|
I think what the boycott was trying to say was that immigrants, both legal and illegal, represesent a significant enough portion of the economy that it would be missed if it were absent. I don't happen to think participation was high enough to adequately demonstrate that ... but I think the attemped message was perfectly clear.
Most of us simply had a no-traffic drive to work, and we are giddy about that. But think about it for a minute. Isn't that a pretty amazing effect? We loved it, but if that many people weren't going to work every day ... don't you think that would have an effect on the economy?
I won't know whether any effect was had at my office till this morning ... when I find out whether the trash was emptied and the premises were cleaned. Frankly, I don't think many immigrants working lower-tiered jobs could have afforded to stay home from work ... and that the REAL point of the economic picture was for them not to spend rather than not to earn. We will likely never know the result of the no-spending boycott, but I suspect that's where the large part of the ecomonic effect lies.
I support such a demonstrative boycott ... even though I'm not in favor of illegal immigration and the way it drives down wages for working American citizens. But I believe that trying to thwart someone else's protest is in bad form, and that's why I neg mojo'd scaeagles.
And you don't have to believe that crossing a picket line is a wrong thing to do, but it's what I believe. I'll neg mojo anyone who crosses a picket line, so don't mess with me, got it?!?
I must also announce with some regret that I will no longer be able to participate in these fast moving and fascinating discussions of real world events. The LoT is now blocked at work, and there will be a lot less of me on the LoT from now on. Bah.
|