3 ms·

The irony of this being Arizona we're talking about and the significant contribution of illegal immigrants to the state economy.

stavros 3y ago
Why is that ironic? Of course nobody will care about stopping labor trafficking if it benefits them.
- vuln 3y ago
  > Of course nobody will care about stopping labor trafficking if it benefits them Same with sex work it seems.
  - verve_rat 3y ago
    Sex work <> sex trafficking.
    - Nasrudith 3y ago
      Yes, but casting anti-sex work measures as anti-sex trafficking measures has long been the propaganda norm.
  - lazide 3y ago
    The issue is that unlike cheap gardeners, where most of the population benefits and a small portion of the population loses (‘native’ gardeners - probably just a couple % of the labor force), approx. 51% of the population ‘loses’ with cheap sex work. Which is why, in almost every jurisdiction, prostitution is illegal. But since approx. 49% of the population ‘wins’, it is also why it still happens, just where it isn’t obvious.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      why does 51% of the population 'lose' with cheap sex work? I'm not understand what is unsaid here or is being assumed to have a shared understanding.
      - lazide 3y ago
        The vast majority of customers for sex workers (95%+?) are men, with the vast majority of workers being women. 51% of most populations are women, 49% are men. Seems pretty obvious?
        everforward 3y ago
        [dead]
        yieldcrv 3y ago
        no, not obvious. yes, the market for sex work is primarily men. of them, the vast majority are interested in heterosexual pairings from women providers. can you finish articulating why women would be losing from cheap sex work? which women, the sex workers? a different group? what are each group losing specifically? have you talked to any sex workers? many of them say they've gained something and I'm waiting to compare that with what you are trying to articulate
        lazide 3y ago
        Bwahaha, have fun with that. I'm sure you'd never believe and/or would be shocked that those Latino dudes hanging out in 90% of Home Depot parking lots every morning (and getting picked up by contractors) DO NOT actually have valid work authorizations and/or US Citizenship. Not usually Mexicanos though, despite the stereotype. Same with 50-90%+ of drywallers, framers, etc. at least in the US west/south (depending on exact metro area). And as long as it isn't too big of a hot button topic at the moment, no one does anything about it either. There will be an occasional 'whack a mole' action when it does become a hot button, then it goes back to being ignored. Since homeowners and businesses 'win' and low value blue collar labor 'loses', not likely to change either until Labor starts getting organized again. In any trade, someone always gets something for something. Market effects, who gets what for how much, etc. are what I’m talking about.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

stavros 3y ago

Why is that ironic? Of course nobody will care about stopping labor trafficking if it benefits them.

vuln 3y ago
> Of course nobody will care about stopping labor trafficking if it benefits them Same with sex work it seems.
- verve_rat 3y ago
  Sex work <> sex trafficking.
  - Nasrudith 3y ago
    Yes, but casting anti-sex work measures as anti-sex trafficking measures has long been the propaganda norm.
- lazide 3y ago
  The issue is that unlike cheap gardeners, where most of the population benefits and a small portion of the population loses (‘native’ gardeners - probably just a couple % of the labor force), approx. 51% of the population ‘loses’ with cheap sex work. Which is why, in almost every jurisdiction, prostitution is illegal. But since approx. 49% of the population ‘wins’, it is also why it still happens, just where it isn’t obvious.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    why does 51% of the population 'lose' with cheap sex work? I'm not understand what is unsaid here or is being assumed to have a shared understanding.
    - lazide 3y ago
      The vast majority of customers for sex workers (95%+?) are men, with the vast majority of workers being women. 51% of most populations are women, 49% are men. Seems pretty obvious?
      - everforward 3y ago
        [dead]
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        no, not obvious. yes, the market for sex work is primarily men. of them, the vast majority are interested in heterosexual pairings from women providers. can you finish articulating why women would be losing from cheap sex work? which women, the sex workers? a different group? what are each group losing specifically? have you talked to any sex workers? many of them say they've gained something and I'm waiting to compare that with what you are trying to articulate
        lazide 3y ago
        Bwahaha, have fun with that. I'm sure you'd never believe and/or would be shocked that those Latino dudes hanging out in 90% of Home Depot parking lots every morning (and getting picked up by contractors) DO NOT actually have valid work authorizations and/or US Citizenship. Not usually Mexicanos though, despite the stereotype. Same with 50-90%+ of drywallers, framers, etc. at least in the US west/south (depending on exact metro area). And as long as it isn't too big of a hot button topic at the moment, no one does anything about it either. There will be an occasional 'whack a mole' action when it does become a hot button, then it goes back to being ignored. Since homeowners and businesses 'win' and low value blue collar labor 'loses', not likely to change either until Labor starts getting organized again. In any trade, someone always gets something for something. Market effects, who gets what for how much, etc. are what I’m talking about.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]