View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Selwyn Duke |
March 30th, 2006
There are no jobs Americans won’t do. There are only wages Americans won’t work for.
One reason we’re supposed to rejoice at the pitter-patter of illegal feet is that foreigners are only coming here to “do jobs Americans won’t do.” It’s one of those basic assumptions upon which the argument in favor of forgetting we have borders, a culture and laws rests, and even President Bush mentioned this “truth” while speaking about immigration reform recently. And, undoubtedly, there are certain immutable laws of economics.
Only, this isn’t one of them.
The next time someone mindlessly parrots this mantra, just ask, “What jobs would those be?” As you’ll soon learn, the answer doesn’t really matter, but sometimes we’re shamed by didacts who oh-so-sternly say that illegals are the people who “pick our fruit for us.” So, fruit picking – something that must be in league with being a rat catcher in Victorian London or Wile E. Coyote’s stunt double – is as good an example as any.
One amusing aspect of the fruit picking fiction is that millions of people in our country engage in this activity as a form of recreation. Why, there are folks who embark upon autumn ventures to the hinterlands to pick apples and consider it a fun family outing. But I digress.
I have to ask, if I paid you $800 an hour to pick fruit, would you do it? Except for the silk and satin set, I have a feeling most would beat a path to my orchard. And this brings us to what is a true law of economics.
There are no jobs Americans won’t do. There are only wages Americans won’t work for.
And this relates to a fact of contemporary American life: immigrants, illegal or otherwise, depress wages. Oh, some would dispute this? Well, they’re wrong and I intend to prove it.
There’s another universal, unchangeable law of economics called “supply and demand,” and most of us understand it. Regardless of what product or service is at issue, if demand increases relative to supply, prices increase; if supply increases relative to demand, prices drop. And this phenomenon is relevant here. Why?
Quite simply because, like it or not, within the context of a free market system, workers are commodities whose value is determined by supply and demand. For example, a skilled neurosurgeon doesn’t make a half a million dollars a year because what he does is so important. If that were the case, he’d earn more than people who hit, kick and throw balls around and sign autographs. No, his income is a function of his rarity; create 100 million more just like him and his salary will become relatively paltry.
Thus, increase the supply of workers relative to the jobs available and the value of workers decreases. This is not opinion, my friends, but hard, cold fact. Immigrants swell the worker pool, thereby increasing competition for jobs, allowing employers to pay less for the same employees. We’ve all heard of a “buyer’s market” and a “seller’s market;” well, high levels of immigration transform us from a worker’s market into an employer’s market. Big business loves it.
Of course, the immigration lobby has an answer at the ready when this truth becomes inconvenient. “How much do you want to pay for a head of lettuce?!” they exclaim.
What’s so ironic about this argument is that its proponents are generally the very same people who’ll zealously campaign for increases in the minimum wage, an action that can also increase the cost of doing business and, therefore, retail prices. But since they say they want to help poor Americans, let’s discuss that.
The natural, free market way to help low income Americans is to increase their value by making them rarer commodities. How do you do this? You guessed it, by severely curtailing (a moratorium would be ideal) immigration. Do that and America becomes more of a worker’s market, forcing businesses to offer more money to attract applicants.
Would goods become more expensive? Perhaps, but while this isn’t the focus of this piece, that may be more than offset by the elimination of the social consequences (e.g., hospital, welfare and education costs) of absorbing millions of often illiterate (some can’t even read and write their own languages) Third World immigrants into our nation. Regardless, this is the traditional, healthy, free market way of spreading the wealth around. And I’d rather redistribute wealth through the market than through socialism.
Lastly, there’s another irony here. Cesar Chavez, the head of the United Farm Workers Union during its heyday, is a hero of Americans of Mexican descent. So much so, in fact, that his name is often associated with the dual cause of promoting immigration and the re-conquest of California and the American southwest, known as La Reconquista. Conveniently forgotten, though, is a very inconvenient fact: when Chavez enjoyed the peak of his power, he was a fervid – bordering on venomous – opponent of illegal immigration. And he not only railed against it but often actually reported Mexican illegals to the INS so they could be deported. He also protested illegal immigration on the border in 1969 and had civilian border guards who were sufficiently heavy-handed to make today’s Minutemen seem milquetoasty.
What motivated him? Quite simply, he was charged with the responsibility of keeping his union members’ wages as high as possible. And he understood the law of supply and demand.
We have a union called the United States. I just wonder if membership therein means anything anymore.
Of course, there’s always cheap lettuce.
SD@SelwynDuke.com
Visit their website at: http://www.SelwynDuke.com
Responses to "What Jobs Won’t Americans Do?"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Same old situation, you have a bunch of rich white liberals declaring that they are standing up for poor minorities. Illegal immigration is todays softcore version of slave labour. They're cheaper then hiring legal immigrants and regular Americans, they're expendable, they're controllable, and most importantly, they provide us with cheap goods.
Every base arguement that pro illegals use to convince us that America needs illegal immigrants, is pulled right from the playbook that was written by the same people who defending the abomination that was slavery.
Comment by curtis walston | March 30, 2006
Well-written article. I would like to ask the question, "What jobs are illegals not doing." I work in food and beverage, so I'd like to look at the life of that cheap head of lettuce. The illegals pick it, pack it, ship it, drive it here(the number one job growth market for illegals is OTR Semi-Driver where you guessed it, a CDL is needed), unload it, cook it, serve it, and clean the plate it was served on. No I do not hire illegals, but in this industry, I would estimate 50 percent of kitchen workers are illegals in major cities. This raises my question, which of these jobs exactly wouldn't Americans do? There is no easy fix to this issue because our politicians are spineless reactionary slobs who refuse to insult anyone. We must stop the influx of illegals in this country. Once we do this, we must start taxing these workers when they do come to America. We then must start penalizing the EMPLOYER for hiring an illegal. As a conservative it is hard for me to desire any increase in regulation, but knowingly hiring illegals for a cheap labor force is the primary cause of our current problem. We cannot depend on government to solve anything, the American worker and business owner must solve this problem. I wonder how the pro-immigrant folks would feel if we used the "doing the jobs Americans won't argument across the board." Does it really take a genius to push a buttom on a line in a car plant? How skilled of labor is it to turn a sign from stop to green light on a construction sight? There are many contractors who can't compete in Southwest America simply because they obey the law and pay workers a fair wage as compared to the Home Depot work force others pay. Wal-Mart should just put an all-illegal work force together; after all, who would do that job?
1.STOP THE BLEEDING-SEAL THE BORDERS
2. TAX THE WORKERS- MAKE THESE WORKERS AN ASSET INSTEAD OF A LIABILITY FOR THE COUNTRY
3. FINE THE EMPOYERS WHO KNOWINGLY HIRE ILLEGALS- DIFFICULT BUT POSSIBLE.
Comment by honker | March 30, 2006
Love your last paragraph Curtis, how true and how sad. I just wish I could say this argument had the Dems and GOP on opposite sides like slavery had. Sadly, the Republican Party of Lincoln is nowhere to be found.
Comment by honker | March 30, 2006
As a construction worker in the SW, I've seen the displacement of workers due to the Third World influx. In May of last year, Mexico adopted the same building codes we have here. While having standards is a good thing for Mexico, the "native" building industry will be destroyed if we don't shut that border down.
btw, few of these "jobs citizens won't do" crowd mention the story of tomato pickers in the 1960's. We stopped the guest worker program, so new equiptment was built to pick tomatoes. New tomatoes were developed which made it easier to "pick" the tomatoes with the machines. Tomato production increased by over 60%.
Comment by The Plumber | March 30, 2006
It's a sad commentary when even George Will has bought into this stuff. In his latest column, he talks about the costs of shipping out these illegals, the damage it would do to our economy, etc. While I think it's obvious that we need to crack down on the border, I think we should discuss what to do with the millions of illegals already here. Clearly we can't bus them all out, as Will said. I think the optimal solution is to investigate contracts that come in remarkably low, interview legitimate and law abiding companies (discreetly) to see if their competitors are using illegals, and things of this nature. When their job market begins to dry up, they will have to make their way back to where they can find work. But there's got to be better ways. I'm just typing off the cuff. What are some of you guys' thoughts?
Comment by Shane Atwood | March 30, 2006
Good article, I've been saying this for a long time. Simple economics. When you flood the work pool with workers who are being paid less than minimum wage (which is illegal), aren't paying taxes (also illegal), are simultaneously taking advantage of social programs that are paid for legal American workers who pay taxes, and aren't held in any way responsible for their actions, how can legal Amerian workers compete? The real question is, does the end justify the means? Is it okay for US companies to BREAK THE LAW as long as the end result is cheap lettuce? I used to live in Washington state, and ironically, all the workers in the kitchens and doing menial jobs were young white kids like me. And surprisingly enough, cost of living is a whole heck of a lot lower in Washington than it is in California. See, when there's no illegal workers being paid illegal wages, the job market actually has competition, and those lazy white kids that don't want to work are prodominantly the one's doing those kind of jobs.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 30, 2006
What if all of what you say is true and competition actually fulfills its destiny in
the absence of cheap labor? While it may mean saying good bye to some of our
friends and neighbors - it would ultimately mean a better standard of living for
those of us who actually reside here legally. I figure wages would rise about 8%
in about 3 years…assuming the border has been secured. And what if…and this
is strictly a fantasy - Congress decided to couple Immigration reform with Welfare
reform…we'd save a lot of debt doh-nuts that way too. Oh wait…I forgot…the guys
in DC don't really represent us any more. Well….it was a nice thought…..
Comment by Skippy Newgiggle | March 31, 2006
My thoughts on what to do with the ones that are here (comment #5), first of all give them all a student loan. The student loan gestapo can track anyone at anytime. Once we have done that, make them register as conservatives, then they will hated for thinking for themselves by those who love them so much now. At this point illegals will begin to become confused about our freedoms and opportunities. They will believe that if they pay their taxes, work hard, and stay out of trouble; their version of the American dream will come true. This is when we start busing in thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants from Communist China. The Chinese work harder and don't complain like these illegals of today. They will work for less money. We won't pay them benefits. We will deny citizenship. They won't dare march on the streets of LA with Chinese flags in an appartent coup. At this point are current illegals will sit back and wonder what ever happened to the America they and their ancestors fought and died to preserve. Let the cycle begin again.
Comment by honker | March 31, 2006
On second thought, lets ship the Chinese in, through a UAE port of course.
Comment by honker | March 31, 2006
If amnesty is given to illegal aliens they will then have capability to move to a more visible and higher paying jobs in the US market place. Will the influx of labor through supply and demand lower wages in this job market and what will happen to the price of a head of lettuce as labor resources decrease? I am not an employer, but have worked with legal aliens, as defined by the employer, in the work place with good paying manufacturing jobs. These alien workers expect the employers and us to yield to their customs. As one example of tolerance and there are many, a large percentage of these workers want to go back to their homelands for weeks and months at a time and expect to keep their jobs and then balk at us when we ask them to pay for their health insurance premiums while they are out of work. Are we given tolerance take additional time off each year, say a month, to be with our families? I have watched US citizens have to explain why they need time off for doctor’s appointment for themselves, never mind the fact of having to take care of a family member in need. My grandparents came to this great country as legal immigrants, learned English, and became US citizens. Yes, they had to wait several years for passports and visas too. Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses; but come here legally and go home when your visa expires. Do not disappear off the radar screen when your visa expires. We are and continue to be a country of laws. What would happen to any US citizen if they were in another country, any country, illegally? Employers photocopy citizenship documents and maintain those records. Employers are not required to “verify” any citizenship documents! If Social Security questions, through the employer, an alien or guest worker about the validity of their social security number, we never see them again. The same applies to questions about their visa or green card. Note that a large portion of these same workers also purchases their documents illegally including their driver’s license and do not insure their vehicles. When we ask other workers who knew/know them, the responses is almost always the same, “they moved to another state” for whatever reason. I have been to many third word countries. We talk of a world economy, however big business is only looking for another opportunity in which they can produce their good for pennies on the dollar or market their goods. The countries that do not benefit from this trade should be where the “world” concentrates its efforts to stabilize their economies. We should not subsidize business profits through illegal immigration. This is just one more form of corporate welfare. Profits are not above the law either. The price of lettuce and the minimum wage are realities of capitalism and I do not think the price of lettuce will follow the price of oil.
Comment by Dismayed | March 31, 2006
Yeah, it is ironic that the same people who complain about corporate America often want to grant these illegals amnesty so they can work to line the pockets of corporations for next to nothing. Don't ask for consistency with these people.
Comment by Shane Atwood | April 1, 2006
This article hits the key issue. Illegals want access and less punishment for those
who break our laws by sneaking into America. Then they rob us of our medical benefits,
educational rights and culture. Allowing this make us more vulnerable to Muslims
terrorist who want to kill us, and crushing our economy by allow the illegal
contingency.
The future of our families are riding on the outcome of what we allow our employees,
the politicians in Washington, to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
Comment by David B. McDonagh | April 1, 2006
Why has the black community been so quiet. They are looking at the second comming of
slavery.
Comment by Richard Benda | April 3, 2006
Mr. McDonagh says “This article hits the key issue.” The key issue is not whether immigrants depress wages or take jobs away from born-Americans. We have no problem with legal immigrants depressing our wages somewhat or taking some jobs that Americans might fill because we know that, over time, this is self-correcting in a free-market. Nor is the key issue one of the price of fruit, jobs fussy “yanquis” won’t do, social consequences, or whether or not Chavez was anti-immigrant. Key to the problem is not that some big corporations favor illegals and have paid off politicians to look the other way. Yes, those are all valid factors and problems in themselves, but they are not fundamental to why illegal immigration is a problem and why we should do everything necessary to stop it.
The key issue is that illegal aliens are here forcibly, without our consent, in deliberate disregard for the inviolability of our borders. That's it, … summa omni argumentum. When some vagrant breaks into your house, rapes your daughter, and takes what he pleases, do you really care that he was cold, hungry, accustomed to lawlessness, or the product of a brutish upbringing? Do you stand there debating with your neighbor whether the guy is really a bad person or just some misguided idiot who stumbled into your refrigerator and really believed all that stuff he hauled out of there was just for the taking? If you are like me, you call the cops first and have him hauled away before getting caught up in such idiotic questions. Perhaps, you take pity on him to the extent you drop some, but not all, of the charges if he hasn’t done you irreparable harm. But, you do see to it he’s punished to the degree his behavior merits and discourage others having the same idea.
Why is this principle so clear when we are talking about our personal homes, yet so muddied when we’re talking about our national home. Why do we cringe from saying it as though it makes us heartless monsters to defend hearth and family against those who steal from our larder and usurp our place? I have heard some of the most errant nonsense put forward, both in defending the illegal invasion and in decrying against it.
Those defending the invasion tell us "borders are an imperialist abstraction to abet robbery by capitalists of the poor and keep the natives in thralldom." Some argue this was their land long before it was ours. Others say they enrich or culture and our economy or take jobs no one else wants Still others say they do us no harm, are no worse than home grown lawbreakers, or behave better than most because they fear deportation. Those against (hesitant to speak plainly) will say it’s because they take away jobs, depress wages, resist assimilation, are a burden, don’t pay taxes, are immune to our laws, are dangerous, are arrogant, expose us to terrorism, or are stealing our votes and government from under our noses. These latter, are the more factual and valid, yet just as moot in nailing the ‘key’ problem. We know these things happen and they are well documented. They are valid concerns, whether, or not, they are the product of foreign invasion or the behavior of born-to-the-soil rogues gone lazy and lawless. They mislead and weaken by basing our main argument on tangential questions that mask and dilute the central one that these are criminals invading our home, over whom we are allowed a reasonable recourse.
At the heart of this aversion, is a culture with no stomach to fight back. In past, we knew how to respond and praised those who did the work. The colonists who defied a king and launched a free nation had no compunction against meeting violence with violence. Same with 1890’s border posses who chased off Apaches and migrant hordes tearing up property and harming people in their wake. They spoke openly of repelling and even killing invaders come among us, and they were far more successful discouraging invasion. They did not hide behind niceties of law, economics, or the meaning of borders. That sometimes meant invaders were harmed trying to penetrate our borders. It did not make our citizen-soldiers into bands of bloodthirsty xenophobic killers or ‘imperialist lackeys’ enlisted in an unjust cause. It made them stalwart defenders of home. Most often, they were able to chase the invaders off, but sometimes found themselves up against determined marauders who had to be stopped by killing them and examples made of them. Their numbers were few and their weaponry relatively equal to that of the invaders. Yet, they were able to do what the mightiest government on earth is now powerless to do, and with a minimum of bloodshed.
We can argue our firepower today is so overwhelming unequal it should be disallowed (in fact, we do). What good is overwhelming firepower if you can’t use it until the bastard has a knife at your throat? This is bad for you and, in the long run, bad for them. Sensing our weakness only excites their numbers to swell until we are forced to react with even greater brutality than that from which we now shrink. Better to stop them early and avoid the unnecessary slaughter, brutality, dislocation, and upheaval down the road. Try to do it with out brutality, but get it done. The longer we delay this, the worse it will be for us and them.
As for the argument “… we can’t bus them all out …” why not? Is it because there are 11-million (or more) of them and we don’t know how to find them all, there aren’t enough holding pens to hold them, or because there aren’t enough buses and trains and planes and ox carts to put them all in? Because Vincente Fox may line up his army along the border and shoot them as we herd them across? Because doing so will leave a huge hole in our economy? Because some of them are vicious gang members who will riot if we try? Tommy-rot! They are rioting now, Fox is a hot-air opportunist, and cattle trains will do and are healthier than the stifling sealed containers they snuck in here on. So what if we can’t find, fix, and deport every single one of them. I bet we can find and ship enough back to send the right message. We can certainly deport more than are coming in. Couple this with a real border manned by soldiers authorized to shoot when threatened, and we’ll have some chance of reversing this invasion. If Vincente Fox starts shooting them coming back, we can send our far more powerful army down there to chase his pipsqueak army into the hills, arrest Fox, and earn the praise of the Mexican people as we have done in Iraq. Leave our army there awhile, and we will turn their economy around and fix their government so they don’t feel so anxious to come here.
It wasn’t so long ago that the common “wisdom” had us believing we would never bring down the Soviet Union: by cutting off loans, by one-upping their military into financial ruin, or by any other means. The USSR was declared an immutable reality; with which we’d converge over time. Reagan was considered an idiot for trying to bring the soviets down. Soon after Reagan left office, the USSR collapsed, either of its own internal inconsistencies, the pressures Reagan brought to bear, or both. Next, the common wisdom was that invading or involving ourselves in Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq or any other third world country would involve us in a endless Vietnam-style quagmire. Even tiny Grenada was considered too formidable to offend. More common wisdom was that we were so dependent on oil we couldn’t afford to upset OPEC. All these dire predictions proved baseless, and so too the wisdom we can’t afford to upset hordes of invaders laced with an undisciplined army of M13’s from a country that can’t get itself out of the 18th century. It takes only a few people in the right place, with a little guts, and a willingness to ignore common-wisdom to see the obvious and turn things around.
Mr. Duke’s article is accurate, valid, and even important in understanding the current situation. But, it is not because jobs are “key” to the situation. Rather, it is because they aren’t and a distraction from the real point that: invaders need to be repelled.
Comment by Bob Stapler | April 4, 2006
There is no job my kids will not do in Mexico. Right now my daughter is giving up spring break to build houses in Juarez. She won't be able to shower for a week. Other children have done all sorts of maidwork at Mexican orphanages. If you feel compassion for the poor, help them out, but don't force huge debts on law-abiding Americans that live close to the borders. How about kindness to those who have newly arrived after a long line and endless paperwork? Why do I have to feel sorry for obnoxious communist protesters who spit on american honor and hold their hand out at the same time?
Comment by parsimonious mom | April 6, 2006