Why do Americans get first dibs...

[Gooberman]

...on American jobs?

What makes someone who was born in America get president over an American job if he is not willing to work as hard as a non-American? No man has any control over where he is born, yet it is where you are born that completely determines the life you will lead.

What entitles an American to the American job?

What has he done, over say a Mexican who also wants the job, to make him more deserving? What distinguishes these two men to the extent that one is privileged over another?

Surely it cannot be argued that this generation built this country. For probably everyone reading this, this country was great when we were born into it. The success of this country comes from the ideas behind the country and the hard work ethic of the first few American generations-- and cannot be credited to any modern generation.

I am responding to one of the claims against Bushâ??s immigration plan, some Americans fear that it will take American jobs away from Americans.

This is more of an inquiry then trying to win anyone over.

[Tetrad]

What makes someone who was born in America get president over an American job if he is not willing to work as hard as a non-American?

You mean precedence.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Why are people afraid jobs will leave the country, or that immigrants will take existing jobs in the states? The former is easy to understand. The second is just a matter of constituancy. If you, as a politician, are promoting something that removes jobs from your constituants, you're not doing your job.

[Repo Man]

The same reason Mexicans get preference for Mexican jobs, Russians for Russian jobs, etc., etc. America is the only county that screws itself where other countries at least make half an effort to protect their workforce and their industrial base. The oligarchy wants the cheap labor illegals and H1-B visa holders provide. And yes, they do take jobs away from Americans, especially at the entry-level.

[bash]

Goob, I think you'll like this...

[quote]Tension Grips Travel Industry After Arrest of Expat Staff
K.S. Ramkumar & Mohammed Rasooldeen


RIYADH/JEDDAH, 4March 2004 â?? Tension prevails in travel agencies because of an incident involving a number of Kanoo Travel employees in Riyadh. The employees were arrested by the authorities because the company had allegedly failed to meet the governmentâ??s Saudization deadline.

Arab News has learned that the arrested staff who were taken in and had their heads shaved were released on Tuesday. Many other travel agencies remain closed in fear of possible action by the government. Some travel agencies, however, reopened with a mixture of Saudi and expatriate staff.

The employees arrested in Kanoo Travel were from India, Pakistan Sudan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. â??I was caught offguard when the officials raided the office and took me away, said one after48 hours in jail. Describing his experience, he said: â??I had to pay SR 5to have my head shaved completely and another SR 10for an official photograph.â?

[Gooberman]

djordan, you said "the same reason..." what is that reason?

[bash]

Goob, the money stays in domestic circulation, benefitting domestic economies, rather than being sent out of the country. Also, as is the reason for Saudization, idle hands are the devil's workshop and most governments prefer their angst-ridden youth become skilled and productive members of society rather than angry lay-abouts, which can often lead to lives of crime.

[Lothar]

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=walmart

gotta love the comic...

Bash is right, though -- from a government perspective, it makes sense to try to make sure natives are not at a competitive disadvantage to immigrants for the same jobs (by "native" I mean born here, not necessarily long-term ancestry or tribal descent.) Now, there's nothing wrong with immigrants being employed, or with natives being unemployed -- but it's good to try to keep native unemployment down (for the reasons bash suggests, and also because it's easier to slow immigration than it is to stop people from having babies.) Part of that has to be done by making natives willing to work in crap jobs, but IMO part of it also has to be done by requiring immigrants to be paid a fair wage (and eliminating under-the-table payments.) That way, at least, any American who's willing to work for minimum wage will be able to compete for those jobs. In order to compete in the current market, sometimes they have to be willing to work under-the-table for significantly less than minimum wage, and that's a problem.

[Gooberman]

If the borders were opened, most of those who earned money would keep spending it here, keeping it in the country. After rent, electricity, food, there is very little left to send home for these entry-level jobs. I completely agree that they should be paid at least minimum wage for these jobs. My argument is the same of that of the comic Lothar posted. If you can't work as hard as the immigrant for the same job, to bad. That is capitalist at its finest.

"Because that is the way it is," doesn't answer my question of 'why'. The closest direct anwser to my question that I have gotten is, "it prevents Americans from becoming criminals as other means of income". However this is just what happens to the immigrant instead of the American, it is the same issue. Poverty causes those in other countries to become criminals. They become crimminals even if they would otherwise work harder at a given job then the American if they were allowed the opportunity.


Let's remove all of the labels for a second. I am not an American, just a human that was born in America. A Mexican is not a Mexican, just a human that was born in Mexico. Why does the fact that I was born in one region ---- that was already prosperous when I was born! Entitle me to a job over the other human, who was born in Mexico, especially, if I am not willing to work as hard?

What entitles an American to the American job?

[Dedman]

Goob, the answer to your question is nothing. Some people need to understand that the jobs donâ??t belong to the workers. They never have and they never will. They belong to the employers. If, as a worker you canâ??t find a job it is because one of two things happened. Either you donâ??t have the required skill set or you have priced yourself out of the market. It really is that simple.

ANY job that has gone overseas has only done so because Americans werenâ??t willing to take the pay that the market would bear. If someone really canâ??t find a job, it is only because they canâ??t bring themselves to pick lettuce.

[Lothar]

Nothing "entitles" the American to the American job. All I'm saying is that Americans shouldn't be hobbled in their ability to compete in the job market because it's harder for them to work under the table for $2.50 an hour.

Allowing locals to compete for jobs makes sense because of these particular dynamics: it's easier for a person who's already moving (ie, an immigrant) to move over to the next job market than it is for a person who's already established (ie, a local) to move over to the next job market, be it in the next city or the next country. People who have established roots already should be capable of competing for jobs with those who haven't, so that those who are already moving will mostly tend to settle into markets that have a surplus of jobs, rather than displacing people from markets that don't really have a surplus, causing a chain reaction of displacement.

This applies whether we're dealing with people coming from Mexico or people coming from Oregon. The point is basically this: it's better for society if those who specifically want to be in area X and have already established themselves in area X are able to stay and work in area X rather than having to move to area Y and break up their established relationships, while those who don't particularly care what area they're in and don't have established relationships in any particular area can only stay and work in area X if area X has excess jobs for them to fill. If area X doesn't have jobs, they can move on to area Y, without breaking up any already-established relationships. So, as a general principle, it's good to encourage local employment, because it leads to fewer breakups of established relationships.

[kurupt]

where in america can you support yourself, let alone a family, with a minimum wage job? not here, and my home only costs me 400 a month for rent. a little shy of 200 bucks a week just wont cut it. and out here in this region there arent even any jobs for immigrants to "take." my view is that we should stop worrying so much about people taking peoples jobs, and worry more about creating jobs to be "taken."

[Kyouryuu]

I think the Mexican border thing is Bush pandering for the minority vote.

That said, what's more concerning is the job outsourcing to India, China, and even Poland. We've seen it happen with manufacturing jobs, and now we're also seeing the beginnings of it with high-tech jobs. When Bush says that more jobs are on their way, they seem to be mostly service-sector jobs that do not pay well enough to maintain the average American lifestyle.

The problem is this. When jobs are outsourced to India, the Indian is willing to do the same amount of work as the American for a fraction of the cost. What you would pay an American $70,000/yr to do, an Indian will accept for $700. Corporations love this and, always thinking with profit first and quality later, are relocating their operations at frighteningly epidemic rates.

What we as Americans have to do, in this scenario, is stoop to the level of the Indian and accept the paltry sum in order to "compete" with this other country. But our society does not support a $700/yr income. In other words, this is a problem Americans can't win. And it's not even the insipid argument that "Oh, the American won't stoop to the leve of picking lettuce." He can't because he could never make enough money to survive in our society and economy.

What is further irksome is that these corporations who participate in this continue to base their operations in America, reaping our tax breaks and enjoying our capitalist system, but given absolutely nothing back in return for this piggish behavior.

Now you might argue "Well the free market this... and the free market that..." but, then you'd be lying to yourself that we in fact live in a "free market." We have tariffs and surcharges just like everyone else. We try to control the amount of imports while pushing our exports. We investigate and shut down the Enrons. We do not live in a free market and it is delusional to think otherwise.

Why are we entitled to jobs? Maybe you'll just have to be out of work, replaced with cheap overseas labor, to understand.

My opinion: Tax incentives for companies to employ American workers instead of outsourcing them. Tax increases for companies that choose otherwise.

[index_html]

I would think that it's perferable to give jobs to people who are accountable, have fixed addresses, pay taxes, vote, understand the nation's laws, have an intrisic sense of loyalty, and contribute something more than just hours of work to their country. It's about national self-interest and making sure that the people the politicians have authority to represent are provided with jobs. American citizens are their constituency and they are supposed to look out for the voters' interests, people who slip into the country illegally are not their constituency and haven't earned that representation. It's about taking care of your own, who are accountable and legally established as citizens, before considering the welfare of people from other countries who are accountable to a foreign government with very different interests.

This doesn't apply to legal immigrants who follow the process, of course, but it doesn't seem like they are the people you are referring to.

[De Rigueur]

What entitles an American to the American job?

I think the question is misleading because it tries to isolate this one issue from the complexities of political, economic and cultural realities.

[Dedman]

What we as Americans have to do, in this scenario, is stoop to the level of the Indian and accept the paltry sum in order to "compete" with this other country. But our society does not support a $700/yr income. In other words, this is a problem Americans can't win. And it's not even the insipid argument that "Oh, the American won't stoop to the leve of picking lettuce." He can't because he could never make enough money to survive in our society and economy.

You seem to have completely missed the other side of my argument. If you canâ??t find a job that pays what you want, learn new skills that will give you the earning power you desire.

No one owes you (the generic you) anything. Not a job, not happiness, not even a color TV. The hard fact of life is that if you want something like a job, happiness, or that big screen, it is your responsibility to do what is required to get it. This union mentality that your company, society, or whatever â??owesâ?

[Gooberman]

Kurrupt,

I agree.

Why are we entitled to jobs? Maybe you'll just have to be out of work, replaced with cheap overseas labor, to understand.

Solrazor(I think?) and some others,

I firmly believe, and have said so above, that keeping the pay rates the same should be a requirement. Aside from that, an employer should be able to employ whoever he wishes.

Moving jobs to other countries is a completely separate issue economically then allowing others to come live in this country and take employment. If you want to argue against the former, please open another thread. However, I wont argue against you there, because I agree with you.

index,

"I would think that it's perferable to give jobs to..."

people who are accountable: They are
Have fixed addresses: Most here in Arizona that I know stay with legal relatives, so they do.
Pay taxes: Every time they buy something, plus legalizing them would force them to pay income tax. This is tax money that is currently just being lost.
Vote: How liberal of you We can give them that right too if you wish.
Understand the nation's laws: Most of them know the laws better then Americans. They have to because it is more important to them to avoid them. A speeding ticket is a life changing endeavor for an illegal immigrant.
Have an intrinsic sense of loyalty: To who?
Contribute something more than just hours of work to their country: like?

I agree to all your reasons on why politicians should show themselves to opposed to this. However, I am more concerned with whether or not it is the right thing. Politicians will be behind anything that will get them reelected. A Lazy American has a vote, a hardworking immigrant does not.

[DCrazy]

Said hardworking immigrant would have a vote if said hardworking immigrant were here legally. If said "hardworking" immigrant is not, said hardworking immigrant should be sent packing.

You can't isolate the issue.

[Gooberman]

Lothar,

Let me rephrase your argument and tell me if you agree with how I rephrased it. You believe that an American has a right to an American Job, because his line has established the roots -- roots in which he is now a part of. That his ancestor helped establish this great society that the modern American was born into, so he should have dibs on remaining here, thus keeping the American Job. So to rephrase: An American is entitled to an American job because his ancestors helped build this country, and that he should benifit from the actions of those in his blood line that worked so hard before and for, him.

Do you agree with this assessment?

[index_html]

"plus legalizing them would force them to pay income tax."

Yes it would ... if people are legal citizens, there's nothing to discuss. And if the country decides to go through with the whole amnesty concept, so be it. It spits in the face of those who immigrate legally, but that's another topic. I wish there was more emphasis on raising Mexico's standard of living than on the U.S. being its pressure valve and safety net. But, that responsibility lies mostly with Mexico, which doesn't seem too enthousiastic about changing the status quo.

"Most of them know the laws better then Americans."

Well, I meant knowing the laws in the sense of abiding by and living within those laws ... not skirting them. Still, I doubt your average illegal immigrant knows more about U.S. laws than I do, or particularly cares about them outside the narrow issue of getting caught.

"Have an intrinsic sense of loyalty: To who?"

To the society in which we live. To the people that defend and protect us. To the system that teaches our kids, provides our freedom. To our Constitution. To the U.S.A., as opposed to the sentiment you hear chanted at Mexican soccer games (okay, maybe a cheap shot, but a deserved one).

Like it or not, borders exist and we do have laws in this country concerning citizenship (as we should). Maybe it would be nice if we could invite everyone around the world who wants to live and work in the U.S. to come here and instantly enjoy our way of life and benefits. But that's foolishness, the pie doesn't have that many slices. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and illegal immigrants currently cross that line. And we can either enforce our laws as they exist or move the line and inherit responsibility for millions of another country's working poor (with all its ramifications on wages, education, housing, medical care, social services, crime, etc, etc, etc.).

[Lothar]

You believe that an American has a right to an American Job

Nope, I didn't say I believe an American has a right to an American job (in fact, I explicitly denied it, saying "Nothing "entitles" the American to the American job."). Rather, I said I believe locals have the right to be able to compete for jobs in their local area, regardless of what their "local area" is... in particular, that immigrants to an area shouldn't be able to undercut minimum wage by working under the table.

... because his line has established the roots -- roots in which he is now a part of.

Nope, not even close. It has nothing to do with what his line has done for this country, or his region, or whatever. His parents could've been gangsters or corrupt politicians or even fairly recent immigrants; it doesn't matter for my argument.

Rather, what I'm saying is, if a person already lives in a particular community, they're likely to already have friends and family in that community, they're likely to have a residence, they're likely to have connections, they're likely to have a sense of the local culture, they're likely to have a church or a club or something they already hang out in. This is what I mean by "established" -- that for them, moving away would be like being uprooted.

So, imagine for a moment that you have one job, and 2 people competing for it, and whoever loses is going to have to leave the area and go get a job elsewhere. Imagine that one of those people doesn't know anybody in town, and might as well be elsewhere, and that the other has lived there for several years and has family and friends there. It seems to me that it's better to hire the guy who already has family and friends, and send the other guy packing -- and worse to hire the guy who doesn't know anybody, and send the other guy away from his family and friends.

Now, even if the immigrant also has family and friends there... he's already been away from them, so he's not being uprooted, he's just being prevented from putting down roots for a while longer. I consider that a better end result than putting him in place and uprooting someone else.

There's nothing here that says what country the person originated in (I'd consider someone who grew up just across the Mexican border in Tecate more of a "local" to San Diego than someone who grew up in New York City.) It's simply a question of whether someone will have to leave the area they grew up in because someone else came in to the area and took a job illegally. If the immigrant outcompetes the local for the job *legally* -- on equal footing -- he can have it. But the problem with the current scenario is that immigrants from certain countries (including Mexico) often come in and outcompete locals for jobs based on the fact that they'll work for peanuts.

So, the end result of all of this is that I think it's unfair for a person to be able to come in to a community and displace someone else based on the fact that they're willing to work illegally for a lower wage. If they're willing to outwork the local for a fair wage, fine, it's the local's fault for not being willing to work hard enough -- but I don't blame the local for being unwilling to break the law and work under the table.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Obviously not. Try again :)

Or, here, let me do it:

A person who already lives in a community should be given an equal chance to compete for a job in his community. It's better for him to be able to compete in order to remain where he's been, and to let the wanderer keep wandering, than to have the wanderer settle down and the local be forced into wandering because he was unwilling to work illegally for an unfairly low wage.

Now, if you want to ask me for a solution to all of this... I don't really have one, except to say that there should be work done to allow and encourage immigrants to work legally rather than illegally. Not only does this help solve the problem I mentioned above (allowing locals to compete for jobs) but it also helps remove some of the (very real) class barriers between illegal immigrants and the rest of society.

[pipsqueak10]

"What makes someone who was born in America get president over an American job"

You've obviously never been to New York City.

[Mobius]

Actually, it is VERY tough to get a work Visa for the USA. The USA has a very closed approach to international workers - compared to most other countries.

Your immigration policy might be more lenient - but not where it comes to jobs.

You might well ask the question as to why the constiution still has the right to carry a gun. The answer to both is the same: it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Simple really.

America had just finished booting out and killing the stupid redcoats, banishing the spanish, kicking out the french and annexing Texas. It seemed like it would be a good idea to have a native born American as leader, because he'd keepe the best interests of the Nation in mind. (Shame that idea never panned out!)

Anyway, the idea behind the constituion was that it would be revisited by every generation of Americans, to more closely reflect the will of the people.

It was never meant to be carved in stone, and this is one of the reasons it is a somewhat out-dated, and contains some pretty non-sensical stuff document in the 21st century.

The "armed militia" thing is a crock, and was the basis for the right to bear arms. I guess the founding fathers never foresaw Glocks, and Mac 10s.

The great thing about the USA too, is that if you want to be able to vote in a non-native American into the Oval office, all you have to do is convince 66% of congress to agree with you.

Better get to work!

[Ferno]

what if the guy applying is mexican but is living in america (landed immigrant)? will he still be passed over?

[fliptw]

Now, if you want to ask me for a solution to all of this... I don't really have one, except to say that there should be work done to allow and encourage immigrants to work legally rather than illegally. Not only does this help solve the problem I mentioned above (allowing locals to compete for jobs) but it also helps remove some of the (very real) class barriers between illegal immigrants and the rest of society.

The jingoistic response to this would be discourage immigrants from seeking work in the US completely.

There isn't a good solution that wouldn't have the average american spooning out more money, either upfront(jobs are going oversea largely because americans like cheap, good quality stuff) or in taxes - in short, sinking the work done in the last 20 or so years in free trade.

Suggesting that americans take a pay cut is simply out of the question, since unions would eat anyone that suggested that.

[Ferno]

"The jingoistic response to this would be discourage immigrants from seeking work in the US completely."

You're not of american birth. go away, we don't want you here. Lovely picture that paints, huh.

[Will Robinson]

The "armed militia" thing is a crock, and was the basis for the right to bear arms. I guess the founding fathers never foresaw Glocks, and Mac 10s.

No, it's a safe bet they considered weapons to be deadly, and future weapons to be more effecient as well as deadly.

What I'm sure they didn't foresee was a time when anti-social, criminal behavior was allowed to flourish! They documented the protection of our innate freedoms taking for granted we wouldn't coddle miscreants and thugs.
Instead we idolize them and celebrate them...even elect them!

No, the system hasn't failed us, we have failed the sytem. We abandoned the collective morality the founders had and replaced it with political correctness...bleh!

[Gooberman]

Lothar,

Never in my argument did I discuss one who is willing to work for a lower wage. The issue has been from the beginning of the thread about the immigrant who will work harder for the position -- not for less. So unless you agree with me on letting all foreign immigrants have a fare shot at American jobs, you must be placing a lot of weight in the importance of being rooted in a community.

It seems to me that it's better to hire the guy who already has family and friends, and send the other guy packing -- and worse to hire the guy who doesn't know anybody, and send the other guy away from his family and friends.

As far as the established roots: consider two professors of mathematics. One is absolutely brilliant, received his degree with the highest honors, but has terrible social anxiety that has forced him to remain a hermit. The other received his degree with the lowest standards possible and in general never has any original ideas.

Because of the brilliant professor's social anxiety he is a hermit and resides several miles outside of town in the mountains. No one in the town knows him, or has any connection to him. The less intelligent professor has lived in the town for years and has deeply established roots and is well liked there.

A university position opens up withen the town, and the hermit decides that it is time that he concur his fear. They both apply for the position.

It would be ridiculous for the university to hire the rooted man wouldn't it be? They would be at a great loss if they did.

So trickling this down to lower entry positions, where it isn't intelligence but work ethic that the company profits from, wouldn't a company also be at a loss in hiring an American teenager who just does the job half-assed, then the immigrant who would work diligently? Everywhere in America people are displaced from where they want to live. Should I get an Arizonan job over a Californian because I have roots here? Perhaps it can be argued that it would be better for Arizonaâ??s social structure, but that is not the way capitalism works. Nor is that the way it does work.

[Bold Deceiver]

Anyway, the idea behind the constituion was that it would be revisited by every generation of Americans, to more closely reflect the will of the people.

Not even a good guess, Mobius. The Constitution of the United States is not meant to be "revisited by every generation". The most obvious evidence of this is the level of difficulty imposed on any "new generation" to amend. A two-thirds majority of those present in both the Senate and the House must vote for the amendment. Three-quarters of the states must then vote to ratify the amendment.

The great thing about the USA too, is that if you want to be able to vote in a non-native American into the Oval office, all you have to do is convince 66% of congress to agree with you.

Not quite right. See above. Are you hoping to run on the Non-Native Platform this year?

[Lothar]

Right, Goob -- I already accounted for the possibility of different skill levels. If they *compete on a level playing field*, and the one guy simply out-skills the other, he should get the job. I completely agree -- if an immigrant is going to work for a legally feasible level of pay, and he's going to do a better job than the local, he should be hired. That's why I keep talking about making it so they can *compete* for the job on a level playing field -- if the immigrant still outcompetes the guy, that's fine, he deserves the job.

Where I have a problem is if there's not going to be any substantial difference between them in terms of quality of work, but the immigrant is guaranteed the job because he'll work under the table. If there's no substantial difference in quality of work, they should at least be competing on equal financial footing so that the local has a shot at the job, because it's retarded to have the "default" choice be to send away the local guy because he's not willing to break the law.

Like I said at the start, I don't think the local is entitled to the job. All I think is that the local should be entitled to compete fairly for the job. If he's equally qualified, he should get a shot at the job, and if he's better qualified he should get it -- the immigrant shouldn't be able to undercut the local's advantage by working for a ridiculously low amount. Giving the local a 50/50 chance at a job he's equally skilled at and willing to work at the minimum possible level for leads to a much better situation than giving him no chance at all.

That is, I agree with you on giving immigrants a fair shot at local jobs (with the caveat that said immigrants have to be willing to live within the laws of the region.) But I think their shot should only be "fair" and not "overly advantaged because they'll work for peanuts". I said as much at the beginning -- nothing entitles the American to an American job, but he should be able to compete fairly for it just like the immigrant.

[Will Robinson]

Just a fun fact:
Mexican workers sent 12 billion dollars home to mexico from money they earned in america last year.

I don't know what percentage of that was taxed.

[Gooberman]

source?

[Will Robinson]

It was last night on Fox News in an interview between Bill O'Rielly and some politician on O'Rielly's show.

He also said the total dollars sent back to mexico was more than mexico's oil industry produces.

Even if half of that figure is already taxed the balance seems like a lot of tax dollars we could add to the treasury by some hard working wanna-be tax payers....

[kurupt]

mexicans here have this system they do, which i shall now outline for you:

get 20 together, they find work for a local man who buys $10k houses and fixes them up to sell for $60k+

the 20 mexicans are allowed to live in the house they are fixing for basically free, plus are paid $1 an hour each, under the table.

thats 160 for a days work, which is about what 1 and 3/4 men doing the same thing would make in this line of work

after some months 19 mexicans give the other mexican a large portion of the money, and he returns to mexico with a few thousand bucks. now, this is alot of money in mexico, and he will live there for a year and them some until he needs more money, then he will come back to america and do the exact same thing he was doing before.

the local man sells the house for an immense profit and moves the mexicans to a new house every few days and the system continues.

this is a very profitable plan for the local man because he is paying these guys 20 bucks an hour. this is alot of money, but there are 20 men working for that 20 bucks an hour. the price he would be paying 1 3/4 americans. they only live in a house for a few days and then move on, and the man makes thousands upon thousands of dollars for each house. paying americans to do it he wouldn't make nearly as much, because it would take weeks to months for 2 men to do the work of 20 in a span of a few days.

i know this man, i used to work for him in high school over the summers. he paid me $100 a day under the table to work for him, and he siad he spent more on me working in a summer than he did for 1 house worth of mexicans working an entire year. he generally has 4 to 5 houses full at a time and has made millions in real estate. great for him, but not so great for the people he's put out of work by paying 20 illegal immigrants the wage he'd be paying not even 2 people at competitive wages.

so this scenario is a real problem when it comes to taking jobs, becuase an american simply cannot get by this way. even if we lived in a house with 20 other people sharing money, $1 an hour each wouldnt do us any good unless we also moved back to mexico where a dollar can actually go somewhere.

its also common for immigrants to be employed under the same basic system in restaurants.

i'm willing to bet this is common in every state.

not all immigrants work this way though, anyone who is willing ot be competitive without undercutting is ok in my book.