Re: Illegal Immigration: Why the Gov't Looks the Other Way

Biggles (
19 Oct 1996 03:32:08 GMT

In article <541cma$2qb@woodstock.socs.uts.EDU.AU>,
(Alister Air) wrote:

> wrote:
> : In article <51rhrd$>,
> : (Arbin Sherchan) wrote:
> : Wages are a very important issue being brought up by economists
> : and politicans alike very frequently on TV. The answer is a
> : return to an at-will, unregulated employment market (repeal of
> : equal employment opportunity) and a return to protectionism and
> : tariffs.
> Hmm... the same "The Author" who frequently (cross) posts to, amongst
> others, alt.politics.white-power ... and you're trying to present
> yourself as unbiased, of course ... completely ignoring the fact
> that by posting to you're probably spamming.
> But anyway... to allow a "free market" for wages would be suicide
> when coupled with the removal of the safety nets. With no alternative,
> people would be forced to work for $3/hour (that's Australian dollars,
> at least) or less. This would particularly affect those with little-
> or-no workplace power, including the young, the uneducated, women
> (in some cases), Indigenous Australians, migrants and the handicapped.

Did it occur to you that employers might WANT to pay more for valued
employees ? That wages are not just a one-dimensional function of
government largesse ? Did it occur to you that some people in Aus. are
possibly not even worth this paltry amount ? You ever try to actually run
a business with all these bureacrats trying to tell you that staff must
fit within a certain industrial award ? It is anathema to multi-discipline
jobs. Oh, and profit sharing and linking wages to the company is illegal I
am told. Employees are not allowed to work co-operatively or as valued
team members. Why ? Because it would put the labour market regulator
industry out of business ?

The labour market in Aus. stinks, along with the bureaucracy industry
that is trying to justify its existence.

> But these (with the possible exception of the young) are not the sort
> of people you care about, are they? To remove EEO would damage the
> employment prospects of a lot of people. It would, of course, reduce
> unemployment. Mainly because there'd be shit-loads of people to whom
> jobs aren't offered. Even with EEO supposedly in place, I have seen
> people with Masters degrees in Engineering, Science and Computing
> Science left to work jobs way below their capabilities. This is not
> a good use for people with highly developed skills.

Wrong. Lots of paper credentials is not the same as education and brains.
You have obviously not interviewed the "brains trust" that emits from the
universities in Australia that is a growth industry to park unemployment
figures away from public view. The same applies to the US.

> : This is a great fallacy which keeps making the rounds. It is
> : unrealistic to think that everyone can upgrade his skills to
> : become a computer programmer. First of all you need a variety
> : of businesses and industries in order to generate economic trans-
> : actions which fuel the need for programmers, and secondly, not
> : everyone has the aptitude for being a programmer. This line of
> : reasoning applies to other forms of work as well. Work is
> : disappearing for U.S. ghetto dwellers. Are you going to advise
> : them to upgrade their skills to become robotic engineers and
> : servicemen?

Life is not easy. Ever try to be a field labouer in 18th century England ?
People are not equal, and many of the folks in these ghettos are at least
partly responsible for their circumstances. Lack of motivation and hope is
a key element (and don't lecture: many people have broken the cycle on
their own initiative). This is a function of psychology. You don't have to
be rich or in a nice neighbourhood to dream, strive and try. Look at how
the jews from concentration camps, Cambodians and Chinese have prospered.

Urban ghettos are nothing compared to the deprivations the latter
suffered. Their very life was in immediate peril. I know it is not trendy
to take responsibility for ones own will and to live deliberately, but I
am sick of hearing the implied statement that "society" (whatever that
means) is somehow responsible and has to do something for the ghetto

> Why not...? The three ways someone will get out of poverty are
> death, crime and education.

or hard work, moving away, changing of their attitude and generally
adapating, just like Darwin would predict. Why is this always to be
externally supplied by the do-gooder industry ? If you live in Asia, you
would understand this. Maybe it is just that Aust and US are in moral and
personal decay and self-motivation is a dirty word.

The first is not a long-term solution.
> The second, for the most part, is socially undesirable. The third
> is the only opportunity. A large number of people generate the
> businesses you're talking about. If you've got the people, the
> skills would be required. But not just programmers/engineers, also
> chefs, surgeons, nurses, lawyers, engineers and a lot more.

Yeah, right. The great social expeiment. That has failed miserably.

I have another solution. Birth control. Just as we expanded the population
for the industrial era we now need to reduce it for the post-industrial
era. That is reality, but one nobody likes to address. There are not the
jobs, there never will be, and many, as you correctly point out, are
simply incapable of learning.

While I am at it, anyone ever question the God of *supply economics* ?
That is also the paradigm our political leaders fail address (along with
birth control).

I just ask that people think and not resort to slogans. The role of
government is dying and about bloddy time !

> : If anyone would like a free email copy of the multipart
> : treatise on the downward wage equalizing effects of
> : equal employment opportunity, send a brief request to:
> :
> I'll sum it up for you. If you're white, your wages have been
> declining in RELATIVE terms to most other people in your society.

I'll get a copy, read it with an open mind, then decide for myself,
irrespective of your editorial. You did read it did'nt you ?


> : Hurry while the penet remailer is still forwarding email
> : to the "na" form of addresses!
> What's the "na" stand for again...? Was it ... National Alliance?
> : "Government enforced wage equalization will work only in the
> : downward direction" - despite any initial appearance to the
> : contrary! And the most shocking thing of all is that the
> : least preferred worker does not even have to be awarded a
> : job for many phenomena to occur.
> wow... quoting yourself. And I thought only dickheads like Brendan
> Nelson and Bronwyn Bishop did that (find out who they are...)
> --
> alister air
> resource centre | information studies student
> information technology division | faculty of humanities & social sciences
> university of technology, sydney
> "words can't describe what i |
> feel inside, who needs them?" |