this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
169 points (98.8% liked)

politics

24577 readers
2764 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] boydster@sh.itjust.works 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

I feel like your entire post is ignoring the hoarding of wealth at the top while focusing on the financial impacts that would happen to the people at the bottom due to the aforementioned greed at the top. Those people "who have no idea how much their food would cost if they were paying the workers a fair wage" have also never been paid a fair wage.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

You are correct, but those issues have no bearing on the fact that those people still would have no idea what their food would cost if they were paid a fair wage, and would likely not be willing to accept it even if you could mathematically prove that it was correct.

The gap between what most undocumented immigrants get paid vs. what a US citizen or permanent resident would get paid for the exact same work (assuming everything was above board) is absolutely gigantic. Especially in the agriculture and construction industries. Even if you took 100% of the rest of the corporate greed out, the price increases associated with paying them a fair wage would still send prices far higher than most people would be willing or even able to pay.

Look at it this way.

A quick google search shows that the average construction worker gets paid $25 an hour. Factor in benefits and you're figuring $35 effective. Let's say that, among the rest of the crew, A construction company hires 2 undocumented workers to do the low-level stuff for $10 an hour to cut a few corners and keep within budget. (A not-uncommon practice in the industry, to say the least. I'm sure some hire many more than that.)

A house takes about 6 months to build. So those two workers would work 40 hours/week for 26 weeks, for a total of 1040 hours, or 2080 hours between the two of them. The company pays them $20,800 under the table.

Had that construction company hired two union employees to do the same work, those workers would have been paid $72,800 in pay and benefits. That's over $50,000 difference. Those costs would be tacked on to the cost of the house. A house that normally would sell for $150k would now be priced over $200k. That's not corporate greed. That's just math, and the true cost of what it would take to pay them a fair wage. If the owners were planning on renting out the property, this would probably result in the resulting rent for the property being about $500 a month higher, and even if the property were broken out into several apartments, you'd probably be still talking about tacking on a couple of hundred a month per apartment.

Whether it's morally right is irrelevant. The price increases even after you factor out the things you correctly mention also have an impact would still likely be significantly higher than most people would be willing to accept and would likely cause severe negative impacts in the economy.

[–] boydster@sh.itjust.works 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

That last part is where we disagree. You are underestimating the wealth extraction that has taken place during the post-WWII boom. I'm not going to argue further because I'm going to bed, but I'll suffice to agree to disagree.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

I'm not underestimating it at all. I'm saying that my point would still fully stand even after the corporate greed and wealth extraction was taken into consideration. People severely underestimate the impact that this has on prices.