Just about a month ago, in an attempt to provoke thought, we had a little fun with a current hot topic in an article entitled 'Fixing the Immigration Problem in Three Steps or Less.' It seems that we have accomplished our mission and more; that piece has provoked thought as well as one response worthy of its own posting.
Though we disagree with the idea that eliminating illegal labor will have as great an impact on the unemployment rate as our anonymous reader (the increase in wages to the legal minimum will almost certainly mean less overall workers employed, an example from one plant notwithstanding) we do think there are some very interesting points here. Therefore, without further ado, and with no editing (save the addition of links where the reader gave webpage addresses), is a response to our earlier post:
I don't know that everyone can accept #2. I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but 45-year-old white men are not the only unemployed workers. Legal (immigrant and not), unskilled workers are also competing with illegal, unskilled workers.
A few articles from WSJ (no fan of regulation of labor markets they) make the point better than I can. First, an example of non-immigrant workers fighting for jobs sought by immigrants (legal and illegal) is here.
This quote: "This is the worst job I have ever applied for," sums up the level of desperation out there right now. I think you may be underestimating the number of 45-year-old white males willing to work in jobs now favored by illegals.
A second example and a slightly different point comes from GA. The article is republished on the Post-Gazette's website (WSJ's is behind a paywall): in Stillmore, GA, a federal immigration raid that eliminated 75% of the workforce at a plant didn't close the plant. Instead, the plant raised wages by more than a dollar an hour to attract legal workers.
The result of eliminating illegal labor wasn't the elimination of a job, it was raising pay to a level where legal workers wanted the job. (It may also bear noting that most of the local unemployed in Stillmore were African-American, a demographic historically hit harder by rising unemployment). You made the point in your post, and I agree, that in full employment, we'd care more about cheap chicken.
But a one-time 13% labor cost increase, while inflationary, is probably better than extended unemployment of 10%, which we now face. For the unemployed, the choice is easy: pay that's worth 13% less, or nothing. Choice one is 87% better. (Of course, this exaggerates the inflationary impact, as many jobs will not see increased pay, and in fact high unemployment usually sees decreased pay. My point is that even the exaggerated choice is appealing to the unemployed.)
Illegal labor is vital during labor scarcity. But in times of a labor surplus, it artificially holds wages below a level that legal workers will accept and deflates the value of their work. Of the available means of fighting inflation, forcing people to accept a less-than-livable wage, legal or illegal, is the least attractive.
Though we disagree with the idea that eliminating illegal labor will have as great an impact on the unemployment rate as our anonymous reader (the increase in wages to the legal minimum will almost certainly mean less overall workers employed, an example from one plant notwithstanding) we do think there are some very interesting points here. Therefore, without further ado, and with no editing (save the addition of links where the reader gave webpage addresses), is a response to our earlier post:
I don't know that everyone can accept #2. I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but 45-year-old white men are not the only unemployed workers. Legal (immigrant and not), unskilled workers are also competing with illegal, unskilled workers.
A few articles from WSJ (no fan of regulation of labor markets they) make the point better than I can. First, an example of non-immigrant workers fighting for jobs sought by immigrants (legal and illegal) is here.
This quote: "This is the worst job I have ever applied for," sums up the level of desperation out there right now. I think you may be underestimating the number of 45-year-old white males willing to work in jobs now favored by illegals.
A second example and a slightly different point comes from GA. The article is republished on the Post-Gazette's website (WSJ's is behind a paywall): in Stillmore, GA, a federal immigration raid that eliminated 75% of the workforce at a plant didn't close the plant. Instead, the plant raised wages by more than a dollar an hour to attract legal workers.
The result of eliminating illegal labor wasn't the elimination of a job, it was raising pay to a level where legal workers wanted the job. (It may also bear noting that most of the local unemployed in Stillmore were African-American, a demographic historically hit harder by rising unemployment). You made the point in your post, and I agree, that in full employment, we'd care more about cheap chicken.
But a one-time 13% labor cost increase, while inflationary, is probably better than extended unemployment of 10%, which we now face. For the unemployed, the choice is easy: pay that's worth 13% less, or nothing. Choice one is 87% better. (Of course, this exaggerates the inflationary impact, as many jobs will not see increased pay, and in fact high unemployment usually sees decreased pay. My point is that even the exaggerated choice is appealing to the unemployed.)
Illegal labor is vital during labor scarcity. But in times of a labor surplus, it artificially holds wages below a level that legal workers will accept and deflates the value of their work. Of the available means of fighting inflation, forcing people to accept a less-than-livable wage, legal or illegal, is the least attractive.
No comments:
Post a Comment