05-31-2018, 07:36 PM
(05-31-2018, 01:29 PM)F.U. Wrote: Then raise the wages to a livable wage and Americans may want to do them. That would be much better than paying shit wages to someone who sends most of their wages out of the country.
That's already been tried many times F.U. Farms were offering $20+ per hour, performance-based bonuses, and full benefits for field workers. Few unemployed Americans took the jobs because it's grueling manual labor. And, almost all of those Americans who did give it a go didn't last long for the same reason.
There's also a different but related problem now going down mostly in rural America. Manufacturers who need welders and people to operate heavy machinery are sponsoring Syrian refugees because the Syrians don't complain about working long hard hours for a living wage and they live clean lives (according to religious dictate). One of the plant owners I saw interviewed said he tried to put local unemployed Americans to work, but he simply couldn't fill all the jobs because too many locals consistently failed their drug screening tests (safety/liability issue) or they frequently didn't show up to work.
Then there's the problem of increasing the wages to attract more Americans and succeeding, only to have the corporation open more plants in China or Thailand in order capitalize on lower labor costs and avoid tariffs -- as we're seeing with Harley Davidson. I support living wages for all, for sure. But that doesn't mean companies are willing or able to pay them.
As for border security, yes we need it. That's something Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agree upon (same with infrastructure improvements). But, no, "a great big beautiful wall" all across our borders isn't the most cost effective or efficient way to improve upon what we already have in place. The Wall is an old-school and symbolic solution. Plus, Trump's vision would be geographically impossible. Trump's Wall is not even something for which most Republican congresspersons, even solid Trump supporters, are willing to approve funding.
Better and more impenetrable fencing -- so border patrol agents and surveillance could still see what's happening on the other side -- would be cheaper, faster, and more effective, especially in combination with use of drones and other border security technology. And, better immigration policy/law and enforcement would go a hell of a long way too. In my opinion.