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

Alister Air (alister@itd.uts.edu.au)
16 Oct 1996 01:10:34 GMT

na716472@anon.penet.fi wrote:
: In article <51rhrd$8c7@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>,
: arbin@condor.sccs.swarthmore.edu (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 aus.legal.moderated 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.

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.

: 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?

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

: 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:
: na716472@anon.penet.fi

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.

: 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     | http://milliways.itd.uts.edu.au/~alister/

 feel inside, who needs them?"   | http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~baitoven/