That notion that there are jobs Americans won't do is BS. You need to read, Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-Year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth. The book is solid, covering the academic economic history, black periodicals, statements from black leaders, and gov't commissions on immigration ref…
That notion that there are jobs Americans won't do is BS. You need to read, Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-Year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth. The book is solid, covering the academic economic history, black periodicals, statements from black leaders, and gov't commissions on immigration reform, including Barbara Jordan's commission under Clinton (she was the black Texas Democrat who made her name on the Judiciary Committee during Watergate).
An example from the book: in 1980, meat packers were predominantly black. They earned good middle class wages, having organized since the '20s. By that decade's end, meat packers were predominantly immigrants, earning barely above minimum wage under atrocious conditions.
The author interviewed a bunch of black poultry workers who'd lost their jobs to immigrants on the Eastern Shore. Would they take their jobs back if they could? No, they told him. With the wages the plant was paying, they'd have to sleep in their cars, or many to a room.
Contrary to popular belief, big biz GOPers favor more immigration because they like the cheap labor. It's econ 101 that an oversupply of any resource devalues that resource. Which is why Z'berg with his fwd.US and the Koch organization push for more immigration.
I interviewed Tom Tancredo (R-CO), in the '90s and '00s the primary exponent on Capitol Hill of reducing immigration. He told me tht two fast food execs spent an hour trying to buy him off of the issue, that they'd keep his coffers filled if he'd quit talking about immigration. (He wasn't for sale.)
Incidentally, China ended the one child policy in 2016. The current birthrate is 1.705 per woman, a slight increase over the last few years. The birthrate remains low due to the cost of raising children in cities. The birthrate in the US per woman is 1.782. Nonetheless, the Census Bureau projects that over the next 40 years the US will see 7.5 million in native increase, along with 68 million due to immigration, for a total increase of nearly four New York State population equivalents.
And we certainly do need a new economic paradigm, one that deemphasizes stuff and emphasizes the importance of human relationships and happiness.
This is an excellent analysis, and I agree with you completely. My statement about "jobs Americans won't do" is based on the experience in agriculture in several states, particularly Georgia and California. Of course if workers are organized and able to negotiate better work conditions ans higher wages (unionized), they will work many of these labor-intensive jobs. But as you have ably pointed out, those work conditions do not prevail in today's supply-side common "increasing shareholder value" excuse for holding down wages and overworking employees as a matter of course. Recent shortages of workers in the current economy have forced some businesses to have to pay their workers for all the hours they work instead of forcing them to work unpaid overtime (often by falsely designating them as "management" or "supervisors"). And the businesses complain about having to pay for all the time worked., as though it is an imposition. Your last paragraph says it all, and better sooner rather than later.....
As to the Chinese birth rate, my information is that the rate in the major cities is 0.7 births per woman, but that may be because in the cities families live in fairly small apartments and the cost of having and raising children prevents families from having more children. The birth rate in the rural areas may be considerably higher, but China's population has already begun to decline. The difference could affect their society in the future.
That notion that there are jobs Americans won't do is BS. You need to read, Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-Year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth. The book is solid, covering the academic economic history, black periodicals, statements from black leaders, and gov't commissions on immigration reform, including Barbara Jordan's commission under Clinton (she was the black Texas Democrat who made her name on the Judiciary Committee during Watergate).
An example from the book: in 1980, meat packers were predominantly black. They earned good middle class wages, having organized since the '20s. By that decade's end, meat packers were predominantly immigrants, earning barely above minimum wage under atrocious conditions.
The author interviewed a bunch of black poultry workers who'd lost their jobs to immigrants on the Eastern Shore. Would they take their jobs back if they could? No, they told him. With the wages the plant was paying, they'd have to sleep in their cars, or many to a room.
Contrary to popular belief, big biz GOPers favor more immigration because they like the cheap labor. It's econ 101 that an oversupply of any resource devalues that resource. Which is why Z'berg with his fwd.US and the Koch organization push for more immigration.
I interviewed Tom Tancredo (R-CO), in the '90s and '00s the primary exponent on Capitol Hill of reducing immigration. He told me tht two fast food execs spent an hour trying to buy him off of the issue, that they'd keep his coffers filled if he'd quit talking about immigration. (He wasn't for sale.)
Incidentally, China ended the one child policy in 2016. The current birthrate is 1.705 per woman, a slight increase over the last few years. The birthrate remains low due to the cost of raising children in cities. The birthrate in the US per woman is 1.782. Nonetheless, the Census Bureau projects that over the next 40 years the US will see 7.5 million in native increase, along with 68 million due to immigration, for a total increase of nearly four New York State population equivalents.
And we certainly do need a new economic paradigm, one that deemphasizes stuff and emphasizes the importance of human relationships and happiness.
This is an excellent analysis, and I agree with you completely. My statement about "jobs Americans won't do" is based on the experience in agriculture in several states, particularly Georgia and California. Of course if workers are organized and able to negotiate better work conditions ans higher wages (unionized), they will work many of these labor-intensive jobs. But as you have ably pointed out, those work conditions do not prevail in today's supply-side common "increasing shareholder value" excuse for holding down wages and overworking employees as a matter of course. Recent shortages of workers in the current economy have forced some businesses to have to pay their workers for all the hours they work instead of forcing them to work unpaid overtime (often by falsely designating them as "management" or "supervisors"). And the businesses complain about having to pay for all the time worked., as though it is an imposition. Your last paragraph says it all, and better sooner rather than later.....
As to the Chinese birth rate, my information is that the rate in the major cities is 0.7 births per woman, but that may be because in the cities families live in fairly small apartments and the cost of having and raising children prevents families from having more children. The birth rate in the rural areas may be considerably higher, but China's population has already begun to decline. The difference could affect their society in the future.