As a Commodity trader it is easy to see labor as a commodity. We are all Commodities when it comes down to our value in the marketplace. Whether your picking apples or operating on a heart or owning your own business you have a certain value to the Market which is reflected in your earnings. A truly free market will pay you what you are worth just as it will value any other item such as a diamond or a gallon of gas. The ultimate worker commodity is the Union worker who is told exactly what he is worth depending on an agreed upon value for a certain scale. The rarer your skill set the more precious a commodity you become to the Market
Like the old saying goes, if you don’t want to become a millionaire, join a Union. If you want to become a millionaire, run a Union. This represents two truths of worker value, one is a strictly negotiated value and the latter isn’t. The Union boss not only is a rare commodity, he enjoys the hidden benefits of corruption and graft.
The Market will reward any commodity that is rare which brings a positive cash flow to the capitalistic society. Whether the person is picking lettuce or making cars the market determines the value of that worker. A Mexican speaking illegal alien who can only do manual labor has no leverage in the marketplace and is valued at $20-$30 per day since there are millions of equally unskilled Mexicans to keep his price down. At the other end of the spectrum is Rush who there is only one in the entire World which means zero competition. There are lots of copies, but only one America’s Anchorman who can make wonderfully obscene profit margins from the marketplace. This allows him unlimited leverage. The less the competition the greater the profit margin and higher the wages.
Within the Mexican labor pool there are levels of skill which is reflected in wages. Basic labor such as hoeing a field or picking lettuce is going to pay a lower wage than someone who can bring certain skills or talents to the market. Anyone who has picked apples or cherries knows that there is definite skill in reading trees and racing up and down ladders. This will garner a higher wage well into the $100 per day range. The fact that this only lasts for a week or two before migrating to the next farm which eliminates this as a career for most Americans.
Mexicans are a necessary commodity and problem that has been ignored due to convenience. Nobody should fault the farmer because he is using this readily available labor to keep his expenses at a level that is required by the marketplace. Finding dependable hard workers for low wages is a difficult hole to fill for a labor intensive employer. If his costs are too high the buyers will buy from a farmer who can meet their demands or buy off shore. The margins for farming are so small it is required that farmers maximize every acre and cut every penny to continue their God given livelihood.
This example is farming however the same is true for every labor intensive industry. Until we address all the issues of Mexican labor and the cheap commodity that it brings to the workplace we are never going to solve this issue. In a full employment red hot economy, employers need this valuable asset to meet market demands.
Likewise a Mexican who is living in Mexico earning $50 a month looks at the Shining City on the Hill and realizes he can make 10 times that and is motivated to cross the border. To us it is below a living wage but to Manuel Mexical this is the promised land. No matter what we put in place including a fence, Manuel will find a way across to earn a living he cannot make in Mexico just as Rush will move to Florida to avoid oppressive income taxes. Both should be legal and managed. Until we have an enforceable guest worker program anything we put up will be just trying to empty the ocean with a holey bucket.
There is no simple solution is and anyone who is honest will admit the same thing. To ignore the forces of supply and demand is to ignore basic economics. To try to form a bill that ignores these forces will be as worthless as SSI for those under 40. We can reach the point where we can talk about this issue in a respectful manner to get to a point where there is a solution. Using thugish tactics will only cause people run away from it making the situation worse. This is the most important issue in the Country and until we can get the Mexicans to come across in an organized and secure manner we will never have control of our borders. One answer would be a guest worker program with no chance of citizenship.
Give President Bush credit for addressing this issue rather than crucifying him, since it is a net loser to anyone making that attempt. No matter how strict the guest worker program is the demagogues are going to call it amnesty regardless of the truth. Mexico has a commodity besides Oil that we need to exploit for our economy. Closing the border is the goal which all sides must be pointed while name calling only widens the divide to eliminate free exchange of ideas.
Pray for W and Our Amazing Troops
Your post is difficult to answer, because we are speaking from the perspective of two fundamentally different views of the world and how it works.
You seem to really believe, at the core, that economic flows explain (and determine) the course of the world. I think that economics are part of the overall sphere of human activity, that we do not currently allow economics to drive all of our decision-taking processes, and that we shouldn't because the results of doing that are morally unacceptable.
You believe that if a nation imposes an economic law, that "the market" will simply get around it by going outside of the nation. I think that certain economic players may try to do that, but that well-constructed laws can make that difficult and that other things more important than economics drive the final decisions.
You gave the example of Rush Limbaugh moving from high-tax New York to low-tax Florida in order to broadcast and keep more of his money. Yes, he does just that. But why, then, does he not take the additional step and move from low-tax Florida (which still gets socked with the Federal Income Tax) to no-tax Guernsey, or Monaco, or the Cayman Islands, and broadcast from there. There is no TECHNICAL barrier to doing that, and the economics of doing so make utter sense. 40% of income going to federal taxes is a lot to save.
So why doesn't the logic of economics and dollars drive RUSH offshore?
The answer has nothing to do with economics, but all of those OTHER things that affect human decision-taking, which economics alone do not explain - and which are why we can, in fact, impose laws that are economically sub-optimal but which achieve more important social goals. Most Americans don't want to live outside of the United States even if they can save a lot of money doing it. Abroad is tricky and untrustworthy. Abroad has different sovereign risks. Abroad doesn't have the medical resources. Also, other Americans don't like to do business with you so much if you are abroad and outside of the reach of their laws and system. Who would listen to Rush Limbaugh talking about American politics if he himself opted to be a Cayman Islander broadcasting into the US? He has to pay 40% of his top dollars in taxes and remain in the US, because people are not emotionally willing to engage with a foreigner. Economics are not driving the equation; emotions are.
My point about wage-equalization tarriffs is that American purchasers CAN'T simply "go abroad" for cheaper prices to get around the tarriffs. People live here. They have to buy and consume the goods here. Europeans pay $7 a gallon for gasoline, but they don't try to import gas from the USA: it's illegal. Likewise, a wage equalization tarriff will drive up the cost of goods somewhat, but there isn't a legal solution to get around it. You can't just buy from someone else, because whoever has cheap labor gets the tarriff slapped on him when he ships the stuff into the USA.
Now, as far as agricultural labor goes, it may well be that we do need third world berry pickers. But if we bring them in, we should not do so with the stipulation that they have to leave. They should be on a track to remain and become citizens.
I guess the fundamental difference comes down to the view that labor is simply a commodity. Yes, it is, but it's a very special type of commodity, because it is human beings. As such, it cannot be treated in the same cold fashion that iron ore and pork bellies can be treated. Human concerns do not allow full efficiency in the labor markets. We have to have considerably inefficiency in labor markets because people are not machines, and human needs are constant and permanent. The full commodification of human beings and labor is not where democracy is willing to go.
As far as Mexicans simply getting here somehow if there's an advanced system erected, my answer would be: not 2 million a year. A few would get under or over the wall, and a few would go around by boat, but if you can't just walk into America, the fact of a barrier makes it harder and more expensive to try, and many, many will not make it or will not even try. We are not working in a world of absolutes, but speaking, rather, of relative positions.
Interesting discussion.