#workforce scaling

[trufynd01]

TruFynd’s bulk hiring solutions provide a strategic and efficient approach to recruit large-scale talent, helping businesses meet rapid growth demands with quality and speed.

[starscreamingg]

Looking back on Detroit become human in the wake of the ai craze is like. The most morbidly funny thing to me One of these days I have to write something on how the story of that game just gets HORRIFYING when you view it through a (more) modern lens. Man

[onlinemarketingcash4ublogspotcom]

Mastering Social Media Analytics: Insights from a Leading Agency ABOUT THE EPISODE: In this episode, we delve into the intricate world of social media analytics with insights from a leading agency that employs a dedicated team of 137 analytics experts. Discover how understanding the unique dynamics of each platform is crucial for success in the digital landscape. With 2,000 employees, this agency demonstrates the sheer scale and importance of tailoring strategies for platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook.

https://www.onlinemarketingcash4u.blogspot.com Learn why the thumbnail on Instagram needs specific attention, how certain actions on TikTok can impact performance, and why carousel ads are currently a must on Facebook. This episode uncovers the shift from traditional marketing practices to a merit-based system where the quality of creative content is paramount. Marketers are now challenged to think beyond amplification and focus on creating content that naturally reaches and engages audiences. Join us as we explore the evolution of marketing strategies and the importance of leveraging analytics to drive success in today's competitive digital environment. Click here for this episode's website page with the links mentioned during the interview… https://www.salesartillery.com/marketing-book-podcast/mastering-social-media-analytics

[aidenwaites]

Im now watching Jenny nicholson's video on evermore park and man. The management for the entire entertainment industry is just kind of Like That huh

[froody]

Women throughout (American and English) history worked. The idea that in the past the sole responsibility of women was domestic labor and childrearing is largely inaccurate for the majority of women in these societies. Women were expected to do domestic labor like cooking and cleaning and raising children AND work to bring income to their family, this was true for the average woman, excluding the upper middle class/wealthy. If a woman’s husband owned a tavern or restaurant, she also cooked and kept bar and did the duties associated with the business. If a woman’s husband was a (small scale/subsistence/tenant) farmer, the woman did farm labor. Often a woman was expected to do labor related to her husband’s job.

Women also had vocations and forms of income unrelated to their husband. The nature of these jobs changed over time but many women did things like weaving, embroidery, crafting, beer brewing, chicken tending and laundress work to bring income. Women with skills were seen as better marriage candidates because they’d make money for their husband.

My great-great-great-great grandmother told fortunes and did farm labor, my great-great-great grandmother was a midwife, my great-great grandmother worked in a textile factory for most of her adult life and my great grandmother was a school lunch lady.

This is why it makes me irate when women on the right say things like “feminism forced me to get a job instead of being allowed to stay home with my children” before feminism you would have had to tend house, raise your children and bring income to your husband. Now, at the very least, the money is hopefully your own. Women were always in the workforce, their work was not recognized.

[fozmeadows]

there is no ethical consumption under capitalism

Years ago now, I remember seeing the rape prevention advice so frequently given to young women - things like dressing sensibly, not going out late, never being alone, always watching your drink - reframed as meaning, essentially, "make sure he rapes the other girl." This struck a powerful chord with me, because it cuts right to the heart of the matter: that telling someone how to lower their own chances of victimhood doesn't stop perpetrators from existing. Instead, it treats the existence of perpetrators as a foregone conclusion, such that the only thing anyone can do is try, by their own actions, to be a less appealing or more difficult victim.

And the thing is, ever since the assassination of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, I've kept on thinking about how, in this day and age, CEOs of big companies often have an equal or greater impact on the day to day lives of regular people than our elected officials, and yet we have almost no legal way to redress any grievances against them - even when their actions, as in the case of Thompson's stewardship of UHC, arguably see them perpetrating manslaughter at scale through tactics like claims denial. That this is a real, recurring thing that happens makes the American healthcare insurance industry a particularly pernicious example, but it's far from being the only one. Because the original premise of the free market - the idea that we effectively "vote" for or against businesses with our dollars, thereby causing them to sink or swim on their individual merits - is utterly broken, and has been for decades, assuming it was ever true at all. In this age of megacorporations and global supply chains, the vast majority of people are dependent on corporations for necessities such as gas, electricity, internet access, water, food, housing and medical care, which means the consumer base is, to all intents and purposes, a captive market. We might not have to buy a specific brand, but we have to buy a brand, and as businesses are constantly competing with one another to bring in profits, not just for the company and its workers, but for C-suites and shareholders - profits that increasingly come at the expense of workers and consumers alike - the greediest, most inhumane corporations set the financial yardstick against which all others are then, of necessity, measured. Which means that, while businesses are not obliged to be greedy and inhumane in order to exist, overwhelmingly, they become greedy and humane in order to compete, because capitalism encourages it, and because there are precious few legal restrictions to stop them from doing so. At the same time, a handful of megacorporations own so many market-dominating brands that, without both significant personal wealth and the time and resources to find viable alternatives, it's all but impossible to avoid them, while the ubiquity of the global supply chain means that, even if you can keep track of which company owns which brand, it's much, much harder to establish which suppliers provide the components that are used in the products bearing their labels. Consider, for instance, how many mainstream American brands are functionally run on sweatshop labour in other parts of the world: places where these big corporations have outsourced their workforce to skirt the already minimal labour and wage protections they'd be obliged to adhere to in the US, all to produce (say) electronics whose elevated sticker price passes a profit on to the company, but without resulting in higher wages for either the sweatshop workers overseas or the American employees selling the products in branded US stores.

When basically every major electronics corporation is engaged in similar business practices, there is no "vote" our money can bring that causes the industry itself to be better regulated - and as wealthy, powerful lobbyists from these industries continue to pay exorbitant sums of money to politicians to keep government regulation at a minimum, even our actual votes can do little to effect any sort of change. But even in those rare instances where new regulations are passed, for multinational corporations, laws passed in one country overwhelmingly don't prevent them from acting abusively overseas, exploiting more desperate populations and cash-poor governments to the same greedy, inhumane ends. And where the ultimate legal penalty for proven transgressions is, more often than not, a fine - which is to say, a fee; which is to say, an amount which, while astronomical by the standards of regular people, still frequently costs the company less than the profits earned through their unethical practices, and which is paid from corporate coffers rather than the bank accounts of the CEOs who made the decisions - big corporations are, in essence, free to act as badly as they can afford to; which is to say, very. Contrary to the promise of the free market, therefore, we as consumers cannot meaningfully "vote" with our dollars in a way that causes "good" businesses to rise to the top, because everything is too interconnected. Our choices under global capitalism are meaningless, because there is no other system we can financially support that stands in opposition to it, and while there are still small businesses and companies who try to operate ethically, both their comparative smallness and their interdependent reliance on the global supply chain means that, even if we feel better about our choices, we're not exerting any meaningful pressure on the system we're trying to change. Which means that, under the free market, trying to be an ethical consumer is functionally equivalent to a young woman dressing modestly, not going out alone and minding her drink at parties in order to avoid being raped. We're not preventing corporate predation or sending a message to corporate predators: we're just making sure they screw other worker, the other consumer, the other guy.

All of which is to say: while I'd prefer not to live in a world where shooting someone dead in the street is considered a valid means of redressing grievances, what the murder of Brian Thompson has shown is that, if you provide no meaningful recourse for justice against abusive, exploitative members of the 1%, then violence done to those people will have the feel of justice, because it fills the void left by the lack of consequences for their actions. It's the same reason why people had little sympathy for the jackass OceanGate CEO who killed himself in his imploding sub, or anyone whose yacht has been attacked by orcas - it's just intensified here, because where the OceanGate CEO was felled by hubris and the yachts were random casualties, whoever killed Thomspon did so deliberately, because of what he did. It was direct action against a man whose policies very arguably constituted manslaughter at scale; a crime which ought to be a crime, but which has, to date, been permitted under the law. And if the law wouldn't stop him, can anyone be surprised that someone might act outside the law in retaliation - or that regular people would cheer for them when they did?

[reasonsforhope]

On her fingers, Chicago’s Chief Sustainability Officer Angela Tovar counted the city buildings that will soon source all of their power from renewable energy: O’Hare International Airport, Midway International Airport, City Hall.

[Note: This is an even huger deal than it sounds like. Chicago O'Hare International Airport is, as of 2023, the 9th busiest airport in the world.]

Chicago’s real estate portfolio is massive. It includes 98 fire stations, 81 library locations, 25 police stations and two of the largest water treatment plants on the planet — in all, more than 400 municipal buildings.

It takes approximately 700,000 megawatt hours per year to keep the wheels turning in the third largest city in the country. Beginning Jan. 1, every single one of them will come solely from clean, renewable energy, mostly sourced from Illinois’ newest and largest solar farm. The move is projected to cut the Windy City’s carbon footprint by approximately 290,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, the equivalent of taking 62,000 cars off the road, the city said.

Chicago is one of several cities across the country that are not only shaking up their energy mix but also taking advantage of their bulk-buying power to spur new clean energy development.

The city — and much of Illinois — already has one of the cleanest energy mixes in the country, with over 50% of the state’s electricity coming from nuclear power. But while nuclear energy is considered “clean,” carbon-free energy, it is not considered renewable.

Chicago’s move toward renewable energy has been years in the making. The goal of sourcing the city’s energy purely from renewable sources was first established by Mayor Rahm Emanuel in 2017. In 2022, Mayor Lori Lightfoot struck a deal with electricity supplier Constellation to purchase renewable energy from developer Swift Current Energy for the city, beginning in 2025.

Swift Current began construction on the 3,800-acre, 593-megawatt solar farm in central Illinois as part of the same five-year, $422 million agreement. Straddling two counties in central Illinois, the Double Black Diamond Solar project is now the largest solar installation east of the Mississippi River. It can produce enough electricity to power more than 100,000 homes, according to Swift Current’s vice president of origination, Caroline Mann.

Chicago alone has agreed to purchase approximately half the installation’s total output, which will cover about 70 percent of its municipal electricity needs. City officials plan to cover the remaining 30 percent through the purchase of renewable energy credits.

“That’s really a feature and not a bug of our plan,” said deputy chief sustainability officer Jared Policicchio. He added that he hopes the built-in market will help encourage additional clean energy development locally, albeit on a much smaller scale: “Our goal over the next several years is that we reach a point where we’re not buying renewable energy credits.”

Los Angeles, Houston, Seattle, Orlando, Florida, and more than 700 other U.S. cities and towns have signed similar purchasing agreements since 2015, according to a 2022 study from World Resources Institute, but none of their plans mandate nearly as much new renewable energy production as Chicago’s.

“Part of Chicago’s goal was what’s called additionality, bringing new resources into the market and onto the grid here,” said Popkin. “They were the largest municipal deal to do this.”

Chicago also secured a $400,000 annual commitment from Constellation and Swift Current for clean energy workforce training, including training via Chicago Women in Trades, a nonprofit aiming to increase the number of women in union construction and manufacturing jobs.

The economic benefits extend past the city’s limits: According to Swift Current, approximately $100 million in new tax revenue is projected to flow into Sangamon County and Morgan County, which are home to the Double Black Diamond Solar site, over the project’s operational life.

“Cities and other local governments just don’t appreciate their ability to not just support their residents but also shape markets,” said Popkin. “Chicago is demonstrating directly how cities can lead by example, implement ambitious goals amidst evolving state and federal policy changes, and leverage their purchasing power to support a more equitable renewable energy future.” ...

Chicago will meet its goal of transitioning all its municipal buildings to renewable energy by 2025, the first step in a broader goal to source energy for all buildings in the city from renewables by 2035 — making it the largest city in the country to do so, according to the Sierra Club.

With the incoming Trump administration promising to decrease federal support for decarbonizing the economy, Dane says it will be increasingly important for cities, towns and states to drive their own efforts to reduce emissions, build greener economies and meet local climate goals. He says moves like Chicago’s prove that they are capable.

“That is an imperative thing to know, that state, city, county action is a durable pathway, even under the next administration, and [it] needs to happen,” said Dane. “The juice is definitely still worth the squeeze.”

-via WBEZ, December 24, 2024

[kkoffin]

Stop hating your womb and making caricatures of your female anatomy being an angry or evil thing that only wants you to be pregnant or bring you pain and start hating:

• The medical industry for ignoring women’s pain and suffering for generations, not putting the same effort into researching the female body as it does male bodies, often acting as though women are simply small men

• Men in history who mass-slaughtered female medical practitioners and midwives, calling their research into women’s health witchcraft

• Capitalism and a male-orientated workforce and education system that fails to consider and factor women’s needs into it’s demand

• Patriarchal disgust for women’s bodies and their functions

• The sexualisation and shame of female bodies to the point where young women cannot seek help for their issues from caregivers/doctors/parents without fear and embarrassment

Yes, periods are inconvenient and often painful, but before you get frustrated with your body, demonising and blaming it, realise it would not be the way it is if not for a mass-scale medical and scientific negligence of women’s issues. Your body does not hate you- patriarchy does. Aim your energy and efforts there.

[splatoonusna]

Memo from Grizzco: This Big Run, we're looking at total workforce productivity, not individual contributions. Employees worldwide will contribute to the tally--and if the numbers go up enough, everyone who helped gets scales. Think you can hit 700 million eggs? Well, try.

[probablyasocialecologist]

After nearly 15 years, Uber claims it’s finally turned an annual profit. Between 2014 and 2023, the company set over $31 billion on fire in its quest to drive taxi companies out of business and build a global monopoly. It failed on both fronts, but in the meantime it built an organization that can wield significant power over transportation — and that’s exactly how it got to last week’s milestone. Uber turned a net profit of nearly $1.9 billion in 2023, but what few of the headlines will tell you is that over $1.6 billion of it came from unrealized gains from its holdings in companies like Aurora and Didi. Basically, the value of those shares are up, so on paper it looks like Uber’s core business made a lot more money than it actually did. Whether the companies are really worth that much is another question entirely — but that doesn’t matter to Uber. At least it’s not using the much more deceptive “adjusted EBITDA” metric it spent years getting the media to treat as an accurate picture of its finances. Don’t be fooled into thinking the supposed innovation Uber was meant to deliver is finally bearing fruit. The profit it’s reporting is purely due to exploitative business practices where the worker and consumer are squeezed to serve investors — and technology is the tool to do it. This is the moment CEO Dara Khosrowshahi has been working toward for years, and the plan he’s trying to implement to cement the company’s position should have us all concerned about the future of how we get around and how we work.

[...]

Uber didn’t become a global player in transportation because it wielded technology to more efficiently deliver services to the public. The tens of billions of dollars it lost over the past decade went into undercutting taxis on price and drawing drivers to its service — including some taxi drivers — by promising good wages, only to cut them once the competition posed by taxis had been eroded and consumers had gotten used to turning to the Uber app instead of calling or hailing a cab. As transport analyst Hubert Horan outlined, for-hire rides are not a service that can take advantage of economies of scale like a software or logistics company, meaning just because you deliver more rides doesn’t mean the per-ride cost gets significantly cheaper. Uber actually created a less cost-efficient model because it forces drivers to use their own vehicles and buy their own insurance instead of having a fleet of similar vehicles covered by fleet insurance. Plus, it has a ton of costs your average taxi company doesn’t: a high-paid tech workforce, expensive headquarters scattered around the world, and outrageously compensated executive management like Khosrowshahi, just to name a few. How did Uber cut costs then? By systematically going after the workers that deliver its service. More recently, it took advantage of the cost-of-living crisis to keep them on board in the same way it exploited workers left behind by the financial crisis in the years after its initial launch. Its only real innovation is finding new ways to exploit labor.

[fatehbaz]

Between 1970 and 1973, rent strikes erupted in towns and cities throughout the Republic of Ireland. These were organised by local tenants’ associations, most of which were affiliated to the National Association of Tenants Organisations [NAoTO] [...], an umbrella organisation for local associations established in 1967. [...] [O]rganisers claimed that at its peak almost half of all council tenants in the state, or approximately 50,000 households, were withholding their rents. These localised campaigns coalesced into a state-wide movement in late 1972 with [NAoTO] declaring a “national rent strike” which lasted until August 1973. At this point, the government conceded to [NAoTO]'s demands including revisions to the B scale differential rent system, a rent freeze for those on fixed (non-differential) rents, [and] better terms for tenant purchase [...]. [T]he long-term consequences are more ambiguous [...]. Nonetheless, it was described in an article in the Irish Times as “undoubtedly the most dramatic [...] victory ever achieved in this century by tenants versus landlords” [within Ireland]. [...]

Despite the scale and significance of these rent strikes, before this project started there was effectively no information available about them. The [Community Action Tenants Union Ireland] CATU rent strike history project aimed to address this situation, which we understood as an important gap in the collective memory [...]. The project set out to leverage the history of the rent strikes to engage people and involve them in the contemporary housing movement by providing an example of the power of collective action and building connections [...]. The project has been ongoing since late 2021 [...].

---

Gray (2018a, 2022) argues that, beginning in the 1960s, the urbanisation of capital created a new [...] working-class struggle in Italy, [...] characterised by divisions related to suburbanisation and geographical fragmentation. [...] Clare's (2020) analysis of [...] clandestine textile workshops in Buenos Aires highlights the importance of the spatial dimension [...] by describing how workshops are located according to a distinct socio-spatial strategy that divides the workforce and minimises outside interference, thus ensuring access to cheap, vulnerable labour. [...]

There are [...] connections between political decomposition and the loss of memory and knowledge of struggle, such as in the case of workplace restructuring after conflict to prevent the transmission of knowledge and experience between different generations of workers [...]. Responding to this situation, there has been a growing interest in recovering forgotten or suppressed histories of housing and urban struggles [...].

---

The background to the CATU rent strike history project is the so-called “housing crisis” in Ireland, which, contrary to the idea of a specific moment of crisis, has been a continuous feature of Irish society since at least the 19th century [...]. A persistent challenge faced by CATU and other similar movements is that of overcoming a pervasive sense of disempowerment and persuading people that it is worthwhile to engage in collective action [...]. [T]he [housing] crisis [is not necessarily] a unique moment of dysfunction in the housing system [but is] rather [...] a persistent feature of Irish, and increasingly international, capitalism [...]. [L]and and housing have been deeply interrelated with anti-colonial struggles including the Land War of the late 19th century, the civil rights movement, and anti-internment rent strikes in the 1960s [...].

---

27 oral history interviews were carried out with people who participated in the rent strikes in the 1970s [...] from various towns and cities across the Republic of Ireland [...]. Approximately 2,000 relevant articles published in local and national newspapers between 1966 and 1973 were identified and subject to close reading [...] Further data was gathered through a review of 161 articles about the rent strikes in radical newspapers [...]. Previous analyses have emphasised the atomisation of new suburban council estates and how these were part of a concerted effort to undermine working-class radicalism (McManus 2003). Beginning in the late 1950s, suburbanisation was further accelerated by the state's policy to attract [...] speculative investment in commercial office space and the displacement of working-class communities, in particular from inner-city Dublin [...]. However, [...] that fragmentation was countered in the late 1960s and early 1970s through the widespread, rapid formation of tenants’ associations organised around shared interests [...].

The interviews and newspapers produced by local tenants’ associations demonstrated the organisational density and array of community organisations [...] that fought to improve the conditions of everyday life [...]. Some of the forms of organisation that existed across many areas included collectively built and managed community centres, women's and youth committees, sports clubs, social activities for elderly people, and food cooperatives, amongst others. Illustrating the scale of community organising, in August 1973 the [NAoTO] newspaper reported that the West Finglas Tenants Association was running regular outings to the seaside that were attended on average by 2,000 people transported in 20 double-decker buses. [...] As described by [P.], a rent strike organizer in Ballyfermot:

"Street committees didn't just run the rent strike, they also ran summer programmes. If there was old people to come around at Christmas, we'd arrange for someone to cook an extra bit of dinner. It was more a living thing. It wasn't just a single issue. [...]"

---

All text above by: Fiadh Tubridy. "Militant Research in the Housing Movement: The Community Action Tenants Union Rent Strike History Project". Antipode Online Volume 56, Issue 3, pages 1027-1046. May 2024. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Presented here for commentary, teaching, criticism purposes.]

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Unifor has filed an unfair labour practice complaint against Amazon amid a vote by workers at a Delta, B.C., warehouse over whether they want to join the union. 

In the complaint, Unifor alleges Amazon ramped up hiring while the union was in the midst of a drive to get workers to sign union cards, increasing the workforce by about 30 per cent in a bid to dilute union support.

In B.C., if more than 55 per cent of eligible workers at a facility sign cards, union certification is granted automatically, while if the cards represent at least 45 per cent, a vote may be called instead. This is known as card-check certification, and B.C. and Quebec are among the jurisdictions that have it. 

Amazon says the hiring was part of its regular seasonal recruitment, according to the complaint, but Unifor disputes this, saying the hiring spree represented a "concerted effort" to prevent the union from successfully organizing the warehouse. 

Gavin McGarrigle, Unifor's western regional director, said the scale of Amazon's alleged anti-union efforts in this case is beyond anything he's experienced with other employers. [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[whencyclopedia]

Raising sugar cane could be a very profitable business, but producing refined sugar was a highly labour-intensive process. For this reason, European colonial settlers in Africa and the Americas used slaves on their plantations, almost all of whom came from Africa. If they survived the horrific conditions of transportation, slaves could expect a hard life indeed working on plantations in the Atlantic islands, Caribbean, North America, and Brazil. The plantation system was first developed by the Portuguese on their Atlantic island colonies and then transferred to Brazil, beginning with Pernambuco and Sâo Vicente in the 1530s. With most of the workforce consisting of unpaid labour, sugar plantations made fortunes for those owners who could operate on a large enough scale, but it was not an easy life for smaller plantation owners in territories rife with tropical diseases, indigenous populations keen to regain their territories, and the vagaries of pre-modern agriculture. Nevertheless, the plantation system was so successful that it was soon adopted throughout the colonial Americas and for many other crops such as tobacco and cotton.

[mariacallous]

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to conduct “the largest deportation effort in American history,” no matter the price tag—but the economic costs of such a campaign may be bigger than he has bargained for. 

Trump soared to victory in the recent presidential election after campaigning on a hard-line immigration policy and promising to oversee mass deportations, pledging at one point to target between 15 million and 20 million undocumented immigrants. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has said that the administration would “start with 1 million,” beginning with “the most violent criminals.” 

When the former U.S. leader returns to office in January, those plans are certain to face logistic, legal, political, and financial obstacles—all of which have raised questions about what Trump can actually do, and how quickly. But if Trump does succeed in conducting deportations close to the scale that he has promised, economists expect the effort to deal a blow to the U.S. economy, driving up inflation and undercutting economic growth.

“Leaving aside the human issues, leaving aside the law issues, we think that would be very destructive economically,” said Adam Posen, the president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “I don’t think people have really understood how potentially big that effect is.”

Around 11 million people are estimated to be in the United States illegally, according to the Department of Homeland Security, a population that accounts for nearly 5 percent of the total U.S. workforce and comprises particularly large shares of the labor force in agriculture, construction, and leisure and hospitality.

As of 2017, an estimated 66 percent of undocumented immigrants had lived in the United States for more than a decade, while some 4.4 million U.S.-born children lived with a parent who was in the country illegally.

The removal of such a sizable labor and consumer force would likely reverberate throughout the U.S. economy, economists told Foreign Policy. 

The “mass deportation of millions of people will cause reduced employment opportunities for U.S. workers, it will cause reduced economic growth in America, it will cause a surge in inflation, and it will cause increased budget deficits—that is, a higher tax burden on Americans,” said Michael Clemens, an economist who studies international migration at George Mason University.

While it’s difficult to predict what exactly Trump’s deportation effort will look like, his ambitions are now coming into sharper focus. The president-elect has confirmed his plans to declare a national emergency and enlist the military to carry out the deportations. Stephen Miller, who served as the administration’s immigration czar in Trump’s first term and will be his next deputy chief of staff for policy, has said that the administration will oversee sweeping workplace raids and build “vast holding facilities,” likely in Texas, to detain those who are awaiting deportations. 

“We’re already working on a plan,” said Tom Homan—whom Trump has named his next “border czar” and who was formerly acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—in a recent interview with Fox News. “We’re going to take the handcuffs off ICE.” 

That will likely entail a steep price tag. Mobilizing the resources to arrest, detain, legally process, and then ultimately deport 1 million immigrants per year—as Vance has suggested—would cost some $88 billion annually, according to estimates by the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group for immigrants. Removing all 13.3 million people who are either in the United States illegally or under some sort of revocable temporary status would require $967.9 billion over the course of more than 10 years, the group estimates. 

“Deporting a person is very expensive,” said Andrea Velasquez, an economist at the University of Colorado Denver. “That is going to impose a huge fiscal burden,” she added. 

And those are just the upfront costs. Undocumented immigrants comprise a major labor force in the United States—particularly in the agricultural sector, where they have accounted for some 40 percent of the farm labor force over the past three decades—often earning lower wages for jobs that the vast majority of American voters say they do not want. 

These immigrants are also a major consumer force that spends money and contributes to the U.S. economy in the form of taxes, all while being ineligible for most federal benefits. 

There are “the indirect costs of the lost economic contributions, productivity, and taxes of the people who would be removed,” said Julia Gelatt, an expert in U.S. immigration policy at the Migration Policy Institute. 

In 2022, for example, undocumented immigrants paid some $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes—the majority of which went to the federal government, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 

Given their tax contributions, Wendy Edelberg, an economist at the Brookings Institution, said that undocumented immigrants are “really good for the federal budget.” But that’s not always the case for state and local governments, which don’t raise as much in taxes from them but are responsible for supplying schooling and health care. Supporting undocumented immigrants can often be a “net negative” for their budgets, she said.

Texas, for example, shelled out more than $100 million on for undocumented immigrants’ emergency hospital care in 2023; New York City Mayor Eric Adams has said that the city’s ongoing migrant crisis could cost some $12 billion over a three year period. 

Proponents of mass deportations, such as Vance, argue that the plan would be economically beneficial for American workers, including by helping to ease an affordable housing crisis and generating more employment opportunities. Given that undocumented immigrants are often working at lower pay, they reason, removing them from the country would push U.S. firms to hire American workers at higher wages.

“People say, well, Americans won’t do those jobs. Americans won’t do those jobs for below-the-table wages. They won’t do those jobs for non-living wages. But people will do those jobs, they will just do those jobs at certain wages,” Vance told the New York Times in October. 

“We cannot have an entire American business community that is giving up on American workers and then importing millions of illegal laborers,” he added. “It’s one of the biggest reasons why we have millions of people who’ve dropped out of the labor force.”

Past mass deportations, however, indicate that the scheme may actually harm employment outcomes for American workers. To understand the labor market impacts of mass deportations, a group of economists, including Velasquez, studied the effects of the Obama administration’s “Secure Communities” program, which expelled more than 400,000 undocumented immigrants. 

Rather than boosting American workers’ job prospects, the study suggested that the Obama-era mass deportations actually cut their employment numbers and wages. With almost half a million undocumented immigrants removed from the labor pool—either through deportations or more indirectly—the economists found that 44,000 U.S.-born workers also lost their employment. 

That’s likely because undocumented immigrants and U.S.-born workers often compete for different jobs, so the result of mass deportations is “labor shortages,” Velasquez said. “That is going to lead to higher labor costs, so now it’s going to be more expensive to produce, and that is going to create a ripple effect that is also going to affect their demand for U.S.-born workers,” she said. 

“The idea that removing [undocumented immigrants] causes U.S. workers to rush in and fill the same jobs is a fantasy,” said Clemens, who was not one of the study’s authors. 

And it’s not just American labor outcomes that could be affected, either; studies suggest that the impacts of mass deportations would likely be felt across the U.S. economy more broadly. 

An analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, for example, found that if the Trump administration deported 1.3 million people who are in the country illegally, both the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and overall employment would suffer. GDP would drop 1.2 percent below the baseline scenario, in which there are no deportations, while employment would fall by 1.1 percent by 2028. 

In a more extreme scenario, where the Trump administration deported 8.3 million undocumented immigrants, the economic outlook would be even worse. Compared to the baseline forecast, GDP would plummet by 7.4 percent by 2028 while employment would drop by 6.7 percent. 

In both scenarios, deportations would also drive up inflation through 2028, with the agricultural sector being especially hard hit. 

“Take an essential ingredient out of the economy, and the ripple effects extend,” Clemens said. 

[freetheshit-outofyou]

I see a lot of posts and wittings about how horrible cutting government workers is, but is it really? The federal government is the single largest employers in the Nation with 2.95 million employees. Every single one of them paid with tax dollars. Walmart has 2.1 million and Amazon 1.551 million employees that are paid from their profits, for reference. The Founding Fathers never intended for the federal government to be the single largest employer in the country. Of course all those employees that might be let go will just be rehired under contract employee programs and put right back in the same seat they were let go from. The big difference being they will not be paid by tax dollars. I am a federal retiree (Military) and the level of bloat in the federal government is astounding. Offices full of both military personnel and civilians doing the same exact jobs was always nuts to see. You'd have 2 military clerks working next to 5 civilian clerks doing the same things. The difference was the military workers were salaried and worked nights and weekends where the civilian workers were 9-5 Monday -Friday, paid leaves, paid lunches and breaks. Congress should only get paid when they are working, of course they control their own pay so that will never happen. The only way to get out of debt is to stop spending and to cut bloat. I hope they can do it. I spent more than 20 years in the Service my retirement is roughly that of a General Schedule (GS) 1, step 3, or an entry level worker. (26k a year.) Where the bulk of your GS workers are between GS5 (33k-44k per year) and GS10 (56k-73k).

[metamatar]

The industrialization of the South was not anticipated by the dependency theory of the 1960s and ’70s. It held that the capitalist center must block any advanced industrial development in the so-called periphery, so that it remains a supplier of raw materials, tropical agricultural products, and labor-intensive simple industrial production, which is to be exchanged for the advanced industrial products of the center. Few analysts had foreseen the industrialization of the South as driven by trade with and investment by metropolitan capitalism.

However, the South’s industrialization came to provide a (temporary) solution to capitalism’s economic and political malaise in the 1970s, manifested on one side by a declining rate of profit, the oil crisis, and pressure from the labor movement in the North for ever-higher wages and, on the other, by the national liberation struggles of the South. Yet the South’s industrialization was not a concession to its demands; quite the contrary. Rather than a step towards a more equal world, it has resulted in a deepening of imperialist relations on a global scale.

...

Neoliberalism has brought about a new global division of labor in which the global South has become “the workshop of the world.” Global capitalism increasingly polarizes the world into Southern “production economies” and Northern “consumption economies.” The main driver behind this process is unquestionably the low wage level in the South. As such, the structure of today’s global economy has been profoundly shaped by the allocation of labor to industrial sectors according to differential rates of exploitation internationally.

The enticement for big business to outsource production or to invest in Greenfield projects in the South is considerable. The difference in wage levels is not just a factor of one to two, but often one to ten or fifteen. Indeed, in 2010, of the world’s three-billion-strong workforce, approximately 942 million were classified by the International Labor Organization (ILO) as “working poor” (almost one-in-three workers worldwide live on under $2 a day)

Imperialism and the Transformation of Values into Prices byTorkil Lauesen and Zak Cope

linked to me by @saamdaamdandaurbhed.