Vox Media Fires Hundreds of Freelance Writers, Blaming California's 'Gig Economy' Law (msn.com) 178
Since 2003 Vox Media has been covering California's sports on its SB Nation blogs largely with independent contractors. But they're making big changes to comply with a new California law targetting companies in the gig economy, according to the Los Angeles Times:
Vox Media will end contracts with about 200 people, including non-California freelancers who cover teams based in the state, and replace them with 20 new part-time and full-time staffers, according to a source familiar with the decision... In a memo to 2,000 SB Nation contractors scattered across the country -- most of whom will not be affected by the changes -- Ness explained that, under the law, California freelance writers can maintain their status as independent contractors only if they submit no more than 35 pieces per year. Given the pace of sports blogging, many of the writers producing work for SB Nation's California blogs would easily hit that benchmark, the source said. Ness wrote in the memo that California contractors were encouraged to apply for full-time or part-time positions. For those who do not snag a job but want to keep contributing, Ness wrote that "they need to understand they will not be paid for future contributions."
The changes will also affect Curbed and Eater, two other Vox Media sites that employ a handful of freelancers in the state...
AB 5 was hailed as a victory by many Uber, Lyft and DoorDash workers who have protested slashed wages and arbitrary terminations, but it has brought fear for some who worry the law means they will have less flexibility in the hours they can work and restrict their ability to work for multiple platforms... Freelancers also have voiced fears that AB 5 will discourage employers from hiring Californians to avoid additional paperwork and legal liabilities that come with the law, and smaller newspapers and websites may not have the resources to convert freelancers to staff members.
The changes will also affect Curbed and Eater, two other Vox Media sites that employ a handful of freelancers in the state...
AB 5 was hailed as a victory by many Uber, Lyft and DoorDash workers who have protested slashed wages and arbitrary terminations, but it has brought fear for some who worry the law means they will have less flexibility in the hours they can work and restrict their ability to work for multiple platforms... Freelancers also have voiced fears that AB 5 will discourage employers from hiring Californians to avoid additional paperwork and legal liabilities that come with the law, and smaller newspapers and websites may not have the resources to convert freelancers to staff members.
seems fine (Score:2)
Re: seems fine (Score:2)
The life of the contractor doesn't usually include the state pushing laws that deliberately make it harder for them to find work. It's pretty much game over for them in that state; their choices are find full time work, be underemployed and/or legally homeless, or leave the state.
Many contractors don't like full time work. When you think about it, it's kind of nice being able to just work when you want to and don't when you don't want to. If it weren't for the fact that I have a transplanted kidney and requ
Re: (Score:2)
The life of the contractor doesn't usually include the state pushing laws that deliberately make it harder for them to find work. It's pretty much game over for them in that state; their choices are find full time work, be underemployed and/or legally homeless, or leave the state.
Many contractors don't like full time work. When you think about it, it's kind of nice being able to just work when you want to and don't when you don't want to. If it weren't for the fact that I have a transplanted kidney and require health insurance to afford the medication, I would be doing contact work, no question about it. The kind of jobs I could get would pay $90/hr for a project that lasts 6 months, and they come by all the time. That's twice what I make now, meaning I could spend 6 months a year doing whatever the fuck I want without sacrificing anything, or take every summer off for three months and make even more money.
But no, I'm tied down.
Why couldn't you just get your own insurance if you would make plenty of money anyway?
We knew it was coming... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one was forcing those people to contract themselves to Vox. There are upsides to being a contractors that many believe offset the downsides. Freedom being probably the primary one. The government coming in and telling those workers they can't work how they wish is a bad thing, imho.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, no one is forcing them to continue living in CA.
That would help little. I didn't read the article because the LA Times isn't part of my current subscription package, but the summary states that those terminated were "including non-California freelancers who cover teams based in the state".
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in AB5 which specifies company size. I run my family's investment property solo (basically do the accounting). I used to have myself set up as an employee, but switched and made myself a contractor because the state's insurance commission kept trying to bump me into a higher rate classification reserved for office workers who also do manual labor (lifting boxes, chan
Re: (Score:3)
...but it doesn't mean its a bad thing. The gig economy has its place but too many people are thinking that it *is* the economy. Or at least what they think it will be in the future. This law just makes it harder for giant companies to save a buck by not paying out health insurance or overtime to people. What the part-time employee was in the 20th century the gig employee is of the 21st century: exploited. People look at 200 jobs turning into 20 jobs and wring their hands. It wasn't 200 jobs worth of work and it certainly wasn't 200 jobs worth of wages. But it was 200 jobs worth benefits savings to Vox, a hundred million dollar company.
Yes. This.
Get rid of shitty work that has people working all hours for peanuts when they could be looking for decent jobs. If this law works out, a lot of companies will be creating actual jobs with salaries & benefits & that should offset the thousands of shitty gigs, i.e. each worker doing 10 gigs to get by ends up with one job -- the same amount of work & number of workers, just more efficiently distributed & more fairly paid & regulated.
Re: We knew it was coming... (Score:2)
Sounds FANTASTIC! Double WIN. (Score:2, Interesting)
So, they fired 200 'gig' workers (aka underpaid people barely surviving) and hired 20 part and full time employees. That's EXACTLY what the law was intended to do. Convince companies to stop spreading out a full time work to 10 individuals.
Yes, those 180 gig workers have lost probably about 1/10th of a job. But they have the XP to get a real job - or should not be doing it anyway.
Best of all, those idiots told 1800 other contractors they were screwing over that they don't have to put up with this crap.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
180 workers now have no job and it's no longer possible for them to get one doing what they've done in California. Sure there are a few additional full-time positions, but the reality is that these companies will still be hiring freelancers, only now none of them will live in California. Maybe some of the former freelancers aren't particularly tied down and will be able to move a
Re: (Score:2)
To be perfectly honest with you, I actually do like it when people tell me I'm not allowed to work in certain situations. It frees me from having to negotiate on uneven ground with my employer about things like workplace safety and unfair hiring practices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
200 gig workers reorganized into 20 full and part time workers means that 180 workers each have 0.1 fewer jobs (FTE) each. While you choose to characterize that as "no job," I have a hard time believing that they were only working 0.1 FTE each. I have a much easier time believing that most were working multiple "jobs" and you're simply glossing over that inconvenient complication.
The 180 workers didn't have a job in the 1st place (Score:2)
Also given that all the other companies abusing their labor now have to actually, you know, hire people (or go out of business) they're very likely to have jobs soon.
Re: (Score:2)
If you seriously believe that, you have deep issues. In Vox/SBNation's case, many of those "gig" workers were writing about their local teams or topics, and doing perhaps a few blog-size posts a week. Not even close to the amount of work you'd expect from an FTE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sounds FANTASTIC! Double WIN. (Score:2)
Maybe some of those people donâ(TM)t WANT a part time or time job?
Maybe they like having freedom and just want to work enough for pocket money, or in addition to whatever real job they have, esp if it means working from home. Now they are just fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. Not everybody *WANTS* a full-time job. Or, sometimes, not everybody wants *ANOTHER* full-time job.
Now, I personally prefer FTE. I don't enjoy the "business" aspects of being a contractor or consultant. I don't care for the administrative overhead. The taxes are a real PITA vs FTE. Job-hunting is annoying and stressful and I don't care for the constant hustle for the next position after a 3 or 6 or 9 month contract ends. (But, it is important to remember, some people do.). A
Re: (Score:2)
So, they fired 200 'gig' workers (aka underpaid people barely surviving) and hired 20 part and full time employees. That's EXACTLY what the law was intended to do.
Not a lot of argument there, except how much the supporters actually thought about other freelancers other than Uber drivers. Since they carved out a lot of exemptions for other favored occupations, my guess is they thought about it but just didn't care.
Convince companies to stop spreading out a full time work to 10 individuals.
Yes, those 180 gig workers have lost probably about 1/10th of a job. But they have the XP to get a real job - or should not be doing it anyway.
"Convince"? "Force" seems more accurate.
With as much respect as I can muster, this strikes me as the height of arrogance and paternalism. Who in the world are you to say working a 9-5 job is a "real job" and working contract gigs is not? How can you possibly
Don't Like gigs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't Like gigs? (Score:5, Interesting)
What annoys the living shit out of me, being that I drive Uber on a very part-time basis here in Nevada, is the FACT that this AB5 crap is going to "leak" over the border into Nevada before too much time has passed, and Uber will be forced into cutting drivers, making drivers follow a schedule, and all of the other sewage that comes with being an "employee". I'm retired and I use Uber to make around $400/mo after expenses, driving only when I have some hours free where I don't have to take wife to doctors appointments etc. Being made into an "employee" of Uber, with all of the bullshit that accompanies being a employee would be a deal-breaker for me and I strongly suspect MANY other part time drivers. Oh I'm SURE the drivers who do Uber full-time are coming in their pants on the likelyhood that they'll be employees... (shudder)
Don't like slavery? (Score:2)
Re:Don't want your children working in a coal mine (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, your analogy doesn't hold up. Writing for Vox as a freelancer isn't going to kill you.
Say you have a full-time job that underpays you. You work 40 hour weeks (on good weeks). You have spare time. So . . . you write for Vox in your spare time and maybe pick up a check here and there. Or you are told that unless you want to be an employee of Vox and work at least 29 hours a week that you will no longer be paid for your contributions. Oh, and if you agree to those terms, you also can't freelance f
Re: (Score:2)
Read some history. It absolutely does; it's not even an analogy, it's exactly what happened in the 19the century. Up to and including the exact same defenses of the exploitation as you are parroting.
Re: (Score:2)
You dont know and understand much history, do you?
Go and try Russia, there is not much gig economy there, so you should love it. Or perhaps China, I hear you can get a good reliable job assembling iPhones, just watch the step..
Really, people who compare actual suffering with 'oh no! my 4 hours a week gig work doesnt cover the cost of my LA apartment, let alone my soy latte and Apple needs' should be sent to India for a quick dose of reality.
I'm sorry, anyone who chooses 'writing for VOX' as their primary ea
It's smoke-and-mirrors at this point... (Score:5, Interesting)
No company changes it's employment structure in reaction to a new law until *after* that law has been tested in court and upheld.
AB 5 has parts that are brand-new, borrowing nothing from established law, meaning those parts need to be tested.
It is certain this is just the "first draft" of the gig regulations, and will contain significant defects that will need to be identified, tested and resolved.
Any company taking actions now is doing so for political purposes, or perhaps simply to gain media attention. The business impact of this law has yet to be evaluated in court.
A smart company would simply try to find the weakest part of the law, then volunteer itself to be a test case. Until that happens, there is literally nothing for any company to worry about.
Smoke & mirrors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is complete and utter nonsense.
Yes, the laws will change and be challenged.
But in the *real* world, the cost of dealing with the litigation involved in challenging a law can be enough to take out most small business, and many medium businesses.
And that's if they *win* . . .
A company with good legal counsel will position itself to survive the hit under the terms of the law . . .
hawk, esq.
I had to fire my lawn boy (Score:2, Interesting)
I have been letting my neighbor's teenage son mow my lawn and do gardening for money for the last couple of years. I didn't want to risk running afoul of California's new gig economy law by paying him as a contractor even though he works for me on a routine and regular basis and has been doing so for more than 1 year.
Rather than set up a formal business entity, obtain all the necessary permits CA and my county require, and retain a business attorney and CPA as required by California Law, I just decided to f
"will not be paid for future contributions" (Score:2)
This is how you can tell Vox is full of crap. OK, they can't keep all their freelancers, that makes sense. Although I do question how much they were doing if 200 freelancers can be replaced by 20 staff, not even all of them being full-time. But then they say that the people can continue to contribute, but they won't be paid? Why can't they pay them up to 35 articles a year like the law allows? What is stopping them from just utilizing freelancers less and still following the law instead of trying to get peo
So this is a tech & nerd site right? (Score:2, Interesting)
What
SubjectIsSunject (Score:2)
This Story is Malfeasance (Score:2)
All these contractors who are being dumped are being replaced by full-time employees. Which is exactly the intended result. The law is intended to make employers hire people as official employees instead of hiding behind contractor status in order to skimp out on things like retirement plans and health insurance and paying their writers on net-90 terms (or worse).
The post on SB Nation, a Vox media site, said exactly that: [sbnation.com]
To comply with this new law, we will not be replacing California contractors with contractors from other states. Rather, we’re encouraging any contractors interested in one of our newly-created full-time or part-time employee positions to apply
Yes, lots of stringers will no longer get to sell an article or two a month to Vox.
How about mechanical turcs? (Score:2)
Do they also fall into that category?
Falls hardest on women (Score:2)
https://fee.org/articles/calif... [fee.org]
Freelance work empowers women to choose how they spend their time. Female workers have repeatedly told pollsters from across the globe—as far as Australia [acuitymag.com] and Denmark [henrikkleven.com]—that their top workplace desire is the flexibility [acton.org] to create greater work-life balance. Some 40 percent [usnews.com] of women say they would take a lower salary in exchange for more control over their schedule.
Better to encourage full time employment (Score:2)
The whole gig economy thing may have some upsides, but on the whole it's allowed companies to wash their hands of any employer-employee commitments. Long term, that's not healthy for the economy as a whole. It means that "jobs created" are temporary and provide unpredictable income and no benefits/insurance.
I think most people are much better off in normal jobs with predictable hours providing steady income. They're not stressed trying to stitch together 3 part time gigs to live. The economic picture overal
If they weren't amployees... (Score:2)
They aren't "fired".
Anymore then you "fired" the kid down the street when you don't use him to cut your lawn anymore and contract with a regular gardening service.
This kind of garbage hyperbole is akin to calling a protest a strike. It hurts the veracity of the speaker and those who simply repeat it with out thinking about what was said. It's also not a "gig economy"... It's piece work. Something that was rejected by the work force over one hundred years ago
You can put lipstick on a pig. That doesn't mak
Did you not even RTFS? (Score:5, Informative)
A bunch of gig economy workers paid less than minimum wage with no benefits were just replaced with full and part time positions. That's exactly what the law was meant to do. This will raise wages overall as companies are once again forced to pay minimum wage, increasing competition for workers. Supply and Demand works both ways.
Re: Did you not even RTFS? (Score:3, Informative)
Unless those 20 workers are going to be paid more than the 200 let go (yeah, right) I doubt this is going to do what you think it will. Vox could always leave California though.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like you might be on the right track. See post below by sconeu.
That's not how jobs work (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to want it both ways. You want employers to get out of the social obligations while receiving massive benefits from our society (either directly through the gov't or indirectly through exploitation of labor). It doesn't work that way. Not forever anyway. Sooner or later the workers get wise. It just took a while this time (when was Reagan elected?).
And no, Vox can't leave California. If they could they would have already to exploit cheaper labor. But they're dependent on the workers there.
Then let's start cracking skulls and eating brains (Score:3, Insightful)
Jokes aside, social constructs come with certain guarantees or human civilization breaks down and we slide into authoritative dystopians or Somalia style anarchy. These are things you do not want, even if you think you do. You're not a Randian super hero. There's no such thing. No man is an Isla
Re: (Score:2)
35,000 Americans will die this year (Score:2)
We are way, way, WAY past the middle ground here. At some poin
And you can always tell the Right Wing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Did you not even RTFS? (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Yes AB5 is a horrible law. But...
I have friends who were working for Vox in this capacity. They said Vox was looking for a way to do this anyways. AB5 just gave them an excuse to do it without being the âoebad guysâ
Re: (Score:2)
If that is really the case, then it speaks more to Vox's ability (or inability) to monetize content than anything else. How much were Vox writers being paid on a contract basis? How much are these new employees being paid instead? It looks like Vox wants to pay less overall in labor costs and they're willing to reduce content availability if necessary.
Re: Progressive Utopia (Score:2)
Completely agree. The chickens have come home to roost.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The gig-ees are happy with the direction for the most part
Because they took a job they didn't like, and discovered that they couldn't leave on their own without government help, and now they can?
Re: Progressive Utopia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Progressive Utopia (Score:2)
As someone not in California, we are really enjoying watching this show. Keep it up! Highly entertaining!
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem like the Vox freelancers are all that happy. The ones hired on as employees now don't know if they can write for anyone besides Vox. Everyone else is essentially canned, including some folks that don't even live in California. Californian freelancers are now going to have more trouble finding contracts for work outside of their state.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Progressive Utopia (Score:4)
Wrong in so many ways.
Someone who contracts their services to multiple clients (copy editor, janitor, freelance columnist, etc.) on a regular basis to make their living should be a business themselves, and contract as business to business. That is not gig work.
The law was written to control businesses which employ individuals on an ongoing basis, but want to pretend they are not employees. Again, not gig work, but pretending to be.
Gig work is occasional, part time work. Stuff you do occasionally to help out, or to pick up some extra cash. 35 times a year for a single employer is a fuckton of time spent working for someone to not be treated as an employee.
If you exceed that 35 times a year limit, you must be treated as an employee. Not a full time employee, but a part-time employee. Benefits such as health insurance, retirement contributions, sick pay, etc. do not necessarily apply. The company must pay into Social Security, for when you retire and collect. The company must pay into Workman's Comp Insurance funds in case you are injured on the job and need care. The company must contribute to a variety of Local, State, and Federal taxes that communities rely on to provide you with services. Minimum wage laws apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Words have meanings. Legal terms have specific meanings as defined by law.
You are mixing common meaning and legal meaning in order to confuse the issue.
If you are doing business to business contracting, then this law does not apply to you. If you are a gig worker, then the law does apply.
If you truly do not understand, consult an attorney to have them explain it to you (for a fee).
Re: (Score:2)
now they have to be a full time employee, or else be fired
Why require a jump to full time instead of just hiring them as a 1-hour-a-week Part Time employee? Or for that matter, induce them to form their own LLC as a condition of hiring, and then hire said corporation under written contract whose contractual terms include mandatory indemnification of the first party plus assignment of all hiring and any and all employee-related expenses such as required wages, tax witholding, etc, to be done by Part
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you want to hand over 2.7 trillion USD per year (~12% of the entire United States' GDP) to Mexico?
And make the USA/Mexico border 40% wider and that much harder to defend?
And hand over 2/3 of the major container ports on the west coast to Mexico, so that the US winds up importing even more goods from Mexico?
It seems like you really love Mexico.
Re: Progressive Utopia (Score:2)
I would be in favour if nuking it, and threatening Oregon and Washington with the same if they persist in their liberal ways.
Re: Progressive Utopia (Score:2)
Re: Progressive Utopia (Score:2)
I would not know. I live in a liberal shit hole full of bike lanes and high taxes.
Re: Progressive Utopia (Score:2)
Well, CA does have well north of 1 trillion in unsecured debt.
Re:Gotta increase it somehow (Score:4, Insightful)
It could also be said they didn't earn their status as the world's 5th largest economy (if they were an independent nation) by doing nothing. Clearly they're doing something right if they have all these regulations and they're still pumping out a 3 TRILLION dollar GDP.
But by all means, continue to try and paint them as a failed welfare state or whatever it is you're going for.
Re: Gotta increase it somehow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Like India, China and Mexico (Score:2)
Well it would be around number 8 or 9 now, their ranking keeps falling every year so if you're going to make that argument you have to look at current numbers. But ...
Very large economies include China, India, and Mexico. If you want to measure size of the economy, California is a lot like India. I'm not sure that "an economy like India" is all that flattering, actually. A big piece of shit is still a piece of shit, after all. A better measure would be real GDP per capita - how much each person makes, o
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-now-has-the-worlds-5th-largest-economy/
That's an article from last year using the numbers at the time that says they're in 5th. If you have countering data, post it. Don't speculate.
Re: (Score:2)
Well for example here is the very first link I Google for countries by GDP:
http://worldpopulationreview.c... [worldpopul...review.com]
But that's rather not the point. Again, China is the BIGGEST economy - are you really going to brag that you're kinda like China, a really BIG shithole? Of course California's economy isn't nearly as big as China. It's more the size of India - which is another big pile of shit. So bragging about a big economy is kinda stupid.
If you want to say it's the fifth-biggest piece of shit or the biggest,
Re: (Score:2)
> But that's rather not the point. Again, China is the BIGGEST economy
Um... according to the source you posted yourself, they're actually the SECOND biggest. Reading comprehension not really your thing?
> California is just below in North Dakota and Wyoming for how much they make *per person*.
That's because you can't count barrels of oil as people. Being extremely proud that your state has a few multinational companies in it operating gigantic automatic oil hoover systems to extract a finite resource
Re: (Score:2)
> Cali on the other hand has a very diverse economic base - tech, farming, some resources, tourism, movies, music and other IP, etc. Oil running out isn't going to tank them. A crop failure isn't going to tank them.
Now THAT is actually a good thing. "California has a lot of people (a large economy)" is a silly thing to brag about. A diverse economy is good.
That's something I pointed out last week when Slashdot ran the article about which cities have become more concentrated on tech R&D jobs than th
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You sound like one of those people who saves $100 a month to eventually buy a house in cash while simultaneously spending $1200 a month in rent that you'll never see a nickel of and thinking you're sooo much farther ahead than your neighbor with a $1300 mortgage payment. Show me any large economy that doesn't use debt as a tool. Go on, I'll wait. While you're at it, why not tell us how much debt the Trump Administration added this year alone, seeing as you seem to be on top of who owes what?
Re: Gotta increase it somehow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically, your hypothetical renter is ahead of the home owner. On average, home ownership is a pretty terrible investment.
What home ownership does is force you into a savings plan (called "paying your mortgage"). That means you end up saving money you would have pissed away otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like one of those people who saves $100 a month to eventually buy a house in cash while simultaneously spending $1200 a month in rent that you'll never see a nickel of and thinking you're sooo much farther ahead than your neighbor with a $1300 mortgage payment.
It's remarkably rare for the numbers to work out like that, is the thing. At least in cities with a good economy. It's more like saving $100 a month to eventually buy a house in cash while simultaneously spending $1200 a month in rent, vs paying $3600/month for a mortgage and $1200/month in taxes, association fees, repair costs, and similar expenses that you'll never see a nickle of again.
You come out ahead with a house only if your expenses for all costs plus your interest costs are less than rent and yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could also be said they didn't earn their status as the world's 5th largest economy (if they were an independent nation) by doing nothing. Clearly they're doing something right if they have all these regulations and they're still pumping out a 3 TRILLION dollar GDP.
I live in California so I get to say how the state is doing.
We have a $3 trillion economy in spite of the morons in Sacramento, not because of them. They get to spend like drunken sailors because the productive parts of the state produce so much. We couldn't afford all their wacky ideas and regulations if we weren't so rich in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Ack, screwed up my editing.
California is between Sweden and Israel at 21st highest homeless rate. Not between Bosnia and Guatemala as stated above. I was off by a factor of 10 and caught it but accidentally missed that sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Gotta increase it somehow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Homelessness across the whole country has decreased over the last decade [hudexchange.info], though there have been very slight increases over the last two years. I haven't looked to see if there's merely more attention being given to the problem or if there are other causes such as a concentratio
Re: (Score:2)
California is using creative [theguardian.com] solutions. [sfchronicle.com] The article linked shows data on San Francisco's program and San Fran cites Sacramento's program as their inspiration.
Re: Gotta increase it somehow (Score:2)
You know it's weather that causes that (Score:2)
And as I mentioned elsewhere, Vox is offsetting the loss of the gig economy workers with full and part time positions. That's exa
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget climate change.
A lot of homes in CA have been burnt down by the wildfires, so presumably the survivors are now homeless.
Re: You know it's weather that causes that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the facts show us a large number of 'gig workers' (aka piece workers) who almost exclusively write for Vox.
If the facts don't fit your ideology, do you have the guts to step back and consider you might be wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gotta increase it somehow (Score:4, Insightful)
Hol up...
Why is this argument okay for you to make but not okay when people looking for immigration control makes it? When you open the doors... you really cannot be shocked when someone or something takes advantage of you for it. You umm... literally opened the doors for it!
But yes, you are right... external forces are definitely going to be looking to foist their problems onto you so that you can help "share" the load.
Anyways... I thought this is what you wanted anyways? Why are you complaining? These folks are living breathing humans that are just temporarily in a bad place... a little assistance and they should be right as rain in not time contributing to the economy. Right?
It's not, he's a troll (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Thank Senator Lena A. Gonzalez (Score:2)