From al.com, I'm posting this here because what the right believes about illegal immigrants is too often inacurate myth:
Crackdown on illegal immigrants left crops rotting in Georgia fields, ag chief tells US lawmakers
Published: Tuesday, October 04, 2011, 6:00 PM Updated: Tuesday, October 04, 2011, 6:00 PM
View full sizeJeremy Gonzalez picks tomatoes on a farm in Steele, Ala., Monday, Oct. 3, 2011. Much of the crop is rotting as many of the migrant workers who normally work these fields have moved to other states to find work after Alabama's immigration law took affect last week. The same problems are occurring in Georgia, its agriculture commissioner reported to US lawmakers on Tuesday, Oct. 4, 201. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)Commissioner Gary Black testified at a Senate subcommittee hearing on immigration enforcement and farm labor that an informal survey showed farmers of onions, watermelons and other handpicked crops lacked more than 11,000 workers during their spring and summer harvest. Farmers say that's because the Georgia immigration law scared off many migrant workers. Similar complaints are being heard in Alabama with its tough new law.
Financial incentives aimed at getting unemployed Georgians and even criminals on probation to take their place picking crops were marginally successful, Black said, because the new workers were too slow and often quit because of the strenuous labor involved.
"A robust agricultural guest worker program, properly designed, will not displace American workers," Black said in remarks prepared for the hearing. "As my testimony shows, in Georgia, even with current high unemployment rates, it is difficult for farmers to fill their labor needs."
Black said it's still unclear how much the labor shortage will ultimately cost farmers. But one group says growers have already lost tens of millions of dollars.
Charles Hall, director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, released figures from an upcoming industry-funded study Tuesday that says farmers lost at least $74.9 million in unpicked crops harvested by hand last spring and summer because they didn't have enough labor. The farmers said they lacked 40 percent of the total work force they needed.
The numbers come from self-reported surveys completed by 189 farmers of onions, watermelons, bell peppers, cucumbers, squash, blueberries and blackberries, said John McKissick, director of the University of Georgia Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, which is compiling the report.
It's a snapshot of just a small fraction of Georgia's farmers overall. The surveyed farmers hold just short of half the state's overall acreage for those seven crops.
And the seven crops examined in the study accounted for just 5 percent of Georgia's $11.3 billion in farm products from 2009, according to the agribusiness center's last annual report.
The growers association reported other figures estimating even broader economic losses, based on the $74.9 million figure, but McKissick said those numbers were not scientifically derived.
so we pay people 99 weeks of unemployment and we can't find anyone to go out and work in these fields?
ReplyDeleteThe problem is more complex than that.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the people collecting unemployment are not usually anywhere near these jobs.
Nor is everyone able to do these jobs - for physical reasons. It is brutally hard work.
It is also seasonal work for very brief periods of time. People could do this temporary job- or they could be out looking for permanent employment. They cannot do both at the same time. I find it understandable that the latter is a greater priority than the former.
Beyond that - the job just does not pay enough for what is required. The problem is arguably the job, not the potential labor.
True. Farmers will have to pay more to get these jobs filled. But that should be the case instead of letting them hire illegal aliens or guest workers that then need extra social services to make ends meet.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is somewhat compounded by the fact that we are paying people not to work through the increased unemployment benifits. Is this work for everyone? No of course not. Would I do it if it meant the difference between eating or not - hell yes.
Jim wrote:
ReplyDelete"The problem is somewhat compounded by the fact that we are paying people not to work through the increased unemployment benifits."
Incorrect.
First of all - can (or would) farmers afford to both pay these laborers more AND pay to transport people from where they are now to where the farm work is?
I don't think so.
Secondly, we DO NOT 'pay people not to work'. A condition of receiving unemployment benefits IS being actively involved in looking for work, they are not being paid 'not to work'. Job hunting is work, it takes time and effort, and in many instances they are also involved in retraining classes.
Taking someone away from doing that is penny wise and pound - or dollar - foolish.
Further unemployment benefits come from the previously employed paying in, AND it is one of the most directly beneficial expenditures to our economy that we can make in our current crisis.
"Further unemployment benefits come from the previously employed paying in, AND it is one of the most directly beneficial expenditures to our economy that we can make in our current crisis."
ReplyDeleteWorkers do not contribute towards unemployment taxes. Businesses pay for unemployment through payments made bassed on their payroll.
Just looking for a job is not that hard to keep your unemployment benifits coming. I have never heard of someone being kicked off unemployment for failing to look for a job. I have heard of people passing on jobs because they want to keep collecting unemployment. Or asking to be paid in cash so that they can keep collecting unemployment. The extended unemployment benifits are indeed a dis-incentive for people to take jobs.
http://www.wgal.com/r/19337968/detail.html
"Just looking for a job is not that hard to keep your unemployment benifits coming. I have never heard of someone being kicked off unemployment for failing to look for a job. I have heard of people passing on jobs because they want to keep collecting unemployment. Or asking to be paid in cash so that they can keep collecting unemployment. The extended unemployment benifits are indeed a dis-incentive for people to take jobs."
ReplyDeleteYou're an idiot.
Some people do not LIKE TO WORK. They will do what they can to get by on someone else's dime. Other people are seasonal employees and typically collect during periods when seasonal work is unavailable. Nobody gets paid enough while on unemployment to make not having a decent job that attractive.
Your opinion is the same one I hear from people about those who are on some form of public assistance. Try living on welfare or unemployment and meeting your obligations, it's not easy.
I looked at your "citation--it's laughable. One car dealer saying someone refused work? That's your proof? No information as to what the applicant was offered for work, wages or anything else. Typically auto sales jobs are low base salary and commissions. In a down economy selling cars could be a pretty hard way to make any money. Offer the same guy a job in the parts department where he gets a real paycheck and see what happens.
Jim, what you say is true about unemployment benefits being a disincentive to job hunting, but only in some cases. It's the same argument against welfare. Sure there are welfare moms taking advantage of the system, but with both welfare and unemployment the vast majority are people truly in need.
ReplyDeleteYou're not so cynical that you think we should abolish all the programs like those and let the people fend for themselves, are you?
To get back to the subject of the title of the post.
ReplyDeleteHerman Cain want's to demonize those who are different; does the man even OWN a mirror?
Mike - I am not suggesting that we completely get rid of the programs that help the poor. What I am suggesting is that able bodied people should be working if work is available. Clearly work is available in these states that have decided to work against illegal immigration. So the question is whether it is better for the state to continue to pay able bodied workers unemployment payments or insist they take jobs instead.
ReplyDeleteHey, all is not lost!
ReplyDeletehttp://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/07/338922/alabama-prisoners-immigrants-farm-labor/
nothin' like workin' on the chain gang. What could go wrong with that?
Who gets 99 weeks of unemployment? Why all them consarned liebral states, that's who. Well, maybe a coupla others.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/who_gets_99_weeks_of_unemployment_benefits/21037/
Oh, jeez, I'm sorry, I almost forgot. Jim, you say that "employers PAY unemployment taxes". Why, gosh, you're right. They also pay for workmen's cop and half of the SS/FICA/Medicare cost, with employees paying the other half.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the employees and the employers is that:
A.) The employers get to figure the totality of their labor costs when figuring what to pay above minimum wage.
and
5.) The employer gets to deduct all of those expenditures as, expense, and not pay taxes on that money, unlike the employee who pays on gross wages.
Interesting that mostly liberal states have the higher unemployment rates and therefore qualify for the extended 99 weeks of unemployment insurance.
ReplyDeleteSo the unemployment ranges from 60 weeks to 99 weeks depending on how well your state is doing with jobs - so what? 60 weeks still allows you to go over a year without working.
As far as what an employer pays, it will always be based on several factors including how much he can charge for his product/service and how many people have the skills necessary to perform the work. The employer is not going to pay someone more than they can generate in revenue for the company and that would include their secondary costs of benifits and taxes. As to the tax laws that allow companies to deduct expenses from their profits before taxes, if that was not the case then that would also just have to be figured into the pay scale a company could afford to pay.
Jim wrote:
ReplyDelete"Interesting that mostly liberal states have the higher unemployment rates and therefore qualify for the extended 99 weeks of unemployment insurance."
That is factually inaccurate,Jim - not that you bother much with facts if they don't seem to suit your argument.
Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
The states with the lowest unemployment are not the most conservative states - and the states with the worst unemployment are not the most liberal states, but rather include Nevada, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky.
You're full of poo, and apparently you don't mind throwing some of it, in the form of fact-free assertions to back up a bogus claim.
Tsk tsk tsk - you should know we fact check these things Jim. Liberal states do not equate to unemployment. You know what we DO equate to? Better schools, and better educated labor forces, and better kinds of jobs.
DGH - my bad on relying on DC's statement that it was the liberal states that qualify for the 99 weeks of unemployment. The extended unemployment was related to the unemployment rate in the state so when he said it was liberal states and a few others I assumed he had looked it up.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeleteYa gotta follow the links, that's what they're there for.
This:
"As to the tax laws that allow companies to deduct expenses from their profits before taxes, if that was not the case then that would also just have to be figured into the pay scale a company could afford to pay."
is exactly the same thing as I said. The employer figures the totality of his labor costs and after deducting fixed costs and what he wants for a pre-tax profit, the rest is for operating costs. Operating costs include employee compensation and taxes and fees which are paid, not by them, but on their account. Tax burdens for things like SS&Fica are very definitely considered a business cost by most companies that stay in business. If an employer projects revenues of $1 and knows what his fixed costs and operating costs are he can figure his profit margin. If he doesn't include things like SS&Fica he's gonna be a very sad man on payday.
DC - why would you post a link that refutes what your statement says?
ReplyDelete