Posted on 05/30/2006 2:40:17 PM PDT by A. Pole
Despite the endless blathering and squirming to the contrary on the part of Wired Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Cato Institute and other institutions that normally proclaim the truth of free-market economics, the Law of Supply and Demand applies to labor as much as to any other thing that is bought and sold. That is to say, if one increases the supply of labor relative to demand, its price will fall. That price is your salary, friend. And mass immigration is inexorably driving it down. Well, maybe not your salary personally, if you are lucky enough to work in a sector of the economy that is sheltered, for some reason, from the effects of immigrant labor, as lawyers are by the fact that few immigrants have American law degrees. But it is the salary of your neighbors, and it is being depressed by an influx of cheap labor. There is just no way around this basic economic fact. If there is, then free-market economics is a lie.
Yes, immigrant labor expands the economy as a whole by adding more producing workers. But a big aggregate GNP isn’t prosperity: just compare Switzerland, which is tiny but rich, with India, which is huge but poor. Per capita GNP, which produces per-capita income, is prosperity, and immigration does nothing to increase that. True, it might, if immigrants were on average more productive than native Americans. But they’re not. Every measure – by the Census Bureau and others – shows them as being massively poorer, less educated, and less likely to attain middle-class status than native Americans.
America was founded on the concept – well understood by Alexander Hamilton and the other economic sophisticates among the founders – of a middle-class society, i.e. a society organized to minimize the number of people who constitute cheap labor. Cheap labor was the proletariat which drove Europe’s class-ridden and undemocratic politics, the nightmare of revolution and reaction America was founded to escape.
Contrary to libertarian myth, America’s economy was never, ever, based on a totally free market in labor. It was based on a labor market constricted by limited immigration and a small population relative to national resources, and a free market in everything else. This was designed to produce high wages. We have always been an explicitly high-wage nation relative to other societies, and this did not happen by accident. (This is the key story in Pat Buchanan’s book The Great Betrayal, and he is right about this, even if he is wrong about other things.)
Labor is the one and only area in which no rational society should want to construct a free market, because free markets make things cheap, and high wages equal a high standard of living. Before anyone pounces, I realize you have to define this a real, not nominal, wages and that there are all sorts of technicalities to this issue. But the principle is rock-solid. Labor is fundamentally different from all other commodities because its well-being is an end in itself, not a means to other ends. And before anyone pounces again, I am advocating controls on the influx of foreign labor, not unions or limits on which jobs Americans can hold.
We used to have a commitment to a middle-class, bourgeois society. We have now lost that commitment at the moment when we are busy congratulating ourselves on how supremely capitalist we have become. We are importing a proletariat when we should be abolishing poverty.
Rather than making a profit through superior technology and management, as American business has surpassed the entire world in doing for 200 years, an increasingly large sector of corporate America just wants to take the lazy road of importing cheap labor to work for them. This is not economic progress; it is retrogression. It is a formula for becoming Brazil.
Some of cheap labor’s biggest lobbyists:
1. The high-tech industry. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, the pre-eminent figure in the high tech industry, is a passionate and vociferous supporter of cheap labor, primarily because overseas-trained engineers from India, China and Pakistan are cheaper than American tech workers.2. The meat packing industry, especially pig and chicken slaughtering. This industry, of course, has a long and storied past of using cheap immigrant labor. Read Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle from 100 years ago.
3. Clothing manufacturers. Despite the efforts of the Ladies Garment Workers Union to eliminate sweat shops some 60 years ago, they are still alive and thriving in the states, employing mostly Asian women who work in terrible conditions.
4. Unions. These supposed advocates of the American worker and longtime opponents of importing immigrant labor are now part of the cheap labor lobby because they primarily serve the interests of union bosses, not workers. Bosses want more poor workers so they can have more members. They don’t want to see their members graduate to the middle class, where people generally don’t feel the need to belong to a union.
5. The hotel and restaurant industry. Another big business interest whose employees are primarily cheap labor from Latin America.
6. The ultra-wealthy – both liberals and nominal conservatives. They believe that only foreign workers are willing to work as their nannies, landscapers, and housekeepers.
7. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, led by Grover Norquist, formerly a vocal spokesman for many conservative issues. This group has led the charge in convincing Congress to expand the awful H-1B visa program. They argue that more H-1B visas granted to foreign workers will alleviate a mythical shortage of skilled technology workers. The H-1B visa program allots 115,000 foreign worker visas annually, but the Chamber of Commerce said that isn’t nearly enough.
8. The governors of certain rural, Midwestern states (such as Iowa) whose populations are shrinking, prompting a cry for an influx of new residents. Of course, these governors do not consider attracting native Americans by offering a growing economy a better solution.
Cheap labor is not real capitalism, it is corporatism, for cheap labor is subsidized by the government, which ends up paying the health and welfare costs of these workers. All taxpayers bear the cost.
Let’s get clear about one thing: there are no jobs that Americans “won’t do.” There are jobs that Americans won’t do at the wage being offered. If you offered me enough money, I would bus tables or clean bathrooms. When I was younger and without work experience, I would have done so gladly. If employers can’t fill these jobs, this is their own fault for not offering enough. They have no intrinsic right to be able to fill positions at the price they feel like paying, any more than you or I have the right to buy a car or a TV at the price we feel like paying. I will concede there is a shortage of labor in this country when the cheap labor lobby concedes there is a shortage of Lear Jets, which I would dearly like to own.
Who’s fighting the cheap labor lobby? For one thing, the 235,000 members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.-USA and the American Engineering Association. Last summer they chastised Congress for facilitating the cheap labor lobby when there were so many unemployed American engineers with training in high-demand skills such as C++ and Java. According to the IEEE-USA, the unemployment rate for electrical and electronics engineers was up to 4.8 percent by last summer, compared to 4.1 percent for the first quarter of the year. In addition, the jobless rate for computer scientists was 5.3 percent, up from 4.8 percent in the first quarter. Among older engineers, who can easily be scrapped for new foreign workers, the rates are much worse.
At the time, LeEarl Bryant, president of the IEEE-USA, told the Boston Globe:
"It is time for Congress to take a closer look at the problem of engineering unemployment and eliminate the government subsidies and incentives that encourage corporate management to treat US engineers as a disposable labor commodity rather than an essential investment in our nation's future.”
It is not simply laid off workers who see the problem. Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California at Davis, has studied hiring at high-tech firms. Using hard data, he has concluded that companies overwhelmingly hire cheap foreign labor over American engineers applying for the same jobs. He debunked the myth of a “desperate software labor shortage” when he appeared before Congress several years ago.
One of the cheap labor lobbyist’s most devious tactics is supporting immigrants rights groups. This is a practice favored by Bill Gates, who contributes large amounts to “open borders” and immigrants rights groups.
One irony is that many of the immigrants who are harmful additions to the American economy would actually be beneficial back home, where the level of economic development is much lower. The Indian government isn’t that happy about seeing its best and brightest end up in Silicon Valley. We should sympathize entirely with their desire to have them back home where they can do some good.
But in Iowa last year, that state’s residents risked the retribution of the left by speaking out against a plan by Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Democrat and cheap-labor lobbyist. His “New Iowans” proposal to bring immigrants there to fill jobs caused a swift and strong backlash, with many Iowans complaining that immigrants would take their jobs and drive wages down. Indeed, liberals and the cheap-labor lobby quickly attacked, citing Iowa’s overwhelmingly white population and accusing its citizens of racism and fear-mongering. However, once his constituents voiced their opposition, Vilsack quietly reversed his position on mass immigration to the state, emphasizing instead the part of the plan that encourages former Iowa residents to return to the state.
Ironically, cheap labor will ultimately be the undoing of American unions, one of cheap labor’s newest devotees. In the hotel and restaurant industry, a new set of workers has collectively negotiated lower wages and worse working conditions for its rank and file members, an inevitable consequence of a shift in the supply-demand balance with respect to labor that unionization cannot abolish. The same pressure, more or less intense in some industries, in some regions, and at different points in the economic cycle, is inexorably at work against the rest of the labor force.
And that includes you.
Note: My thanks to Diana Hull, of the group Californians for Population Stabilization, which has done extensive research on the detrimental effects of immigration on that state. Also, thanks to David Simcox, chair of the Policy Board of the Center for Immigration Studies, who wrote an excellent article on the subject of labor and the role of unions in The Social Contract.
I'm not the NYTimes. Playing gotcha with word usage must mean you don't have any real arguments to the point.
Hmmm. Well, Europe was once 35% of the world's population, and, due to their demographic implosion, is around 15% of worlds population. They are headed toward 5%. This factiod I learned today was told on a ... Catholic radio station.
Scrub away the race-mongering, and you are left with the civilizational question of whether western democratic values can survive and dominate the world with such a demographic meltdown. we lack the will to defend our western culture as it is, how much harder when demographics overwhelms these populations. Nah, call it racism to raise the question, ignore the muslim race riots in Paris. The suicide of the west continues apace.
And your argument against putting the issues in the same law is? You do realize that's intent of the Senate's bill. I haven't paid much attention to actual language, because it certianly will change significantly by the time it gets out of conference. But a comprehensive bill with both increased enforcement ("closing" the door is impossible, as it is with drugs) and a guest worker program is both Bush's goal, and the Senate's.
If you're putting your trust in a new law attempting to "close" the door, then why won't you trust a law that has both carrot and stick? Unless you don't actually want a real solution, and prefer the status quo of illegals coming here in droves.
I haven't seen any Latino groups disavow those sentiments.
It won't be publicized because it isn't "news". Saying outrageous things makes the news. Making sense does not.
"Most Americans are concerned by illegal immigration because they recognize the kind of immigrants we're getting with our open borders not only put a strain on our social services"
"So why not spend all this political effort to end welfare."
Go ahead and be our guest to do this.
"At least end it for new immigrants (theoretically legal immigrants, if we politically trade eliminating their welfare for giving them legal status)."
Senate CIRA bill gave a whole bunch of welfare goodies to the amnestied illegal immigrants: Social Security benefits from the time they use fraudulent SocSec numbers; in-state tuition; EITC; health benefits/medicaid.
"If we were allowing LEGAL immigration through the front door, with security checks required, then the problem is solved."
The USA admits more immigrants than any other nation on earth - over 1 million per year. We are doing that already.
"Wouldn't you rather end welfare than keep out ILLEGALS?"
No. The appropriate level of illegal immigration to this country is ZERO. The level of welfare spending is near 1 trillion if you include Medicare, so even if it were curtailed, it's not going to zero anytime soon.
Nor should it, as we have obligations to those in need here in our country.
"Ending welfare for one group of people is a good start to ending it across the board. Wouldn't that be a better idea?"
You seem desperate to avoid the simple idea of actually *not* having illegal immigration. Why not simply acknowledge that as a good goal to aim for, instead Do you hire illegal aliens? Have an 'undocumented' work crew? There is some desperation in your rather extreme statements.
"I will note that this movement of labor only flows one way since it's not possible for me or you to get a job in Mexico
So go campaign to work in Mexico. "
oh foolish one. It's illegal to do that.
And oh yea, they *enforce* their laws down there.
"I think Bush's original goal was to have Republicans seen as the party that welcomed Latinos into the American dream. If that isn't "giving them something" then I don't know what is. With the Catholic religious conservative background of mexican ILLEGALS it should have been a natural for them to go to the Republican party."
COMPLETELY ignorant comment, but an understandable ignorance shared by idiots in and near the White House. They have not been in the pews of catholic churches (as I have) to know that being catholic and poor wont lend to being Republican in the way they think; the catholic mind-set is alas too supportive of socialistic govt attitudes, and the working class will be easily demagogued, and the Democrats will always outbid the GOP on welfare. You think the anti-populist attitudes that give in to the cheap labor lobby helps? Hardly, the elitist behavior of our leaders does *nothing* to help that. These poor uneducated immigrants will be, like my Irish Catholic ancestors - Democrat voters for 3 generations. They will vote in blocs just like my Irish Catholic ancestors for Democrats. Only when they become middle-class (and stats show they *wont* be anytime soon) will they even think about the GOP in large numbers.
There are at least two more alternatives if one does not import labor, one can do without or export jobs. Whichever one is more profitable.
"Articles like this help people see the difference between the free exchange of goods and the importation of cheap labor."
"I totally disagreed with Rush on this today. I lost a serious amount of respect for him."
You'll get over it I am sure. I've disagreed with him in the past too, but it turned out most of the time he was right.
It is quite funny how some free-market-types get a blindness when it comes to supply-and-demand wrt labor and immigration.
More supply relative to demand means lower prices ie wages. If you believe in free markets, you know this is true.
The cheap-labor lobby knows this ... why wouldnt workers oppose higher immigration levels for the same reason that
businesses support it?
"You write the words "importation of cheap labor" as if you think there are ships plying the Atlantic with slaves chained in rows below decks."
You are right. Total fantasy. Never happens.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00611F83C550C748CDDAF0894DB494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fI%2fImmigration%20and%20Refugees
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B1FF935550C7B8CDDA10894DC494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fI%2fImmigration%20and%20Refugees
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E0D71E30F936A35756C0A962958260&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fI%2fImmigration%20and%20Refugees
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60D15FE3D550C7A8EDDA10894DD404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fI%2fImmigration%20and%20Refugees
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F17FA385A0C7B8DDDA10894DD404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fI%2fImmigration%20and%20Refugees
I asked a question...how much?
Why won't you answer it?
"Reagan's amnesty did not work because it was denied its logical side kick...a guest worker program."
Wrong. The real reason the 1986 program failed was:
1) Amnesty itself created a huge incentive for fraud, that fraud invited more disrespect for the law, and the large numbers of immigrants created a larger community for new illegal immigrants to hide in ...
(example, one amnestied immigrant can now invite his brothers to come over and live with him, illegally.)
2) Kennedy - the source of all evil in immigration law, starting with 1965 law, Kennedy gutted the employer sanctions portion of the bill, made it a pathetic joke.
Those are the real reasons.
We talk of this need for guest worker programs, as if they arent already here. They are some programs/visas *already* that do this, the H2a program, H2B and TN visas ...
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/visa_tn.html
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/visa_h2b.html
H2a IS NOT EVEN SUBJECT TO NUMERICAL LIMITS!
http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/Immigration.pdf
... so you cant blame the lack of something that *exists* for a failure that was rooted in other problems.
How much?
Why won't any of you economic geniuses answer a simple question?
You know exactly what I a talking about.
We need a Bracero program.
Look up the date when we ended the program at the bequest of the Unions, and track the numbers of illegal aliens on our soil since that date.
Save the crap for the rubes.
Are we discussing lettuce pickers with BA's?
Please...it still impacts the cost.
(regarding question of paying for skilled labor when unskilled labor is $15/hr)
"I asked a question...how much?
Why won't you answer it?"
Let me just in:
Why isn't it sufficient to say "leave it to the market"?
Your question is like asking how much would I pay for a good restaurant meal... It depends!
We paid well over $100/hr for our stove to get fixed, alas, it was worth it, its a huge expensive high-end monstrosity and we cant just let it not work 100%. so it was well worth it to pay $300 for an hour and half labor and $130 part to fix it.
The higher the value, the higher one would be willing to pay.
The Braceros program was another mistake by our US Government which also backfired coming from the "Great Society" programs of President Johnson.
If immigrants want to come to the United States, they should apply in their own country and wait.
"You know exactly what I a talking about.
We need a Bracero program. "
Look, I am not opposed to such a program, I am just saying that pinning the blame for 1986 Amnesty failure on not having something like that is a mis-reading of history.
The 1986 failure was pegged to a twin failure, both in amnesty application fraud that got rampant and failure to get employer sanctions done right.
JMHO.
If anyone who walks in off the street, unskilled, untrained, and with no certifications can earn $15/hour to clear plates off tables, how much should a cook, trained, skilled, and certified, be paid per hour?
Arguably substantially more than the bus boy...right?
So, should a cook then be paid $25/hour?
After all, your meal depends on the cook, not the busboy.
"If we allow them to pass a bill that allows a guest worker program and citizenship in the offing without a strong border fence first we'll never in my lifetime see the end of illegal immigration."
My vote for wisest comment on the thread.
"I don't like the idea of this country becoming Tijuana Norte."
And yet you don't get the sheer radicalism of a bill - the Senate amnesty/CIRA bill - that will import 60 million legal immigrants in 20 years and allow countless millions more illegally.
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.