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 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.
posted by KP | 26.3.06
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home