🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MCGRANT.94Nov30120812@rascals.stanford.edu>,
mcgrant@rascals.stanford.edu (Michael C. Grant) wrote:

> 
>    Somewhere in here tho, I lost the importance of the illegal part. 
> 
> The importance is this: as long as the employees are illegal, they
> can't really fight too effectively for legal wages and working
> conditions. A legal employee (usually) does not have to put up with
> such illegal treatment because they have avenues of enforcement to
> pursue.

Exactly.  If they were legal, wouldn't they, and the employers, be
better off?  What is the importance of keeping the current arrangement
illegal?

>    Is
>    it possible that things could be more beneficial in the long run to
>    legitimize a working relationship for the migrant labor, the industries,
>    the state, and the service providers.  Is it possible that the savings
>    could be worth it. 
> 
> No. Food is so incredibly cheap in this country that we can enjoy a
> healthy increase in the cost of produce before the country suffers.

And what good does that bring?  Since when do people enjoy an increse in
the cost of goods?

> The savings produced by allowing a group of people to assume
> second-class status and work in conditions no American would stand
> is NOT worth the extra quarter or so it might save me on my
> orange juice.

Why not?  Bear in mind, I am talking about an IMPROVEMENT in their working
conditions.

>    This could also relieve the lack-of-power situation
>    with the workers.
> 
> So could insuring that only legal workers have those jobs.

Which is why making them legal workers sounds like a reasonable thing.

>    The scenario you paint is open-ended, and I maintain that we could,
>    under your situation, price some things out of the market and render
>    certain things unprofitable to produce.  What if we all lose more than
>    we gain by legitimizing the lower-cost methods?
> 
> You're wrong. It's NOT open ended. 

YES it IS!!  (There, I can be pointed too).

>     Profit not only depends on the cost
> of the item but the number sold, so by definition, no market is priced
> out of the reach of the consumer.

Profit, or income?

I guess I need help understanding this point.  The first part of the sentence
is relatively easy, but the jump to the last part is not clear. 

If the cost of the strawberries I grow doubles, will I sell more, or
less of them? If I sell less of them, then is this better?  Will the
same number of farmers be able to compete, and will the same number
of workers have jobs?  If not, why is this a better thing?

Just how is it that economic factors drive people out of business?

>      And I COMPLETELY disagree that
> the effect would be as drastic as you claim.

So noted that your disagreement is COMPLETE!

Er, how _drastic_ did I claim it would be?

-- 
John Gilbert
gilbert@halcyon.com