All Hank, all the time.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You might enjoy a class in basic economics. If illegal immigrants weren't around to take these jobs at the present wages offered, wages would go up to the point at which Americans laborers were willing to fill the jobs.

Or the jobs wouldn't get done, and you'd clean your own damn office, you slob.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You're right - I'm going to outsource all the office cleaning to India right away.

And I'm sending the grease-traps to China.

Those jobs are already done by legal immigrants. The cleaning people in my last four jobs look like a cross section of people from a UN assembly. Joe Six Pack American Complainer isn't going to get - and frankly, doesn't want to perform - a cleaning services gig for $8/hr.

Cut through all the bullshit and get to the meat of the argument here. A whole lot of American workers who don't have skills want to get paid a lot and can't compete with foreigners, so they want laws enacted sticking it to businessmen and hard working immigrants. Thats what this dispute is - people who can't survive are trying to work a wealth redistribution scheme against business and people from other countries who desperately want to come here and make a better life for themselves.

Call me nuts, but I say give the ambitious foreigner a chance, and don't fuck business because workers didn't see the writing on the wall years ago. That you didn't take the time to enlighten yourself to the fact that your job was not secure in an emerging world economy is not an immigrant's or your boss' fault. If you think its unfair that your CEO downsized you and paid himself handosmely, go hire yourself a Lerach and sue him.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think any of what you say in the first paragraph is correct (well, maybe teh first sentence). Americans are comfortable with legal immigration only because it allows only certain favored nations' immigrants and educated people who can fill good jobs, and few of them. It has never been true, however, that americans favored legal immigration as a general matter. First it was italians and irish, then other europeans, and then other countries. If you wanted to say what they favor, it's wealthy, educated immigrants than aren't disfavored, not legal immigrants (I suspect many americans would vote, if put to them, to bar all mexican, central american, etc. immigration, and probably se asian too). I won't go so far as to say this is direct racism, althoug it may well be, but i'm pretty sure joe six pack, and maybe even jacques chablis, talks about "immigrants" in a condescending manner without regard to whether they have a green card or not.

As for Krugman's argument, I'm not sure it's right. He assumes that immigrants are competing for the same low-end jobs that americans are. From what I've seen, most of the jobs taken by illegal immigrants are ones that would not be filled by americans, which is precisely why there's demand for illegals to fill them. This could be because the job is nasty, or because it wouldnt' be a job at minimum wage, or some other reason. But I don't think that illegal immigrants are exactly displacing american labor at mcdonalds.

Let me say first that I don't remotely like the proposal to try and deport 12 million people.

But I don't buy this "taking jobs that americans don't want anyway" argument. If we stopped lettuce farmers in the Imperial Valley from hiring illegals to pick their lettuce crop, they will either have to increase wages (and, thus, prices) enough to attract legal residents to pick the lettuce, or they will have to let the crop rot. I suspect that most would choose the former. Nor do I think McDonald's franchises will shut down if they can't hire illegals. They may have to pay more, but tough shit.

Again, I see lots of reasons to hate at least the harsher proposal that's been floated recently, and possibly the other proposal (proposals??? I can't even keep track lately). But those reasons, in my view, have to do with cost and humaneness, not with making sure low-end jobs are filled.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you figure out a way to send landscaping work to India, you just let me know.

eta: stp

See my response to Greedy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You might enjoy a class in basic economics. If illegal immigrants weren't around to take these jobs at the present wages offered, wages would go up to the point at which Americans laborers were willing to fill the jobs.

I'll take that class if you agree to eliminate minimum wage laws that cause employers to be unable to pay the value offered by the employee.

Put differently, you're assuming that the jobs filled by many illegal immigrants would, absent that labor pool, be economically viable jobs from an employer perspective at the current minimum wage or market-clearing wage (if higher). I think neither is the case.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Or the jobs wouldn't get done, and you'd clean your own damn office, you slob.

More likely it would simply get cleaned somewhat less often, and that certainly would not be enough to incent me to clean it myself.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
See my response to Greedy.

I saw it, and I think you are deluded. If I were poor, I would ask why you are so intent on letting foreigners into this country to drive my wages down.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'll take that class if you agree to eliminate minimum wage laws that cause employers to be unable to pay the value offered by the employee.

Put differently, you're assuming that the jobs filled by many illegal immigrants would, absent that labor pool, be economically viable jobs from an employer perspective at the current minimum wage or market-clearing wage (if higher). I think neither is the case.

A good place to start fixing wage issues is to also stop the "lock-step" tradition present in many businesses. People should be paid individually, based on what they negotiate and bring to the table. There should not be cost of living increases or guarantees of certain wages at certain rungs on the ladder.

Think of how much law firms could save.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'll take that class if you agree to eliminate minimum wage laws that cause employers to be unable to pay the value offered by the employee.

The empirical evidence that I've seen suggests that the sorts of effects predicted by classical economics -- and you're going to have to take that class to find out what they are -- are not actually borne out. If they were, I would be more inclined to support repeal of minimum wage laws.

Put differently, you're assuming that the jobs filled by many illegal immigrants would, absent that labor pool, be economically viable jobs from an employer perspective at the current minimum wage or market-clearing wage (if higher). I think neither is the case.

Surely demand for such labor falls as the price rises. But it doesn't fall off a cliff.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Let me say first that I don't remotely like the proposal to try and deport 12 million people.

But I don't buy this "taking jobs that americans don't want anyway" argument. If we stopped lettuce farmers in the Imperial Valley from hiring illegals to pick their lettuce crop, they will either have to increase wages (and, thus, prices) enough to attract legal residents to pick the lettuce, or they will have to let the crop rot. I suspect that most would choose the former. Nor do I think McDonald's franchises will shut down if they can't hire illegals. They may have to pay more, but tough shit.

Again, I see lots of reasons to hate at least the harsher proposal that's been floated recently, and possibly the other proposal (proposals??? I can't even keep track lately). But those reasons, in my view, have to do with cost and humaneness, not with making sure low-end jobs are filled.

But I like my cheap strawberries.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
A good place to start fixing wage issues is to also stop the "lock-step" tradition present in many businesses. People should be paid individually, based on what they negotiate and bring to the table. There should not be cost of living increases or guarantees of certain wages at certain rungs on the ladder.

What if businesses would prefer to do it the way they do it now?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch


But I don't buy this "taking jobs that americans don't want anyway" argument. If we stopped lettuce farmers in the Imperial Valley from hiring illegals to pick their lettuce crop, they will either have to increase wages (and, thus, prices) enough to attract legal residents to pick the lettuce, or they will have to let the crop rot.

In the short run, you're probably right. In the long run, the following will happen.

1) Mexico, and central america, will start growing lettuce and exporting it to the US at lower prices, because they can pay lower wages, putting the california farms out of business.

2) We will have to subsidize further the lettuce farmers of california so that they can compete.

3) We will realize that it would be cheaper to slap a tariff on lettuce imports, resulting in a trade war.

4) Meanwhile, someone will come up with a "grown in america" label for lettuce, and you'll be able to buy it at whole foods, paying $9.99 a head, instead of $1.29 a head at Safeway/Giant/etc. for the foreign lettuce.

The problem that you and Ty have (and others) is not the economics. In principle you're right. But in practice, as sebby points out, americans aren't going to fill those jobs at wages that make the business economically viable. So you end up sending teh business to a place where it is economically viable. Ask anyone in Pittsburgh. In a few years you can ask anyone in Detroit (if not already).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What if businesses would prefer to do it the way they do it now?

And what if that's cheaper than individually negotiating with a bunch of $8/hour earners whether they will get $8.05 or $8.10 next year?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I saw it, and I think you are deluded. If I were poor, I would ask why you are so intent on letting foreigners into this country to drive my wages down.

And I'd say in response that we live in a capitalist society, and we will deal with globalization one way or another. best to take your lumps now and get it over with.

I fully realize this would by extension drive my taxes up and drive my wages down, but globalization has to happen.

Protectionism is a fool's solution. By design, its just deferring an adverse economic event. You're arguing to protect people now at greater cost to future generations. Kinda contrary to your views on global warming and fiscal responsibility isn't it? Are you on the left always the ones screaming "what about the children?" Well guess what pal... You push off the pain in the labor market with some dipshit democratic short term salve now and your kids will feel some serious motherfucking pain later.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What if businesses would prefer to do it the way they do it now?

They can keep doing it. I'm not advocating regulation. I'm advocating businesses have the balls to step away from the lock step tradition.