[A. Pole]

[...]
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.)
[...]

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

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.

Considering that the above-mentioned "revolution and reaction" didn't start until well AFTER America's founding, this statement is questionable in the extreme.

[angkor]

Cargill
Hormel
Purdue
Tyson
Archer Daniels

[narby]

It was based on a labor market constricted by limited immigration and a small population relative to national resources

Lost me right there. "Natural Resources" in relation to wealth may have been true in some historial period, but it doesn't work that way any more. Places like Japan have almost zero natural resources, and have a huge population (which is the opposite, I suppose, of the goal of "limited immigration") and yet are rich. While places like Brazil and many african countries have limited population and huge natural resources and are third world.

This writer is a big-labor propagandist.

[Moonman62]

Free markets do have rules. It's the elites who are bringing in cheap, exploitable labor who are anti free market. They are the ones breaking the rules by bringing in illegal labor.

[Dat Mon]

Thanks for the ping.

Ahhh yes...the paradigm of increasing wealth through decreasing wages. Cheap labor is not IMHO, a wealth creation paradigm..it is a wealth redistribution paradigm. It creates wealth for the employers of the cheap labor, and their lawyers and financial planners, and decreases wealth for others.

A self contradictory paradigm...or so it seems to me.

And yes...the Law of Supply and Demand always applies in a Free Market...said market being one in which the government does not directly or indirectly subsidize or otherwsie support artificial wage rates...either BELOW market rates...or ABOVE market rates.

And no...we're not falling for the logical 'sleight of hand' that claims that by not allowing for a subsidy to one group we are curtailing freedom to that group, or otherwise providing a subsidy for yet another group. That argument, in effect, is playing some sort of logical 'zero sum game' in regards to government subsidies...the gov is bound to either give to one preferred group..or it gives to another.

The correct approach is that the government gives to neither group.

Guest worker bills are an example of government subsidization of artificially low rates. How does the government do this?

Simple...by getting involved in the labor negotiation, by bartering, or otherwise brokering, future CITIZENSHIP, and SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT BENEFITS in return for artificially low rates.

The government (state,local, federal) is indirectly paying the employers of these workers, by assuming the cost of their benefits package, and by looking the other way when it comes to taxes and insurance. The government rewards cheap labor workers by promising them that down the road, they will achieve citizenship, and they and their family members who accompany them to the US will be entitled to a plethora of social and welfare benefits.

If I were to make an exception to my universal disdain for guest worker programs..it would be if the programs are short term, benefit free, family member free programs..ie ...less than a year in duration, and provided that the wages paid are freely negotiated on the open market...ie the workers are not held to any particular employer during the course of the program.

In effect then...the guest workers become quasi-consultants.

Oh....Id also like reciprocal free market consulting 'rights' to apply for US consultants in these countries supplying the cheap labor.