On May 11, 10:27=A0am, "Stephen R. Diamond" <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 18:17:00 -0700, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On May 10, 10:47=A0am, "Stephen R. Diamond" <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Consider it hypothetical if you wish. My point is, this category of
=A0=
> >> labor--which I haven't proven the prevalence of, but neither have you
=
=A0
> >> *excluded* based on your abstract statistics--does not belong in =A0
> >> productive labor. Where the externalities are greater than the value
=
=A0
> >> created (hypothetically if you wish) and this employment arises from
=
=A0
> >> the =A0
> >> very nature of the labor power applied--substandard for its =A0
> >> objectives--value is diminished rather than increased by its =A0
> >> application.
>
> > OK, fine. What does this have to do with the question at hand?
>
> It puts a question mark over your claim that immigrants do not swell the
=
=A0
> industrial reserve army. (The term in inexact. I should probably say,
the =
=A0
> lumpen proletariat.) You are not justified in assuming that workers who
do=
=A0
> work no one else wants to do are not driving down the wages of workers.
=
=A0
> If, per above, they create no value, they function as a pool that =A0
> decreases the bargaining power of workers. That is to say, it is the
same =
=A0
> as though the were never employed. Worse, actually, if the sum of
"value" =
=A0
> and externalities is negative.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> There has been little done theoretically that I'm aware of on this
=A0
> >> problem. But you can't turn a blind eye to, by sticking to an obtuse,
=
=A0
> >> scientistic refusal even to see the problem. The anecdote is designed
=
=A0
> >> to =A0
> >> highlight the problem. This could also be done by counter-example to
=
=A0
> >> your =A0
> >> "theory of value." On your theory, EVERY DRUG DEALER is a worker who
=
=A0
> >> adds =A0
> >> to the mass of economic value. I present that as a reduction to the
=A0=
> >> absurd =A0
> >> of your immigration apologia. After all, "Capitalism makes it
'work.'"
>
> > No, what I'm saying is that you can't bring up prejudicial metaphors
> > like "immigrant work=3Dbad" "native work=3Dgood". That was my only
point=
..
> > I don't "appologise" about my view of defending the non-native born
> > section of the US working class. I'm for unity. Anything that works
> > against this unity is reactionary. Get it? I consider immigrant labor
> > to be part of the US working class. I consider those that see it as
> > bad as reactionary. I consider those that ignore WHY immigration, or
> > rather emigration, occurs to be fools, really along the lines of CNN's
> > Lou Dobbs and other right-wing jingoistic fake-"populists".
>
> >> The laws licensing contractors can probably be classed as capitalist
=
=A0
> >> *reforms*. Maybe not; haven't thought about it much.
>
> > Your right, neither have I but I'll go along with it...
>
> >> If so, however, it =A0
> >> would follow that the huge number of unlicensed contractors who are
=A0=
> >> also =A0
> >> illegal immigrants should be counted as a negative, not a plus. If
you =
=A0
> >> disagree there are many, I can't prove you wrong, but you are. If you
=
=A0
> >> disagree that these unlicensed contractors produce almost uniformly
=A0=
> >> shoddy =A0
> >> work, you either aren't in a position to know or, more likely, don't
=
=A0
> >> want =A0
> >> to.
>
> > I agree 100%. In urban areas this is very true. The people who redid
> > my hardwood floors was a Vietnamese contractor. Licensed but
> > completely family run. I actually tried to find out if there were
> > Carpenter Union organized floor firms in my area: none, and in fact,
> > never were. But I agree...unlicensed contractors almost by definition
> > are non-union. I want to see 100% unionization in things like
> > residential construction and maintence. AT one point, I was told,
> > about 60% of all of this in big urban areas were union, before I was
> > born. Not any more. It was also mostly immigrigrant back then, but new
> > immigrants replaces the older ones (Vietnamese replacng Italian/Greek
> > for example).
>
> > So...we demand licensing...or whatever. What is the problem?
>
> Licensing laws have proven almost unenforceable. But if they were =A0
> enforceable, and hungry, unskilled immigrants crossed the border looking
=
=A0
> for work from which the law effectively excluded them, I can't see how
why=
=A0
> an Open Borderist like yourself could then favor the licensing laws.
Your =
=A0
> case seems to rest on your contention that the work done by this =A0
> immigrants is work that ought to be done.
>
> Yes, I think immigrant labor, by and large, is inferior. I think you
admit=
=A0
> as much by saying they do work no one else wants to do. Why isn't that a
=
=A0
> "prejudicial" generalization?
>
> srd
>
You are mixing metaphors here. By immigrant labor being "inferior" you
are saying that as compared to the SAME labor done by native born in
the same area or because the 'value' of that labor by immigrants, say,
janitorial work, is somehow less valuable than that done by a native
born legal sect'y? What are you comparing?
Secondly, you keep impling I'm FOR immigration. I'm not. I'm against
it. It's just that I undersand WHY it occurs...something you time and
again refuse to address accept to come up with cockamamie ideas like
"class consious workers ought not emigrate" and other a-materialist
ideas, SRD.
I think lisencing of contractors is a good thing. When we had our
kitchen redon, it was done by a licensed, native born American
contractor employing Mexican labor (I don't know their legal status,
nor do I care). It was non-union since there is no union shops that
do this kind of work anymore. These guys were paid well by non-union
standards (about $20/hr). Being "Licensed contractor" only assures
legal business practices (skills and knowledge of the contractor,
insurance, etc etc). None of this has to do with who them employ.
Now, lets say that all labor had to be union. This would be almost a
transitional demand these days, for sure, but let's say the unions
were strong enough to enforce this. It would *make on difference* in
terms of the immigrant status of their member****p. Nor should it as
Marxists would fight against *capitalist* legal status for workers.
There is a capitalist law on the books that is increasingly being
enforced that requires the boss to check the legal status of all
workers. Marxists oppose this. If you can't figure out why, you need
to go back to school.
DAvid
|
