Never arm-wrestle with the invisible hand

A few observations on illegal immigration from the front lines (have you ever been on a construction site in Texas?):

The argument seems to have devolved into two camps: Camp one would open the borders, allow some kind of “guest” status, and try to integrate illegal immigrants into the regular workforce. Camp two proposes sealing the borders, and arresting anyone without papers and sending them back. I can’t imagine either of these actually happening, for the simple reason that the structure of the current labor relation is predicated on the facts that this pool of people is both available AND illegal.

If camp one were to prevail, or in fact if the borders were opened entirely, anyone and everyone would be included in the laws that require a minimum wage, right to organize, and access to the courts for redress of grievances. This would raise wages.

If camp two were to prevail, and the flow were stopped, the labor market would tighten and those doing the hiring would have to compete more directly with other segments of the labor market. This would raise wages.

The often misunderstood nature of the illegal workforce isn’t that they “do jobs that natives aren’t willing to do,” or that they “take jobs from native workers,” per se, it’s that they do jobs that the American-born workforce won’t do for that rate. Many jobs filled by this cohort (especially in construction) aren’t all that low-paying in the context of the economy (and are quite lucrative compared to choices South of the Rio Grande,) it’s more that they’re unpleasant relative to the wage. Finishing concrete in the hot Texas sun may pay twelve dollars an hour, but a worker with access to the entire bank of legal work can find that pay rate for something that doesn’t involve backbreaking labor and long hours. Conversely, the fact that someone has illegal status means that they can’t demand overtime, or better working conditions, or bring suit for lost pay. The very nature of becoming extra-legal (sort like of illegal drug sales) totally changes the market dynamics. Labor reforms introduced in the last 150 years were an attempt to disrupt the perfect competition of the marketplace (in an effort to be humane,) and the availability of a workforce with no access to these reforms reproduces the (cheaper) environment of the Nineteenth century. Add intimidation on top of this structure, and there you go . . . .

The basic economic interest of employers and consumers is to keep things exactly as they are: sort of a second-class slave force that makes labor-intensive necessities reasonably affordable in the midst of a high-cost post-industrial society. The alternatives are a Japan-like push toward automation, or a legitimate return to the totally free policies of 1880.

Maybe something will change. Based on what I’ve seen, I doubt it.

The Joy of the Profession

The following is lifted from a fascinating New Urbanist professor (massengale.typepad.com, if you’re interested.) All in all, it’s a pretty good explanation of how the whole construction industry works – especially on the single-family side. This should help explain both why cities look like they do and why I’m obsessed with the economic side of the environment.

It’s still kind of hard to explain at a cocktail party (see Romancing the Profession below.)


"In New Urbanism, we talk about different types of clients: the Patron, the Client, the Builder and the Buyer. The Patrons are the people who buy custom houses from Frank Gehry, sharing with Frank in the creation of a work of art.

The Client wants some of that process, but doesn't have the budget for a Gehry or Koolhaas building. Most young architecture practices get their work from Clients: if they succeed in becoming famous, they move up to having Patrons, with their almost unlimited support for the Starchitect and his budget.

The Builders build most new construction. Their budget is strictly controlled by their profit margin. Their architecture is governed by their market. Some Builders are also Patrons, but most view architects as a commodity no different from all the other consultants and contractors with whom the Builder negotiates.

The Buyer buys from the Builder. The architect rarely meets the Buyer. They Buyer is not a partner in the creation of a work of art. The Buyer is an unknown person who may move in 12 months, to be replaced by another Buyer.

The poor are buyers with no money and no leverage. They are the last people we should be experimenting on."

So much for Malcolm Gladwell

I am three degrees of separation from the Bush family. And Ralph Lauren. And a certain Serbian war criminal. (All through separate channels.) I find this fascinating.

The picture is by Mark Lombardi, whose work is simply diagrams of the way people and things connect together in altogether unexpected ways – things like Iran-Contra, or mid-east oil, or something like that. It’s great commentary on the bizarre interconnectedness of the world. In an age of global communications and transportation, the networks of sheer coincidence get more and more tangled and involved. On more than one occasion I’ve found out that one acquaintance (often in a different time zone) knows another from a totally different channel. It kind of takes one aback.

In The Tipping Point, the aforementioned Mr. Gladwell ascribes a lot of this interconnectedness to certain extroverted people he calls “connectors.” While there is probably quite a bit of merit in that phenomenon, I’m constantly surprised how seldom my connections with people run through someone known for their large circle. Most of it seems to be just coincidence, maybe a little tied in with the whole cognitive assortment idea that I can’t seem to get away from. Maybe the difference his “connectors” make is knowing how to tie one part of the network to the other. It’s one thing to BE a couple of steps away from Nandan Nilekani, and a whole different thing to be able to DO something with it. This, following the Robert Reich / Thomas Friedman school of thought, would seem to be the skill for the new century: connecting things disparate.

There is, of course, the argument that the interests and affiliations around you attract people with the same interests and that they’re bound to know each other. I’m not altogether convinced by that reasoning: beyond a crude cognitive thing, very seldom does a common interest even play a part, at least in all three parties. This is the kind of thing that spawns conspiracy theories (and Lombardi’s work.) Most of it is surely innocent mathematics.

(On a related note, check out the new and improved Meredith Meyer site (left.))