Kennedy: working in sweatshops leads to American Dream
Why is Senator Ted Kennedy supporting sweatshops? Consider the first paragraph of the editorial "Families pay the price for failed system" by the Senator (link) about a Massachusetts company that was the target of an immigration raid by ICE last week:
All over New Bedford on Tuesday, hundreds of women and men woke up, kissed their children goodbye and left for another day of work at Michael Bianco Inc. They knew it would be a grueling day because there was no other kind of day in the sweatshop-like conditions of the factory. But they were willing to work hard and without complaint because they believed in the American Dream, in which hard work creates a hope for a better life - if not for them, then for their children...
Stripped of its intended emotional impact, he's promoting working in a sweatshop and saying that it leads to the American Dream. One might have seen similar articles 200 years ago promoting indentured servitude.
It was lax enforcement of the last amnesty that made it possible for companies to exploit illegal aliens, and now Kennedy is opposing enforcement of our laws and promoting his own latest amnesty which will apparently have even weaker enforcement provisions that his 2006 version (McCain-Kennedy). And, if passed, his bill would be seen as an amnesty by millions of people around the world, many of whom will come here illegally in order to take part in the next amnesty.
And, as long as there are illegal aliens in the U.S there will be people willing to exploit them, as well as politicians who oppose the enforcement of our laws.
Not only is Teddy Kennedy supporting sweatshops now, he's setting the stage for many more sweatshops in the future. Why?
If you believe in the theory of deflation, perhaps Kennedy wants to keep most people closer to the ground so they don't have to fall far if the economy tanks.
Even though many might "make a lot of money," they get trapped in an expensive debt based lifestyle; for example, big college loans, home loans, car loans and the need to keep up with the jone's.
Since a lot of our consumption is useless, why increase someones wages just to have them spend it on junk?
As long as you are not materialistic, maybe things work out?
I'm single and pay about $540 for an apartment, with garage, and then there's car insurance and food-- so my "necessary income" is about $15,000 a year since my employer gives me healthcare.
Everything on top of that is "quality of life" or something to put in the bank.
March 12, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another point: the "inflation cycle" is cruelist to those who have the least since the people at the bottom are least protected from inflation. Wal-mart, for example, claims to keep prices low and that could be good for the poor since their wages are short of fantastic.
March 12, 2007 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink