SirEDCaLot

It's frustrating that so many people downvote this sort of thing rather than considering it. It's like if you say anything at all other than TRUMP NAZI ELON NAZI REPUBLICAN NAZI ALL BAD you are obviously wrong and fuck you.

Trump may be an asshole. He may be a horrible president. But during the campaign he promised to hack and slash away at the federal government, and that's exactly what he's doing. It may be a bad idea, it may cause a ton of its own problems, but he is doing exactly what he promised his voters.

Democrats need to learn some hard truths from this. Specifically, that while life may be great up in the ivory tower, the people on the street are hurting. The people on the street are angry that their struggle has been ignored and marginalized for so long. And when people with two incomes are struggling to afford groceries, they will always vote for the guy who says 'there's a problem and I want to fix it' over the person who says 'everything's peachy'.

That doesn't make them racist or sexist or Nazi. It makes them desperate.

Not asking for instruction on the issue, only clarification on your assertion that I don't understand.

For example, if you argued that video games cause violence, I could say 'you obviously don't understand the issue, specifically, the sort of attitude players take toward the game. Nobody plays like 'yeah I wish I could do this IRL', rather, it's just a game and there's friendly banter between both teams.' I don't have to write a page on video game culture or statistics to do that.

Saying 'you don't get it' on a huge broad subject while offering zero detail on what specifically I don't get or even a counterpoint is lazy debating. If you think I'm wrong, explain why I'm wrong. Otherwise you are just a low effort shitpost that contributes nothing to the discourse. Do better.

Your entire premise is that they are happy taking shit pay and no benefits. And that’s just not true. They’re forced to do that because they have no negotiating power when their employer can just have them deported.

We agree they have zero negotiating power when they're under threat of deportation.
I don't think they're 'happy with shit' but I also don't think they're as likely to demand more as an American. And if they don't speak the language, they're less likely to GET more as they can't negotiate on equal footing.

I expect the government to do its job. But as an example forget Latin America, let's say a person comes to the US and they're skilled but they only speak Tagalog. Do you think they can negotiate as effectively as a native speaker?

That practice was halted and now the vehicle video is under MUCH stricter control with an option to not share any of it at all.
Given the choice, I'd rather have some Tesla employee joking about what I park next to than Tesla Inc selling my driving data to insurance companies like most other automakers do...

That was from years ago.

Tesla used to sell cars rated by pack capacity. For example the 'P85D' was the performance model, 85 kWh pack, dual motor.
There was also a 40 kWh (cheaper) and 60 kWh version.
After a while they stopped building 40 kWh packs and just software-locked the 60 kWh pack to only have 40 kWh of usable capacity. I think for a while they offered an upgrade where you could pay to unlock the extra capacity.

I don't think they've done that in some time. I know when I bought my car (model y long range) they didn't even advertise the pack capacity nor was any upgrade offered. The only paywall thing I've seen with Tesla is FSD and they're pretty transparent about that. I don't think they're awful for paywalling it, because if they build the car without the FSD hardware it won't have other safety systems like lane departure notification.

I've done it. I think it might have opened the charge port or something. What do you think happens?

This, exactly this. The fact that they would even consider this rules them out for me forever.

I have no problem with the migrant, and I've no intent to dismiss facts. I did NOT mean that as an ad hominem attack (attack the person rather than the idea). I only meant to point out that your ideas sound nice but run into trouble in the real world.
Expecting government to stand up for people who won't stand up for themselves (because even marginalized they're still light years better off and they don't want to risk that) isn't a solution, it doesn't work.

At the end of the day it’s not a story of two groups, it’s a story of what we’re willing to tolerate. ... the reality is a large minority will work in minimum wage their entire lives.

And that's exactly my point. An awful lot more immigrants will tolerate working minimum wage their whole lives. That's not a dig at the migrant- I have great respect for them. But there's a culture thing at work. That's not a dig at any of their culture either, it's a recognition of the fact that there's differences. And the simple fact that the migrant who comes here and can let his daughter walk to school without her getting raped on the way isn't likely to rock the boat too hard. He won't say 'pay me $30/hr or I quit' knowing that if he gets fired that could mean having to go back home where his daughter will get raped on the way to school. I don't blame the migrant for that- if I was in that situation I'd feel the exact same way. I'd keep my head down and I'd work hard and I'd try to make sure my kid gets good grades so they can have a chance at better. I think most decent parents would.

Because there’s only 11 million undocumented immigrants in a country of about 200 million working adults. That fraction of the working age population isn’t depressing anything.

If it was spread out equally among all industries, it'd make zero difference. It's not. For the most part, you don't see undocumented migrants becoming doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, computer engineers, etc. The effect is concentrated in blue collar jobs.

As you say, it's a story of what we're each willing to tolerate. And if you have a nation where the laws of supply and demand govern prevailing wages and working conditions, a large group of people who will tolerate an awful lot DOES make an impact.

Where we agree- I 100% agree that we need labor regs to make things better for everybody. Companies should not be allowed to mistreat workers and that IS a legal problem not an immigration problem.
I also believe (and I suspect you would agree) that for someone who wants to become an American- not just come to the country and work, but adopt an American way of life and become a citizen- there should be a clear, obvious, accessible path to citizenship.

Those 11 million people, like I said above those are some of the hardest working mofos on American soil, citizen or not. My problem with them isn't that they're here, it's that they're not being paid more. If they competed in the labor market on an EQUAL footing, as CITIZENS who fully understand and will stand up for their rights, most of them could easily command a high hourly wage due to high work ethic. I would LOVE to make that happen. I'm open to any way to do it. But if you just give someone a green card or a citizenship and say 'congrats you're an American', you aren't changing the culture, the mindset, the understanding of their rights and determination to stand up for those rights, And thus nothing will change.

That's why I say I want an accessible process for such a person to become an American. If they want to truly learn about the country, and that means learning about their rights, take a place on equal footing with other Americans, if they choose us and they're willing to follow the laws and pay their taxes then I don't believe it's the American way to slam the door in their face.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." That's carved in stone beneath the Statue of Liberty. Those words aren't lost on me (although I suspect they are lost on a lot of modern day 'patriots').

But part of that means actually choosing to be American. I think learning English should be a big part of that-- not because I have a problem with 'press one for English, para espanol marque dos' on the phone menu. But because if you don't speak the native language, then you can't compete in any sort of negotiation on the same footing as an American native.

If you CAN do that (and for many, I'm not sure you can) the result is the immigrant now has the security of citizenship, knows that getting fired doesn't mean his daughter gets raped, and hopefully you can instill in him the kind of attitude and culture to DEMAND better of his employer. As far as I'm concerned that's just as effective as deporting him, because either way the underclass is removed from the labor pool. And a few million more Freedom-loving Americans won't make much difference either way.
I just don't know how to make that happen.

I'm open to any thoughts you may have.

Depends on where you live. Not necessarily poverty but if both parents work at that rate you could hit lower middle class in some areas. But you are right in most urban or suburb places it wouldn't cut it.

Because the man you don't like got elected we should shred the 1st Amendment right of free expression? Or do I misunderstand you?

I say this with respect- but that's a bit of an 'ivory tower intellectual' position that doesn't consider how things work in the real world.

I'm not just talking about ABUSE, which DoL should prevent. I'm talking about personal drive and demand of upward mobility.

For example- let's say you have a company committed to following the rules, who will pay what the market demands and treats workers with respect. You have two candidates for a job. One is an immigrant- lives in a lower end neighborhood, but is thrilled he can feed his family 'only' working 60 hours a week and his daughter can walk to school without being abducted and raped. He'll do the job as long as it's offered for $10/hr and be thrilled at that. The other is an American who wants upward mobility, they want to do this job for 1-3 years max before being promoted to something bigger, and if he doesn't get promotion he will leave.
There's no abuse and nothing illegal happening here. Just supply and demand.

If you're the corporation, which person do you hire?
Almost every company I know would hire the immigrant, because he'll work hard, he's thankful to have the job, his lower-middle-class lifestyle is better than what he had before so he has no need to demand more.
But if the immigrant isn't there, they'll have to hire the other guy, have to pay him more, have to provide promotion opportunities or train new workers when he finds something better.

There's nothing for department of labor to do there, because there's no violations happening. This isn't a legal problem. It's a socioeconomic one. No government agency can force the immigrant to demand higher wages, or force the company to pay above minimum wage.
(Minimum wage should probably be $10-$15 today, but that's a separate issue).

And that’s all without the macro economic point of view that points out having more consumers in your country means more economic activity which means more jobs.

That only holds if those consumers have disposable income. And those consumers only have disposable income if they're demanding wages high enough to afford luxuries.
If you have workers who will settle for very low wages, that depresses wages across the board. That means less disposable income for everyone, and can mean overall LESS economic activity because wages will decrease, consumer spending will drop, and money will accumulate as profits for large companies that reap higher profits from overall depressed wages (sound familiar?). I'm not blaming immigrants for that (I blame Congress and the absurdly low minimum wage) but the point stands.

Bottom line- if you have two groups of people, one says 'I'm happy with what I get' the other says 'I want more', more of the first group means less wages for both groups. Supply and demand.