Jobs Americans Won't Do?

[kg_veteran]

Jobs Americans Won’t Do?
Think again.

link

A core element of the American creed has always been a belief in the dignity of labor — at least until now. Supporters of a guest-worker program for Mexican laborers say that "there are jobs that no Americans will do." This is an argument that is a step away from suggesting that there are jobs that Americans shouldn't do.

President George Bush, a strong supporter of the guest-worker program, has long said that "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." We are supposed to believe, however, that the work ethic does stop there — it is only south of it that people can be found who are willing to work in construction, landscaping and agricultural jobs. So, without importing those people into our labor market, these jobs would go unfilled, disrupting the economy (and creating an epidemic of unkempt lawns in Southern California).

This is sheer nonsense. According to a new survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, illegals make up 24 percent of workers in agriculture, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction, and 12 percent in food production. So 86 percent of construction workers, for instance, are either legal immigrants or Americans, despite the fact that this is one of the alleged categories of untouchable jobs.

Oddly, the people who warn that without millions of cheap, unskilled Mexican laborers, this country would face economic disaster are pro-business libertarians. They believe in the power of the market to handle anything — except a slightly tighter labor market for unskilled workers. But the free market would inevitably adjust, with higher wages or technological innovation.

Take agriculture. Phillip Martin, an economist at the University of California, Davis, has demolished the argument that a crackdown on illegals would ruin it, or be a hardship to consumers. Most farming — livestock, grains, etc. — doesn't heavily rely on hired workers. Only about 20 percent of the farm sector does, chiefly those areas involving fresh fruit and vegetables.

The average "consumer unit" in the U.S. spends $7 a week on fresh fruit and vegetables, less than is spent on alcohol, according to Martin. On a $1 head of lettuce, the farm worker gets about 6 or 7 cents, roughly 1/15th of the retail price. Even a big run-up in the cost of labor can't hit the consumer very hard.
Martin recalls that the end of the bracero guest-worker program in the mid-1960s caused a one-year 40 percent wage increase for the United Farm Workers Union. A similar wage increase for legal farm workers today would work out to about a 10-dollar-a-year increase in the average family's bill for fruit and vegetables. Another thing happened with the end of the bracero program: The processed-tomato industry, which was heavily dependent on guest workers and was supposed to be devastated by their absence, learned how to mechanize and became more productive.

So the market will manage with fewer illegal aliens. In agriculture, Martin speculates that will mean technological innovation in some sectors (peaches), and perhaps a shifting to production abroad in others (strawberries). There is indeed a niche for low-skill labor in America. The question is simply whether it should be filled by illegal or temporary Mexicans workers, or instead by legal immigrants and Americans, who can command slightly higher wages. The guest-worker lobby prefers the former option.

If this debate is presented clearly, there is little doubt what most conservatives — and the public — would prefer. In his second term, President Bush has become a master of the reverse-wedge issue — hot-button issues that divide his political base and get it to feast on itself with charges of sexism, xenophobia and racism. The first was Harriet Miers; then there was the Dubai ports deal; and now comes his guest-worker proposal, making for a trifecta of political self-immolation.

There is still time for Bush to make an escape from this latest budding political disaster, but it has to begin with the affirmation that there are no jobs Americans won't do.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

[Jeremiah]

...

[MavKikiNYC]

This is an argument that is a step away from suggesting that there are jobs that Americans shouldn't do.

Does anyone else perceive this as a logical/rhetorical non-sequitur?

[orangedays]

Interesting read, thanks kg.

Whoever made the original assertion that Americans won't do certain jobs is obviously biased. I mean, come on, it's basic economics. If there is excess demand for menial laborers in the American farming labor market and insufficient supply, then we will see wages (the incentive for laborers to enter the market) rise to the point where workers will want to work for farms, and supply of labor will eventually meet demand. If the demand is really there, then the market will correct itself (and we will see farmhands making much higher wages).

The only reason why people would say they need Mexican migrant workers is because they don't want to pay those high wages - or offer medical, or dental, or whatever - and if there's ever any sort of labor dispute, hell just deport the workers.

Shameful.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

What about cleaning fish on the docks in Maine? Those jobs provide low wages, no insurance, and no guarantee of a day's work, or in the alternative, a night's rest. In other words, one might clean for an hour or 16 hours on any given day. The fishermen say that Americans won't do those jobs, and I wouldn't doubt that, given the above conditions.

I think it's a fallacy to assume that there are no Americans willing to do the jobs. Also, I think, as Lowry suggested, if there is a shortage of labor the market will compensate by either innovating or by offering a higher wage to the workers to induce them to enter the labor market.

In an informal "study" [about 10 years ago] I recall driving around with my buddy the salesman of moving services. He'd see a person with a sign asking for money. My buddy would offer him a job in the warehouse, about $7/hr, and 10-12 hour day. Hard work, but not by any means a job that isn't desirable. He couldn't give these jobs away. And these folks were homeless!

I don't think that's a very scientific "study." Did your buddy go to the unemployment office and make the jobs available? Did he advertise anywhere for to fill those jobs? Or are you just saying that the guy with the sign asking for money didn't want the job? Because if that's what you're saying, it may well be that the guy with the sign was making MORE than $7.00 per hour! (The ones here locally do, from what I understand.)

So what happens in Maine when the undocumented workers are deported, never to return? We get "On the Waterfront" again, or, you and I pay more for our salmon or our tuna, or don't buy it at all. I'm not against paying more if that means that workers are getting a living wage, but my budget only goes so far, I like fish, and the companies are just passing the costs to the consumers instead of treating the prohibition on hiring undocumented workers as the cost of business. There are already heavy restrictions on ex-felons getting jobs, put even harsher restrictions on the undocumented, i.e., they can't work here, and your workforce shrinks considerably.

Your assumption, though, is that the cost for salmon or tuna will go spiraling upward and out of control. I'm not sure we can make that assumption.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Does anyone else perceive this as a logical/rhetorical non-sequitur?

Well, it is apparent that some people (including President Bush) assume that Americans won't do jobs that pay low wages, are difficult labor, and/or don't offer benefits. Those people further assume that illegal immigrants would do those jobs, despite low wages, etc. Why do they assume that? Well, they're assuming that employers won't/shouldn't have to increase wages, and therefore Americans won't take the jobs, but illegals (or "unauthorizeds", in the politically correct jargon) will. I don't know if that is saying that Americans shouldn't do certain jobs, but it is certainly assuming that employers ought to be able to pay dirt cheap wages which would be unacceptable to similarly skilled American laborers.

EDIT: The paragraph below taken from this excellent article does a better job addressing your question than I did:

A related problem with guest-worker programs is that they subvert the republican virtues that underlie a free society by promoting a master-servant environment. This is what the talk of "jobs Americans won't do" is really about. It's not that our nimble and inventive free market cannot respond to evanescent labor shortages, but rather that certain jobs are considered by lawmakers to be beneath the dignity of an American, and therefore foreigners must be procured to do the work. Improbable as it is that something could be beneath the dignity of a politician, such a perspective moves us dangerously in the direction of Saudi Arabia, a society few Americans would want to emulate.

[dude1394]

There IS another side to this in that with reduced numbers of folks our economy will NOT grow as fast as it currently does. Sure whatever job is offered may be filled once the wages have risen high enough but it will be more difficult to find folks for those positions and certainly business will not be able to expand as easily.

Although I am not for illegal immigration, I don't really have a big problem with a guest-worker program. I'll have to look at it some more to have a more knowledgeable opinion.

Certainly if you halved for example the number of home-construction workers a few things will happen.

1. Housing costs will rise.
2. Less houses will be built.
3. Especially moderately priced houses.

[Drbio]

One point to add on kg's statement. There was a study performed in Waco with homeless pandhandlers. Most made between $5-$200 an hour depending on their location. There used to be a convenience store at the corner of Dutton Avenue and University Parks. One of the regular guys out there was famous for hte HUGE wad of cash that he carried around. He had to have had over a thousand bucks in his pocket at any given time.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Drbio

One point to add on kg's statement. There was a study performed in Waco with homeless pandhandlers. Most made between $5-$200 an hour depending on their location. There used to be a convenience store at the corner of Dutton Avenue and University Parks. One of the regular guys out there was famous for hte HUGE wad of cash that he carried around. He had to have had over a thousand bucks in his pocket at any given time.

I remember our conversation about this last week.

Thanks for backing up what I was saying, which is that perhaps homeless panhandlers aren't the best group of folks to try and hire for warehouse jobs -- in many cases because they already have a higher hourly rate!

[Mavdog]

street corner panhandling is now outlawed in dallas. nobody can do solicitations. this means the firemen, too, so it came at a cost.

I'm not sure the majority of homeless want to work.

one failure of the pew study is no differentiation in type of job, in many cases those hispanics are doing the labor while others are doing a lot of the other.

to me, immigrants are those who come here because they want to work.

I don't see there are jobs americans shouldn't do, if the borders were closed those jobs would be filled. that will come at a high cost imo productivity will decrease while unit cost will increase.

that's a wicked double whammy.

[Jeremiah]

....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

street corner panhandling is now outlawed in dallas. nobody can do solicitations. this means the firemen, too, so it came at a cost.

I'm not sure the majority of homeless want to work.

one failure of the pew study is no differentiation in type of job, in many cases those hispanics are doing the labor while others are doing a lot of the other.

to me, immigrants are those who come here because they want to work.

I don't see there are jobs americans shouldn't do, if the borders were closed those jobs would be filled. that will come at a high cost imo productivity will decrease while unit cost will increase.

that's a wicked double whammy.

Unfortunate about the firemen. But you're right mavie, most homeless are not interested in work, or they just can't be responsible enough to be where they need to be when they need to be there.

Most it would seem need to be institutionalized, possibly out on a state farm would be doable. But you can't just let them be sick and lay around the streets.

Tough problem.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

street corner panhandling is now outlawed in dallas. nobody can do solicitations. this means the firemen, too, so it came at a cost.

I'm not sure the majority of homeless want to work.

one failure of the pew study is no differentiation in type of job, in many cases those hispanics are doing the labor while others are doing a lot of the other.

to me, immigrants are those who come here because they want to work.

I don't see there are jobs americans shouldn't do, if the borders were closed those jobs would be filled. that will come at a high cost imo productivity will decrease while unit cost will increase.

that's a wicked double whammy.

You are definitely wrong about the productivity side, productivity would rise: if you take away the lowest-wage workers you are taking away the least productive workers in the economy and the average productivity of workers will rise.

**note** this assumes well functioning labor markets. However, the fact that illegals are constrained from fully participating in the market, and are not always able to work in the highest level of job their skills would enable them to accomplish, means that there are frictions imposed in the labor market-place that stop it from reaching its optimum equilibrium. Being the good economist I am, I’ll just ignore this ugly little fact for now, by assuming it away. Economists ALWAYS assume away any little facts that interfere with their argument ) **note**


In a market equilibrium (where employers have to compete for workers AND workers have to compete for jobs-- ie no big surpluses or shortages of jobs) wages will equal the value of the marginal productivity of services they provide, so wages are low because the marginal value of the work provided by each individual worker is low. Hence illegals are not just the lowest PAID workers, they are the lowest VALUE workers as well, when considered individually.

However, taken together the TOTAL value of the work accomplished may be very great. So what happens when you take away a large proportion of the menial laborers, who taken as a whole perform many necessary functions in the economy? Do those activities no longer get accomplished (no trash pick-up, no brush clearing, no painting, etc…)? No, of course not. Without a reliable pool of cheap cheap workers, early on firms might pull back on the level of services provided (the doom and gloom scenario --nobody picks up the trash--) but this means that the VALUE of those services increases, which will attract more capital to those industries which will push up the productivity of the workers that are still in those industries, and wages will increase. (AND, that capital is attracted AWAY from those industries where it is having the least impact… ie from industries where it will have the least impact on labor productivity to have a little bit less investment)

Productivity of the economy on the whole (as measured by the average productivity of labor) increases.

[Drbio]

wait a minute here....mavdog wrong about something??????

shocker.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

You are definitely wrong about the productivity side, productivity would rise: if you take away the lowest-wage workers you are taking away the least productive workers in the economy and the average productivity of workers will rise.

In a market equilibrium (where employers have to compete for workers AND workers have to compete for jobs-- ie no big surpluses or shortages of jobs) wages will equal the value of the marginal productivity of services they provide, so wages are low because the marginal value of the work provided by each individual worker is low. Hence illegals are not just the lowest PAID workers, they are the lowest VALUE workers as well, when considered individually.

However, taken together the TOTAL value of the work accomplished may be very great. So what happens when you take away a large proportion of the menial laborers, who taken as a whole perform many necessary functions in the economy? Do those activities no longer get accomplished (no trash pick-up, no brush clearing, no painting, etc…)? No, of course not. Without a reliable pool of cheap cheap workers, early on firms might pull back on the level of services provided (the doom and gloom scenario --nobody picks up the trash--) but this means that the VALUE of those services increases, which will attract more capital to those industries which will push up the productivity of the workers that are still in those industries, and wages will increase. (AND, that capital is attracted AWAY from those industries where it is having the least impact… ie from industries where it will have the least impact on labor productivity to have a little bit less investment)

Productivity of the economy on the whole (as measured by the average productivity of labor) increases.

what leads you to believe that the "lowest wage workers" will not be replaced? there remains the demand for these manuel labor jobs, and they will be filled, albeit by workers at a higher per unit cost.

so nothing is going to be "tak[en] away".

these are jobs that have no true job skills other than physical health. with no substantial requirements/barriers to entry of the worker, the pool of workers is incredibly vast.

they are just not motivated.

the factor that suggests a decrease in productivity is simple. the workers who will be employed as laborers lack the work ethic the immigrants have.

[kg_veteran]

I'm not a huge fan of Paul Krugman, and I don't agree with every single thing he says in this column, but he gets a lot of things right:

We've got a moral duty
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
DenverPost.com


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," wrote Emma Lazarus, in a poem that still puts a lump in my throat. I'm proud of America's immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.

In other words, I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration.

But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.

First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.

Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration - especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst- paid Americans.

The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays - and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should - and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came." Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.

Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.

We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a "modest role" in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: The disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.

But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it? Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.

Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests - legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care - is simply immoral.

Meanwhile, Bush's plan for a "guest worker" program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who'd love to have a low-wage work force that couldn't vote. Not only is it deeply un-American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.

What about a guest-worker program that includes a clearer route to citizenship? I'd still be careful. Whatever the bill's intentions, it could all too easily end up having the same effect as the Bush plan in practice - that is, it could create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers.

We need to do something about immigration, and soon. But I'd rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays our moral and democratic principles.

[kg_veteran]

In an effort to present all sides of the debate:

Honoring squatters' rights

link

A striking feature of Anglo-American property law is that one can acquire good title to land by trespassing on it for long enough. In seeking to explain this doctrine of "adverse possession" - which goes back to the 13th century - Oliver Wendell Holmes made an acute point about the relationship between legal rules and human psychology.

"I should suggest," Holmes wrote, "that the foundation of the acquisition of rights by lapse of time is to be looked for in the position of the person who gains them. The connection is further back than the first recorded history. It is in the nature of man's mind. A thing which you have enjoyed and used as your own for a long time, whether property or an opinion, takes root in your being and cannot be torn away without your resenting the act and trying to defend yourself, however you came by it. The law can ask no better justification than the deepest instincts of man."

In downtown Denver this past Saturday I saw 50,000 people illustrate Holmes' point. This immense crowd was only one-tenth as large as that which gathered in Los Angeles to protest a bill that would, among other things, transform anyone in the United States without proper documentation into a felon. Gazing at that sea of brown faces, I got a certain grim amusement from the thought of the panic that these gatherings must produce in the likes of Rep. Tom Tancredo and other demagogues who have been exploiting anxieties about illegal immigration.

After the rally, I spent nearly two hours listening to animated Spanish-language conversations between various participants. Most had come from Mexico, although a few were from Central America. Some had overstayed visas, while others had entered the country illegally. Without exception, all these people worked full-time jobs, and many had more than one. They were construction workers, cooks, landscapers and housekeepers. Several were taking English classes in what spare time they had.

I spoke with a married couple who came to Denver from Mexico City seven years ago. Now in their mid-40s, with two teenage children, Carlos and Maria (not their real names) were middle-class Mexicans who found it increasingly difficult to do more than feed themselves and their children in Mexico's broken economy. Carlos had been an engineer for a large computer company that downsized him when it merged with an American firm. Maria had been trained as a laboratory technician, but until Carlos lost his job she was a housewife.

Desperate for work, they headed north. Carlos now changes tires for a trucking firm, while Maria cleans Cherry Creek's elegant houses. Both pay income and Social Security taxes. They would like their children to go to college in America, but realize this will be difficult if not impossible without some change in their legal status.

There are no simple answers to the dilemma created by our collective willingness to allow Carlos and Maria, and millions of others like them, to build our buildings and cook our food and trim our gardens and raise our children. The longer such people stay in this country, the longer they feel - and with justification - that they belong here.

It is true they have broken the law. But, as Holmes points out, laws that we allow to be broken for long enough cease to have any moral or practical force - especially when we have indulged in such negligence to our advantage.

Indeed, the origins of all legal rights become suspect if one examines them too closely. For example, those in the immigration debate who prattle about the sanctity of the rule of law ought to consider how throughout our history the spoils of war have been transformed almost instantly into "property rights," by immigrant conquerors wishing to give their conquests a more respectable name.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado.

[kg_veteran]

And an article that gets it exactly right. Thomas Sowell is greatness:

March 28, 2006
Guests or Gate Crashers?
By Thomas Sowell

link

Immigration is yet another issue which we seem unable to discuss rationally -- in part because words have been twisted beyond recognition in political rhetoric.

We can't even call illegal immigrants "illegal immigrants." The politically correct evasion is "undocumented workers."

Do American citizens go around carrying documents with them when they work or apply for work? Most Americans are undocumented workers but they are not illegal immigrants. There is a difference.

The Bush administration is pushing a program to legalize "guest workers." But what is a guest? Someone you have invited. People who force their way into your home without your permission are called gate crashers.

If truth-in-packaging laws applied to politics, the Bush guest worker program would have to be called a "gate-crasher worker" program. The President's proposal would solve the problem of illegal immigration by legalizing it after the fact.

We could solve the problem of all illegal activity anywhere by legalizing it. Why use this approach only with immigration? Why should any of us pay a speeding ticket if immigration scofflaws are legalized after the fact for committing a federal crime?

Most of the arguments for not enforcing our immigration laws are exercises in frivolous rhetoric and slippery sophistry, rather than serious arguments that will stand up under scrutiny.

How often have we heard that illegal immigrants "take jobs that Americans will not do"? What is missing in this argument is what is crucial in any economic argument: price.

Americans will not take many jobs at their current pay levels -- and those pay levels will not rise so long as poverty-stricken immigrants are willing to take those jobs.

If Mexican journalists were flooding into the United States and taking jobs as reporters and editors at half the pay being earned by American reporters and editors, maybe people in the media would understand why the argument about "taking jobs that Americans don't want" is such nonsense.

Another variation on the same theme is that we "need" the millions of illegal aliens already in the United States. "Need" is another word that blithely ignores prices.

If jet planes were on sale for a thousand dollars each, I would probably "need" a couple of them -- an extra one to fly when the first one needed repair or maintenance. But since these planes cost millions of dollars, I don't even "need" one.

There is no fixed amount of "need," independently of prices, whether with planes or workers.

None of the rhetoric and sophistry that we hear about immigration deals with the plain and ugly reality: Politicians are afraid of losing the Hispanic vote and businesses want cheap labor.

What millions of other Americans want has been brushed aside, as if they don't count, and they have been soothed with pious words. But now the voters are getting fed up, which is why there are immigration bills in Congress.

The old inevitability ploy is often trotted out in immigration debates: It is not possible to either keep out illegal immigrants or to expel the ones already here.

If you mean stopping every single illegal immigrant from getting in or expelling every single illegal immigrant who is already here, that may well be true. But does the fact that we cannot prevent every single murder cause us to stop enforcing the laws against murder?

Since existing immigration laws are not being enforced, how can anyone say that it would not do any good to try? People who get caught illegally crossing the border into the United States pay no penalty whatever. They are sent back home and can try again.

What if bank robbers who were caught were simply told to give the money back and not do it again? What if murderers who were caught were turned loose and warned not to kill again? Would that be proof that it is futile to take action, when no action was taken?

Let's hope the immigration bills before Congress can at least get an honest debate, instead of the word games we have been hearing for too long.

[Jeremiah]

...

[MavKikiNYC]

Is Sowell advocating an increase in the minimum wage, so that the jobs Americans will not do would become jobs they MIGHT do at the right price? Do conservative commemtators like Sowell see reducing immigration as a way of putting Americans to work (albeit at low paid jobs) thereby reducing welfare expenditures? If so, why not say so explicitly?

What measures would Sowell suggest as penalites for undocumented workers/illegal immigrants found to be working and residing in this country? Imprisonment? If that's what he suggests, why doesn't he say so explicitly?

If Sowell can suggest that politicians (Democrat AND Republican truth be told) fear losing the Hispanic vote, could someone else not posit that Far Right politicians and commentators fear the votes of those who might vote differently than they? If so, why not say so explicitly?

[sixeightmkw]

with no immigrants, the prices of houses will increase dramatically as will many other goods and services we pay for these days.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

And an article that gets it exactly right. Thomas Sowell is greatness:

In my opinion, the Krugman articale was ahellava lot better than the Sowell one.

[Mavdog]

Sowell is an interesting writer to look at in respect to the immigration issue due to Sowell being a trained economist. If I'm not mistaken I recall he did his work in labor economics and the role of race in wages.

I do see a tinge of racial influence in Sowell's opinions on immigration however.

here's an August '05 column. He uses some of the same ideas for the one posted by kg:

Immigration taboos
By Thomas Sowell

Aug 16, 2005

Immigration has joined the long list of subjects on which it is taboo to talk sense in plain English. At the heart of much confusion about immigration is the notion that we "need" immigrants -- legal or illegal -- to do work that Americans won't do.

What we "need" depends on what it costs and what we are willing to pay. If I were a billionaire, I might "need" my own private jet. But I can remember a time when my family didn't even "need" electricity.

Leaving prices out of the picture is probably the source of more fallacies in economics than any other single misconception. At current wages for low-level jobs and current levels of welfare, there are indeed many jobs that Americans will not take.

The fact that immigrants -- and especially illegal immigrants -- will take those jobs is the very reason the wage levels will not rise enough to attract Americans.

This is not rocket science. It is elementary supply and demand. Yet we continue to hear about the "need" for immigrants to do jobs that Americans will not do -- even though these are all jobs that Americans have done for generations before mass illegal immigration became a way of life.

There is more to this issue than economics. The same mindless substitution of rhetoric for thinking that prevails on economic issues also prevails on other aspects of immigration.

Bombings in London, Madrid and the 9/11 terrorist attacks here are all part of the high price being paid today for decades of importing human time bombs from the Arab world. That in turn has been the fruit of an unwillingness to filter out people according to the countries they come from.

That squeamishness is still with us today, as shown by all the hand-wringing about "profiling" Middle Eastern airline passengers.

No doubt most Middle Eastern airline passengers are not carrying any weapons or any bombs -- and wouldn't be, even if there were no airport security to go through. But it is also true that most of the time you will not be harmed by playing Russian roulette.

Europeans and Americans have for decades been playing Russian roulette with their loose immigration policies. The intelligentsia have told us that it would be wrong, and even racist, to set limits based on where the immigrants come from.

There are thousands of Americans who might still be alive if we had banned immigration from Saudi Arabia -- and perhaps that might be more important than the rhetoric of the intelligentsia.

In that rhetoric, all differences between peoples are magically transformed into mere "stereotypes" and "perceptions."

This blithely ignores hard data showing, for example, that people who come here from some countries are ten times more likely to go on welfare as people from some other countries.

The media and the intelligentsia love to say that most immigrants, from whatever group, are good people. But what "most" people from a given country are like is irrelevant.

If 85 percent of group A are fine people and 95 percent of group B are fine people, that means you are going to be importing three times as many undesirables when you let in people from Group A.

Citizen-of-the-world types are resistant to the idea of tightening our borders, and especially resistant to the idea of making a distinction between people from different countries. But the real problem is not their self-righteous fetishes but the fact that they have intimidated so many other people into silence.

In the current climate of political correctness it is taboo even to mention facts that go against the rosy picture of immigrants -- for example, the fact that Russia and Nigeria are always listed among the most corrupt countries on earth, and that Russian and Nigerian immigrants in the United States have already established patterns of crime well known to law enforcement but kept from the public by the mainstream media.

Self-preservation used to be called the first law of nature. But today self-preservation has been superseded by a need to preserve the prevailing rhetoric and visions. Immigration is just one of the things we can no longer discuss rationally as a result.

and btw, adverse possession has a stipulation that if the owner of the property notifies the occupant of the property they have the owners permission to use it, there can be no adverse possession. I think the illegal immigrants know they are here "with permission" as it were.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

I've a couple of quick thoughts.

First, on Krugman's article, I think that it is appropriate to say that there are jobs that Americans won't do. He's right to say that it can or should be qualified with the wage, but that's an ingredient in any job someone applies for. I won't serve coffee at the local coffee shop or bag groceries, because it doesn't pay enough. But I will if I can't find another job, but that won't happen until I've exhausted all my connections, I've taken out school loans to attend more school and become more skilled, and I've run out of all the welfare from the government, the family, the friends and the NGOs that are willing to give it to me. That hasn't been extinguished for some. We all put a price on our worth, that's why it's called work. I'll play for free, but I work for pay.

You're comparing apples to oranges. You wouldn't serve coffee or bag groceries because you are not an unskilled laborer.

The point, which both Krugman and Sowell correctly make, is that the only reason Americans "won't do" certain jobs is because illegal immigrant workers push down the price of labor.

Second on Sowell's argument, it's disingenuous to describe an illegal immigrant a criminal. There is no penal consequences of being in the US without legal status. No liberty is taken away. What does happen is deportation. But nobody goes to jail.

I think that's his argument. It IS against the law to enter the country illegally (thus the term "illegal"), but there is no real consequence, and therefore no disincentive which would be necessary to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

Third, on Sowell's argument, he must be forgetting what it was like to apply for a job, because last I checked, employers ask for documentation, i.e., social security cards and driver's licenses. Perhaps in the domestic worker, construction, agricultural worker setting they don't, but if they want to obey the law, they will ask for the documentation.

Well, I think that was a weak attempt at humor by Sowell, but you're really arguing semantics there. I think it is true that a lot of the blame falls on the employers for not complying with the law and on the government for not cracking down on employers who are violating the law.

Krugman makes a good argument that appeals to me. It's hard for me to on the one hand be in favor of immigration and on the other know that millions of Americans that don't have healthcare and go to State hospitals are waiting in line with illegal immigrants.

One fact missing from these articles, is the supreme difficulty in obtaining legal status for those from countries like Mexico, or China, countries that have perhaps, an over representation here. Only certain relatives can sponsor a person for immigration, and their wait can be 10 years or more. That doesn't mean that it is an excuse to be here without legal status, but it's something I consider when I think about immigration.

Krugman is right in pointing out that illegal immigrants are putting a serious strain on our system of public welfare.

Re: the difficulty in obtaining legal status, I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe there is any right for foreigners to come and take up residence here.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what leads you to believe that the "lowest wage workers" will not be replaced? there remains the demand for these manuel labor jobs, and they will be filled, albeit by workers at a higher per unit cost.

so nothing is going to be "tak[en] away".

these are jobs that have no true job skills other than physical health. with no substantial requirements/barriers to entry of the worker, the pool of workers is incredibly vast.

they are just not motivated.

the factor that suggests a decrease in productivity is simple. the workers who will be employed as laborers lack the work ethic the immigrants have.

If I can boil down your argument I think it would be (corect me if I'm wrong):

"American productivity would go down if we kicked out the immigrants because Indiginous-Americans are lazier."

Now, I assume you are limiting that laziness label to the "unskilled" Americans that would be filling most of the positions vacated by the kicked out aliens. Even if that is the case,then two points:

(A) that is a pretty broad brush you are painting with, think what it would sound like if you tried to paint the other direction: "Mexicans get paid less because they are lazy" I know that you in fact said the opposite, but using race or nationality as an indicator of level of laziness is an exercise fraught with landmines.

(B) assuming your thesis is correct, and that all the positions vacated by illegals would be filled, but by Americans that are lazier (and thus less productive) than the workers they replaced... then the implication from that scenario is that the current wage for unskilled labor is not too low for americans to accept the work available, it is actually too high for american firms to accept the level of effort that wage will buy from american workers!

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

Sowell is an interesting writer to look at in respect to the immigration issue due to Sowell being a trained economist. If I'm not mistaken I recall he did his work in labor economics and the role of race in wages.

I do see a tinge of racial influence in Sowell's opinions on immigration however.

here's an August '05 column. He uses some of the same ideas for the one posted by kg:


and btw, adverse possession has a stipulation that if the owner of the property notifies the occupant of the property they have the owners permission to use it, there can be no adverse possession. I think the illegal immigrants know they are here "with permission" as it were.

Krugman is not just a trained economist, but will lalmost certainly earn the Nobel prize in Economics before he dies for the contributions he has already made to the field.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Is Sowell advocating an increase in the minimum wage, so that the jobs Americans will not do would become jobs they MIGHT do at the right price? Do conservative commemtators like Sowell see reducing immigration as a way of putting Americans to work (albeit at low paid jobs) thereby reducing welfare expenditures? If so, why not say so explicitly?

I think he's simply pointing out the obvious: cheap, unskilled immigrant labor drives the overall price of unskilled labor down. As such, if you removed the unskilled illegal immigrant labor from the equation, the overall price of unskilled labor would rise. I don't think he's advocating an increase in minimum wage. It sounds to me like he's pointing out that the market would operate to increase wages.

As for the argument that reducing immigration would also reduce welfare expenditures, I don't see Sowell making that argument, at least not in this article.

One thing we do need to acknowledge, however, is this: Those folks that perform unskilled labor are going to be working in low paid jobs (relative to the median wage for all workers) as long as they are doing unskilled labor.

What measures would Sowell suggest as penalites for undocumented workers/illegal immigrants found to be working and residing in this country? Imprisonment? If that's what he suggests, why doesn't he say so explicitly?

Good question, but my guess is probably because he had a limit on the length of his column. That said, surely you'd agree with the premise that immigrations laws are toothless if deportation is the only consequence.

If Sowell can suggest that politicians (Democrat AND Republican truth be told) fear losing the Hispanic vote, could someone else not posit that Far Right politicians and commentators fear the votes of those who might vote differently than they? If so, why not say so explicitly?

I think Sowell is indicting both Democratic and Republican politicians with his comments. As for the comment about Far Right politicians, I think it is fair for you to say that some of the pro-business interests would love to have a cheap labor force that couldn't vote (read: guest workers). That's exactly what Krugman suggested.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Krugman is not just a trained economist, but will lalmost certainly earn the Nobel prize in Economics before he dies for the contributions he has already made to the field.

Sowell is one of the greatest thinkers in America today. Krugman is undoubtedly a talented economist, but he is not Sowell's equal (your feelings regarding the columns above notwithstanding).

[kg_veteran]

and btw, adverse possession has a stipulation that if the owner of the property notifies the occupant of the property they have the owners permission to use it, there can be no adverse possession. I think the illegal immigrants know they are here "with permission" as it were.

In view of how the government enforces immigration laws, you have a pretty decent argument there.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

If I can boil down your argument I think it would be (corect me if I'm wrong):

"American productivity would go down if we kicked out the immigrants because Indiginous-Americans are lazier."

Now, I assume you are limiting that laziness label to the "unskilled" Americans that would be filling most of the positions vacated by the kicked out aliens. Even if that is the case,then two points:

(A) that is a pretty broad brush you are painting with, think what it would sound like if you tried to paint the other direction: "Mexicans get paid less because they are lazy" I know that you in fact said the opposite, but using race or nationality as an indicator of level of laziness is an exercise fraught with landmines.

(B) assuming your thesis is correct, and that all the positions vacated by illegals would be filled, but by Americans that are lazier (and thus less productive) than the workers they replaced... then the implication from that scenario is that the current wage for unskilled labor is not too low for americans to accept the work available, it is actually too high for american firms to accept the level of effort that wage will buy from american workers!

I would actually not say "Indiginous-Americans are lazier", I would say that the pool of unemployed or underemployed americans are less motivated than the immigrant population. that is easily validated by the great amount of effort it takes for these immigrants to merely get to america.

this point isn't specific to any one race, or to any one nationality.

as for your second point, no, the businesses hiring the less productive worker will continue to hire that worker due to lack of alternatives. they will merely adjust their pricing to reflect the higher cost the less motivated/less productive worker is given.

long and short: cut off the flow of immigrants into america and our economy will suffer negatively. labor costs will increase while per employee productivity will decrease.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Sowell is one of the greatest thinkers in America today. Krugman is undoubtedly a talented economist, but he is not Sowell's equal (your feelings regarding the columns above notwithstanding).

No, you are correct. They are not equal. Krugman is unquestionably intelectually superior.

He was one of the 5 most influential economists in the world before he shifted his efforts to the editorial pages. People only view the current role he has taken of devoting around 90% of his efforts to bash the Bush administration, but he has much much more on his resume. Krugman's academic papers have been single handedly created several whole fields of economic analysis.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

No, you are correct. They are not equal. Krugman is unquestionably intelectually superior.

He was one of the 5 most influential economists in the world before he shifted his efforts to the editorial pages. People only view the current role he has taken of devoting around 90% of his efforts to bash the Bush administration, but he has much much more on his resume. Krugman's academic papers have been single handedly created several whole fields of economic analysis.

In your opinion. I would beg to differ.

[Jeremiah]

...

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

Are they really pushing down the price of labor or is industry pushing down the price of labor by setting the wage? Who do you think negotiates the wage at these jobs? It is certainly not the employee.

The fact that they are able to come across the border as a mass workforce changes the makeup of the pool of potential employees. It infuses that pool with a high number of people who are willing to work for less because they are more desperate for the money. So, their presence drives down the price of labor.

It's something that happens at the system level, not the individual level of Jose saying, "I'll work for $3.50 an hour and not a penny more."

[Jeremiah]

...

[Jeremiah]

...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

The fact that they are able to come across the border as a mass workforce changes the makeup of the pool of potential employees. It infuses that pool with a high number of people who are willing to work for less because they are more desperate for the money. So, their presence drives down the price of labor.

It's something that happens at the system level, not the individual level of Jose saying, "I'll work for $3.50 an hour and not a penny more."