Posted on 12/14/2005 4:22:29 AM PST by chronic_loser
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed today to hear an appeal by a Georgia floor-covering company sued by current and former employees who allege the firm hired hundreds of illegal immigrants to suppress worker wages.
The high court will focus on whether a company and its agents, in performing corporate duties, can be considered a racketeering enterprise under civil provisions of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The appeal was brought by Mohawk Industries Incorporated, a Georgia manufacturer of rugs and floor coverings. A trial court judge denied Mohawk's request to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the current and former employees, and the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit U-S Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court.
The argument that the presence of illegals (and the decisions of companies to hire them) leads to lower wages will not be in the spotlight, but will be lurking. The real issue will be whether Mohawk knowingly and willingly had a corporate policy to hire illegals and thus engage in a conspiracy.
However, it will be good to see if there are any responsible studies that purport to show that illegals suppress wages as a whole, rather than simply those in the lowest skilled entry level jobs.
I am going to be lurking in this thread. Sorry for the long ping list, but I just went back thru the immigration posts and compiled a list of those who have sent me love letters in the past on the topic. This is an invitation to all my fellow freepers to post any legit studies you have on the impact of illegals on wages. I know it will be tempting to some of you to devolve into other areas, so I thought it would be nice for you if I just stay completely out of this fray, and allow you to post SUBSTANTIVE DATA on wage suppression. Some, like rolling stone, have already done so (thanks!). Some of you, I know, have only had brief interchanges with me, and if the resultant love has so filled your hearts that you don't want to post, that is fine, too.
I believe a wise man always holds his mind open to be changed if the facts warrant, and that is the reason for the invitation. I want data from all sides.
I expect the usual ejaculations of wild eyed rants and anecdotal stories, personal attacks (hey, it is Free Republic!), and accusations of being a closet lib, a quisling (my favorite), and other such tripe, but what I am looking for is hard data with links and numbers.
I have had this challenge thrown out innumerable times, and decided it would be nice to invite anyone with substantive data to awaken me from my dogmatic ignorance on the topic, since I have been searching dogpile/google and logging articles on the subject for a little bit, now.
Thanks in advance. c_l
the only people who dont know illegals suppress wages are lawyers, judges and the us govt. this case has already been decided before the ink was dry on paper. it will be one more pr move by the govt to tell you why illegals are good for you, believe it and enjoy.
And therein lies your problem. You are letting in alien ideas, some of them probably illegal. Close your mind! Protect yourself! It will also eliminate those flying insects buzzing around your head and that whistling sound in your ears.
.... to awaken me from my dogmatic ignorance on the topic,....
Aha, your are already following my advice. Good job!
Some questions for you that should not cause too much thinking:
Do legal aliens brought into this country, especially in the high tech industries, suppress wages?
Does outsourcing jobs to other countries suppress wages?
Do unions unduly increase wages and other costs?
Do government regulations add costs to businesses?
Does our tax system punish businesses?
Do trial lawyers add costs to goods and drive good products and services from the marketplace?
Do Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Home Depot, etc., suppress prices?
I would be happy to see any substantive studies you have on any of these. It will not change my pre-programmed mind but I would like to see them anyway.
The problem with illegal aliens is that they are illegal. Were those same workers in this country legally they would still work harder and for less pay than most American workers.
Shoplifting increases the costs of products but that is not why it should be eliminated. It is illegal and morally wrong, just like people coming into this country illegally. Accepting anything that is against the law undermines our society. If the law is wrong, change it. Otherwise, enforce it and obey it.
If an employee takes a job at a specific known wage and agrees to work there at that wage - how can that be supression of wages? BTW, whatelse could those employees be qualified to do?
This is just a portion of the study:
Increasing the Supply of Labor Through Immigration
Measuring the impact on native-born workers
May 2004
Impact Across Skill Groups
The results reported in Table 1 effectively measure the correlation that indicates how an increase in the number of immigrants lowers the wage of competing native workers. This approach, however, ignores the possibility that immigration into one skill group (say high school dropouts) alters the employment opportunities of workers in other skill groups (for example, college graduates).
The problem with estimating these "cross-effects" is that with 32 skill groups, there are over 500 cross-effects that need to be estimated. As a result, any study of these cross-effects must narrow the scope of the problem by relying on a theoretical model derived from economic theory. The typical approach used in the labor demand literature specifies a production function that delineates how various types of labor and capital interact in the production process, and estimates the implied parameters by assuming that workers are paid the value of their contribution to the firm's revenue (a standard result in labor markets that are competitive).
When applied to the wage trends observed between 1960 and 2000, this approach implies that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers in a particular skill group reduces the wage of workers in that skill group by 3.5 percent, reduces the wage of workers who have the same education but who differ in their experience by 0.7 percent, and increases the wage of workers with different educational attainment by 0.5 percent.
The implications of these estimated wage effects are best illustrated by using a particular example: consider what happened to the wage structure as a result of the immigrant influx that entered the United States between 1980 and 2000.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the simulation. As indicated by the bottom row of the table, the immigrant influx of the 1980s and 1990s lowered the wages of most native workers, particularly of those workers at the bottom and top of the education distribution. The wage fell by 7.4 percent for high school dropouts and by 3.6 percent for college graduates. In contrast, the wage of high school graduates and workers with some college fell by around 2 percent. Overall, the immigrant influx reduced the wage of the typical native worker by 3.7 percent.
It is worth pointing out that these wage impacts imply sizable reductions in annual earnings. In 2000, for example, the typical native man without a high school diploma earned $25,000 annually. This implies that immigration reduced this worker's earnings by around $1,800. Similarly, the typical male college graduate earned $73,000, implying that immigration reduced this worker's wage by nearly $2,600.
One can use the wage effects reported in Table 2 for each of the various education-experience groups to estimate the impact of immigration on native workers by race and ethnicity. Because the skill distribution of workers differs significantly across race groups, immigration will have a different net impact on each group. Figure 3 summarizes the evidence. Although the 1980-2000 immigrant influx lowered the wage of white workers by 3.5 percent and of Asians by only 3.1 percent, it reduced the wage of blacks by 4.5 percent and that of Hispanics by 5.0 percent. The adverse impact of immigration, therefore, is largest for the most disadvantaged native-born minorities.
Results
Table 1 summarizes the evidence by reporting what happens to various labor market outcomes when immigration increases the number of workers in a particular skill group by 10 percent. The table shows that immigration has a very strong effect on annual earnings. A 10 percent increase in the size of the skill group reduces annual earnings by 7.1 percent among salaried workers.
This change in annual earnings arises because immigration reduces both weekly earnings and annual hours worked. Weekly earnings fall by 3.7 percent among salaried workers and by 4.5 percent if one includes the self-employed. Further, annual hours of work fall by about 3.5 percent. In sum, immigration has an adverse effect on both the wages and employment of competing native workers.
Among this Backgrounder's findings
• By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent.
• Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent.
• The 10 million native-born workers without a high school degree face the most competition from immigrants, as do the eight million younger natives with only a high school education and 12 million younger college graduates.
• The negative effect on native-born black and Hispanic workers is significantly larger than on whites because a much larger share of minorities are in direct competition with immigrants.
• The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.
See how easy that is.
Dalton Georgia had been a major center of rug manufacturing for decades. There workers have slowly become Mexican, Central American and other 3rd world illegal aliens. This is a rural area with thousands of Americans who want carpet mill work. The dilemma here is that if good wages are paid to Americans, perhaps this carpet manufacturing moves to Mexico or China
It is my assumption that the emplyees already working there were working for higher wages than the later hired illegals. The availability of lower cost labor probably made getting raises and getting relatives hired more difficult. If non illegals, i.e. local people, agreed to work for less just to get a job would they have complained. Probably, to the neighbor who worked for less.
As you seem to be implying, it is all supply and demand. As supply increases prices go down unless demand increases too.
IOW, only at the very bottom of the workforce food chain.
So one thing that might make the American worker in this category more competitive is to finish high school (by GED or otherwise).
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/release.html
Actually, I think MNR summed it up quite nicely when he said:
The problem with illegal aliens is that they are illegal. Were those same workers in this country legally they would still work harder and for less pay than most American workers. Shoplifting increases the costs of products but that is not why it should be eliminated. It is illegal and morally wrong, just like people coming into this country illegally. Accepting anything that is against the law undermines our society. If the law is wrong, change it. Otherwise, enforce it and obey it.
His added questions are also relevant.
Your specific question concerning suppression/effect of wages by illegals (any economist would tell you it has an effect as it effects supply/demand and therefore prices/wages) is nothing more than yet another attempt to justify the presence of criminals and the abetting of criminals by employers who also commit criminal acts by employing said illegals.
Your reasoning is similar to children who break rules/laws and then attempt to get out of trouble/have the adults cave in to their defiant demands to end, rather than enforce those rules/laws. But when parents act as the adults, the laws and rules are enforced; to do otherwise would be to act in the detriment of the children and the family.
The government, which is not enforcing our immigration laws, and employers, who are breaking laws by hiring illegals, are acting to the detriment of America and Americans.
Yes but it is all for the betterment of the "new America".
We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.
Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.
For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.
....As president, I will ask Congress for $100 million dollars to help microcredit organizations that are working in Latin America. And I will ask the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank to add to this investment. We will apply the power of markets to the needs of the poor.
George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.
Sounds like a "sell out America," to me.
Wow, that quote is mind-boggling. I hope we change the name of our country after the merge is complete, so we do not dishonor the memory of those who died for the United States of America.
They've been dishonoring the memory of America's patriots for years....after they merge is complete, it would be a stake through their hearts and the soul of America.
I hope I and my children are long dead by the time that happens.
Nic, I think you should reread that quote. I don't know if this was raybbr's intention or not but what Bush is saying is that there are lots of Latins in this country and he is going to try to increase free enterprise to help the economies in those countries from which the folks came in order to give them prosperity at home so they stay there.
Sounds good to me.
The new name will be Great Socialist Community of North America.
If that is, indeed, the meaning and intent, I'm all for that.
I agree with your first sentance. Tolerating lawlessness only encourages a disrespect for the law. We're far better as a socieity if we simply enforce the laws we want, and get rid of the ones we don't.
Still, we should be at least somewhat morally uncomfortable with hiring desperate immigrants at slave labor wages simply because it's good for our economy. Just because they're willing to do more work for less that what the law demands doesn't mean that we should let employeers take advantage of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.