PDA

View Full Version : Hire Americans First by Patrick J. Buchanan




bobbyw24
10-09-2009, 12:59 PM
Hire Americans First

by Patrick J. Buchanan

September’s un- employment figures were not only disappointing — they were grim. For the 21st straight month, Americans lost jobs. Fifteen million are out of work — 5 million for more than six months.

But as the Washington Times asserts, “America’s jobless crisis is much worse than the 9.8 percent unemployment rate.”

The U.S. economy actually lost 785,000 jobs in September, which should have pushed the 9.7 percent August unemployment figure far higher than just 0.1 percent to 9.8 percent.

What kept the increase to 0.1 percent?

Over 800,000 people quit the labor force in September. They packed it in. They stopped looking for work. That is six times the number who quit looking in August and five times the monthly average of those who have given up the search for work in the year since Lehman Brothers died.

Adding to the near 15 million unemployed those who have given up looking for work and those who have taken low-paying part-time jobs, the Times estimates the true employment rate at 17 percent. We used to call that a depression.

Yet, with nearly 25 million Americans unemployed, or no longer looking for work, or in low-wage part-time jobs, 8.5 million U.S. jobs are believed to be held by illegal aliens who broke into the country or overstayed their visas.

Why is this not a matter of national outrage?

For every job opening in the country, there are six unemployed Americans. With this surplus of idle labor and shortage of jobs, the men who do the hiring are in the catbird’s seat. They can cut wages in the knowledge that desperate Americans will have to accept what is offered.

Comes the rote response: Immigrants and illegal aliens only take jobs Americans do not want and will not do. But, last month, a front-page article in USA Today demolished that argument.

When a 2006 raid on six Swift & Co. meatpacking plants rounded up 1,200 illegal aliens, 10 percent of the workforce, Swift was up and running at full staff within months. How? Native-born Americans in the hundreds came out and took the jobs.

Says Vanderbilt University Professor Carol Swain, “Whenever there’s an immigration raid, you find white, black and legal immigrant labor lining up to do these jobs Americans will supposedly not do.”

At one of the Swift plants out West, a workforce that had been 90 percent Hispanic, legal and illegal, before the raids is now a mixture of white Americans and Hispanic-Americans. Illegal aliens lost the jobs, and American citizens got them.

A House of Raeford Farms plant in North Carolina that was more than 80 percent Hispanic before a federal investigation now has a workforce 70 percent African-American.

Illegal aliens gravitate to jobs in construction, farming, fishing and forestry. Yet native-born Americans outnumber immigrants three to one in construction and two to one in farming, fishing and forestry, according to Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies. Illegals are thus taking jobs Americans not only will do, but Americans are doing.

The crackdown on businesses that hire illegals that has only just begun is not only enforcing federal law, but ending the exploitation of illegal aliens and opening up jobs for Americans — black, white, Asian and Hispanic alike.

Since the 1960s, there has been a bitter battle — breaking down along ideological and racial, ethnic and gender lines — over affirmative action, quotas, preferential hiring, promotions and admissions to college and graduate schools, and contract set-asides.

Conservatives have insisted that if discrimination is wrong, it is not made right by making white males the victims and women and minorities the beneficiaries. Liberals argue that to advance economic equality and ethnic diversity, and compensate for past injustices, temporary discrimination against white males is an unfortunate necessity.

White fireman like Frank Ricci must be denied promotions they have won in fair competition, as African-Americans were not among those who passed the tests.

As votes on referenda in California, Washington and Michigan have shown, the American people reject affirmative action and preferences in hiring, promotions and admissions that are based on race, ethnicity or gender.

Americans believe no discrimination should mean no discrimination.

But there is a form of discrimination, a form of preferential treatment, which left and right, it would seem, may both support. It is based not on color or creed, but on nationality and citizenship.

If jobs are available in the United States, Americans should go to the front of the line to get them, ahead of illegal aliens. And as there are six Americans out of work for every job opening, it is time to call a moratorium on immigration. Why are we bringing into the United States over a million legal immigrants a year to compete for jobs against 15 million to 25 million Americans who can’t find work or full-time jobs to take care of their families?

Who is America for — if not for Americans first?

http://buchanan.org/blog/hire-americans-first-2516

Agnapostate
10-09-2009, 01:11 PM
That the U.S. possesses an inordinately high demand for unskilled labor to begin with should be Paddy's primary focus. His stance on NAFTA is sound; perhaps he even recognizes that the expansion of trade liberalization has destabilized and uprooted many among the Mexican agrarian working class and exacerbated the inequitable international wage differentials that cause immigration. His support for prohibitionist immigration policy, however, is merely advocacy of empty and wasteful government expenditure.

Elwar
10-09-2009, 01:13 PM
Are Americans willing to work for less than minimum wage?

lester1/2jr
10-09-2009, 01:26 PM
or americans willing to pay more for stuff so the workers can be paid more? not likely. maybe if the government took less of our money we would

ClayTrainor
10-09-2009, 01:29 PM
I hire who ever will get what i needed done the best :)

Brian4Liberty
10-09-2009, 01:30 PM
Pat shouldn't repeat one of the big lies:



Over 800,000 people quit the labor force in September. They packed it in. They stopped looking for work. That is six times the number who quit looking in August and five times the monthly average of those who have given up the search for work in the year since Lehman Brothers died.

People don't quit the labor force. They just run out of unemployment insurance, and they can't get jobs.

brandon
10-09-2009, 01:31 PM
Are Americans willing to work for less than minimum wage?

No, because they could make more money not working and collecting welfare and food stamps.

Agnapostate
10-09-2009, 01:32 PM
No, because they could make more money not working and collecting welfare and food stamps.

I've not encountered any empirical evidence that supports the standard rightist attack on the welfare state. Instead, I've found that rightists are too often enamored with specious talking points about the consequences of government presence in the capitalist economy while neglecting to sufficiently consider the actual empirical literature on the topic. The reason for this may be that the conclusions yielded by that research do not support their assertions. For example, consider Mares's The economic consequences of the welfare state (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=996147):


What are the economic and employment consequences of larger social insurance programmes? Are larger welfare states diverting resources from economic activity and distorting the investment decisions of firms? I examine theoretical and empirical research on the economic consequences of the welfare state. This review shows that the predictions of a negative relationship between higher levels of social protection and growth have not been borne out in the data. Both insurance programmes and other policies that increase investment in human capital or the overall productivity of workers generate important economic externalities that outweigh the potentially distortionary effects of higher taxes. Empirical studies also fail to uncover a consistent negative relationship between larger welfare states and the level of employment. The employment consequences of the welfare state are mediated by existing institutions and policies—such as the level of centralization of the wage bargaining system—which affect the redistribution of the costs of higher taxes among workers and firms. As a result, the employment consequences of larger welfare states are non-linear.

We hear of the welfare state promoting unemployment, laziness, and various kinds of horrible communist iniquity, but we rarely see the relevant evidence of this supplied...and it seems to be nonexistent.

Brian4Liberty
10-09-2009, 01:34 PM
or americans willing to pay more for stuff so the workers can be paid more? not likely. maybe if the government took less of our money we would

I have been doing remodeling, and have found that price generally doesn't relate to country of origin or quality. I have found lower priced and higher quality material that was made in the US. Shopping around is important.

YumYum
10-09-2009, 01:41 PM
Employers like hiring illegals because they are dependable, work for a lower wage, don't complain and are easy going, and when taught how to do a job, they do it right and don't cut corners. The most important reason they are hired by American employers is that they rarely take their employer to court over nonsensical issues like discrimination and unfair treatment. If they don't like a job, they quit and work somewhere else.

Brian4Liberty
10-09-2009, 01:41 PM
We hear of the welfare state promoting unemployment, laziness, and various kinds of horrible communist iniquity, but we rarely see the relevant evidence of this supplied...and it seems to be nonexistent.

That's the pot calling the kettle black. Where's your evidence for your statement?

Perhaps you don't know anyone on welfare, and see first hand how it demotivates people. Why get a low paying job when the government will take care of you, probably with a better standard of living than the job? You think people can't solve that simple economic equation? The government creates an easy and simple path of least resistance.

brandon
10-09-2009, 01:50 PM
We hear of the welfare state promoting unemployment, laziness, and various kinds of horrible communist iniquity, but we rarely see the relevant evidence of this supplied...and it seems to be nonexistent.

You can use all the fancy words and studies you want...you're still not right. I personally know several people that chose to get government money instead of work.


The logic involved really isn't that complicated....if the government offered me close to my current salary to not work anymore, I'd certainly accept it. And in my free time I would begin putting together a business plan.

Agnapostate
10-09-2009, 01:54 PM
That's the pot calling the kettle black. Where's your evidence for your statement?

Perhaps you don't know anyone on welfare, and see first hand how it demotivates people. Why get a low paying job when the government will take care of you, probably with a better standard of living than the job? You think people can't solve that simple economic equation? The government creates an easy and simple path of least resistance.


You can use all the fancy words and studies you want...you're still not right. I personally know several people that chose to get government money instead of work.

The logic involved really isn't that complicated....if the government offered me close to my current salary to not work anymore, I'd certainly accept it. And in my free time I would begin putting together a business plan.

These are good examples of why rightists can't incorporate empirical analysis. They prefer anecdotal accounts that cannot provide us with sufficient evidence for policy formation because of the heterogenous nature of the population and widely varying spectrum of human characteristics and behaviors. Consideration of large data sets is necessary, however.

Brian4Liberty
10-09-2009, 02:00 PM
These are good examples of why rightists can't incorporate empirical analysis. They prefer anecdotal accounts that cannot provide us with sufficient evidence for policy formation because of the heterogenous nature of the population and widely varying spectrum of human characteristics and behaviors. Consideration of large data sets is necessary, however.

Where's your large data set? And you claimed that the demotivating effect of welfare was non-existent. That is clearly not true. And your collectivist and inaccurate generalization about "rightists" is evidence of your inability to consider larger data sets. Are all "rightists" exactly the same? Are "rightists" the only people who use anecdotal information to help form their opinions?

huckans
10-09-2009, 02:35 PM
The argument should not be about whether the welfare state is better or worse economically than the lack of a welfare state. Don't get caught up in that debate because it is easy to find studies and statistics that support whichever viewpoint you have. Similarly, do not resort to an even worse tactic--that of using anecdotal evidence.

The strongest reason for a minimal socialized system is that it detracts from individual liberty. Protection of the rights of the individual was foremost on the minds of the founders as they drafted the constitution--not because it would necessarily give us a more productive society. It was because of the colonists' experiences with a repressive and tyrannical king.

squarepusher
10-09-2009, 02:42 PM
free market > this article

Elwar
10-09-2009, 02:43 PM
No, because they could make more money not working and collecting welfare and food stamps.

Good point, I'd forgot about that.

If I was making less than $30k a year I would seriously consider quitting my job and having a better lifestyle on the government dole.

RevolutionSD
10-09-2009, 02:52 PM
Hire Americans First

by Patrick J. Buchanan

September’s un- employment figures were not only disappointing — they were grim. For the 21st straight month, Americans lost jobs. Fifteen million are out of work — 5 million for more than six months.

But as the Washington Times asserts, “America’s jobless crisis is much worse than the 9.8 percent unemployment rate.”

The U.S. economy actually lost 785,000 jobs in September, which should have pushed the 9.7 percent August unemployment figure far higher than just 0.1 percent to 9.8 percent.

What kept the increase to 0.1 percent?

Over 800,000 people quit the labor force in September. They packed it in. They stopped looking for work. That is six times the number who quit looking in August and five times the monthly average of those who have given up the search for work in the year since Lehman Brothers died.

Adding to the near 15 million unemployed those who have given up looking for work and those who have taken low-paying part-time jobs, the Times estimates the true employment rate at 17 percent. We used to call that a depression.

Yet, with nearly 25 million Americans unemployed, or no longer looking for work, or in low-wage part-time jobs, 8.5 million U.S. jobs are believed to be held by illegal aliens who broke into the country or overstayed their visas.

Why is this not a matter of national outrage?

For every job opening in the country, there are six unemployed Americans. With this surplus of idle labor and shortage of jobs, the men who do the hiring are in the catbird’s seat. They can cut wages in the knowledge that desperate Americans will have to accept what is offered.

Comes the rote response: Immigrants and illegal aliens only take jobs Americans do not want and will not do. But, last month, a front-page article in USA Today demolished that argument.

When a 2006 raid on six Swift & Co. meatpacking plants rounded up 1,200 illegal aliens, 10 percent of the workforce, Swift was up and running at full staff within months. How? Native-born Americans in the hundreds came out and took the jobs.

Says Vanderbilt University Professor Carol Swain, “Whenever there’s an immigration raid, you find white, black and legal immigrant labor lining up to do these jobs Americans will supposedly not do.”

At one of the Swift plants out West, a workforce that had been 90 percent Hispanic, legal and illegal, before the raids is now a mixture of white Americans and Hispanic-Americans. Illegal aliens lost the jobs, and American citizens got them.

A House of Raeford Farms plant in North Carolina that was more than 80 percent Hispanic before a federal investigation now has a workforce 70 percent African-American.

Illegal aliens gravitate to jobs in construction, farming, fishing and forestry. Yet native-born Americans outnumber immigrants three to one in construction and two to one in farming, fishing and forestry, according to Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies. Illegals are thus taking jobs Americans not only will do, but Americans are doing.

The crackdown on businesses that hire illegals that has only just begun is not only enforcing federal law, but ending the exploitation of illegal aliens and opening up jobs for Americans — black, white, Asian and Hispanic alike.

Since the 1960s, there has been a bitter battle — breaking down along ideological and racial, ethnic and gender lines — over affirmative action, quotas, preferential hiring, promotions and admissions to college and graduate schools, and contract set-asides.

Conservatives have insisted that if discrimination is wrong, it is not made right by making white males the victims and women and minorities the beneficiaries. Liberals argue that to advance economic equality and ethnic diversity, and compensate for past injustices, temporary discrimination against white males is an unfortunate necessity.

White fireman like Frank Ricci must be denied promotions they have won in fair competition, as African-Americans were not among those who passed the tests.

As votes on referenda in California, Washington and Michigan have shown, the American people reject affirmative action and preferences in hiring, promotions and admissions that are based on race, ethnicity or gender.

Americans believe no discrimination should mean no discrimination.

But there is a form of discrimination, a form of preferential treatment, which left and right, it would seem, may both support. It is based not on color or creed, but on nationality and citizenship.

If jobs are available in the United States, Americans should go to the front of the line to get them, ahead of illegal aliens. And as there are six Americans out of work for every job opening, it is time to call a moratorium on immigration. Why are we bringing into the United States over a million legal immigrants a year to compete for jobs against 15 million to 25 million Americans who can’t find work or full-time jobs to take care of their families?

Who is America for — if not for Americans first?

http://buchanan.org/blog/hire-americans-first-2516

Ridiculous.

PB's isolationism doesn't work.

I run 3 businesses and the only way I can expand is to outsource. Some of the tasks I can hire people overseas to do for $3/hour, where as here I'd be paying at least $10/hr for the same thing.

If I hired Americans only, I wouldn't be able to grow my business.

PB's column supports the state, not free market enterprise.

NYgs23
10-09-2009, 03:31 PM
Sounds like nationalism to me. There's nothing inherently superior about Americans. A person is a person regardless of the geographical area in which they happen to live.

erowe1
10-09-2009, 03:37 PM
What is the point of Buchanan's argument anyway?

Let's say that there are 100 million employed people in America, and 20 million of those are illegal immigrants who are all working at a labor cost per output of only 3/4 what the citizens who would do those jobs if those illegal immigrants weren't here. So if all those employers fired all of them and hired citizens instead, they'd only be able to hire 15 million citizens with the money that they had been spending on those illegal immigrants. As a result, there would only be 95 million people working now instead of 100 million. Plus stuff would cost more to all of us as consumers.

Why does he think that's a good thing?

rrcamp
10-09-2009, 04:28 PM
Sounds like nationalism to me. There's nothing inherently superior about Americans. A person is a person regardless of the geographical area in which they happen to live.

+1

lester1/2jr
10-10-2009, 08:26 AM
malcolm x called this going after the puppet instead of the puppeteer. it's not some guy in some slaughterhouses fault that our government spends 3 trillion dollars a year on garbage. allowing unionized workers to be in on the scam is not going to help the country at large

Icymudpuppy
10-10-2009, 08:39 AM
All businesses seek to maximize sales by providing the highest quality goods for the lowest possible price in the fastest possible time frame. Employees are chosen who can help fulfill this goal. Individuals are selected based on their willingness to work hard to exacting standards while receiving a wage that is equal to their skill and swiftness.

That said, I don't care what a person looks like or where they come from. I hire based on abilities, and willingness.

james1906
10-10-2009, 08:48 AM
Employers like hiring illegals because they are dependable, work for a lower wage, don't complain and are easy going, and when taught how to do a job, they do it right and don't cut corners. The most important reason they are hired by American employers is that they rarely take their employer to court over nonsensical issues like discrimination and unfair treatment. If they don't like a job, they quit and work somewhere else.

There's a reason I mow my own lawn, wash my own car, and do my own remodeling.

Brian4Liberty
10-10-2009, 11:52 AM
There's a reason I mow my own lawn, wash my own car, and do my own remodeling.

Lol! Isn't that the truth. The old saying "if you want it done right, do it yourself" has never been more true than it is today...

Brian4Liberty
10-10-2009, 11:54 AM
What is the point of Buchanan's argument anyway?


That government statistics are a lie, and that the saying "jobs American's won't do" is simply self-serving propaganda.