Maybe make it so only small businesses can be eligible for it?
Not defending his views, but the article mentions the “sponsor” would provide accommodations and meals and they would have health care. So technically all necessities are covered.
Same problem. Small businesses would just abuse the hell out of the rule.
Not even taking into account your sick and twisted views, you are operating from a worst case scenario POV and from a false premise that all immigrants come from extreme poverty. This would be exploitation pure and simple and I can't believe someone is seriously thinking this would be a net positive.
"Sorry kids, mama is gonna leave you now. I'm gonna go to the magical land of slavery & exploitation that is the Juu Es of Ei in 2018. In 30 years I've saved enough money for 3 months in university. Then I'm gonna get a non-paying intern job and then in another 5 years maybe they'll hire me and then I'll come back to you"
And doing nothing is worse. Let's say this new policy doesn't exist (which is the current situation). Sofia lives in Paraguay works 14 hours/day and earns $7 a day, lives in a shed she shares with her extended family of 20 people, in a very crowded and chaotic shanty town. Hooray? Out of sight out of mind?
You're arguing something else entirely. The article isn't isn't about skilled or middle-class immigrants. If those immigrants are not living in poverty, then they would obviously not come over for a low-paying job. This programme isn't for them.
On your first point, I don't see that as a huge negative. It's still a better alternative than them going out of business.
IF YOU CAN'T SURVIVE WITHOUT ABUSING YOUR EMPLOYEES. YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE IN BUSINESS
Help finance schools in poor countries, stop exploitative western practices, fair trade etc. would and do help far more than modern day slavery.
So you're exploiting their youth and inexperience to prop up businesses that are failing. That's so much better.
Then what's the point? If you're gonna cover all those bases anyways, then you're spending more money than you would've just by paying minimum wage.
I specifically said save up for university back home. I'd be surprised if university costs $5000 a semester there.
Well, that's perhaps exactly what's happening, hence the job losses.
You're putting words in my mouth. This post below is what I want.
Pretty sure all these “slaves” are expected to work at least 40 hours a week. Where’d you get the idea that they would work while studying? Definitely don’t think they’re expected to better their situations over time either. Those are some of the reasons why it’s a pretty terrible idea.
And they we have it girls and boys.
There's no way Sofia is coming to the US under those rules when there are many more qualified people and also the demand would be much lower. But like I said, I wouldn't disagree with that proposal.
Was going to say the same thing. I guess it is pretty much a capitalist's (unregulated) wet dream.
Well, if it is "between individuals", then you'll definitely have a lot of "workers" working much longer hours than that. I've seen maids in the Middle East that were pretty much on-call for the majority of the day (and night), except for maybe the weekend where they were allowed to do other things, too.
I'm aware. I was showing how even best case is fucked.
Poor people in America needs to look down on even poorer people to help their economic anxiety I guess? Same reason why https://www.resetera.com/threads/tr...placing-with-blue-apron-type-meal-kits.22999/ is a thing.
That's a really myopic way of fundamental economic and business understanding.
You said you're ok with employers abusing their employees
I was hoping you'd have something more realistic than "give money to them out of the goodness of our hearts", which we all know isn't happening as much as we'd want it to.
I mean, I do feel the need to point out, that these are the same sort of practices we saw when child labor was a thing. Younger workers were paid far less than adult workers and much the same work was required from them, oftentimes it was far more dangerous to boot.
None of this justifies a small business cutting corners and treating employees unfairly for their work.
I’m still waiting for you to answer my question.
If my favorite local sushi restaurant has slaves, I’m fine with another Arby’s.
If my favorite local sushi restaurant had to resort to abusing their employees in order to stay in business, I'd prefer they not be in business. In fact, if they were abusing their employees for any reason, including paying them less than a livable wage, then I'd much prefer they not be in business at all.
Nothing I said was unrealistic, much of it is already happening and it is helping in lifting people in poor countries from extreme poverty. We should just do more of it instead of this disgusting not-slavery-but-it-is-totally-slavery shit that you so vehemently defend & support.
Kids live with their parents/legal guardians. It's not abusive, they can always quit and go back to their room and play video games. No one is forcing them to work. That's why a lower minimum wage makes sense in that situation. $13/hr minimum wage for a kid that lives with the parents is a bit outrageous in my opinion.
No, I didn't. Not only have other countries tried this method, but many European countries also have different minimum wages laws depending on the industry (ie: cleaning industry minimum wages are lower than industrial industry minimum wages).
Gotta love the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" fantasy where a factory worker becomes a slave owner
Yes let's go back to talking about why middle class people should be able to enrich themselves by paying immigrants slave wages while controlling their room and board and food source.
But their competitors do?
The Arby's employees get paid closer to a liveable wage, which the sushi restaurant couldn't sustain. I may not get my favorite mackerel anymore but on a large scale more people being able to maintain a decent quality of life is a win.
It's literally better for the economy. We want people to have disposable income.
Well, even if it is working (it doesn't appear to be at a scale that registers), one doesn't preclude you from doing the other. We can both increase aid and take in more immigrants, and both will help.
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but the authors propose we charge prospective immigrants $6k for the privilege of being hired for a below-minimum-wage job? And the benefit is the immigrants have extra money to send back home? And if the conditions are poor and they want to leave, will they still owe megabucks to the host for the sponsorship?
Of course.
It is registering on a worldwide scale. Just because you are too ignorant of the positive effects of such actions doesn't mean they don't exist.
