Continuing piecemeal on immigration: <\/p>\n
The concept of an ongoing guest worker program, or substantially expanded immigration of unskilled workers, bothers me a great deal. <\/p>\n
Part of it is the supply-and-demand of labor. Supporters of increased immigration of unskilled workers come up with studies claiming that this benefits the economy \u2014 the most preposterous was a claim not long ago that, in order for a entrepreneur to build up his\/her start-up with high-paying jobs, he\/she needs a legion of unskilled workers: a nanny for the kids, a cheap maid service and lawn-mowing service, the people behind the counter at the fast-food restaurants so that he doesn\u2019t have to bother cooking his own food, etc., all to enhance his productivity. <\/p>\n
But look at what actually HAS happened to the economy: wages for unskilled workers have stagnated, slipped, even declined significantly in inflation-adjusted terms. There are lots of studies that show this \u2014 and this is not just in the post-recession time period but for the last several decades, exactly that time period when we\u2019ve accustomed ourselves to illegal workers paid under the table or via false identification. <\/p>\n
Of course, there are multiple causes for the decline in wages, globalization chief among them, and, in principle, if the education level of Americans, on average, increases over time, then proportionately fewer Americans would be impacted by wages for unskilled\/semi-skilled jobs. <\/p>\n
But nonetheless, if there were a true labor shortage in these types of occupations, wages would have been increasing. That\u2019s the basic concept of supply and demand. Since wages are not increasing, it\u2019s a straightforward conclusion that we do not have a labor shortage. On the other hand, it\u2019s entirely possible that employers have difficulty hiring workers at the wage levels and in the particular working conditions that they\u2019d like to hire their employees \u2014 but the right answer is for these employers to increase wages and\/or improve working conditions (with a bit of an exception, below). <\/p>\n
In some cases, employers don\u2019t want to improve wages\/working conditions because they claim they won\u2019t be internationally competitive \u2014 but most low-skilled jobs are not outsourceable jobs. Reality is, the employers don\u2019t want to be at a disadvantage compared to their American competitors (Tyson vs. Perdue chicken) \u2014 but if both Tyson and Perdue were forced to implement e-verify, and found it necessary to increase wages and slow down the production line (I\u2019m thinking of the poultry processing plants described in the book Fast Food Nation), then neither processer would be at a disadvantage. <\/p>\n
Look, I\u2019m a mom. I suspect I\u2019m not a typical mom convinced that her kids are the smartest ones around, destined for greatness, or at least an MBA. I think I\u2019m realistic \u2014 I want my kids to be able to earn a decent living even if they don\u2019t sail through high school, through college, through life. And if pay for unskilled work is permanently mired at minimum wage, at best, just for the sake of a cheap Big Mac, that\u2019s not the future I want for my family. (And, to be perfectly clear \u2014 I do not engage a maid service and we do not engage a lawn service.) <\/p>\n
Are there truly \u201cjobs Americans won\u2019t do\u201d? Jobs that are undesirable enough that the employer simply couldn\u2019t stay in business any longer if obliged to increase wages\/improve working conditions to a level that Americans would deign to take the job? <\/p>\n
Every now and again an interpid reporter will describe working a day harvesting in the fields, and call it quits halfway through. Are Americans soft? Isn\u2019t it, well, racist, in a way, to say that Americans are too lazy or weak to put in an honest day\u2019s work? <\/p>\n
What I may be willing to concede is that, despite our current unemployment levels, the safety net means that certain low-wage, unpleasant jobs aren\u2019t worth it, when one\u2019s basic needs are provided for already \u2014 but we\u2019re in trouble as a country if we have constructed a welfare system that means we have to import workers while the unemployed sit in front of the TV all day. And in some other cases, when the work is seasonal but doesn\u2019t coincide with the rhythm of the school year, it may be appropriate to allow workers to enter on a truly temporary return-immediately-when-the-season\u2019s-over basis. <\/p>\n
But guest workers as a long-term, ongoing program, over a wide range of industries? Great for the wealthy and the upper middle class, I guess, but I continue to be astonished that Democrats are backing such a program.\u00a0 <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Continuing piecemeal on immigration: The concept of an ongoing guest worker program, or substantially expanded immigration of unskilled workers, bothers me a great deal. Part of it is the supply-and-demand of labor. Supporters of increased immigration of unskilled workers come up with studies claiming that this benefits the economy \u2014 the most preposterous was a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n