5 ms·

"while Americans don't want them" Former construction worker here. Americans don't want these jobs at the below-market wages they pay. The wages would be hig

by JPKab 7y ago

"while Americans don't want them" Former construction worker here. Americans don't want these jobs at the below-market wages they pay. The wages would be higher if not for the supply being inflated by laborers willing to work for below minimum wage. The most dangerous job in the world (Alaskan crab fisherman) is brutal, dirty, and high paying. Therefore there are always American citizens waiting on the docks to learn the trade. Not saying I don't want more immigration in the US. I want WAY more of it, but only if it's not reducing pay in entry level vocations.

Consultant32452 7y ago
This is the most backwards part of this whole argument. Democrats want the status quo or even more people competing for and pushing down wages on the low end. Their immigration policies hurt the poor the most. Republicans want to bring in highly educated, high skill people who will suppress the wages of the middle and upper middle class. Somehow no one that matters in politics is willing to point this out against the other side.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  It's one of those strange instances where both 'sides' seem to be sides of the same coin. Like vanilla or chocolate ice cream; ostensibly very different, except both are ice cream. It really feels like neither side has the best interests of the public at heart.
idlewords 7y ago
I can't speak to construction in particular, but my statement is 100% true for low-wage ag labor. See https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wisconsin-dairy-industry-undocumented-workers_n_59c3cfb7e4b06f93538cfd3f https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wisconsin-dairy-industry-undo... for examples in the dairy industry.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  For a few years I worked in the bean processing industry alongside many other citizens, working for a small (relatively speaking) ag business that only hired citizens on principle. These jobs were highly competitive; I only got the job because I had the privilege of the owner being my godfather. These were low skill jobs that other businesses would use illegal labor below minimum wage for. My first job for him was standing next to a conveyor belt and picking the sticks out of the beans. Real boring work, but for my education level at the time the pay was great. I eventually moved on, but I have a lot of friends from highschool still working for that business (now working for my godfather's son, who took over the business after his father retired a while back.) So what you are saying may be largely true for low-wage ag labor, but it's not 100% true for fair wage low-skill ag labor.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  That article makes it pretty clear that wages are kept "unnaturally low" (their language) due to the immigrant labor pool. The whole article has gross, racist undertones of wanting a brown serf class to do disgusting work in terrible conditions for poverty wages.
  - idlewords 7y ago
    Those gross, racist undertones accurately describe the status quo in places like Iowa, where there is a huge labor shortage and tons of racism.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      Regional labor shortages are a BS excuse. Every business in those states, whether they are paying illegal wages or fair wages, will ship their labor in. When I was working in Indiana they shipped me in and put me up in a cheap hotel, just like they'd do if they were paying an illegal wage. Contrary to the popular narrative, businesses CAN pay migrant labor fair wages. Few of them will voluntarily do so though, which is why this country desperately needs revamped modernized labor laws.
notacoward 7y ago
Since we're talking about incentives, without cheap labor the incentive will be to increase automation until the total cost comes back down. So domestic workers' desire for high-pay/low-skill jobs is just as selfish/artificial as companies' desire for cheap labor. That doesn't mean it's bad, but slamming companies for responding to market forces when it comes to immigration alone is almost cherry-picking. You have to consider the whole picture to make good policy.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Even automated plants have lots of labor opportunities for highschool grads. Some of the bean plants I worked in were ostensibly automated, which meant it still took two or three people supervising the plant during operation. (In the un-automated plants it was more like 10-15 people needed, so there was definitely a big difference.) But even when the whole processing line is automatic you still need people around to unclog machines when they get jammed, hit them with hammers when they start acting up, replace bearings when they start screaming, rake up all the beans that fall on the floor, unclog all the drains that get filled with scum, rake beans out of the back of the truck (because moving-floor trailers never get all the beans out.) Each automated plant is also basically assured income for any local mechanic, who would typically get called at least a few times a week for any problem I couldn't fix with a hammer or wrench.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  You're crossing streams a little bit. Both workers and companies want what's good for them, that's not so much 'selfish'. Noting is really 'artificial' in this either, it's all market forces, though one might argue that the 'off the books' labour is to some extent an artificial impetus. If 'cheap undocumented labour' were not available, yes, you are right, more automation would come into play, but that doesn't imply it would all be automated, as much of it cannot. Most likely outcome would be: 1) a lot of farming is simply unsustainable in any case, and it moves to Mexico. This is good thing however as it provides jobs at wages upon which people can have a normal life there, and helps expand their economy. 2) full automation in some areas for net lost jobs 3) partial automation in others (machinery is always getting smarter and better even if it doesn't fully automate) and 4) high paying jobs for the crops that can maintain margin. But it's all moot: there's a reason nations have laws, citizenship, constitutions etc. and having people live and work on the black market without legal wages, health insurance, worker's rights, etc. etc. is self defeating. It'd be better to play by the rules - either enforce the laws as they exist, or enact an 'above board' migrant workers program (i.e. short term visas) for workers to come so they don't have to hide in the shadows and can have at least some kind of labour protection which everyone should have.
Frondo 7y ago
There's the catch. Americans would take all kinds of back-breaking work for the right amount of pay. American agriculture has always relied, more or less, on underpaying its laborers, the extreme case being slavery (entirely unpaid, entirely forced, human beings were "owned"). After slavery was officially ended, we still hire the least politically empowered, and the most easily abused. The constant threat of deportation is a feature for American ag owners; it's hardly a step away from slavery, because yes, people can return to their own countries, but they aren't rational economic actors in any reasonable sense of the word.
- schnevets 7y ago
  The agriculture podcast Farm to Taber has a few interesting episodes on this topic (including the Prison Labor episode here: https://www.farmtotaber.com/episodes/2018/4/27/convict-labor https://www.farmtotaber.com/episodes/2018/4/27/convict-labor). America suffers from a cognitive dissonance because they refuse to recognize agricultural laborers as a skilled labor force. Anyone can pick berries for a day, but someone who has been working on farms for 30 years will give exponentially more output because of the muscle memory and constitution they have developed. It is a true form of skilled labor, and it's the truth behind articles where farms struggled to replace immigrant labor with Americans. (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/farmers-strain-to-hire-american-workers-in-place-of-migrant-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/farmers-strain-to-hire...). As exploitative as the industry is (and, depending on your view of capitalism, you may say all labor is exploitative), it was significantly better before President Clinton's 1996 immigration law (https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigration https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigr...). Seasonal workers could migrate to the US, work temporarily, and then return home for their own growing season with relative ease. Many of these workers only felt pressured to bring in their families and settle permanently after their own, US-based livelihoods were threatened. Restoring temporary worker status would be a huge benefit for America's agricultural industry. Recognizing the competence and skill involved in growing our food would also help us make sure crops get picked. Automation that improves throughput per worker and affords workers more benefits should be the end-goal, but there's no way we'll be able to reach it with the industry's current political climate.
rchaud 7y ago
> Americans don't want these jobs at the below-market wages they pay. The wages would be higher if not for the supply being inflated by laborers willing to work for below minimum wage. I agree with your overall point, that more people would be willing to work those jobs if the wages were higher. But your phrasing reveals the paradox intrinsic in this issue. If undocumented labourers are willing for work for under the minimum wage, then that is in fact, the "market wage", i.e. the intersection of the minimum the labourer would accept and the maximum the employer would pay. "Minimum wage" is set by the local or state government and it's pretty much only Republicans who fight to put downward pressure on it. So to depend on that same party to present federal policy that focuses on degrees rather than family members, ignores the economic reality that will keep people coming in to take sub-minimum wage jobs.
KirinDave 7y ago
There is a way easier way to do this: just raise the minimum wage. You can do it at the State level if you're concerned about federal interference in stare policy (in fact, I think it's better to do it that way because it's closer to the people who understand the calculations required to strike the right balance).
- pandaman 7y ago
  Why do you believe the people who already break the law by employing people who have no right to work in the US will obey the minimum wage laws?
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    Simple. Because then token citizens will mix in with workforces and start filing lawsuits against folks who wronged them and get settlements above and beyond their pay. This post is only half glib. The serious half is we should work dilligently to decriminalize reasonable immigration cases like seasonal work. We can keep the money and weapons movement illegal if you like. But human movement for work? It's strictly pride and a fair measure of racism that keeps us from the obvious conclusion that the border should be a rubber stamp.
    - pandaman 7y ago
      What about all other countries in the world which have borders and restrictions on crossing them? Pride + racism too?
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        Some of them, surely. Some of them, surely not. We're talking about the US in this thread. Saying, "Well what about the Korean border?" like it's all that relevant is a waste of everyone's time in a conversation about the US borders. I'm not espousing a universal policy. I'm saying US border politics are currently (and historically have almost always been) about racism, and it shows.

by JPKab 7y ago

Consultant32452 7y ago

This is the most backwards part of this whole argument. Democrats want the status quo or even more people competing for and pushing down wages on the low end. Their immigration policies hurt the poor the most. Republicans want to bring in highly educated, high skill people who will suppress the wages of the middle and upper middle class. Somehow no one that matters in politics is willing to point this out against the other side.

darkpuma 7y ago
It's one of those strange instances where both 'sides' seem to be sides of the same coin. Like vanilla or chocolate ice cream; ostensibly very different, except both are ice cream. It really feels like neither side has the best interests of the public at heart.

idlewords 7y ago

I can't speak to construction in particular, but my statement is 100% true for low-wage ag labor. See https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wisconsin-dairy-industry-undocumented-workers_n_59c3cfb7e4b06f93538cfd3f https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wisconsin-dairy-industry-undo... for examples in the dairy industry.

darkpuma 7y ago
For a few years I worked in the bean processing industry alongside many other citizens, working for a small (relatively speaking) ag business that only hired citizens on principle. These jobs were highly competitive; I only got the job because I had the privilege of the owner being my godfather. These were low skill jobs that other businesses would use illegal labor below minimum wage for. My first job for him was standing next to a conveyor belt and picking the sticks out of the beans. Real boring work, but for my education level at the time the pay was great. I eventually moved on, but I have a lot of friends from highschool still working for that business (now working for my godfather's son, who took over the business after his father retired a while back.) So what you are saying may be largely true for low-wage ag labor, but it's not 100% true for fair wage low-skill ag labor.
Consultant32452 7y ago
That article makes it pretty clear that wages are kept "unnaturally low" (their language) due to the immigrant labor pool. The whole article has gross, racist undertones of wanting a brown serf class to do disgusting work in terrible conditions for poverty wages.
- idlewords 7y ago
  Those gross, racist undertones accurately describe the status quo in places like Iowa, where there is a huge labor shortage and tons of racism.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Regional labor shortages are a BS excuse. Every business in those states, whether they are paying illegal wages or fair wages, will ship their labor in. When I was working in Indiana they shipped me in and put me up in a cheap hotel, just like they'd do if they were paying an illegal wage. Contrary to the popular narrative, businesses CAN pay migrant labor fair wages. Few of them will voluntarily do so though, which is why this country desperately needs revamped modernized labor laws.

notacoward 7y ago

Since we're talking about incentives, without cheap labor the incentive will be to increase automation until the total cost comes back down. So domestic workers' desire for high-pay/low-skill jobs is just as selfish/artificial as companies' desire for cheap labor. That doesn't mean it's bad, but slamming companies for responding to market forces when it comes to immigration alone is almost cherry-picking. You have to consider the whole picture to make good policy.

darkpuma 7y ago
Even automated plants have lots of labor opportunities for highschool grads. Some of the bean plants I worked in were ostensibly automated, which meant it still took two or three people supervising the plant during operation. (In the un-automated plants it was more like 10-15 people needed, so there was definitely a big difference.) But even when the whole processing line is automatic you still need people around to unclog machines when they get jammed, hit them with hammers when they start acting up, replace bearings when they start screaming, rake up all the beans that fall on the floor, unclog all the drains that get filled with scum, rake beans out of the back of the truck (because moving-floor trailers never get all the beans out.) Each automated plant is also basically assured income for any local mechanic, who would typically get called at least a few times a week for any problem I couldn't fix with a hammer or wrench.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
You're crossing streams a little bit. Both workers and companies want what's good for them, that's not so much 'selfish'. Noting is really 'artificial' in this either, it's all market forces, though one might argue that the 'off the books' labour is to some extent an artificial impetus. If 'cheap undocumented labour' were not available, yes, you are right, more automation would come into play, but that doesn't imply it would all be automated, as much of it cannot. Most likely outcome would be: 1) a lot of farming is simply unsustainable in any case, and it moves to Mexico. This is good thing however as it provides jobs at wages upon which people can have a normal life there, and helps expand their economy. 2) full automation in some areas for net lost jobs 3) partial automation in others (machinery is always getting smarter and better even if it doesn't fully automate) and 4) high paying jobs for the crops that can maintain margin. But it's all moot: there's a reason nations have laws, citizenship, constitutions etc. and having people live and work on the black market without legal wages, health insurance, worker's rights, etc. etc. is self defeating. It'd be better to play by the rules - either enforce the laws as they exist, or enact an 'above board' migrant workers program (i.e. short term visas) for workers to come so they don't have to hide in the shadows and can have at least some kind of labour protection which everyone should have.

Frondo 7y ago

There's the catch. Americans would take all kinds of back-breaking work for the right amount of pay. American agriculture has always relied, more or less, on underpaying its laborers, the extreme case being slavery (entirely unpaid, entirely forced, human beings were "owned"). After slavery was officially ended, we still hire the least politically empowered, and the most easily abused. The constant threat of deportation is a feature for American ag owners; it's hardly a step away from slavery, because yes, people can return to their own countries, but they aren't rational economic actors in any reasonable sense of the word.

schnevets 7y ago
The agriculture podcast Farm to Taber has a few interesting episodes on this topic (including the Prison Labor episode here: https://www.farmtotaber.com/episodes/2018/4/27/convict-labor https://www.farmtotaber.com/episodes/2018/4/27/convict-labor). America suffers from a cognitive dissonance because they refuse to recognize agricultural laborers as a skilled labor force. Anyone can pick berries for a day, but someone who has been working on farms for 30 years will give exponentially more output because of the muscle memory and constitution they have developed. It is a true form of skilled labor, and it's the truth behind articles where farms struggled to replace immigrant labor with Americans. (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/farmers-strain-to-hire-american-workers-in-place-of-migrant-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/farmers-strain-to-hire...). As exploitative as the industry is (and, depending on your view of capitalism, you may say all labor is exploitative), it was significantly better before President Clinton's 1996 immigration law (https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigration https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigr...). Seasonal workers could migrate to the US, work temporarily, and then return home for their own growing season with relative ease. Many of these workers only felt pressured to bring in their families and settle permanently after their own, US-based livelihoods were threatened. Restoring temporary worker status would be a huge benefit for America's agricultural industry. Recognizing the competence and skill involved in growing our food would also help us make sure crops get picked. Automation that improves throughput per worker and affords workers more benefits should be the end-goal, but there's no way we'll be able to reach it with the industry's current political climate.

rchaud 7y ago

> Americans don't want these jobs at the below-market wages they pay. The wages would be higher if not for the supply being inflated by laborers willing to work for below minimum wage. I agree with your overall point, that more people would be willing to work those jobs if the wages were higher. But your phrasing reveals the paradox intrinsic in this issue. If undocumented labourers are willing for work for under the minimum wage, then that is in fact, the "market wage", i.e. the intersection of the minimum the labourer would accept and the maximum the employer would pay. "Minimum wage" is set by the local or state government and it's pretty much only Republicans who fight to put downward pressure on it. So to depend on that same party to present federal policy that focuses on degrees rather than family members, ignores the economic reality that will keep people coming in to take sub-minimum wage jobs.

KirinDave 7y ago

There is a way easier way to do this: just raise the minimum wage. You can do it at the State level if you're concerned about federal interference in stare policy (in fact, I think it's better to do it that way because it's closer to the people who understand the calculations required to strike the right balance).

pandaman 7y ago
Why do you believe the people who already break the law by employing people who have no right to work in the US will obey the minimum wage laws?
- KirinDave 7y ago
  Simple. Because then token citizens will mix in with workforces and start filing lawsuits against folks who wronged them and get settlements above and beyond their pay. This post is only half glib. The serious half is we should work dilligently to decriminalize reasonable immigration cases like seasonal work. We can keep the money and weapons movement illegal if you like. But human movement for work? It's strictly pride and a fair measure of racism that keeps us from the obvious conclusion that the border should be a rubber stamp.
  - pandaman 7y ago
    What about all other countries in the world which have borders and restrictions on crossing them? Pride + racism too?
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      Some of them, surely. Some of them, surely not. We're talking about the US in this thread. Saying, "Well what about the Korean border?" like it's all that relevant is a waste of everyone's time in a conversation about the US borders. I'm not espousing a universal policy. I'm saying US border politics are currently (and historically have almost always been) about racism, and it shows.