A brief response to Orin's post below: Perhaps Orin is right, and I'm mistaken; it's hard to tell exactly how these short phrases are likely to be understood.
But my sense is that the "illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do" argument is mostly aimed at quieting people's concerns that illegal immigrants will take jobs that would otherwise go to current American citizens. Don't worry, the argument suggests: These are jobs that wouldn't exist (or would go unfilled) if it weren't for illegal aliens who are willing to do them cheaply.
The more accurate phrasing -- "illegal immigrants just do the jobs Americans won't do for the same low wages that illegal immigrants will take, and it helps our economy to have the jobs done at those low wages" -- carries, I think, quite a different message: It acknowledges that illegal immigrants do take some jobs that would otherwise go to current American citizens (and would go to them at higher wages), but argues (perhaps quite sensibly) that legalizing such immigrants would still be a good idea.
Orin suggests (as I understand it) that the "jobs Americans won't do" argument is basically seen as shorthand for this more precise phrasing. That just doesn't seem to me to be so (as the McCain quotes mentioned in the comments to Orin's post and to my earlier post suggest).
Related Posts (on one page):
- Sen. McCain on Jobs No American Citizens Want, Even at $50/Hour:
- More on "Jobs Americans Won't Do":
- Response to "Jobs Americans Won't Do":
- Jobs Americans Won't Do:
However, there seem to me to be two different sorts of jobs, and the shorter phrase is accurate with respect to one sort of job, but not the other.
First, there are jobs that Americans won't do for the wages that illegal immigrants would accept, but that would still exist without the current labor supply from illegal immigrants. Lawn care and nannying come to mind as examples of these sorts of jobs.
And second, there are jobs that may not exist without the current labor supply. Harvesting fruit in California comes to mind as an example). These jobs may still exist, but fruit from California needs to compete in our markets with fruit from Mexico, South America and even further abroad, and it is not clear that California orchards could produce competitively priced product without the current labor supply. (I'm not trying to pick on California or the fruit industry; it just seems like a good example to use for my illustration, and no doubt others could think of other industries for which the logic would hold.)
The shorter phrase is perfectly legitimate to use with respect to this second type of job that would not exist without the cheap labor.
Once the workers are citizens, or at least legal, they may demand more pay. My understanding is that part of the reason they are willing to work for so little is that 1) they are often paid under the table, so don't pay taxes, and 2) they accept jobs for less than legal pay, because they have no recourse to complain to.
Will changing their status change their willingness to do the jobs Americans won't do for the same low wages that illegal immigrants will take?
But taken literally, that there are jobs Americans won't do under any circumstances or for any pay is so patently irrational that I assumed most people wouldn't take it that way.
Not to get into an economics discussion, but every time a wage is decreased, additional jobs are created (the converse is true as well). More jobs exist at $5/hour than would at $10/hour. If the US were to restrict illegal immigration, employers would hire fewer workers because of the higher wage. But the remaining jobs would go to Americans or legal immigrants, and that is something the phrase "Americans won't do these jobs" just doesn't convey.
It's plausible that there may be some jobs that won't exist because there are not enough Americans to do them for wages which allow profitability. Normally, "free market" thinkers tend to say, "so what?" If we're not willing to pay $1 for each strawberry, then we don't eat strawberries anymore. Or we'll find another way to produce them economically (mechanization). Or we import them from countries that can produce them economically (something which should be apparent to free market types, too).
Of course Professor Volokh is correct that the purpose of the phrase is to allay concerns about immigrants "stealing" jobs from Americans. You won't hear politicians saying "immigrants do jobs for cheaper wages than Americans will" because most Americans will respond, "so pay the wage that Americans deserve/demand."
I am not a huge fan of McCain, but I wouldn't describe him as borderline retarded. But he essentially believes that rhetoric. He honestly believes (unless he's a liar) that $50/hour would be insufficient.
Again, I think you had it when you mentioned the effect of international trade. There are two cases:
1) entirely domestically produced goods--such as construction. In this case, your formulation is quite accurate in its implication that job displacement is occuring
2) goods with a substantial internation production. In this case, raising domestic wages by tightening the supply of labor could have the effect of eliminating an entire industry of jobs. The qualification being whether or not the cost differential can be covered by the shipping costs of importing overseas production.
So, the effect of eliminating 11 million workers would be to eliminate millions of jobs and to shift a different set of millions of workers from one job to another as stiff wage competition ensues. Some of these presently-filled jobs might be not be necessary and could be eliminated (but there should not be many because the marketplace should ostensibly minimize that inefficiency.) So, the elimination of eleven million workers would shift many jobs out of the country and create a huge bidding war for workers to fill the others. As the bidding war escalates, the incentives to move more jobs to cheaper sources of labor will increase. Thus, we would have additional waves of jobs leaving the U.S.
Of course, we would also have massive restructuring across industries as complete industries become impossible to sustain in the restricted labor pool of the new America. Thus, the shake out would spread beyond the original range of lower level, unskilled or semi-skilled positions to middle management and perhaps even upper management. (That adds to the political ramifications of the move.)
Some might say from the standpoint of pure economic efficiency that all of this is fine. If it is cheaper to make the product overseas, it should be produced overseas. All of that is true, except it fails to grasp why it would suddenly be cheaper to produce things overseas. Drastically cutting the available labor force by eleven million workers is a manipulation of price accomplished by manipulation of supply. It is hard to see how this would have any less deleterious effect on the economy than any other manipulation of the price of labor, such as an increase of the minimum wage to $10/hour or a prohibition on work by some other segment of society (bar the 11 million youngest or oldest workers from the workplace). These are not free market solutions.
While I do not regard myself as a hard-core free-market advocate, I have enough confidence in the market and enough fear of government manipulating it to think that the burden of persuasion is very stout for anyone advocating the elimination of 11 million jobs and workers.
I wonder if the short phrase is implicitly using that idea to push the notion that there are some jobs which, by their very nature, are below the dignity of the average American.
Personally, there is a wage at which I will accept just about any job. I qualify that because I haven't thought of any job I wouldn't take for the right wage, but there still may be some.
Yeah, and there would be even more at five cents an hour.
The message of the original phrasing is, you're not willing to pick strawberries for 12 hours a day in 90 degree heat, so how dare you stand in the way of those who are?
The second phrasing makes it seem explitive -- we tolerate these undocumeted workers so we can all pay a few cents less for produce, and at the same time enrich the American agriculture industry.
Not really. Many individuals, especially unskilled and under-educated workers, become what economists call "discouraged workers." These are workers that are unemployed in actuality but because they are not actively seeking employment within the last few weeks, they are excluded from unemployment figures.
There are 4 million unemployed adult natives with less than a high school education. There are another 19 million who are not in the labor force, a good deal of them probable "discouraged workers."
These numbers have increased quite rapidly since 2000 (when the largest flow of illegal immigrants in American history began).
See the CIS study for more data and discussion.
The assumption that undocumented aliens do not pay taxes is not borne out by the facts. The assumption that 11 million workers will be replaced by Americans coming out of early retirement, late schooling, or chronic laziness is a facile pipe dream.
Certainly there are pressures on social services created by low wage undocumented workers, but these pressures pale in comparison to the pressures from other segments of society that have huge numbers of unwed mothers, absent fathers, and males who have no record of lawful employment, many of whom are either in prison or engaging in conduct that will get them there.
John McG --
And the problem with a quality, affordable product from a strong American industry that is supported by willing and hard-working employees is ....?
I keep waiting for the argument from one of my fellow non-Native Americans that explains why these immigrant workers pose a problem so severe that they should be excluded. I have no problem with increasing border security. I have no problem with expelling those who violate our laws. I have no problem with establishing a more efficient system of tracking who enters the country and what they do here. But I see no reason to exclude people engaged in legitimate work when no one else stands ready to replace them. I see no reason, but I do note the acrid stench of prejudice.
Here is some more data for you.
Adult (18-64) native unemployment for those with less than a high school education is 14% in 2005 compared to 10% in 2000. Moreover, the labor force participation rate of this group also declined during this period from 59.1% to 56.3%.
But we have no Americans to fill these low, skill and low paying jobs?
Again check it all out over at CIS.
And so the "discouraged workers" will all flock to pick the strawberries John McG is willing to leave in the fields rotting? That is not consistent with my experience, nor do I believe it is consistent with anyone else's.
I resided once in a very depressed region. We advertised an unskilled, minimum wage position and received about 500 applications. When I suggested to applicants that there were other parts of the country where employers were paying a premium to get workers in comparable positions, they had no interest.
The spirit of our ancestors who moved to earn a better life for themselves and for us their descendants is reflected far more in the working immigrant than in the citizen who sits on his couch waiting for the government to deliver him a job. If we expel the former and cater to the latter, we will make Europe look like a model of efficiency.
It implies somethings are beneath us—like backbreaking working in fields. But there are far more jobs that are no longer done by legal aliens or citizens because of the glut of illegal aliens in the market.
While anecdotal, I'm sure many people can substantiate that this anecdote is in line with their other rational perceptions. In suburban CT, near Manhattan, it is essentially *impossible* to find a legal nanny or legal maid. Why? Because they don't exist. They've been driving out of the market by the illegal immigrant population. The nanny market was so much cheaper with illegals; as a result, not enough people were willing to pay the taxes and SocSec/Medicare as well as the wages to maintain those who wanted legal work at the going rate; now, the going rate for a nanny is 1800-2200 there, under the table.
Are there no women interested in nanny-ing? Of course there are. Just as many women would be happy being maids. But not at the current rates—it isn't worth it. It isn't possible.
The problems of less educated citzens are serious, but eliminating workers from the economy will not solve those problems. With perhaps a few rare exceptions, citizens who lack a high school education chose not to get one when it was offered to them without cost. Their track record is already suspect. To then eliminate 11 million workers in hopes that the drop-outs will rise to the occasion and rescue our economy from that severe wrenching of the labor market is a leap of faith I am unwilling to take.
95% of illegal immigrants work outside of agriculture. Can you formulate a better argument, one perhaps including construction or food service? I guess it just doesn't have the rhetorical zing, does it?
Illegals are working in construction, healthcare, restaurants, motels, etc. These are jobs Americans do everyday. In some cases a dollar or two increase will dramatically increase the number of Americans willing to take these positions.
You seem to be moving the goal posts.
You say there aren't enough Americans to fill the positions. I show you there are. You say these Americans are worthless and they won't take the jobs even if they pay more. How am I supposed to respond to what amounts to an insult? If there is any "stench" of prejudice in this discussion, I think it's emanating from your corner.
I don't know why agriculture should have any particular rhetorical zing. Of course, there are undocumented workers in an array of industries. Substitute any one of them you want for the strawberry fields.
The only evidence of displaced workers consists of statistical ruminations about "discouraged workers", not of people with sleeves rolled up being left on the sidelines. What employer is going to favor hiring an illegal immigrant who may not speak English and whose hiring can lead to legal sanctions when there are willing legal workers available? The unemployment rate is so low that the economy is readily absorbing anyone willing to work and willing to move to get work. We already have absorbed 11 million workers beyond what is supposed to be available to us.
The displaced American worker is a myth. But if we trash our economy by forcing at least 11 million jobs out of our economy, then the displaced American worker will be very real, in every neighborhood, on every street corner, giving us all a full color view of another Great Depression.
“The assumption that undocumented aliens do not pay taxes is not borne out by the facts.”
What facts are those? How does an illegal pay income tax and FICA without a social security number?
The main point is we don’t have a labor shortage. There is no need at present to import foreign workers to lower the wages of Americans. We have no obligation to provide foreigners with jobs. The problem is not only with low paid workers. The non-immigrant visa programs such as H1-b lower wages and cause employment for middle class Americans as well, especially in the IT industry. It starts with the bogus assertion that we have a shortage of say programmers or engineers. But we don’t. It’s a lie propagated to reduce labor costs for the IT industry.
I am tired of quoting statistics to you to disprove your personal opinions.
There are more discouraged workers. There are more unemployed individuals. The rate for unemployed high school dropouts is 14% (not discouraged workers).
There are millions of workers ready to take these jobs--jobs that Americans are already performing. Here are a few facts, which I think are bit more substantial than "ruminations" about the laziness of poor Americans.
Read the full analysis at CIS, Stealth.
I am not advocating a do nothing stance; I am cautioning that the rapid elimination of 11 million workers would do irreparable harm to the economy. Secure the borders; document workers; enforce payroll taxes and minimum wage laws; improve and encourage education in underserved populations; create incentives for having children in marriage and staying married. Do not assume that you can fix all of these problems with the simple expedient of tossing 11 million workers out of economy.
I dont know, maybe an employer that wants to avoid paying social security or employment insurance. Maybe one that wants to avoid labor or safety laws.
And even if there were no discrimination, the exit of these workers would raise the wage, which would induce many Americans to accept the position they refused to take before.
Yes, they did. You cited the overall unemployment rate as proof that the labor market was tight. When overwhelming evidence was presented that the unskilled labor market is anything but, you maligned these individuals as lazy-good-for-nothings (all while claiming the other side is prejudiced).
That's moving the goal posts.
The statistics are interesting. They certainly show problems with the less-educated native population. (No surprise.) Connecting those problems to immigration requires a leap from correlation to causation. Correcting those problems by eliminating immigration requires a further leap. Both leaps strike me as unsupported.
On that note, I must leave our discussion for the evening so that I can be a productive member of society at my own place of employment tomorrow.
Maybe, but this phrasing doesn't acknowledge that only SOME of these jobs would exist at higher wages for Americans. Others would not get done because they are not viable at the higher cost (think of many landscaping costs.
The bottom line is that "illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do" is at least as accurate if not more so than the counterpoint "illegal immigrants steal American jobs."
But isn't the argument that the price would go through the roof perfectly convincing? We're talking about the food industry, in large part. Do you think the American people really want to see their grocery prices skyrocket like their gas prices?
No, we're not. 95% of illegals are not employed in these areas. In large part we are talking about construction, maintenance and cleaning, landscaping, etc. These are jobs Americans not only would do, these are jobs Americans do everyday in every city in America.
I don't think there's any question that a very significant portion of these numbers are undocumented.
And then there's food service. Even on your "percentage of" undocumented immigrants notion, according to this , 12% of new immigrants are in food preparation.
You get the picture. The point is: it's significant, and it would cause massive economic upheavals.