4 ms·

Yes, that's how I would describe using immigration to address labor shortages

by wagwang 7mo ago

convolvatron 7mo ago
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in using immigration to address labor shortages. however, not having an official policy, such a labor visa with clearly defined rules, combined with a stable population of 'illegals' that don't have the same labor protections, is and was not really a fair or sustainable situation.
- SecretDreams 7mo ago
  Agreed. Immigration for a labour shortage is a tale as old as time. Mass migration was very common post WW1/2 Europe. People went where there were jobs and labour shortages. Policy around this type of thing is important. My post is more about the general dysfunction and solution schemes we see in some governments. I think having the ICE example might bring about some bots and trolls, though. I don't care for the ICE example, it's just a part of the quote.
  - ryandrake 7mo ago
    The US policy seems pretty clear: Allow companies who employ undocumented workers to benefit and profit from it, while making sure only the individual workers shoulder the criminal and livelihood risks.
    - trimethylpurine 7mo ago
      I thought the policy is that you can't hire without documentation. Do you mean that there is a scheme in place, outside of the legal framework?
      - ryandrake 7mo ago
        There's written policy and then there's policy as-enforced.
      - array_key_first 7mo ago
        Yes, there is a legal scheme in place: you're not allowed to validate the authenticity of provided documentation as a company. If someone is undocumented, they can forge documents and that's completely allowed. The reason we have this loophole is because many industries, particularly in the South, rely directly on immigrant labor. The republicans cannot risk alienating their consistency or further hurting the already brittle economy of Red states. That's why we get a constant flow of completely ineffective and performative solutions, like ICE. Just start locking up executives who have employees that are undocumented, and the problem would disappear before your very eyes. But, building a wall is easier, and you can see a wall.
        trimethylpurine 7mo ago
        According to 8 USC 1324, it looks like what you're talking about could quickly land you in prison for up to 5 years. So, it's a scheme maybe, but not a legal one.
        array_key_first 7mo ago
        That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about - 8 USC 1324 is related to harboring or bringing an alien. Companies hiring people with what they believe are genuine documents, by reasonable inspection, is perfectly legal. Please note this just means you have to look at them. The companies are doing this "unknowingly". Of course they're not stupid, they're fully aware they're hiring a lot of undocumented people. But nobody, on record, knows that. To them, all their employees have documents which appear valid. It is pretty easy to forge I-9 documents. Part of this is because the US has incredibly poor identification infrastructure. Often, not even US citizens can be reliably identified, as seen in commercial banking. The other part is that companies cannot choose to not hire people because they think they are undocumented. You can't hire someone because they're too brown and not American sounding enough. That's not to say that I think the solution is universal identification or legalization of racism in hiring practices.
        trimethylpurine 7mo ago
- wagwang 7mo ago
  It's inherently unfair because its used to drive down wages of the lower classes. Outside of highly skilled work that cannot be sourced from within the country that is critical for nation security, the moral response is to just pay the workers more.
  - SecretDreams 7mo ago
    > the moral response is to just pay the workers more. While I don't disagree, and while I firmly believe in UBI (which is the natural conclusion to your logic), without a comprehensive plan in place, just "paying people more" will be a bit of a death spiral since that is a core contributor to inflation on a large scale.
    - autoexec 7mo ago
      If you look at the massive increase in, for example, CEO salaries over the last few decades why was nobody worried about inflation then? "Pay people more" seems to be just fine as long as it's only certain people. Once the wrong kind of people, whose wages have stagnated for decades, want an increase in pay then our entire economy is suddenly at risk. I feel that the main driver behind the inflation we've seen in the last few years has primarily been greed, but nobody seems interested in trying to fight inflation on that front either. Inflation is a problem, but we need a better way to deal with it besides "the average worker still gets paid like it's 1975"
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > CEO salaries over the last few decades why was nobody worried about inflation then? Because it’s economically insignificant. Total CEO pay across the Russell 1000 excluding Musk is in the tens of billions. Paying a few people more isn’t inflationary. (It’s other kinds of problematic.)
        franktankbank 7mo ago
        What other kinds of problematic is it?

Yes, that's how I would describe using immigration to address labor shortages

by wagwang 7mo ago

Yes, that's how I would describe using immigration to address labor shortages

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in using immigration to address labor shortages. however, not having an official policy, such a labor visa with clearly defined rules, combined with a stable population of 'illegals' that don't have the same labor protections, is and was not really a fair or sustainable situation.

SecretDreams 7mo ago
Agreed. Immigration for a labour shortage is a tale as old as time. Mass migration was very common post WW1/2 Europe. People went where there were jobs and labour shortages. Policy around this type of thing is important. My post is more about the general dysfunction and solution schemes we see in some governments. I think having the ICE example might bring about some bots and trolls, though. I don't care for the ICE example, it's just a part of the quote.
- ryandrake 7mo ago
  The US policy seems pretty clear: Allow companies who employ undocumented workers to benefit and profit from it, while making sure only the individual workers shoulder the criminal and livelihood risks.
  - trimethylpurine 7mo ago
    I thought the policy is that you can't hire without documentation. Do you mean that there is a scheme in place, outside of the legal framework?
    - ryandrake 7mo ago
      There's written policy and then there's policy as-enforced.
    - array_key_first 7mo ago
      Yes, there is a legal scheme in place: you're not allowed to validate the authenticity of provided documentation as a company. If someone is undocumented, they can forge documents and that's completely allowed. The reason we have this loophole is because many industries, particularly in the South, rely directly on immigrant labor. The republicans cannot risk alienating their consistency or further hurting the already brittle economy of Red states. That's why we get a constant flow of completely ineffective and performative solutions, like ICE. Just start locking up executives who have employees that are undocumented, and the problem would disappear before your very eyes. But, building a wall is easier, and you can see a wall.
      - trimethylpurine 7mo ago
        According to 8 USC 1324, it looks like what you're talking about could quickly land you in prison for up to 5 years. So, it's a scheme maybe, but not a legal one.
        array_key_first 7mo ago
        That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about - 8 USC 1324 is related to harboring or bringing an alien. Companies hiring people with what they believe are genuine documents, by reasonable inspection, is perfectly legal. Please note this just means you have to look at them. The companies are doing this "unknowingly". Of course they're not stupid, they're fully aware they're hiring a lot of undocumented people. But nobody, on record, knows that. To them, all their employees have documents which appear valid. It is pretty easy to forge I-9 documents. Part of this is because the US has incredibly poor identification infrastructure. Often, not even US citizens can be reliably identified, as seen in commercial banking. The other part is that companies cannot choose to not hire people because they think they are undocumented. You can't hire someone because they're too brown and not American sounding enough. That's not to say that I think the solution is universal identification or legalization of racism in hiring practices.
        trimethylpurine 7mo ago
wagwang 7mo ago
It's inherently unfair because its used to drive down wages of the lower classes. Outside of highly skilled work that cannot be sourced from within the country that is critical for nation security, the moral response is to just pay the workers more.
- SecretDreams 7mo ago
  > the moral response is to just pay the workers more. While I don't disagree, and while I firmly believe in UBI (which is the natural conclusion to your logic), without a comprehensive plan in place, just "paying people more" will be a bit of a death spiral since that is a core contributor to inflation on a large scale.
  - autoexec 7mo ago
    If you look at the massive increase in, for example, CEO salaries over the last few decades why was nobody worried about inflation then? "Pay people more" seems to be just fine as long as it's only certain people. Once the wrong kind of people, whose wages have stagnated for decades, want an increase in pay then our entire economy is suddenly at risk. I feel that the main driver behind the inflation we've seen in the last few years has primarily been greed, but nobody seems interested in trying to fight inflation on that front either. Inflation is a problem, but we need a better way to deal with it besides "the average worker still gets paid like it's 1975"
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > CEO salaries over the last few decades why was nobody worried about inflation then? Because it’s economically insignificant. Total CEO pay across the Russell 1000 excluding Musk is in the tens of billions. Paying a few people more isn’t inflationary. (It’s other kinds of problematic.)
      - franktankbank 7mo ago
        What other kinds of problematic is it?