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

[mumblethrax]

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?

The trick is paying enough to attract American workers while remaining competitive.

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

By making food more expensive for everyone else in the country, the vast majority of whom are not involved in the agricultural sector. Protectionism doesn't often make sense from the perspective of economic nationalism, and it gets worse if you're not a tribalist.

Wildcat:

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

I'm glad that's beginning to dawn on you.

It's not artificial. The wages would be exactly where the US labor market decides they should be.

...and the fact that only US workers can compete in that market is a result of an artificial control (US immigration policy is not a product of 'the invisible hand'), and round and round we go....

Again, you can defend a protectionist tariff or import quota in these terms. "The price for corn is exactly where the US corn market decides it should be!" So what? The very problem under discussion is that that market is closed, so reminding everyone that the market is closed doesn't get you anywhere.

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.

Every country in the EU, with respect to every other country in the EU.

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"?

I've already explained that there's a distinction between goals and consequences. This is a really basic point: the moral capitalist (there are a few) regards it as a happy accident that rational, self-interested maximizers acting in a marketplace will bring about social benefits. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." This in no way implies that the moral capitalist shares the goal of the factory owner. You're just falsely imputing intentions here.

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.

I think we should let Mexico deal with its reality. I think we should let poor Mexican workers deal with their reality--specifically the reality that their government isn't going to be able to help them all that much--by seeking to better their lives elsewhere if they so choose. I also think you should start dealing with the economic reality--namely, that our economy relies on cheap unskilled labor from immigrants (legal or otherwise).

I wrote:

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

You responded:

False.

I wrote:

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

You then reply:

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 mean, what am I supposed to say here? You claim that it's false that both goods and services can be subject to protectionism, and then you immediately agree that services can be subject to protectionism. You can't even sustain a coherent argument for two sentences.

As for 'the person is not what is being affected'...it is the person who is affected when his job ships overseas, to exactly the same degree that he's affected when his job (or the job he feels entitled to despite his unwillingness to do it) goes to an immigrant. You have yet to elucidate a coherent basis for carving out an exception for the worker who faces competition for his job from immigrants, rather than overseas workers. That's a very fine distinction, economically.

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?

How hard would I have to look to find you arguing that minimum wage laws lead to unemployment on these forums? I'm guessing it wouldn't be that difficult.

Yet here you want to make the argument that you can pay people higher wages without any jobs lost, because every business will remain viable as its overhead grows.

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

This would be a fallacious argument even if it were true.

 

[Travis]

By the way did anyone see this movement mentioned on The Colbert Report? He gave an air promise to go work the fields and see just what it's like.

 

[WildCat]

The trick is paying enough to attract American workers while remaining competitive.


By making food more expensive for everyone else in the country, the vast majority of whom are not involved in the agricultural sector. Protectionism doesn't often make sense from the perspective of economic nationalism, and it gets worse if you're not a tribalist.

You could make the same claim about any profession. Would you support a maximum wage of $8/hr for everyone, no benefits? Think how cheap and affrordable everything would be! Health care costs fall through the floor!

Utopia, right?

...and the fact that only US workers can compete in that market is a result of an artificial control (US immigration policy is not a product of 'the invisible hand'), and round and round we go....

Look, is there any country on this planet that doesn't control the number and skill levels of foreign workers? This isn't protectionism. Labor is not a good, immigration policy is nopt protectionism. If you disagree, show me the economic literature that says so. I haven't heard this before.

Every country in the EU, with respect to every other country in the EU.

These countries have formed an economic union. And you may have noticed tey are picky about who they let in. Is there any country in the EU similar to Mexico economically?

The US has no economic union with Mexico.

I think we should let Mexico deal with its reality. I think we should let poor Mexican workers deal with their reality--specifically the reality that their government isn't going to be able to help them all that much--by seeking to better their lives elsewhere if they so choose. I also think you should start dealing with the economic reality--namely, that our economy relies on cheap unskilled labor from immigrants (legal or otherwise).

It is not the role nor responsibility of the US to make life better for the citizens of foreign countries. Let Mexico take responsibility for their poor, rather than dumping them on the US.

And no, cheap labor does nothing but increase the numbers of poor people. Pretty much by definition. I'm still waiting for your explanation of how low wages are good for the economy.

I wrote:

You responded:

I wrote:

You then reply:


I mean, what am I supposed to say here? You claim that it's false that both goods and services can be subject to protectionism, and then you immediately agree that services can be subject to protectionism. You can't even sustain a coherent argument for two sentences.

It is an entirely coherent and consistent argument. It all depends on where the foreign worker is. If they can do the job from India or Mexico, so be it. They should be allowed to do that.

But we shouldn't be importing labor into the US solely because it is cheaper than US labor. The only reasons we should be importing workers is if we have an actual shortage of workers, and I don't think anyone can make that case now. Even the H-1B visa program is widely abused to import not specialized labor unavailable domestically, but to import mediocre labor solely because it's cheaper. The Times Square bomber, for example, entered the country on a H-1B visa, and I don't think anyone has made a case that this guy was at the top of his field of expertise.

As for 'the person is not what is being affected'...it is the person who is affected when his job ships overseas, to exactly the same degree that he's affected when his job (or the job he feels entitled to despite his unwillingness to do it) goes to an immigrant. You have yet to elucidate a coherent basis for carving out an exception for the worker who faces competition for his job from immigrants, rather than overseas workers. That's a very fine distinction, economically.

It's a bold line. If things can be done more efficiently overseas then they should be. Everyone benefits from that.

What's the benefit of bringing in workers solely because they will work for minimum wage? All you do is increase the numbers of poor people, not just the new workers who don't make enough to support themselves, but of the workers they displaced who made higher wages.

How hard would I have to look to find you arguing that minimum wage laws lead to unemployment on these forums? I'm guessing it wouldn't be that difficult.

You'll find that I've argued that minimum wage laws only increase unemployment when the minimum wage is higher than the market wage, and I stand by that.

And your solution to that is to lower the market wage?

Yet here you want to make the argument that you can pay people higher wages without any jobs lost, because every business will remain viable as its overhead grows.


This would be a fallacious argument even if it were true.

I never said "every business will remain viable as its overhead grows". Businesses fail all the time, for a myriad of reasons.

Frankly, if a business can't survive by paying its workers a wage sufficient for their needs then I have no problems with that business going away. Other businesses will be more than happy to fill the void.

And don't tell me people won't pay a few cents more for their produce, people pay way more than that for ratty looking organic veggies. They'd certainly pay a bit more for veggies grown by companies that treat their laborers like human beings and pay them accordingly.

This moron from the UFW is actually fighting for lower wages and benefits for his union members, who by his own admission do difficult and dangerous work. They should be making at least $20/hr plus benefits, but this union has done nothing but fail. I wonder how much the union pays him? Maybe he should make what his average union member makes, and perhaps he'd actually fight for higher wages rather than fighting for lower ones.

Working in a safe, climate-controlled building bolting a door on a car all day pays $35/hr plus benefits, and it requires no more skill than picking lettuce and the latter is much more dangerous and difficult. Why doesn't it pay more mumblethrax?

And I'm going to keep pressing you on how having more poor people in the country (which is what you are advocating) is good for the economy, so maybe you should try to answer it for once.

 

[NoScotsman]

Facts, facts, facts... in the end it's all about the votes. If illegal immigrants (and the naturalized Americans who support them) voted Republican ... Republicans would be acting like the Democrats are now.

It's no way to govern, I'll admit. But it IS the way things are governed.

Personally, I think it makes more sense for Republicans to exploit poor and unskilled workers. I mean, historically they've been better at it than the Democrats. Oh well ...

 

[Travis]

How are the illegal immigrants voting?

 

[WildCat]

How are the illegal immigrants voting?

What's preventing them?

 

[Travis]

What's preventing them?

That which prevents me from voting in Mexico when I vacation there.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I must have missed that protest march where thousands of mexican citizens protested requiring ID's to vote

 

[bit_pattern]

I can tell you what I have no interest in--trying to induce people to do a job they aren't willing to do so that I can pay more for food while would-be immigrants end up worse off as a result.

Oh. Snap!

 

[bit_pattern]

Why would it be "nice" to lower wages and benefits inside the US? Since when is worker exploitation the "nice" thing to do?

If NAFTA had solid labour protection measures built into it this wouldn't be a problem. And there is no reason why America couldn't enforce labour laws when it comes to illegal migrants, certainly as easily as it could crackdown on employers who hire illegal workers. Why not pay Mexicans a proper wage and then let Americans compete for the backbreaking jobs if they still want them, but it would be my guess that not many American's would be willing to do backbreaking work 12 hour days in triple digit temperatures in exchange for the minimum wage.

Why do no other countries find this necessary? Are the tomato farms in Spain staffed by illegal migrants from North Africa?

Yes.

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/studies/tn0701038s/es0701039q.htm

 

[bit_pattern]

And no, cheap labor does nothing but increase the numbers of poor people. Pretty much by definition. I'm still waiting for your explanation of how low wages are good for the economy.

Low wages in Mexico have been good for the American economy, thanks to NAFTA, and US agricultural policies have been very bad for Mexican farmers. I wonder how many illegal migrants to the US have been motivated by the adverse economic situation imposed on them by NAFTA?

 

[OMGturt1es]

So don't you think such a difficult and dangerous job should pay more than minimum wage?

In fact, it would indeed pay far above minimum wage... if the legal labor market wasn't circumvented with illegal workers.

I grew up working in the orchards on Northern California. Orchard work generally paid a bit above minimum wage-- but not that much. I don't think the reason had much to do with illegal workers, especially given that I and high school buddies had no trouble finding work if we needed it.

We compete in a world market. While we often have the technological edge, we hold ourselves to higher labor and environmental standards than some of our competitors. This makes competition difficult. Others can package and ship product into our country cheaper than we can harvest it. Food here is a bargain. Unless we are all willing to pay more, we can't expect to see wages increase, no matter who does the work.

 

[Aepervius]

So don't you think such a difficult and dangerous job should pay more than minimum wage?

In fact, it would indeed pay far above minimum wage... if the legal labor market wasn't circumvented with illegal workers.

It is, however, quite interesting to see a labor union fighting for lower wages and benefits and worker exploitation. The UFW fails as badly as the SEIU, which fought WalMart in Chicago tooth and nail, and it turns out the starting pay at WalMart is $0.35/hr higher than the starting pay at SEIU-represented grocery stores.

I was about to do the same point. If the job market for farm job was not torpodoed and only normal worker were allowed, the WAGE would rise until the demand of the market is met. But the wage are not rising. Farmer seem even to flount that. They are not rising BECAUSE there are illegals to meet the demand !

It is actually quite funny that the farmer themselves and their association even mention that , by saying in soem state they don#t even pay minimum wage (if i read that correctly).

Sure if they paid normal wage the price of food will rise, but that is what free market is about. Wage drop if there is a flood of job applicant. Wage rise if there is not many. They simply skew the market and say "see nobody come". IMHO they just made the argument of those wanting to stop illegal immigration.

 

[WildCat]

That which prevents me from voting in Mexico when I vacation there.

I don't know how it works in Mexico, but where I live when you register to vote you just check a box that says you're a citizen. There is no check of ID (either when registering or at the polling place when registering), nor any effort made to determine if that's in fact true.

All you have to do is say you're a citizen (and you can even do this in many different languages) and you're registered to vote.

 

[WildCat]

If NAFTA had solid labour protection measures built into it this wouldn't be a problem. And there is no reason why America couldn't enforce labour laws when it comes to illegal migrants, certainly as easily as it could crackdown on employers who hire illegal workers. Why not pay Mexicans a proper wage and then let Americans compete for the backbreaking jobs if they still want them, but it would be my guess that not many American's would be willing to do backbreaking work 12 hour days in triple digit temperatures in exchange for the minimum wage.

So your goal is a steady stream of foreign workers to exploit, giving them "dangerous and difficult" jobs for a minimum wage tey can't even support themselves on.

Yes.

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/studies/tn0701038s/es0701039q.htm

Where, according to your article, they are also exploited and suffer higher rates of death and injuries and less pay than their Spanish counterparts.

So is this all about exploitation bit_pattern?

 

[WildCat]

Low wages in Mexico have been good for the American economy, thanks to NAFTA, and US agricultural policies have been very bad for Mexican farmers. I wonder how many illegal migrants to the US have been motivated by the adverse economic situation imposed on them by NAFTA?

How does NAFTA lead to lower wages? In every instance I'm aware of, free trade eventually leads to higher wages. Even Chinese workers are demanding (and getting) higher wages now.

 

[Corsair 115]

I wonder how many illegal migrants to the US have been motivated by the adverse economic situation imposed on them by NAFTA?

What explains the illegal immigration of the 1980s? NAFTA didn't come along until 1994.

 

[Cicero]

Facts, facts, facts... in the end it's all about the votes. If illegal immigrants (and the naturalized Americans who support them) voted Republican ... Republicans would be acting like the Democrats are now.

Your post could benefit from some facts. Bush 43 was as indifferent about illegal immigration as is POTUS Obama. In 1986, POTUS Reagan signed the amnesty Bill 1200, granting legal status to illegal immigrants. Just for your edification, POTUS Bush and POTUS Reagan are Republicans.

It's no way to govern, I'll admit. But it IS the way things are governed.

Personally, I think it makes more sense for Republicans to exploit poor and unskilled workers. I mean, historically they've been better at it than the Democrats. Oh well ...

You are batting a 1000. Historically? Liberals have as much or more practice exploiting illegal aliens as do conservatives. Here are some Democrats you obviously never heard of.

Zoe Baird: President Bill Clinton's first nominee for attorney general withdrew in 1993 after it was learned that the $500,000-a-year corporate lawyer employed an illegal alien.

Kimba Wood: Amazingly, just two weeks later, Wood, a federal judge in New York who was expected to be Clinton's second choice for attorney general, withdrew her name. She admitted her baby sitter of seven years had been in the country illegally when hired in March 1986 — before such hiring was against the law. Wood stressed she had broken no laws and had paid all required employment taxes.

Charles Ruff: After Baird and Wood, this Washington lawyer and former Justice Department official was removed from Clinton's "short list" of candidates for deputy attorney general after it was learned he failed to pay Social Security taxes for a woman who did domestic work for him one day a week over the previous eight years.

Ron Borwn: Clinton's then-newly confirmed commerce secretary acknowledged in 1993 he had not paid Social Security taxes for a woman who cleaned his house three hours a week over four or five years. He said he hadn't thought he owed taxes because she worked so few hours, but he scurried to pay the back taxes and penalties and remained in office.

Federico Pena: Like Brown, Pena had already been confirmed as to his post, transportation secretary in this case, when the Baird case prompted him to acknowledge he failed to pay Social Security taxes for a substitute baby sitter who looked after his two children while their regular caretaker vacationed in 1991. He promised to pay more than $100 in back taxes.

Shirley Chater : Chater, the president of Texas Woman's University Texas Woman's University, was Clinton's nominee to head the Social Security Administration when the White House disclosed on Aug. 3, 1993, that she failed to pay Social Security taxes for a part-time baby sitter from 1969 to 1975. But she had paid the back taxes before her nomination, and she was confirmed.

Bobby Ray Inman: The retired Navy admiral withdrew in January 1994 as Clinton's nominee to be defense secretary. Among many reasons, he listed his failure to pay required Social Security taxes for a former part-time housekeeper until just after Clinton nominated him.

Stephen Breyer: When Breyer was a nominee for the Supreme Court in mid-1994, it was disclosed that the then-chief judge of the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston had failed to pay Social Security taxes for an 81-year-old U.S. citizen who worked part time in his house for 13 years. Breyer said he did not know he was supposed to pay taxes for the woman until after Baird's case, whereupon he paid the overdue taxes. He was confirmed as a justice of the high court.

Michael P.C. Carns: The retired Air Force general withdrew in March 1995 as Clinton's nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency as he acknowledged failing to make promised payments to a Filipino youth who had worked for the Carns family as a household helper overseas and whom Carns had legally brought into this country when he was transferred back.

 

[Distracted1]

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...

If G.M. only paid $8 per hour without benefits, very few of us would care wether they were in the black or not.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Actually I hate the term illegal immigration. I prefer to just call them all criminals, and call it a day.

EDIT: And by the way I don't jaywalk or commit any other misdemeanors that many here seem to think are on equal level of the felony of criminal immigration.