Immigrants to US workforce: "Want your jobs back? Come get them!"

[WildCat]

The math wonk has arrived. Labor accounts for 6% of the $1.39 cost for the lettuce. That is $0.0834. Cost without labor is then $1.3066. If we triple the cost of labor we arrive at 3 x 0.0834 = $0.2502. Adding that to the cost without labor we get $1.3066 + 0.2502 = $1.5568

Let's round that to $1.56, which is different than what you got (because you did not subtract out the cost of the labor from the product initially).

Continue the discussion, math wonk is finished.

I knew I was doing something wrong, too damned tired to figure out what... in fact I actually did the math right in another thread.

 

[WildCat]

So protectionism is bad, except when it is "the duty of the government to protect their legal residents and their general welfare" by arbitrarily restricting the supply of imported goods and therefore forcing people to pay a higher price for goods than they could obtain on the free market.

... as long as the imported "good" happens to be labor and people are paying for lettuce.

Protectionism is bad, unless what you're protecting is labor, in which case it's good.

Once again, American conservatism demonstrates its compete hostility to rational thinking.

So now we're defining "protectionism" as the failure to merge labor markets between countries of vastly different wealth?

If I was emperor I'd fire every line worker at GM and replace them with $8/hr with no benefits illegal immigrants. Might even put GM in the black!

Just for the lulz at watching the supporters of illegal immigration howl in hypocritical unison...

 

[Dymanic]

You'll find I'm on the record here as being against agriculture subsidies of all types. We could argue forever about whether ag subsidies actually help small family farmers (I don't think they do) or go instead to ginormous corporate-owned farms (which get most of the subsidies) but it's not really relevant to this thread.

We're probably not in enough disagreement on all of that to stimulate a very lively argument, but I will posit that it may more relevant to this thread than might be immediately apparent to (say) a first-year economics student.

You know who suffer worse than US taxpayers for US ag subsidies? Farmers in developing countries.

Indeed. One country in particular that quickly comes to mind: Mexico.

We subsidize farmers to produce far more food than we could ever sell legitimately, and then dump it on the world market for below the cost of production and in many cases give it away for free.

Hence the frequent criticism of NAFTA that it precipitated the dumping of huge quantities of cheap US government subsidized corn on the Mexican market. If a farmer in Mexico finds himself unable to compete with that and choses to seek work in the US instead, and is forced by circumstances to make his way there by whatever means are available to him, he is disparaged (by some) as a criminal. Too bad we can't punish all of the wrongdoers who have had a hand in creating this mess, isn't it?

We aren't going to suddenly do away with agricultural subsidies. That system came into existence for some very good reasons, despite there having been some very bad policy decisions made during the decades since.

And a large segment of the American public isn't going to have an epiphany and suddenly begin thinking about the potential evils of agricultural subsidies, let alone the impact its own consumption habits have on disadvantaged people anywhere. That segment is no more interested in doing their own thinking about that sort of thing than they are in slaughtering their own beef.

We also aren't going to suddenly replace our immigrant workforce with unemployed American couch potatoes. This country has a long tradition of reserving its most menial, backbreaking, and degrading jobs (in particular, the all-important job of scapegoat) for its most recent immigrants, and we're going to be sticking with that. The whole Great Wall of Mexico bit is pure political theatre.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

This country has a long tradition of reserving its most menial, backbreaking, and degrading jobs (in particular, the all-important job of scapegoat)

We have scores of AMERICAN goats out of work, how about giving them a shot?

 

[mumblethrax]

Mumblethrax, you are actually claiming that artificially lowering wages and benefits below the market value of legal labor is good for the US economy... how does this work?

Right. So, your position is that US immigration policy is the result of rational market forces (rather than political processes, rational or otherwise), and that relaxing restrictive import quotas (on migrant labor) is 'artificial'.

The problem is that you're using terminology to mean exactly the opposite of what it commonly means. It's like you're telling me that the automobile import quotas of the 70s and 80s were necessary to ensure a 'rational market' and prevent 'undercutting' US manufacturers, and that ending those quotas was 'artificial', and that this is all consistent with a pro-free markets political philosophy.

The consequences of a protectionist immigration policy are similar to those from a protectionist import quota--it promotes corruption, provides an incentive for smugglers, and lowers economic efficiency.

In response to drkitten, you wrote:

So now we're defining "protectionism" as the failure to merge labor markets between countries of vastly different wealth?

You've accused me of 'wanting to lower wages' for US workers several times in this thread. This would tend to suggest that retaining high wages for US workers is a principle motivation for your desire to enforce or reinforce unrealistic immigration limits.

I don't know what you call keeping foreign competitors out of the US market in order to protect US producers. I think drkitten's characterization is pretty good.

You do have a point, though--it's a bit strange to call a policy that attempts to protect jobs that do not exist 'protectionism'. Perhaps a better word for an immigration policy so detached from reality is 'Republican'.

 

[drkitten]

So now we're defining "protectionism" as the failure to merge labor markets between countries of vastly different wealth?

Well, when we fail to merge the rice markets between countries of vastly different wealth (and production costs), it's "protectionism."

When we fail to merge the steel markets between countries of vastly different wealth, it's protectionism.

When we fail to merge the lumber markets between countries of vastly different wealth, it's protectionism.

So unless you want to argue that labor is the one market immune to supply and demand,.... yes. That's the definition.

I'm really dreadfully sorry if once again reality fails to conform itself to your irrational ideology. But as a conservative, you should be used to that by now.

 

[WildCat]

Right. So, your position is that US immigration policy is the result of rational market forces (rather than political processes, rational or otherwise), and that relaxing restrictive import quotas (on migrant labor) is 'artificial'.

Yes, it's artificial. The Mexican labor market is not the US labor market. When you don't offer weages high enough to attract American workers you don't get to import a bunch of illegal Mexican workers. You'
re supposed to raise your wages.

The problem is that you're using terminology to mean exactly the opposite of what it commonly means. It's like you're telling me that the automobile import quotas of the 70s and 80s were necessary to ensure a 'rational market' and prevent 'undercutting' US manufacturers, and that ending those quotas was 'artificial', and that this is all consistent with a pro-free markets political philosophy.

I am not in favor of protectionism. But this isn't protectionism.

The consequences of a protectionist immigration policy are similar to those from a protectionist import quota--it promotes corruption, provides an incentive for smugglers, and lowers economic efficiency.

None of which would be true if we actually penalized employers.

In response to drkitten, you wrote:


You've accused me of 'wanting to lower wages' for US workers several times in this thread. This would tend to suggest that retaining high wages for US workers is a principle motivation for your desire to enforce or reinforce unrealistic immigration limits.

You've admitted your goal is to lower wages. If lower wages wasn't the goal illegal immigration would hardly exist.

I don't know what you call keeping foreign competitors out of the US market in order to protect US producers. I think drkitten's characterization is pretty good.

Excuse me" "To protect US producers"? You mean "to fatten the bottom line for US producers at the expense of US workers"?

You do have a point, though--it's a bit strange to call a policy that attempts to protect jobs that do not exist 'protectionism'. Perhaps a better word for an immigration policy so detached from reality is 'Republican'.

These jobs do not exist? None of the illegal immigrants work?

 

[WildCat]

Well, when we fail to merge the rice markets between countries of vastly different wealth (and production costs), it's "protectionism."

When we fail to merge the steel markets between countries of vastly different wealth, it's protectionism.

When we fail to merge the lumber markets between countries of vastly different wealth, it's protectionism.

So unless you want to argue that labor is the one market immune to supply and demand,.... yes. That's the definition.

I'm really dreadfully sorry if once again reality fails to conform itself to your irrational ideology. But as a conservative, you should be used to that by now.

Your bizarre re-definition of "protectionism" aside, you'd be cool with Obama firing all GM line workers and replacing them with illegal immigrants making $8/hr and no benefits?

What other countries have the "rational" (according to you) policy of letting in all the unskilled labor from less developed countries that wish to enter?

 

[mumblethrax]

Yes, it's artificial. The Mexican labor market is not the US labor market.

Hate to break it to you, but political boundaries are artificial. You have a number of suppliers willing to enter the market, and you're excluding them arbitrarily.

When you don't offer weages high enough to attract American workers you don't get to import a bunch of illegal Mexican workers. You'
re supposed to raise your wages.

Economic inefficiency, protectionism.

None of which would be true if we actually penalized employers.

Doubtful, even if you manage to muster the political will to do something so terrifically stupid.

You've admitted your goal is to lower wages. If lower wages wasn't the goal illegal immigration would hardly exist.

I haven't admitted that. You're confusing goals with consequences. My goal is improving the human condition. The goal of immigrants (typically) is improving their lot. A consequence of this is that wages drop for hypothetical Americans who (it bears repeating) do not exist.

Excuse me" "To protect US producers"? You mean "to fatten the bottom line for US producers at the expense of US workers"?

No, I meant producers. Specifically, the producers of labor. The phrasing was designed to highlight the fact that the labor market is, y'know, a market.

These jobs do not exist? None of the illegal immigrants work?

Ha. So now you're trying to prevent illegal immigrants from lowering wages for illegal immigrants.

We're talking about protectionism. When I say "The jobs you're trying to protect don't exist," I'm implicitly talking about jobs held by Americans.

 

[WildCat]

Hate to break it to you, but political boundaries are artificial.

Good luck to you at customs with that theory.

Economic inefficiency, protectionism.

No, it's called "market forces". Specifically, the US labor market. Not Mexico's.

Doubtful, even if you manage to muster the political will to do something so terrifically stupid.

So here we have it, enforcing labor and immigration laws is now "terrifically stupid". At least you're not one of those illegal immigration supporters who tries to trip up someone he thinks is conservative by suggesting they go after the businesses, which we all know True Conservatives^TM think can do no wrong and are above all laws.

I haven't admitted that. You're confusing goals with consequences. My goal is improving the human condition. The goal of immigrants (typically) is improving their lot. A consequence of this is that wages drop for hypothetical Americans who (it bears repeating) do not exist.

You did indeed admit that. Unless you're going to claim that there's no wage for these jobs legal workers would do them for?

If you want to improve the human condition for some, try to do so without worsening it for others. In Mexico's case, it is a country rich in resources. 95% of Mexico's problems are related to a government that is highly corrupt at all levels.

No, I meant producers. Specifically, the producers of labor. The phrasing was designed to highlight the fact that the labor market is, y'know, a market.

It's a market, sure. Mexico has one, the US has one, Canada has one. But labor is not a good, and it is goods that are subject to protectionism - from raw materials to finished products. Labor is a service.

Immigration policy is not protectionism, no matter how hard illegal immigration supporters attempt to re-define the word.

Ha. So now you're trying to prevent illegal immigrants from lowering wages for illegal immigrants.

We're talking about protectionism. When I say "The jobs you're trying to protect don't exist," I'm implicitly talking about jobs held by Americans.

You're saying that because they're held by illegal workers they don't exist for Americans? Pretty circular reasoning there.

 

[rwguinn]

Since the word "illegal" did not appear in the title, I had assumed that all those $20/hour immigrant engineers from Russia, India, Australia, and points East were leaving and letting us get back to work...
Yes, folks, even Legal Immigrants are taking jobs-at much lower wages than US workers-at least, the jobs which have not already been outsourced overseas...

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Since the word "illegal" did not appear in the title, I had assumed that all those $20/hour immigrant engineers from Russia, India, Australia, and points East were leaving and letting us get back to work...
Yes, folks, even Legal Immigrants are taking jobs-at much lower wages than US workers-at least, the jobs which have not already been outsourced overseas...

I must flee!

<Smoke capsule explodes>

 

[GreNME]

Since the word "illegal" did not appear in the title, I had assumed that all those $20/hour immigrant engineers from Russia, India, Australia, and points East were leaving and letting us get back to work...
Yes, folks, even Legal Immigrants are taking jobs-at much lower wages than US workers-at least, the jobs which have not already been outsourced overseas...

Shhh! You're ruining a perfectly good argument against the brown folks coming from our southern borders! National security, man!

Seriously, though, I do agree that our H1B program should probably be re-evaluated along with the other guest worker programs. By "re-evaluated" I mean that we should still be allowing folks in (that's how we get the "best and brightest"), but I think the system we have is outmoded and as mumblethrax pointed out rife with abuses.

 

[rwguinn]

I must flee!

<Smoke capsule explodes>

Get the hence, Saa-tan!

 

[mumblethrax]

Good luck to you at customs with that theory.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. 'Artificial' does not suggest 'safe to ignore.' If it did, there would be nothing to worry about with artificial market controls.

No, it's called "market forces". Specifically, the US labor market. Not Mexico's.

Market forces apply in any market. That doesn't preclude economic inefficiency or protectionism.

If artificially limiting buyers (or employers) to the domestic market isn't protectionism, then restrictive import quotas can't be described as protectionism. All you're doing here is humpty-dumptying 'free trade' such that it's synonymous with 'protectionism'.

So here we have it, enforcing labor and immigration laws is now "terrifically stupid".

No. An immigration policy motivated by a desire to keep wages artificially high for domestic workers is stupid. Enforcing stupid immigration policies is stupid.

Careful thinkers might be able to come up with an immigration policy worth enforcing.

You did indeed admit that.

Feel free to quote me doing so. Otherwise, I'd ask you to stop making things up.

Unless you're going to claim that there's no wage for these jobs legal workers would do them for?

If I do claim this, it does not follow that my goal is to lower domestic wages. If I don't, it does not follow that my goal is to lower domestic wages. I don't see the point in answering irrelevant questions, particularly where they've already been answered.

If you want to improve the human condition for some, try to do so without worsening it for others.

That isn't possible, I'm afraid, as you've defined 'worsening it for others' as 'not improving it for others'. The only thing that follows from such a maxim is complete policy paralysis. You're saying that if there are 100 hungry people and I give one of them a sandwich, I've done something wrong because I didn't give the other 99 three sandwiches.

It's especially strange to continue to claim that I've done something wrong when the other 99 are saying, "No thanks, I already had lunch."

If you adopt a more reasonable definition of 'making conditions worse for others' (I think 'actually making things worse for others' is a good working definition), then this is exactly the kind of allocative efficiency that (under ideal conditions) free markets will seek. You're criticizing me for advocating the very thing you want me to do.

In Mexico's case, it is a country rich in resources. 95% of Mexico's problems are related to a government that is highly corrupt at all levels.

Mexico's government could start running like clockwork tomorrow, and there would still be migration pressure tantamount to a force of nature for decades to come, because economic development is a function of policy over time. You're looking for someone to blame, rather than dealing with reality.

It's a market, sure. Mexico has one, the US has one, Canada has one. But labor is not a good, and it is goods that are subject to protectionism - from raw materials to finished products. Labor is a service.

Well, this is just wrong. Both goods and services can be subject to protectionism. A penalty imposed on companies that outsource their help desks is a protectionist measure, and help desk support is a service.

But what do you hope to accomplish with this redefinition? The problem with protectionism is the economic harm entailed, and this follows (for both goods and services) whether you call it 'protectionism' or 'glory'.

Immigration policy is not protectionism, no matter how hard illegal immigration supporters attempt to re-define the word.

Immigration policy need not be protectionist. The one you're describing is, since your stated motivation for proposing it is to protect domestic workers from foreign competition.

You're saying that because they're held by illegal workers they don't exist for Americans? Pretty circular reasoning there.

I'm saying that if one of two mutually contradictory propositions is true, the other one isn't. That's not circular reasoning. It's one of the most basic axioms at the heart of propositional logic.

The jobs you want to protect don't exist. The jobs you want to protect will never exist in significant numbers. And if you manage to bring those jobs about, you will be making things worse for everyone else in the country. Not in your idiosyncratic sense of 'failing to make things better', but in the more usual sense of 'making things worse'.

Your position is utterly, hopelessly, irretrievably incoherent.

 

[Lurker]

The jobs you want to protect don't exist. The jobs you want to protect will never exist in significant numbers. And if you manage to bring those jobs about, you will be making things worse for everyone else in the country. Not in your idiosyncratic sense of 'failing to make things better', but in the more usual sense of 'making things worse'.

I'll admit I did not carefully read all the previous posts but I wanted clarification. The jobs don't exist because Americans would not do them is the premise, correct? I wonder if the immigrants were not there would hte hourly pay rise to such a level that Americans would start to take those jobs?

And if those jobs are suddenly available to Americans at higher salaries, how would that make things worse for the rest of America?

 

[WildCat]

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. 'Artificial' does not suggest 'safe to ignore.' If it did, there would be nothing to worry about with artificial market controls.


Market forces apply in any market. That doesn't preclude economic inefficiency or protectionism.

If artificially limiting buyers (or employers) to the domestic market isn't protectionism, then restrictive import quotas can't be described as protectionism. All you're doing here is humpty-dumptying 'free trade' such that it's synonymous with 'protectionism'.

Please, show me the economic literature which defines "protectionism" not in terms of goods or articles but wrt immigration policy.

You don't just get to redefine words to try to win an argument.

No. An immigration policy motivated by a desire to keep wages artificially high for domestic workers is stupid. Enforcing stupid immigration policies is stupid.

It's not artificial. The wages would be exactly where the US labor market decides they should be. US wages aren't determined by wages in Mexico, or China, or India, or France. The only people who wish to artificially alter the wage scale are those who wish to merge the labor markets of a wealthy economy with one from a much less developed one.

And I'd love to see you name one single country that allows anyone who wishes to enter and work to do so, I'm not aware of any. I can't just pop into Canada and get a job, nor even Mexico for that matter.

Feel free to quote me doing so. Otherwise, I'd ask you to stop making things up.

Dude, the only reason employers hire illegal aliens is because they will work for lower wages. You support this, so how is it "making things up"?

If I do claim this, it does not follow that my goal is to lower domestic wages. If I don't, it does not follow that my goal is to lower domestic wages. I don't see the point in answering irrelevant questions, particularly where they've already been answered.

See above.

That isn't possible, I'm afraid, as you've defined 'worsening it for others' as 'not improving it for others'.

No, I've defined it as driving down the wage and benefits scale, which illegal immigration undeniably does.

How are lowering wages and benefits good for the economy? Do you think the problem with the US economy is that those at the bottom of the wage scale make too much money? Get too many benefits?

The only thing that follows from such a maxim is complete policy paralysis. You're saying that if there are 100 hungry people and I give one of them a sandwich, I've done something wrong because I didn't give the other 99 three sandwiches.

It's especially strange to continue to claim that I've done something wrong when the other 99 are saying, "No thanks, I already had lunch."

That's not what's happening at all though, is it? All you're doing is lowering US wages by importing foreigners who will do the job for less money. So much less, in fact, that even these workers will require government-paid health care, housing assistance, food stamps, etc. How does this benefit the economy?

If you adopt a more reasonable definition of 'making conditions worse for others' (I think 'actually making things worse for others' is a good working definition), then this is exactly the kind of allocative efficiency that (under ideal conditions) free markets will seek. You're criticizing me for advocating the very thing you want me to do.

No. Once again, the market for labor is not global. Each country has its own domestic labor market, which does not intermingle with others unless provided for by a treaty, such as the EU.

Mexico's government could start running like clockwork tomorrow, and there would still be migration pressure tantamount to a force of nature for decades to come, because economic development is a function of policy over time. You're looking for someone to blame, rather than dealing with reality.

Why not let Mexico deal with their reality? The US didn't get wealthy by shipping all its poor to some other country, no reason Mexico has to.

Well, this is just wrong. Both goods and services can be subject to protectionism.

False.

A penalty imposed on companies that outsource their help desks is a protectionist measure, and help desk support is a service.

This is indeed protectionism, but note that those employees are still in another country, not the US. The person is not what is being affected, just the product of their labor.

I have no problem with outsourcing, that's actually a good example of an efficient market.

But what do you hope to accomplish with this redefinition? The problem with protectionism is the economic harm entailed, and this follows (for both goods and services) whether you call it 'protectionism' or 'glory'.


Immigration policy need not be protectionist. The one you're describing is, since your stated motivation for proposing it is to protect domestic workers from foreign competition.

Immigration policy is not protectionism, stop doing that or show evidence that I am wrong.

I'm saying that if one of two mutually contradictory propositions is true, the other one isn't. That's not circular reasoning. It's one of the most basic axioms at the heart of propositional logic.

The jobs you want to protect don't exist. The jobs you want to protect will never exist in significant numbers. And if you manage to bring those jobs about, you will be making things worse for everyone else in the country. Not in your idiosyncratic sense of 'failing to make things better', but in the more usual sense of 'making things worse'.

You're still not making sense. I'm not trying to protect jobs, I'm trying to maintain wages. The jobs will be there regardless, the only issue is which wages will the workers be paid. I happen to think that more people making higher wages makes for a better economy than one in which more people make lower wages. Do you disagree?

Your position is utterly, hopelessly, irretrievably incoherent.

And yet every advanced economy on this planet has the same policy.

 

[Just thinking]

As it was put in the movie Ratatouille, "it's not stealing if nobody wants it."

I guess you weren't paying attention to the film. Yes, it was said ... by Remy's father. Remy (the film's protagonist) was strongly opposed to such a notion. His behavior in the film also strongly drove home his opposition to that notion as well.

 

[Just thinking]

On a bit of a tangent, your comment raises an interesting question: are more or fewer liberals unemployed compared to the general population? I suspect fewer, just because liberalism correlates with higher levels of education which tends to correspond to lower unemployment rates. But that's just a guess.

I suspect it might be more ... my point wasn't merely about liberals, but young people, who are as a group more likely to be liberal than conservative; and the younger populations have higher unemployment stats than older ones.

But like you, I too am guessing.

 

[rwguinn]

I suspect it might be more ... my point wasn't merely about liberals, but young people, who are as a group more likely to be liberal than conservative; and the younger populations have higher unemployment stats than older ones.

But like you, I too am guessing.

What you say is only partially true--the people taking the hit are the educated, period--especially in the technical fields of engineering. Business school graduates are taking it in the shorts as far as young people go-lots of openings, but only with 5+ years experience.
Every engineering opening (in my field, anyway) has 100+ applicants, to the point that many places are refusing to list any more, they have so many resumes on file.