I don’t believe my question was addressed to you but to the poster who favored open borders with no process. I, however, agree with you that we need a process for anyone from anywhere to apply to come here.
how do the Mexican Government treat it’s southern border ?
To the extent that those immigrant workers themselves have children who are being raised from infancy until working age in the US - and they most certainly do - then that argument is moot.
Understood. That’s why I said “you could make a case either way as to how that should count”. But in terms of assessing the impact of illegal immigration, they are part of that impact.
That’s true. But there are some older people, and some young people die too, and it skews the numbers.
And I should add that the same also applies to people moving back to Mexico, which is a big part of your “zero net immigration” stats.
For example, suppose a Mexican couple illegally immigrates to the US, has a baby, and then returns to Mexico (with the baby). The way your stats work, this counts as a net negative immigration from Mexico (and would cancel out one other illegal immigrant). But from a practical perspective it’s neutral, and combined with one other immigrant is a net immigration.
OK, F-P’s response to my last post was good.
The fact that many immigrants pay income tax has been mentioned. I will add that many of them probably don’t collect any refunds due.
And how many people were around back then to share resources?
So the problem is lazy employers breaking the law. Maybe if that was enforced the employers would start doing their jobs and these workers could be here legally.
Maybe it isn’t. It’s a very interesting analogy.
In fact, study after study has shown that illegal immigrants quite often make minimum wage or better.
The assumption you’re making, and it’s not an uncommon one, is that the labor market is perfectly correcting; if illegal immigrants leave, the labor market will happily adjust by raising wages to attract more American-born or legally immigrated labor. But in fact it is obviously not the case that labor markets are effiicient. There are clearly areas of labor shortage and labor surplus in the USA or, for that matter, most industrialized economies.
Indeed, labor shortages are not restricted to low-paying jobs. Truck drivers remain in preposterously short supply; even though driver wages are increasing faster than inflation there has been a shortage of drivers for at least 20 years. Why this is is a long story - it’s not like it’s a terribly hard job to learn - but it is true. There aren’t nearly enough welders or CNC machinists around, either. On the low end of the scale, the fact is that the USA (or, for that matter, Canada, where I live) does not and has not for a long time had enough fruit pickers, an area where legal temporary immigration is pretty much a necessity to keep the industry alive.
Conversely, there are plenty of areas where labor is in excess. Where I live there is an astounding surplus of qualified schoolteachers. If you graduate this year with a teaching degree, there is no job for you right now; the wait to get a full time position is measured in years.
This seems counterintuitive, other than short term dislocations while the market takes time to adjust. You need to figure out why this might be the case in a given instance and whether it applies in this case, rather than just claiming that the market is not self-correcting.
This is interesting. I wonder if the issue is that the trucking industry needs to compete with other forms of transport.
This is not logical. The question is whether in the absence of these legal temporary immigrants wages for fruit pickers would be higher, which would increase the supply.
I would guess that has to do with unions keeping the wages higher than the supply/demand curve would have them.
Bottom line is that there can be reasons for market principles to be violated in specific situations, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist and can be waved away in every case.
No, the majority of the stats I cited were based on the number of people born in Mexico but living in the U.S. The baby wasn’t born in Mexico, so s/he is never counted at all. During the years the couple lived here, the born-in-Mexico count increased by two; when they left, it decreased by two. Another illegal immigrant coming in to replace them would mean the count decreased by only one, but that’s still a decrease; a U.S.-born baby won’t cancel out an native of Mexico.
Sure. However, enforcement actions against employers tend to be seen as anti-business. In the rural west and south where the most labor-intensive agricultural operations are located, there’s far less political will for federal regulators and federal actions against U.S. citizens. Those brown people? Oh, they’re good targets. The feds coming after respectable mostly-white mostly-Republican business interests? Why, that’s overzealous over-regulation if not jackbooted thuggery.
The Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS, for example, has a good track record of finding employers whose income statements don’t match their reported expenses, which can among other causes happen when paying employees off the books. Who do you see recommending a funding increase for the IRS? (Cruz and company want to abolish it instead.)
You’re still assuming that low wages are the only thing keeping Americans from taking jobs as fruit pickers, and that increasing wages = increasing supply. I don’t think that’s true, because the other conditions of the job (backbreaking physical labor, seasonal and migratory work, living in the boonies, etc.) are sufficiently off-putting that many Americans can’t or won’t do the work at any realistic wage. There have been examples over the last few years (e.g., in Alabama) where immigration restrictions chased off many illegal immigrants, farmers raised wages to try to attract new workers, and the crops still rotted in the field.
It is simply that the labor market does not provide a sufficient supply of truck drivers. There are many trucks to drive, and not enough people want to drive them. The job is not considered a glamorous one, and parents and teachers do not suggest it to students as a desirable vocation. This is not a short term issue; it has been the case for a long time.
Increased wages could increase the supply, but, again, you are assuming there is enough supply to be attracted. The fact is that there isn’t an unlimited supply of labor out there. Only so many people live in a given place, and only so many of them want to work or can work, and only so many would want to do a particular job. The number of people available to do jobs is limited, and there is no reason to think the number who are willing to do a given job at the current price, or even a somewhat higher price, is sufficient. The available supply of something has an upper limit, no matter what price you are willing to pay.
I don’t think so. The Pew study, which is what covers the non-recession years from 2005 to 2010, compares migration of anyone from the US to Mexico to migration of Mexican-born people to the US (see Figure 1.2 and the note). It’s these two numbers that they found to be comparable, on the basis of which they declared net migration to be even.
It’s not the only thing but it’s one big thing.
Besides for taking time for the supply-demand curve to reach a new equilibrium - it’s not like a whole horde of people immediately quit their jobs to get jobs picking fruits - if there’s an enforcement action in one local place it will be impossible for wages in that place to reach the proper point if they need to compete with goods supplied in areas where this has not happened.
For enough money, people do things which are not glamorous. Money isn’t the only thing in choosing a job but it’s a pretty big one, and the idea that more money would have no effect on the supply of truck drivers makes no sense.
So the question is why wages have not increased in response to the shortage. I’ve suggested that the trucking industry is not economical at a certain level of wages because of competition from other forms of transport. I’m open to other suggestions. But “wages make no difference” is not one of them.
People move to places where there are well paying jobs. People moved to horrible places in Canada and Alaska and the like to do backbreaking labor for long hours in oil fields because the pay was high enough. The situation you’re depicting does not reflect the real world.
Besides for not reflecting the real world, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to make this counterintuitive assumption other than the desire to depict mass immigration as a positive. What objective reason is there to assume that people willing to work at lower wages will have no impact on the labor supply/demand curve in these areas?
I’m not sure why you find this to be surprising. The number of people in Mexico who were not born in Mexico is trivial compared to the number of people in the U.S. who were not born in the U.S. (And 2007-2010 qualifies as “non-recession”? since when?)
The American Community Survey statistics on the page I linked start in 2010, just as the nation was emerging from recession. 2010-2013, during a recovery, shows a DROP in the number of Mexican-born residents.
[quote=“Fotheringay-Phipps, post:90, topic:748497”]
So the question is why wages have not increased in response to the shortage. I’ve suggested that the trucking industry is not economical at a certain level of wages because of competition from other forms of transport. I’m open to other suggestions. But “wages make no difference” is not one of them.
Trucking industry wages have increased. The American Trucking Association says wages have been going up 8-12% a year over the past few years, and the shortages are getting worse, not better. It’s hard work: long hours away from family, irregular work schedules, lots of health problems. Fewer young people want those kinds of jobs, and the industry reports great difficulty retaining young drivers even by paying them more.
YOUNG PEOPLE in good health move to places like Alaska to do backbreaking labor. People who aren’t in prime shape don’t, or if they do, they don’t last in the job. There are not several million unemployed young people in this country who are in physical shape for these jobs who want to do them. Issues like work-family balance mean a lot to many younger people; working sunup to sundown in a migratory lifestyle following the harvest doesn’t promote any kind of stable home life. Wages aren’t the end-all and be-all; they never were, but working conditions and home life and health considerations are more important today.
This in regards to teachers. Please explain how this would work. Demand for teachers is controlled by number of students and state budgets. Since unions usually negotiate class sizes along with money, it is unlikely that union contracts would decrease demand.
Supply depends on how many teachers are educated. Given the long pipeline, a contract in one location today is not going to have a major impact on supply for a very long time. If ever, since I doubt very many teachers go into the field to make a bundle of money.
I can imagine some reasons for the imbalance - an attractive location which draws teachers, or demographic changes which reduces the number of students and thus demand. But I doubt many teachers would move to a district without the promise of a job, no matter how good the pay is, so I don’t see blaming the union.
Not to mention there was an oversupply of lawyers right after the recession - and they don’t have unions.
Cost isn’t really a factor. The labor participation rate is down to 63%. Assuming you believe - as Adam Smith did - that the real wealth of a nation is not its gold (money) but the productivity of its citizens, we’re wasting the most important resource we have: the labor of US citizens (or non-citizens who live here, for that matter).
Now there’s certainly an argument that there are better uses of that resource than building a wall. High-speed trains, for example, or national broadband, or national health insurance.
But assuming for a moment that those things are not going to happen, a wall is certainly better than nothing. (Unless you support illegals risking their lives crossing deserts to get here - which seems like a callous idea.)
As far as people tunneling or using ladders or whatever, that’s certainly a concern. But that’s why you have watchers on the wall.
The biggest reason for the decline in the labor participation rate is the nation’s aging population: people retire and leave the labor force. Senior citizens are not likely candidates for jobs in construction.
Watchers on the wall are not really good at seeing what’s happening underground.
Tunnels are most common where there are structures or development on both sides of the border to conceal the entrances. For example, along the Tijuana/San Diego border, you’ve got warehouses and industrial areas on both sides, and some of the drug-smuggling tunnels are a half-mile long and 50 to 90 feet underground. We’re not talking about the equivalent of a dog digging under a fence, but sophisticated operations spending hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to build tunnels they plan to use long-term.
The big decline in labor participation rate correlated with an outflow of immigrants. Not caused by it, of course - they were both caused by the recession. It is improving as unemployment goes down and wages rise. At last. However it is not clear that the participation rate for unemployed engineers or factory workers is going to be much affected if crop picking jobs are going begging. Didn’t Alabama have a massive agricultural labor shortage when the immigrant labor fled? I don’t recall the slack being filled by native unemployed people.
They Egyptians can’t keep the Gazans from tunneling even on a much shorter border. And it is going to take a hell of a lot of watchers - unless that is your solution to the labor participation problem. Plus, the coyotes will just use riskier means of crossing. And I doubt Mexico is going to devote a lot of resources into keeping their citizens away from the wall.
The decline was higher than can be explained by retiring boomers. But given the number of long term unemployed who gave up, perfectly understandable. And declining.
In any case I’d suspect undocumented workers get counted. Since those without jobs would tend to go home, they might actually increase the participation rate - but that’s just a guess.
BTW, anyone who truly believes that would support infrastructure improvements which would put the long term unemployed to work, or if that isn’t a match some kind of WPA targeted to the long term unemployed.
I’m going to be out of the labor force June 1 - if someone wants to pay me money for nothing so I won’t get counted, I’m listening. 
No, retirees aren’t the sole reason for the decline in labor force participation. They are, however, the biggest reason, which is what I said.
Per the Congressional Budget Office:
Since 2013, much of the temporary weakness in the labor market has eased, but the growth in retirees is accelerating – between Dec 2013 and Jan 2016, the number of retired workers receiving Social Security benefits increased by 2.3 million people. I’m sure some of those folks kept working at least part-time, but many of them left the labor force altogether. (However, the labor force participation rate was about the same last month as it was in Dec 2013 – 62.9% – as the unemployed, including some of the long-term discouraged, move back into jobs.)
Besides the prospect of more tunnels, how are you going to monitor every inch of that wall? What would the wall be made of, and how could it be made break-through-proof? The authorities will be kept busy repairing holes all along the line. How can people not understand how long this fence would be?
Siam Sam: in fact, if we were able to monitor every inch of the border…we wouldn’t need a wall! Just a hell of a lot of border guards, with the ability to detect and respond to crossings. A measley barbed wire fence would be every bit as effective, if the level of security is as high as it would need to be.
Airplanes wouldn’t be enough; you’d need a brigade of people in jeeps, and foot-patrols in the likeliest spots.
(And, anyway, as noted, most illegal immigration is not by foot across the physical border, but by air and sea, or else by legal entry and then overstaying! A wall as high as the moon wouldn’t stop this!)