Can We Please Stop Using This Argument?

jimmyakin.org ^ | 206.04.10 | Jimmy Akin

[B-Chan]

Can We Please Stop Using This Argument?

People can rationally come to different conclusions on what should be done about the presence of millions of illegal aliens in the United States, but as that matter is debated, we should at least try to avoid some of the most obviously absurd arguments.

I therefore propose that we, as a nation, retire the "Illegal aliens take jobs Americans won't do/don't want" argument.

This is patent nonsense.

Anybody using this argument either has no grasp of economics or is being disingenuous due to the presence of an ulterior motive. (Them's yer two choices, so take yer pick, Mr. Bush.)

To see the absurdity of this argument, let's cast it in its starkest form: Food.

Before we do that, though, let me issue

THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: The following treatment has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has to do with economics. In what follows I will talk about two groups of people--illegal aliens (whatever their ethnicity) and Americans (whatever their ethnicity). The fact that most (but by no means all) of the illegal aliens in this country are Latino in origin is irrelevant to the economic principles involved, as is the fact that many Americans are also of Latino origin. If you need to, swap the terms "America" and "Americans" for those of a random country somewhere else on the planet. The economic principles apply no matter where you are.

Now . . .

It is often noted that illegal aliens play a large role in the construction, landscaping, and domestic service industries, but nice buildings, nice landscapes, and nice domestic services are luxuries. Our most pressing survival-related need is for food, and so the "Jobs Americans won't do" argument can be cast most starkly if we look at the role of illegal aliens in the agricultural industry.

Suppose that all of the illegal aliens working in the agricultural industry decided to quit their jobs. What would happen to the U.S.?

Will we be seeing headlines in the New York Times like this one? . . .

Food Rots In Fields As The Nation Starves!!!
Of course not.

Americans are not going to starve themselves to death because they "won't do" the job of harvesting the food.

Americans have been harvesting food ever since there have been Americans (otherwise they would have all starved long ago), so they are certainly capable of it.

Why, then, are so many illegal aliens taking the place of Americans in the agricultural industry?

Because they come from a different economic background and are willing to do the jobs for less.

The effect of illegal aliens in the agricultural industry is not that they do work that otherwise wouldn't get done. It's that they depress the wages in the agricultural industry to the point that such jobs are unattractive to Americans.

It's that whole supply-and-demand thing.

When you've got a greater supply of something than you have demand for it, the price will go down. If manufacturers make loads of DVD players and start to outstrip the demand for DVD players then the price of DVD players will go down as part of competition for customers.

Same thing happens in labor markets.

If the supply of agricultural workers outstrips the demand for agricultural workers then the wages attached to such jobs will go down as part of competition for employment. When the wages are depressed past a certain point, some of the workers will say, "Y'know, I could do better in a different industry" and they decide at that point that they "won't do" the agricultural jobs at the depressed wages being offered for those jobs.

But what happens if the labor pool shrinks? What happens if all the illegal aliens decide to quit?

When the supply of agricultural workers shrinks so that it no longer outstrips the demand for agricultural workers and employers start raising wages in order to attract the workers they need, and the work gets done.

Trust me, Americans are not going to starve themselves to death if they have no illegal aliens to harvest food.

What will happen instead is that the wages offered for such jobs will rise, Americans will start valuing such jobs more as a result (instead of looking down on them), and they will start doing them. The food will get harvested, and when it is sold to the public the added labor costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of a modest increase in food prices.

But there will be no massive wave of starvation in the U.S.

Something similar applies to the jobs in other industries that currently have high levels of involvement by illegal aliens. If the supply-and-demand situations of those industries were readjusted then Americans would be attracted to jobs in them as well, and the work would still get done. People might economize in some areas (e.g., taking care of the kids yourself instead of hiring an illegal alien to serve as a nanny), but we won't see headlines like:

American Buildings Rot Due To Lack Of Construction Workers!!!

Landscaping Crisis Dwarfs Hurricane Katrina!!!

Absence Of Domestic Services Causes American Family To Fall Apart!!!
People who want to maintain the status quo on illegal immigration--or who want to legalize the status quo via amnesties and guest worker programs--may still argue for these on other grounds (e.g., that there is an overall positive economic impact from having millions of low-paid foreign workers in the U.S. or that it's a practical impossibility to remove them all), but whatever you want to see done about illegal immigration, you'll need to argue it on grounds other than the "Jobs Americans won't do" notion.

That one's a non-starter, Mr. President.

***

P.S. BTW, Mr. President, do you realize how arrogant and insulting you are being when you use the "Jobs Americans won't do" argument?

This argument can be parsed one of two ways: (1) "Such jobs are beneath us as Americans, so we need to import foreigners to do these lowly tasks for us" or (2) "I preside over a nation of such hopelessly spoiled brats that we need to just cave in to their juvenile refusal to do such jobs."

The first is arrogant and insulting to people from other countries. The second is arrogant and insulting to Americans.

Since it can be parsed both ways, the argument is arrogant and insulting no matter what your nationality.

[B-Chan]

Yep. It's just a fantasy. The Powers That Be would never allow the kind of leader who could pull off a program like that to reach the Big Chair. He'd end up discredited or dead.

It's over. We're boned.

I'm just glad I know Spanish already.

[Robertsll]

Once the current illegals are made legal, then there will no longer be an incentive to hire them, they'll just keep hiring the next wave of illegals that enter the country.

LOL! That is excellent fuzzy logic.

I do have to hand it to you, your arguments are far better than those of the free traitors. And I am not joking.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Due to the self-identification differences among states, it is not likely that the numbers of self-identified white-hispanic, native American or mestizo are of any demographic value. They only break it into black and white, unfortunately.

[brytlea]

And of course, what happens to all of the illegal fruit pickers when the industry automates?

susie

[brytlea]

Another excellent point. You are so very smart!
susie

[Robertsll]

The solution is not "compromise". The solution is to solve the problem.

Tell your boss (GWB) that. ;)

[Robertsll]

Ok, sorry I misunderstood your view.

I should have been more clear.

[brytlea]

Thank you. Now I only wish I could remember why I wanted to know! ;)
susie

[ARealMothersSonForever]

That is the reality of living in a Democratic Republic. One side does not get to dictate policy to the other. Neither side has the votes. No one is going to be perfectly happy with what solution comes out. Demanding 100% of what you what and ZERO of what you don't want means you will get 100% of nothing.

I totally agree. I think ALL conservatives can agree on increased border security. And NO amnesty, meaning granting "line-jumper" benefits of any kind. Everything else is details and semantics.

[The Mayor]

I'll drop what I am doing right now and go... In a heart beat.

[brytlea]

I suppose you're what they call a moderate? :)
susie

[blam]

"Cut off welfare after six months and see how fast those paying jobs are taken by americans."

Welfare and The Great Society was implemented by LBJ to stop a Civil War in the 1960's. Blacks were already burning down the cities in the US. The same would happen again without welfare.

[fr_freak]

The economics are these: Americans might do the backbreaking agricultural jobs, but not for the wages at which illegals will do them. American farmers are operating on very thin margins and competing with foreign producers, so they've got a strong incentive to minimize their payroll costs -- hence the strong demand for illegal labor.

That was exactly the author's point - that Americans would do the job just fine if the wages for that job weren't so depressed by illegals. The argument he was refuting was the "jobs Americans won't do" mantra. That mantra suggests that Americans are either too proud or too lazy to do such jobs, when the actual fact is that they can't afford to raise families on the lowered wages that illegals will accept. Illegals, on the other hand, accept the low wages readily because they are far better than they'd get in Mexico and there generally haven't been better-paying jobs in the US that they could get without a green card.

Now, if you're going to argue that illegals help the economy by allowing agriculture to produce at lower cost, then you're forgetting the flip side of the illegal situation: lower wages and benefits for the ag workers means that they do not pay for (or even contribute to) their own medical care or insurance of any kind. So, when the illegals get sick or hurt, or crash their cars into other people, they pay nothing. Instead, the cost is absorbed by the American tax-payer. So, essentially what the ag industry is doing is shifting the cost of those workers away from themselves and onto taxpayers. You might get slightly cheaper fruit at the store, but you'll pay that savings and then some back into taxes to cover all of the free health care for illegals and raised car insurance rates. In addition, for those illegals using a false Social Security number, they will pay no income tax at the federal or state levels, nor property tax, which means that all community services, such as fire, police, and schooling for their children, sales tax aside, are free to them, which means that once again, the American taxpayer shoulders the burden.

Furhtermore, the effect of bringing illegals into a job market is to depress the standard of living for that field of work. In the case of the ag work, any one who wishes to work in that area cannot do so unless they are willing to live as the illegals do - 10 to an apartment, or in subsidized housing, etc. Where once a filed worker may have been able to make a modest living, now field workers can only afford to live the Mexican way. As the illegals move up the job market, as they are doing now with construction, the standard of living for construction workers goes down, until only those willing to live like illegals can afford to perform that job. If this were allowed to continue, eventually most jobs in the US would return a much lower standard of living and many Americans, who supposedly are too well off to be willing to do such jobs, would get caught in that tide and find themselves unable to maintain a standard of living that Americans 40 years ago took for granted.

[F.J. Mitchell]

BTTT!

[Robertsll]

I think ALL conservatives can agree on increased border security. And NO amnesty, meaning granting "line-jumper" benefits of any kind.

I agree. Having real border security, no rewards for illegal aliens, and enforce employment laws is the solution.

All this talk of compromise makes it seem like compromise is an end in itself. When in fact, it is a means to an end.

[Omglol]

the only problem, half the illegals don't work and only 2-3% of illegals work in agriculture... see Rush for info

[lawdude]

McCain had the arrogance to proclaim that Americans won't work for $50/hr. I am an attorney and never made $50/hr in my life. I came close in 2002, my last year before retirement.

What an idiot.

[longtermmemmory]

The go into the streets demanding amnesty.

In FL about a decade back, there was freeze which made some legislators give them unemployment during the down time "for humnanitarian reasons". When the freeze passed the illegals did not go back to the fields. They were making more with unemployment.

When you don't hire illegals the crime rate will jump.

[Robertsll]

Welfare and The Great Society was implemented by LBJ to stop a Civil War in the 1960's. Blacks were already burning down the cities in the US. The same would happen again without welfare.

History lovers, what does that tell us about this amnesty debate.

It tells me this nation is scr*wed. If true, we have already raised the white flag.

[ARCADIA]

Cut off welfare after six months and see how fast those paying jobs are taken by americans.

That, or get rid of the hee-haw running the farm and find someone who knows how to apply modern technology.