Dear W, - Page 10

JP5 · #91 (**permalink**) 05-17-2006, 07:44 AM

[quote="catzmeow";p="238817"]How many Americans are there currently unemployed? The 4.8% figure cited by JP5 is misleading because it ONLY TRACKS the percentage of the American workforce currently receiving unemployment benefits. These benefits extend only for 27 weeks. Thus, anyone who remains unemployed for longer than 26 weeks is no longer counted in that rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

The number of Americans who have been unemployed for longer than 27 weeks in the U.S., or the long term unemployed, are significant.

Then give us the figure...since you are making that claim. Give us that exact figure and proof of where it comes from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

Further, these populations tend to be the most precariously balanced groups of Americans...single women (many with children) and African Americans.

Yes.....there are many women in this country who would rather sit home, watch tv, and have children by different fathers. All this adds to the amount the government which is you and me.....gives to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

Miami can provide a good object lesson as to how the historic gains made by African American workers can be lost in a heartbeat because of a large influx of new, foreign workers. Have you forgotten already the Cuban boat situation back in the 70s? African Americans were just beginning to take baby steps into job security and to redress historic discrimination issues when the Miami area was flooded by thousands of Cuban immigrants...some middle class refugees, others criminals released by Castro onto our shores as he emptied out his prison.

Do you have proof that African Americans would pick lettuce and do yard maintenance? I don't recall them standing at the front of those lines....even before the Mexicans came in illegally. African Americans are Americans. And in general Americans don't want those low-level jobs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

In a matter of months, the labor market in Miami changed. Lower to middle class blacks have never recovered economically and remain teetering on the brink.

I've seen it, JP5. I've seen it in DOZENS of cities in America, at first hand, the most vulnerable Americans, kids who grow up in the inner cities, with parents who are drug abusers and worse, and who are teetering on the brink.

That's because of drugs. That's a whole other problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

There are as many as 12 million unemployed Americans who would LIKE TO WORK right now...Wages have been artificially depressed by an influx of refugees who will work, under the table, for below minimum wage.

So....then....they only want to work IF the price is right. There are plenty of lower-level jobs out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

And our inner city areas are wasting away as the jobs dwindle, and the opportunities lessen.

You know, i'm sorry it's bad in Mexico. I really am. But I'm way more concerned about the AMERICANS who are being left behind, economically speaking. We can't rescue Mexico from it's internal combustion of corruption and drugs. But we can say that American jobs should go to Americans, FIRST, before outsiders are allowed in to take them.

Uh.....that is EXACTLY what our President HAS said many times before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

About the long term unemployed: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp162

For instance, JP5, did you know that just in the first 6 months of 2004, more than 2 million workers exhausted their 27 weeks of unemployment benefits without finding a job and remained unemployed?

Did you know that a lot of people have the attitude..."I'll take my 6 months unemployment before I really get serious about a job?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

Here's a stat from the New York Times that talks about how the long-term unemployed rate is not counted, but how it would impact the unemployment rate:

Quote:

Sixty-six percent of the working age population was in the labor force in April, down from 66.7 percent at the start of the recovery. That is 1.6 million missing people, enough to raise the unemployment rate to 6.2 percent from its present 5.2 percent - if they all showed up.... (May 24, 2005)

As far as worksite enforcement of illegal immigration? IT'S DRASTICALLY DECREASED ON BUSH'S WATCH.

Let's examine it, shall we?

According to a GAO report entitled, “Immigration Enforcement: Weaknesses Hinder Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement Efforts,” in 1999 there were 2,849 worksite arrests for immigration violations.

In 2000: 953
2001: 735
2004: 159

All while Bush was telling us he was serious about enforcing the law. Sure doesn't look like it, does it? Can't hardly enforce the law if you don't actually make any arrests of the people who are breaking it.

In addition, in 1999, there were 417 “notices of intent to fine” issued to employers.

The number dropped to 178 the next year, and in 2004, there were only 3 “notices of intent to fine” recorded.

So...on Bush's watch, notices of intent dropped from 417 a year to 3.

This is simply unacceptable. Back in 1992, to give some comparison, there were 8,027 arrests made and 1,461 fines levied.

Does Bush care about enforcing existing immigration law? It sure doesn't look like it, on paper.

Even when a big raid was made of IFCO systems on April 21, 2006, and 1100 workers were arrested (this is the largest raid of this sort since the mid 1990s), only 275 were DEPORTED.

The rest were released ON THEIR OWN RECOGNIZANCE and told to come to a court hearing date.

What percentage of those folks do you think showed up?

Why do you think, JP5, that I'm so vehement about this topic? It's because I worked in law enforcement. My city was OVERWHELMED with drug traffickers from the state of Sinaloa in Mexico during the late 1990s and early 2000s. And when I say overwhelmed, I mean drug dealers standing 2-3 people deep off the curb in certain parks where drug trafficking occurred. We didn't even have enough manpower to do buy-busts of them.

We'd arrest them, and because they were illegals, the county jail WOULD NOT BOOK THEM. The feds were supposed to take them (INS), but REFUSED TO DO SO. Our city was awash in cheap Mexican marijuana, cocaine, black tar heroin and methamphetamine.

These aren't just stats to me, in this document:
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs0/668/heroin.htm

I lived it. I saw people's lives destroyed by the rampant availability of truly toxic drugs, like Meth. I saw the crippling inability of our police force to maintain control over the supply of drugs.

it was like having ten million cockroaches in our city. You'd smack one, and there were a thousand more on the floor that you couldn't even get to sneaking back into the corners and crevices.

For every worker who comes across, there is another drug dealer, muling up from Mexico who comes by his side. Our porous borders HAVE TO BE SEALED. And, people who are here illegally, stealing our services and depriving Americans of jobs that pay a living wage, need to go.

You clearly have no idea that while Bush has given lip service to immigration issues, he has done everything he could to HAMPER ENFORCEMENT OF OUR LAWS.

He's a lying sack.

So, you're blaming the entire dug problem on the illegal Mexicans? There wouldn't be such a problem with drugs IF the DEMAND wasn't there from Americans.

And while you're tossing around statistics.....did you know that at any given time there are people merely changing jobs who are included in that 4.8% figure? Or people who are moving that are included in that figure? Because of all that.......economists often consider anything below 5% as full-employement workforce.

Under this economy new jobs have been created by the millions. And yes, there are people in the inner cities who are caught up in drugs, etc. and who'd rather sell drugs at $1000 a day instead of work a 60 hour week at $8 per hour.

BTW, my first job was selling tickets at the movies at night. I got $22 per week.....my boss took out taxes, and threw in a free sack of popcorn and one drink. I worked up from there.

catzmeow · #92 (**permalink**) 05-17-2006, 07:46 AM

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news...d.asp?id=14215

How this picture has played out in places like Iowa...(from 2004)

Iowa Immigration Factsheet Immigration's Impact on the Workforce

In Storm Lake, the indigenous meatpacking plant, Hygrade, used to have an average hourly wage of $9.50 (with production incentives as high as $200 a week) in 1982; Hygrade employed Storm Lake natives. But then a national meatpacking company, IBP, took over the plant and began using imported workers. More than ten years later, IBP workers started at $6.50 (only 50 cents higher than the rate in 1982) and the highest hourly wage available there to line workers was $11.30. But because turnover is now so great (about ten percent a month) relatively few workers stay long enough for higher pay grades (most employees work there only a year or two). In 1982 Hygrade had 500 workers and an annual payroll of $15 million ($30,000 per employee); in 1995, IBP had 1200 employees and a payroll of $27.5 million ($23,000 per employee). Adjusting for inflation, the average hourly wages for meatpackers in Iowa have fallen from $10.75 in 1980 to $5.65 in 1991. (See: Donald Stull, Michael Broadway, and David Griffith (eds.), Any Way You Cut It: Meatpacking and Small-Town America, University Press of Kansas, 1995.)

Iowa suffers under some of the lowest wages in the country. Various Iowa studies have found that these low wages are a major reason why so many of Iowa's sons and daughters leave the state when they finish school. Keeping the state's young people in Iowa is identified by Iowans as one of their chief concerns.

Immigration's Impact on Affordable Housing

Iowa's housing shortage is magnified in its small towns, which are experiencing influxes of immigrants seeking work at local agricultural processing plants; in such towns, immigrants living eight or ten to an apartment is not uncommon.

According to the Iowa Commission on Latino Affairs, large immigrant families have led to a lack of affordable housing in destination communities like Marshalltown. (See: "The Impact of Immigration on Small- to Mid-Sized Iowa Communities," Iowa State University Extension, June 2001. Carol Ann Riha, "Bigger Hispanic Households Spotlight Need for Housing," Associated Press, July 12, 2001.)

Immigration's Impact on Health Care

At Buena Vista county hospital, which must now pay for translators on staff, uncompensated health care for immigrants constitutes 25 percent of the total services. Buena Vista County social services are overwhelmed by trying to care for so many people from so many cultures with insufficient staffing and resources. At Buena Vista's Storm Lake, workers at the IBP meatpacking plant don't get health insurance until they've worked at the plant for six months; as a result, the county's medical services are under "tremendous pressure," according to City Supervisor Jim Gustafson. Buena Vista had a 63 percent increase in Medicaid claims between 1990 and 1996. (See: "Family Well-Being and Welfare Reform in Iowa: A Profile of Storm Lake," Iowa State University, October 1999. John Taylor, "Meatpacker Rejects Nebraska Request to Ameliorate Ills of Its Workers," Omaha World-Herald, September 20, 1999.)

Immigration's Impact on Education

Enrollment of Limited English Proficient kindergarten to grade 12 students grew in the state by more than 7 thousand between 1992-2001 while the overall enrollment decreased by 42 thousand. Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, the foreign-born population more than doubled, jumping about 48 thousand.

FAIR estimates that the education of illegal alien children is costing the state's taxpayers about $25 million per year.

Illegal Immigration in Iowa

The INS estimated that the illegal alien population in Iowa in 2000 was about 24,000 residents. This was more than triple the previous INS estimate of about 6,400 illegal alien residents as of October 1996.

Iowa's Senator Chuck Grassley has formally asked the federal government to do something about the increasing effects of illegal immigration to Iowa, saying, "The increasing number of illegal aliens concerns all the residents of Iowa as well as those in Quad Cities. There has been a tendency for these aliens to assimilate into smaller communities where work is available and there is less chance of being caught [and] a community like the Quad Cities can be a haven for illegal immigrants trying to avoid detection." (Senator Chuck Grassley, "Grassley Seeks INS Enforcement Agents and Caseworkers for the Quad Cities," press release, March 14, 2002.)

Law Enforcement Costs

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) data for incarceration of criminal illegal aliens in fiscal year 2002 indicate that Iowa's illegal alien inmate population has increased by 126 percent from the 45,560 inmate days in FY'99 (to 103,015 inmate days in FY'02). Iowa received $907,068 for FY'99 in compensation, leaving $1,443,661 in uncompensated costs to be borne by Iowa taxpayers. For FY'02, Iowa received a SCAAP payment of and $1,640,776 (81% above the FY'99 level).

This is a rather old article, but guess what? NOTHING HAS CHANGED. It's gotten WORSE under Bush.

stekim · #93 (**permalink**) 05-17-2006, 07:47 AM

Quote:

The meat-packing industry is NOTORIOUS for this particular behavior.

Yes they are. And you know what would stop it? A single week where 10-20 got raided. Problem over.

JP5 · #94 (**permalink**) 05-17-2006, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

Yes, in lieu of actually addressing the stats I've given you, trot out your tired assumptions about poor people.

You know, i know all about the welfare system. I've spent the last 12 years working with poor kids for a living, some of them violent and criminal.

You know what? They're ours.

And that's EXACTLY the attitude that keep 'em down. It's that parental attitude of "We'll take care of you, because you're too (*)(*)(*)(*)ed dumb and stupid to take care of yourself."

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

The Mexicans aren't. Let Mexico take care of the Mexicans, and when we've ensured that every single American who wants to work has taken a job, and there are still jobs left over, then let's open the floodgates and let in the world. But as long as there are millions of Americans saying that they want to work, and being unable to find employment (while employers are hiring illegals in their place), then the border needs to be sealed, and American employers who don't follow the law and hire legal workers need to be fined.

Your hero, JP5, isn't enforcing the law. He's deep in the pockets of corporate America who cares nothing about anything other than lining their pockets. They have no philanthropic agenda, and neither does he.

"No philanthropic agenda???" What does that mean? This nation is THE MOST giving nation...and Companies give "philanthropically" by the millions.

If they announced tomorrow that all 11 million Mexicans would be kicked out....and those jobs were open to inner city people who need jobs.....I'm betting they wouldn't be filled. I'm betting the lines to get those jobs would be very, very short.

But you know what? They lined up around the Houston Astrodome to get that "free government money" that was being handed out to Katrina victims. THAT brought them out. Even though they weren't Katrina victims.

catzmeow · #95 (**permalink**) 05-17-2006, 08:03 AM

So, JP5 would rather pay $1.69 a pound for ground beef, knowing it was manufactured by illegals working for $3-4 dollars less an hour than those same workers in THOSE SAME JOBS were paid FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, with no health insurance, and no one ensuring safety standards are followed,

because she feels entitled since, as a teenager, lo these many years ago, she made $22 a week?

I think you're out of touch with reality, babe.

Those meat-packing jobs used to suck but they paid FAMILIES in the midwest a living wage, had health insurance, and enabled people to stay off of assistance. By hiring illegals, corporations like IBP were able to break the backs of the unions, force wage cuts of $3 and 4 an hour, and not have to worry about messy bothersome things like health insurance and job safety standards. After all, how often does OSHA even make it out to the worksite these days?

And then she'd call Americans lazy for refusing to bend in this way to corporate greed....

yeah. That's what it is...laziness.

BuckNaked · #96 (**permalink**) 05-17-2006, 08:10 AM

JP5;

Quote:

Who cares if $3000 of my tax dollars is going toward their services. It's far better than having my entire portfolio drop way down

This is why republicans shouldn’t be allowed access to large quantities of cash or sharp objects???

GO CATS GO!!!

If anyone learns anything on this site you owe it to yourself to read the rules and guidelines for the government “unemployment” statistics!

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5

Statistics that were originally designed, after the depression, to give the government, a general overview of areas in the US, that need assistance or have a problem with development, in the areas of creating jobs. What it has turned into is probably the most misinterpreted statistic used in today’s political arsenal.

From the sight (My comments);

Quote:

…since it is impractical (and unrealistic) to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.

The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940 when it began as a Work Projects Administration project. It has been expanded and modified several times since then. (changed to fit the current leaderships agenda with the stroke of a pen!!)

After these statistics are obtained, they have to be interpreted properly so they can be used--together with other economic data--by policymakers in making decisions as to whether measures should be taken to influence the future course of the economy or to aid those affected by joblessness. (So if they are not interpreted correctly they can be misleading, and when included with other economic data, it can be easily manipulated! Interesting???)

All others not categorized as in the work force--those who have no job and are not looking for one--are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who do not participate in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Still others have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from participating in labor force activities. (Also not included, “NO” able bodied individuals living off of the government, welfare, or that young adult, mooching off mom and dad and living in the garage, or the homeless!!!)

Employed;
…persons are counted only once (if you have 3 jobs, 2 of your jobs count for someone else??? Nothing misleading here???)

All persons who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a family-operated enterprise. (unpaid??? A job???)

The labor force, then, is not a fixed number of people. It increases with the long-term growth of the population, it responds to economic forces and social trends, and its size changes with the seasons. (Even after almost 70 years of this survey, nothing is foreseeable!!! NOTHING!!! Perhaps because it has been modified so much over the years it is no longer a useful measurement for anything other than political propaganda??? )

Statistics on insured unemployment (Unemployment insurance recipients) in the United States are collected as a byproduct of unemployment insurance (UI) programs. Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims which serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment. Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures. (yet recently, last few years now, republicans have been counting folks who are no longer included in the system as insurance recipients, have been shuffled back into the equation as jobs created/job gains??? Just because someone runs out of benefits, that doesn’t necessarily mean they returned to employed status either???)

Seems like that number would be considerably higher if we included, oh I don’t know, “all” the unemployed, not the created statistic the government (democrat or republican), choose to exploit and dictate as the truth???

JP5;

Quote:

You mean the poor people who are living off government subsidies, have a big-screen tv and their teenagers are wearing Nike shoes? Those people have no interest in the kinds of hard-working jobs the Mexican illegals are willing to do. They might miss their soap-operas.

Yes as long as they have the freebees to fall back on they will continue to take advantage of the governments services, as do most of the illegals!!! If we eliminate the illegals then get hard on “ABLE BODIED RECIPIENTS” the government could still match jobs with welfare moochers and fill those positions with legal citizens, with the prospect of loosing their cash benefits to start with. The problem is that most will still depend on the government, for subsidies, but why have two sets of them to worry about, let's at least limit services to the legal ones!!!

It certainly isn’t the case that there are not any good ideas out there for this problem, it is the rich who are shuffling on this issue, and as JP5 eloquently stated above, she doesn’t give a crap about how this effects the life of the majority of average Americans, if it is bad for her portfolio, then it is not an option!! Once again the majority will take the back seat to the needs of the rich minority, cause in case you haven't been paying attention, that is the way it has always been done!!

catzmeow · #97 (**permalink**) 05-17-2006, 08:12 AM

I could never understand this before, why people got so frustrated with JP5, but i swear...

GW Bush could take a crap in a cup and JP5 would drink it right up, claiming all the time that it had a delicious chocolatey flavor.

stekim · #98 (**permalink**) 05-17-2006, 08:12 AM

It think it's quite right to say Americans will not slaughter pigs with sharp knives in dangerous conditions for $7 an hour and no benefits. We're funny that way. So JP5 is right. No one would line up for those jobs. Then what would happen? $7 goes to $15 and benefits get restored and viola! They have employees. But bacon will go from $3.00 to $3.50 and we can't have that. Oh the humanity.

stekim · #99 (**permalink**) 05-17-2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

GW Bush could take a crap in a cup and JP5 would drink it right up, claiming all the time that it had a delicious chocolatey flavor.

Pretty much. That's why approval ratings never go much above 70% or below 30%. Some people can't put the Kool Aid down.

JavaBlack · #**100** (**permalink**) 05-17-2006, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stekim";p=&quot

It think it's quite right to say Americans will not slaughter pigs with sharp knives in dangerous conditions for $7 an hour and no benefits. We're funny that way. So JP5 is right. No one would line up for those jobs. Then what would happen? $7 goes to $15 and benefits get restored and viola! They have employees. But bacon will go from $3.00 to $3.50 and we can't have that. Oh the humanity.

Hmmmm... It might take down the American obesity rate too then.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode