"Jobs americans won't take."

[alphamale]

A staple of the pro-illegal alien chorus is that illegal aliens do jobs americans won't do. Wrong. Like, the chicken factory farms will go unmanned, and american carnivores will go without chicken? Dishes won't be washed and hotel rooms won't be cleaned in LA hotels? Produce won't be harvested and we'll all starve? Absurd. The wages for all those jobs will rise until someone takes them, in the absence of illegal aliens - but one shouldn't expect liberals to understand the market. Just like morality, they think it's something that doesn't exist.

[lisarea]

I was just arguing this exact point to a bunch of left wing looneys last week or thereabouts.

It's you and me against the world, alphamale.

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by alphamale

A staple of the pro-illegal alien chorus is that illegal aliens do jobs americans won't do. Wrong. Like, the chicken factory farms will go unmanned, and american carnivores will go without chicken? Dishes won't be washed and hotel rooms won't be cleaned in LA hotels? Produce won't be harvested and we'll all starve? Absurd. The wages for all those jobs will rise until someone takes them, in the absence of illegal aliens - but one shouldn't expect liberals to understand the market. Just like morality, they think it's something that doesn't exist.

You are probably right regarding the projected change in the wage structure. However, there will be a concomitant decrease in the demand for labor (You do know there are two curves in the graph, right? ). In the end, however, I suspect there would be an net increase in the transfer of assets from those with capital to those with labor.

The problem with implementing your scenario, however, is that those with capital have no interest at all in having any of those assets transferred. They are capitalists in word, not in deed. They are not willing to pay market value for labor.

Why do we have such a fucked up immigration system in this country? it is because those with capital--mostly owners of agricultural land in California and Texas--continue to hire low wage workers. If you want to significantly decrease illegal immigration, impose jail time on the farmers in the Central Valley who hire illegal immigrants. Send the board of directors of Tyson to the federal pen for ten years. Forfeit their assets. If we are going to criminalize immigration, it makes sense to delcare those who benefit from it to be criminals.

You with me?

[Jesus Christ]

Right now, illegals are taking the jobs that Americans don't want. With the decline of unions, wages for shitty jobs (like chicken processing, a really, really, really shitty job) fell significantly. The work sucks for the wage, and rather badly. That's the reason that there are jobs that Americans don't really want, but immigrants will eat up.

Yes, if illegals stop taking the jobs, then the wages will increase to attract more workers--but so will prices, even though the profit margin is already pretty high. And, to be honest with you, not very many people would like that.

[michael1111]

im not a big fan of countries in general, being a big dumb idealist, but if youre gonna go that route, i gotta agree. it stands to reason that you take care of your own first and you do what it takes to stop jobs from going to people from outside your own country.

as a humanist, the only aliens i could believe in are the ones in outer space. that would make me a silly humanist.

michael

[lisarea]

The fact that Americans aren't willing to work certain jobs for the wages being offered is the market telling employers what it'll bear and what it won't.

The whole free market argument falls flat on its face when you have to import people from an entirely different economy to take your jobs. Of course poor Mexicans are willing to work for less than Americans. Those wages can actually feed and house a family in Mexico.

Of course people won't like having to pay more for things, but that's when they get to decide what's worth it and what's not, all free marketplace style. We Americans don't pay enough for lots of things--food, gasoline, basic clothing, maintenance. Of course people would whine if all of a sudden, they had to pay more, but eventually, the market would regulate itself and decide what it can bear and what it can't.

All too often, the employers and interests that raise the biggest arguments about these "jobs Americans won't take" are the same guys who, out of the other side of their mouths, argue against the minimum wage, price controls, and all that other shit, because they say the market will regulate it.

If Americans rejecting the jobs you're offering at the wages you're paying isn't the invisible hand of the market guiding you, what the fuck is?

[Citizen of Earth]

Originally Posted by CaDan

Why do we have such a fucked up immigration system in this country? it is because those with capital--mostly owners of agricultural land in California and Texas--continue to hire low wage workers. If you want to significantly decrease illegal immigration, impose jail time on the farmers in the Central Valley who hire illegal immigrants. Send the board of directors of Tyson to the federal pen for ten years. Forfeit their assets. If we are going to criminalize immigration, it makes sense to delcare those who benefit from it to be criminals.

You with me?

Yep. You hit the hail on the head.

But:

The problem is that the higher up you go, it gets harder and harder to differeniate between the cops and the robbers. Remember that these big capitalists also wield enormous political clout, which means they can influence favorable policy or even arrange a "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

[alphamale]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by CaDan

You are probably right regarding the projected change in the wage structure. However, there will be a concomitant decrease in the demand for labor (You do know there are two curves in the graph, right? ). In the end, however, I suspect there would be an net increase in the transfer of assets from those with capital to those with labor.

Of course the demand for labor will decrease for those jobs, but if the workers who are hired to do them are citizens, then citizen employment will increase.

The problem with implementing your scenario, however, is that those with capital have no interest at all in having any of those assets transferred. They are capitalists in word, not in deed. They are not willing to pay market value for labor.

I don't understand - then eg Tyson will just throw up his hands and say - "Well, we're going out of business"?

Why do we have such a fucked up immigration system in this country? it is because those with capital--mostly owners of agricultural land in California and Texas--continue to hire low wage workers. If you want to significantly decrease illegal immigration, impose jail time on the farmers in the Central Valley who hire illegal immigrants. Send the board of directors of Tyson to the federal pen for ten years. Forfeit their assets. If we are going to criminalize immigration, it makes sense to delcare those who benefit from it to be criminals.

I've already called for 20 year terms. Include in your list the limousine liberals, like in Hollywood, who like lots of cheap hired help and don't pay their social security taxes.

You with me?

Sounds like it. Also we need a serious fence at the border, AND a legal mandate for police to arrest illegals and turn them over to the INS.

[alphamale]

That was a rather incoherent post, but I'll do my best.

Originally Posted by lisarea

The fact that Americans aren't willing to work certain jobs for the wages being offered is the market telling employers what it'll bear and what it won't.

That's true, but only while illegal aliens from mexico are within our borders.

The whole free market argument falls flat on its face when you have to import people from an entirely different economy to take your jobs.

We don't HAVE to import people.

Of course people won't like having to pay more for things, but that's when they get to decide what's worth it and what's not, all free marketplace style. We Americans don't pay enough for lots of things--food, gasoline, basic clothing, maintenance. Of course people would whine if all of a sudden, they had to pay more, but eventually, the market would regulate itself and decide what it can bear and what it can't.

Well sure we'll have to pay more, but we'll get it back from what illegals drain out of the country by not paying taxes and using free to them government services. One can frequently get goods and services cheap by using illegal means, eg buying a stolen television set - same with hiring illegal aliens - so what?

All too often, the employers and interests that raise the biggest arguments about these "jobs Americans won't take" are the same guys who, out of the other side of their mouths, argue against the minimum wage, price controls, and all that other shit, because they say the market will regulate it.

Minimum wage, like illegal aliens, is another thing that reduces employment for citizens, and often the ones who can least afford to be unemployed.

[alphamale]

The problem is that the higher up you go, it gets harder and harder to differeniate between the cops and the robbers. Remember that these big capitalists also wield enormous political clout, which means they can influence favorable policy or even arrange a "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

Let's not pretend it's just big capitalists - it's also very much big liberal pols who make the assumption that the illegals will become democrat voters.

[fragment]

Isn't preventing labour from crossing borders basically protectionism? In a globalised marketplace, all other goods and services are transferred freely across borders. To put limits on labour doing the same seems a bit, well, socialist, if you ask me.

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Of course the demand for labor will decrease for those jobs, but if the workers who are hired to do them are citizens, then citizen employment will increase.

What I am getting at is that there will not be a 1:1 replacement. There will be a net decrease in the amount of jobs if each job costs more. Simple supply and demand curves.

Originally Posted by alphamale

I don't understand - then eg Tyson will just throw up his hands and say - "Well, we're going out of business"?

Simple demand curve analysis--if the marginal cost of something increases, one consumes less of it. Tyson will consume fewer labor resources if the marginal cost of each unit of the resource costs more.

Of course, there could be some offset by Tyson (for example) increasing the price of each unit of chicken produced, but that, in turn, would result in a decrease in numer of units of chicken sold. It's a pretty complex multi-variate analysis, and not always completely rational.

Originally Posted by alphamale

I've already called for 20 year terms. Include in your list the limousine liberals, like in Hollywood, who like lots of cheap hired help and don't pay their social security taxes.

Fine with me. Let's make the sentence dependent on the number of illegal workers hired. I fear you will find the prisons will soon be filled to capacity with fine, upstanding Texas and California farmers. Oh! And don't forget Haliburton's subcontractors for cleaning up New Orleans. To be fair, I think we should make sure the "subcontracting" defense is not available.

Originally Posted by alphamale

Sounds like it. Also we need a serious fence at the border, AND a legal mandate for police to arrest illegals and turn them over to the INS.

Which border? I don't want those icebacks sneaking across from Canada, either!

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by fragment

Isn't preventing labour from crossing borders basically protectionism? In a globalised marketplace, all other goods and services are transferred freely across borders. To put limits on labour doing the same seems a bit, well, socialist, if you ask me.

Shhh . . . Don't let on.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by fragment

Isn't preventing labour from crossing borders basically protectionism? In a globalised marketplace, all other goods and services are transferred freely across borders. To put limits on labour doing the same seems a bit, well, socialist, if you ask me.

I'm a lapsed libertarian, and I've argued with libertarians about this issue - they favor the free movement of labor. But to me this bears on what I call the "All or Nothing Principle" - I'm not interested in effecting parts of libertarian policy that benefit others, while retaining statist policies that hinder me. Illegal aliens suck up government services that I pay for in taxes, and they use hospital emergency rooms for ordinary medical problems and don't pay - the costs are shifted onto people who do pay and are reflected in high insurance premiums. State law requires this. Another result is that several trauma centers in LA county have gone bankrupt and closed. Make EVERYTHING based on free market principles, and then I'll agree to the free movement of labor.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by CaDan

What I am getting at is that there will not be a 1:1 replacement. There will be a net decrease in the amount of jobs if each job costs more. Simple supply and demand curves.

Simple demand curve analysis--if the marginal cost of something increases, one consumes less of it. Tyson will consume fewer labor resources if the marginal cost of each unit of the resource costs more.

Of course, there could be some offset by Tyson (for example) increasing the price of each unit of chicken produced, but that, in turn, would result in a decrease in numer of units of chicken sold. It's a pretty complex multi-variate analysis, and not always completely rational.

Fine with me. Let's make the sentence dependent on the number of illegal workers hired. I fear you will find the prisons will soon be filled to capacity with fine, upstanding Texas and California farmers. Oh! And don't forget Haliburton's subcontractors for cleaning up New Orleans. To be fair, I think we should make sure the "subcontracting" defense is not available.

Which border? I don't want those icebacks sneaking across from Canada, either!

You seem unable to understand the combination effect on employment of ending illegal aliens. Hypothetical example: Tyson has 100 illegal alien workers at a plant. All illegal aliens are removed from the country. Market price for labor goes up. Tyson automates some processes that were formerly manual at the plant, discontinues some lines, and hires only 30 workers. Net GAIN for U.S. citizens: 30 jobs.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by alphamale

That was a rather incoherent post, but I'll do my best.

Sssh. People will think we're in love.

Except that I'm kind of confused now, because it looks like you think I'm saying stuff I'm not saying.

To clarify, I am actually quite the protectionist. A regular Pat Buchanan, in fact. I genuinely don't see anything wrong with the general notion of a nation protecting its economic interests within reason.

That's true, but only while illegal aliens from mexico are within our borders.

That's my point. When we have to import foreign labor, we create an uneven playing field in which Americans cannot compete. It puts the lie to the motivations and sincerity of all too many free market evangelists.

Well sure we'll have to pay more, but we'll get it back from what illegals drain out of the country by not paying taxes and using free to them government services. One can frequently get goods and services cheap by using illegal means, eg buying a stolen television set - same with hiring illegal aliens - so what?

I honestly don't know what the net effect would be. I know there are those who use services without paying taxes, but there are also those who use fake SSNs and do pay taxes, but don't get benefits. I do know that those particular statistics are, for obvious reasons, going to be difficult to get our hands on.

I don't have much doubt that some of the net effect of paying American wages for American jobs is going to be higher prices for some things, and that maybe some goods and services will be deemed unnecessary.

I saw an article not long ago here, for example, where people in the 'hospitality' industry were bemoaning the fact that they couldn't find US citizens willing to accept their shit wages to go out into medians and to rip out and replace beds of annuals multiple times a year, so they had to hire undocumented people to do it. In cases like that, the jobs may well go away, and the American people will just have to soldier on, looking at the same landscaping in our medians for sometimes MONTHS at a time. But life is cruel. Sure, looking at tired landscaping will inevitably thin the herd, but eventually, it'll make us stronger as a people and a nation.

Minimum wage, like illegal aliens, is another thing that reduces employment for citizens, and often the ones who can least afford to be unemployed.

You've got an argument on that, and I do give you points for being consistent. Which I don't mean as sarcastically as that sounds.

IMO, though, power is too concentrated at this point, and to eliminate the basic economic protections we currently have in place would only serve to concentrate it further.

In a perfect, clean room utopia, I'd be willing to give it a shot without a minimum wage, probably. But not starting from where we are.

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by alphamale

You seem unable to understand the combination effect on employment of ending illegal aliens. Hypothetical example: Tyson has 100 illegal alien workers at a plant. All illegal aliens are removed from the country. Market price for labor goes up. Tyson automates some processes that were formerly manual at the plant, discontinues some lines, and hires only 30 workers. Net GAIN for U.S. citizens: 30 jobs.

I do understand it. I even have the econ degree to prove I took classes on it.

This increase in jobs for citizens comes at a cost to Tyson. It has been forced to increase its capital investment (by automating processes) and to pay more for each unit of labor. It substitutes these things for illegal workers in your scenario. What prevents it from substituting now? The cost of substituting is higher than the cost of hiring illegal workers.

What I am getting at is that it is not, as you sub rosa imply, "limousine liberals" who are importing workers. It is fine, upstanding American capitalists who are doing it. And their ability to influence US policy is why we have a strange patchwork mess of immigration laws.

[alphamale]

[QUOTE=CaDan]

Originally Posted by alphamale

You seem unable to understand the combination effect on employment of ending illegal aliens. Hypothetical example: Tyson has 100 illegal alien workers at a plant. All illegal aliens are removed from the country. Market price for labor goes up. Tyson automates some processes that were formerly manual at the plant, discontinues some lines, and hires only 30 workers. Net GAIN for U.S. citizens: 30 jobs.

I do understand it. I even have the econ degree to prove I took classes on it.

This increase in jobs for citizens comes at a cost to Tyson. It has been forced to increase its capital investment (by automating processes) and to pay more for each unit of labor. It substitutes these things for illegal workers in your scenario. What prevents it from substituting now? The cost of substituting is higher than the cost of hiring illegal workers.

Completely agree - don't think we have an argument.

What I am getting at is that it is not, as you sub rosa imply, "limousine liberals" who are importing workers. It is fine, upstanding American capitalists who are doing it. And their ability to influence US policy is why we have a strange patchwork mess of immigration laws.

I already agreed that they are part of it, but the other part has to do with cowardice of both parties' politicians to upset the hispanic vote, and the liberals presumption that illegal aliens will be eventually naturalized, possibly en masse, and will beome democrat voters - returning them to power.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by alphamale

You seem unable to understand the combination effect on employment of ending illegal aliens. Hypothetical example: Tyson has 100 illegal alien workers at a plant. All illegal aliens are removed from the country. Market price for labor goes up. Tyson automates some processes that were formerly manual at the plant, discontinues some lines, and hires only 30 workers. Net GAIN for U.S. citizens: 30 jobs.

Whoops... You missed a step there.

Hypothetical example: Tyson has 100 illegal alien workers at a plant. All illegal aliens are removed from the country. Market price for labor goes up. Tyson automates some processes that were formerly manual at the plant, discontinues some lines, disassembles the entire plant and moves it to Neuvo Laredo, and hires only 30 (Mexican) workers. Net GAIN for U.S. citizens: minus however many administrative jobs which were held by US citizens. Plus, all taxes on worker and capital income and property wealth are lost and public service costs are shifted to fewer people, necessitating a cut in road maintenance, fire protection and policing. Outcome: A net loss for everybody except the owners of capital.

Keep in mind that nowadays, it's becoming more likely that capital will move to cheap labor pools, rather than vice versa.

[Godwhacker]

Wasn't there just a study out in the news that said that 90% of the food in America has been picked/processed/packaged by an illegal immigrant? I'll have to dig for that one.

BTW, after watching a whole season of the show "Dirty Jobs", I don't think there really is any job an American won't take.

[Citizen of Earth]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Let's not pretend it's just big capitalists - it's also very much big liberal pols who make the assumption that the illegals will become democrat voters.

While I agree that it may be something of a "bonus" to them, liberal politicians have the same agenda as conservative politicians--both are agents of big capital. I see little difference between the two camps in terms of meaningful issues--what we have are the Tweedle-libs and the Tweedle-cons.

Whichever camp is currently in power defends capitalism on capitalism's terms, and the other camp attacks capitalism on capitalism's terms.

If I found that I had a good chance of getting a job in, say, Canada, that paid $100 per hour, you'd bet I'd immigrate illegally.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by alphamale

A staple of the pro-illegal alien chorus is that illegal aliens do jobs americans won't do. Wrong.

Well argued and, in my humble estimation, absolutely correct. I salute you, sir.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Citizen of Earth

If I found that I had a good chance of getting a job in, say, Canada, that paid $100 per hour, you'd bet I'd immigrate illegally.

In Canadian or USer currency?