No, it’s totally the employers fault. Invariably they made the choice to go overseas rather than accept lower profits.
Those things the government does to make it more expensive to operate in a country?
Those are things like “a livable wage”, “health care”, “workplace safety”, and “environmental protection”.
If you can’t stay in business while doing those things, you don’t deserve to be a business.
When a business cites government overhead as a reason for going overseas, always look at what they’re saying they don’t want to pay for.
It doesn’t. That’s not my point at all. My point is these regulations don’t apply to foreign companies, who can therefore compete better and potentially take over. The local businesses shrink or go bust and people end up unemployed.
Increasing taxes or mandating minimum wages don’t work unless you can do it globally. Doing these things locally won’t fix capitalism, we need to be rid of capitalism. I am not saying you shouldn’t try to do these things, but understand it isn’t a perfect solution and that there will be problems until there is no more capitalism worldwide.
What you are saying can be true for some businesses but not all businesses. On the industrial scale the government can make it impossble to compete with foreign companies that have the same requirments. Those requirements may be considered good, but they are typically just outsourcing the same problems. But then if you look at agriculture, the government directly puts people out of business due to their requirements for foreign workers. The domestic farmers just cant make any money when it is a labor intensive crop. So it will just make those domestic producers disappear.
Again, that “government overhead” is the “Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act” and the rules of the H-2A visa program which ensures that you do crazy things like “pay the workers fairly”, “don’t discriminate”, and “don’t retaliate against workers whom you abused”.
It sucks for them that they can’t turn a profit without criminally exploiting migrant farm workers, but I don’t really give a damn.
Instead of pushing for the ability to mistreat workers, push for import bans on agricultural products from nations that lack reasonable parity in worker protection.
I like chocolate less than I like an absence of slavery.
I think the issue that your argument has that you are equating regulations that are overboard with reglations that actually protect people. For example the act you are referring to makes it so that the compensation farms have to pay to foreign workers is much higher than domestic workers. It has nothing to do with “criminally exploiting migrants”.
Are you referring to how you have to pay foreign workers the average of what domestic workers make? Also known as “you can’t use foreign labor to depress regional wages”?
Otherwise you’re gonna have to provide a citation.
If you’re complaining that you can’t afford to hire foreign workers because they’re more expensive than domestic, you can just … Hire domestic?
If you’re still complaining, it makes it harder to argue that you aren’t aiming to hire foreign farm workers to undercut minimum wage laws.
The min wage for foreign farm workers vary by state but are in the ballpark of $15/hr must include free housing and a bunch of other things. There is not enough domestic labor for farms, it is not depresssing any wages.
Well, I’d certainly hope it’s not depressing wages, since the point of the law was to keep it from doing that in the first place. Sounds like the law is working to keep the cost of foreign and domestic workers in line, so no problem there.
It really just sounds like you’re unhappy that farmers can’t import foreign laborers at poverty prices, and instead have to pay them fairly, or god forbid pay an attractive wage to domestic workers.
You’re really not making a good case for “paying migrant workers fairly, and giving them shelter after they travel from another country to work for you is unjust government regulation”.
This is seriously not sounding like brazen government overreach, just basic worker protections.
No, it’s totally the employers fault. Invariably they made the choice to go overseas rather than accept lower profits.
Those things the government does to make it more expensive to operate in a country?
Those are things like “a livable wage”, “health care”, “workplace safety”, and “environmental protection”.
If you can’t stay in business while doing those things, you don’t deserve to be a business.
When a business cites government overhead as a reason for going overseas, always look at what they’re saying they don’t want to pay for.
Except that there are already businesses overseas. If they go under those other businesses already overseas will replace them.
You … DO understand that trade is regulated… right?
And what exactly does that have to do with businesses that can’t operate well deserving to stay in business?
If capitalism breeds innovation, then innovate and find a way to pay your workers well in a safe and clean workplace.
It doesn’t. That’s not my point at all. My point is these regulations don’t apply to foreign companies, who can therefore compete better and potentially take over. The local businesses shrink or go bust and people end up unemployed.
Increasing taxes or mandating minimum wages don’t work unless you can do it globally. Doing these things locally won’t fix capitalism, we need to be rid of capitalism. I am not saying you shouldn’t try to do these things, but understand it isn’t a perfect solution and that there will be problems until there is no more capitalism worldwide.
What you are saying can be true for some businesses but not all businesses. On the industrial scale the government can make it impossble to compete with foreign companies that have the same requirments. Those requirements may be considered good, but they are typically just outsourcing the same problems. But then if you look at agriculture, the government directly puts people out of business due to their requirements for foreign workers. The domestic farmers just cant make any money when it is a labor intensive crop. So it will just make those domestic producers disappear.
Again, that “government overhead” is the “Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act” and the rules of the H-2A visa program which ensures that you do crazy things like “pay the workers fairly”, “don’t discriminate”, and “don’t retaliate against workers whom you abused”.
It sucks for them that they can’t turn a profit without criminally exploiting migrant farm workers, but I don’t really give a damn.
Instead of pushing for the ability to mistreat workers, push for import bans on agricultural products from nations that lack reasonable parity in worker protection.
I like chocolate less than I like an absence of slavery.
I think the issue that your argument has that you are equating regulations that are overboard with reglations that actually protect people. For example the act you are referring to makes it so that the compensation farms have to pay to foreign workers is much higher than domestic workers. It has nothing to do with “criminally exploiting migrants”.
Are you referring to how you have to pay foreign workers the average of what domestic workers make? Also known as “you can’t use foreign labor to depress regional wages”? Otherwise you’re gonna have to provide a citation.
If you’re complaining that you can’t afford to hire foreign workers because they’re more expensive than domestic, you can just … Hire domestic?
If you’re still complaining, it makes it harder to argue that you aren’t aiming to hire foreign farm workers to undercut minimum wage laws.
The min wage for foreign farm workers vary by state but are in the ballpark of $15/hr must include free housing and a bunch of other things. There is not enough domestic labor for farms, it is not depresssing any wages.
Well, I’d certainly hope it’s not depressing wages, since the point of the law was to keep it from doing that in the first place. Sounds like the law is working to keep the cost of foreign and domestic workers in line, so no problem there.
It really just sounds like you’re unhappy that farmers can’t import foreign laborers at poverty prices, and instead have to pay them fairly, or god forbid pay an attractive wage to domestic workers.
You’re really not making a good case for “paying migrant workers fairly, and giving them shelter after they travel from another country to work for you is unjust government regulation”.
This is seriously not sounding like brazen government overreach, just basic worker protections.
No, what it does it is reduces domestically grown food, thats it.