are poisoned by greed. That was the apple in Eden, greed.

sparky wrote:So if the country was built by immigrants, why stop now? Is it fully built? What's the cut-off for closing the doors? I read a contradiction here.

Maybe you haven't been reading the thread all the way; I've always advocated managed immigration quotas, determined by the demand for labor. As long as labor still holds strike power, the composition of the union can be all left handed Peruvians for all I care.

clocker bob wrote:There are jobs that people wish they would receive more money for, and the only solution to that problem has always been organized labor / threat of strike.

sparky wrote:If every time someone wanted more money, they'd go on strike, the industrial economy would collapse. Which is pretty much what happened here in the '70's. Now, there are some who would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing in the long run, but that's another argument.

Well, that's an example of Bad Union Behavior . Let's not kill all unions because of Bad Union Behavior . If an economy is reasonably transparent, then it should be clear when the piece of the pie earned by labor is adequate or not. Economies rarely are transparent, and the fact that all first world economies are connected to a system that lies about its entire nature makes knowing who is getting the screw job difficult.

clockerb wrote:You may have misread me. God can inform people's attitudes, he certainly informs mine.

My comment reflected the opinion that God has given man unrestricted free will to run the planet as he wishes, and God has apparently decided to let us find our own conclusion to our history. If God was a phone call away, I would ask him to come check in on his flock. Because I can't and nobody else can either, saying "I will not enact this policy to benefit man because I suspect God would not like it" doesn't wash with me- get God to tell me that, not some book that's been filtered through so many human hands it could be partially written by L. Ron Hubbard for all I know.

If people want to claim God as their guidance counselor, produce God for me. Your interpretation of God is internally generated, so it can not be considered The Word Of God.

you lost me when you made the God remark towards Andrew L.'s anabaptist parents who I would wager would reject all that you reject in the quote above. This discussion has too many important forks left dangling as it is. I think your coward remark as it originally stood was strange given the frame of the talk but I have no interest in this fork beyond what I said already.

The original question regarding law is the still open. Unless you answered in the subsequent posts now cascading away. I think I will read all the new bits before anymore typing here.

Wow, Bob seems to get a lot of people riled.

Why is it everyone's ability to interpret a metaphor seizes up when reading his posts (the whole flock thing had me scratching an eyebrow for a moment, I must admit)

I admit I have not read all of this thread but i just spent the last half hour plus reading and I cant help but think so many people have pulled there handbags out because they seem to think that what Bob is saying is racist in some way.

It isn't.
And he is obviously right.

It isn't hard and doesn't require metaphors either. Bob has already said this in several different ways but if someone is willing to work for less than you for the same job then, dependent on the demand for the work needed, you will have to start charging less than you were before the other person came along.

Why is that hard for people to dig?
It is not racist!
It is unfortunate that any negative caused by immigration is immediately pounced upon as being racist. I suspect this is because immigrants are in some ways easier targets (they don't tend to have the editors of tabloid newspapers on their pay roll for example) but that does not mean that immigration has no negatives!

UK-wise, why do you think they (we) just expanded the European Union?
We put more into the EU than we get so is it benefited Mr and Mrs Joe Schmoe in the UK?
Answer - no.
But it is benefiting loads of wealthy businesses who now have a brand new pool of legitimate cheap labour to fish in. So the big business types (who just happen to spend lob loads on government lobby groups) get richer.

Where is the racism?

Of course you could argue that all immigration should be permitted as sooner or later the lower paid immigrants will eventually want more pay and will organise alongside 'natives' and, globally, things could start to improve but do you have any idea how long that would take?

I don't but i'm guessing fucking ages?

Also, bear in mind that in terms of solidarity people, generally, will feel it for people more like them in terms of language, ethnicity, religion. Whether good or bad (and i think bad) it is a fact. What that means is an immigrant coming to a western country will feel less concern about working with other UK workers to improve their lot. That isn't unreasonable of them it's just the way it is.
Good or bad it's a fact.

So, I guess its a timescale choice in terms of hoping things could improve for the lower classes (incidentally, anyone in my view who thinks there is no such thing as class (speaking from a UK point of view) is (to use a phrase I have not used since my school days) a knob rash).
You either think immigration is fandango = many generations before anything happens by which time ecological disaster will almost certainly have trimmed our numbers anyway.
Or 'we' organise and (amongst loads of other things) force our employers (if we have them. I work for myself so dont) to pay us more or our governments to regulate against not just immigration itself but also the exploitation of immigrants.

We'd all be best served not having a knee jerk response that only plays into the hands of the people almost everyone involved in this debate seems to be against.

earwicker, I do not think CB is racist. I do, however, think he is wrong on this.

Bob has already said this in several different ways but if someone is willing to work for less than you for the same job then, dependent on the demand for the work needed, you will have to start charging less than you were before the other person came along.

This itself I do not dispute. But given the aforementioned influx of immigrants into the UK and our relatively stable levels of unemployment, I hold that it is self-evident that here at least immigration is driven by demand for labour.

Clocker Bob, I am not calling for unions to be smashed as they were here. But the irresponsibility and blatant corruption of some in the past did for them almost as much as Thatcher and her vicious mob. Unions are necessary.

As a corrolary, anyone looked up minimum wage rates? Here is the UK's. And here is the range spread across the States. I'm interested to see how it differs across them.

Hi Clocker Bob-
Regarding all of the above I
1) remain unconvinced that the influx of immigrants is the general strike breaker in this nation. The general strike breaker is the supply of oreos and cable sitcoms that make the risk of any real social change daunting to too many sleepy minds. Forget the border and figure out how to make the relatively comfortable people realize what they are being deprived of. And it is not higher wages. There is an emptiness tendency (not universally present) even in the wealthiest of the elites. Its about much more than reducing humanity to economy and evaluating freedom/enslavement from their alone.
Which is
2)your math of doom in a global society depends on all being reduced to economic realities. If so then you are right, at least about the danger of cheap labor to unionized folks. But the reason reality does not play out as neatly as you predict (in my opinion) is that all these situations we imagine are packed with human actions which bring with them into being other types of treasures that you cannot track or quantify in wage/demand/inflation terms. However these actions and unbankable treasures do affect the economy in ways beyond simple class war terminology. The immigrants might give more than they take even in your scenario.

3) It is not "God" who asks for nonviolent persuasion and demonstration rather than the gullotines, it is the fact that "elites" hold a monopoly on the instruments of violence and we have lost the choice to simply storm the bastille. Problem is they also hold enough technique to transform even iron law into putt. Even the distasteful and rare loophole of old, the conscience of the masters is being disappeared as the techniques run more and more on their own moralities, shielded by guilt proof bureacracies. We are in many ways ruled by no one. You can kill capitalists all day long til your blade dulls on their beef thickened necks. If you do so because you believe they are correct in what they esteem their replacements are already trained.

If Americans failed to take the actions you prescribe in the early days of the industrial revolution, when they really were desperate and hungry how can you ask the mexican workers to go home and wait on us to fix our own house first.

4) Don't you think rather than isolation we need a manhattan project to arm ourselves against technique/capital/state? Weapons that will "destroy the infamy!" without turning us against each other as a preliminary? They war pigs had great success welcoming immigrants, maybe so for us:)
Right now the only folks working full tilt on such weapons are in the Middle east, but they offer a cure worse than the disease. They have a flock against flock preliminary as well. I know you ideas are not vile like theirs but I also wonder if the two preliminary prescriptions are completely different in kind. Can you at least see the legitimization "us and them" in your means worries us about what might show up in your ends?


Not saying this immigration is the only hope of the mexican worker or evn the best strategy. Just saying from where we sit its us that have some room to sacrifice a bit for a clear plan, that includes these folks and maybe can use the additional numbers and the undulled energy to initiate a rebellion.

of course mostly I just like the communities these folks build here. They are colorful and alive with something we see out of touch with. My daughter plays with alot of the latino children of the chicken industry here. I am often times jealous of their families and hope to lure more of them here to steal a fiesta. Another reason I question the language standardization bid in this thread. Maybe the spanish can shelter something from the onslaught of verizon, play station, and mcdonalds. Probably not though, huh....
an unwieldy rant in which I quickly said what I had some understanding of and then continued:) feel free to dissect , in fact I look forwrad to it.....I must go have drink....To a Manhattan Project! (nonviolent preferably)