Number 4 isn’t really relevant to your stated criterion, so let’s set that aside.
I'm happy to set it aside, BUT, you asked me to steel man THEIR argument and that is always part of their argument AND, it often WINS arguments, debates and elections. Leading to the world we live in now. So I included it.
I also want to point out that you’ve proposed two related but distinct policies, and they may have different effects relative to your criterion:
-Deporting undocumented immigrants
-Restricting legal immigration
Those are not identical in economic impact, so let’s start with one.
Americans, in general, are less likely to work certain blue-collar jobs. Your assumption is that as labor supply tightens, employers will increase wages to the point that Americans will take those jobs.
Correct.
There are a few issues with that.
First, the jobs undocumented workers tend to do aren’t evenly distributed across the country. There isn’t necessarily a one-to-one replacement available. For example, even if someone in Arkansas is willing to work, that doesn’t automatically replace a fruit picker in Florida. Labor markets are geographically constrained.
Employers COULD do shit like advertise in those areas, or move production. But that takes work ON THEIR end, and they have gotten used to be lazy and stupid.
Second, many of these jobs are physically demanding or otherwise undesirable, which further limits the pool of willing replacements, even if wages rise.
True.
You also mentioned automation. As wages increase, investment in automation becomes more economically attractive. That could reduce labor demand rather than shift it toward American workers.
Also true.
That leads into your second point.
Yes, employers need workers to function, whether American or not. Under your proposal, businesses effectively face three options:
-Raise wages enough to attract American workers (assuming they are available).
-Automate to reduce labor needs.
-Reduce operations or shut down if neither is viable.
Now this connects to inflation.
There are two potential inflationary channels here:
-Higher wages increase production costs, which may raise prices.
-If some firms can’t operate profitably and close, reduced supply may also push prices up.
So the argument, as it relates to your criterion, becomes this:
The wage increases for American blue-collar workers would need to be large enough to offset the inflationary pressures caused by higher production costs and potential supply reductions, such that real middle-class income still rises.
Let's keep in mind that labor is only one part of the cost. The price or inflation increase is not one to one.
That’s the key question. And the only way I see this even having a chance off happening is that the wages offered for those jobs will be middle class jobs.
Doesn't have to be. Even if the specific job in question is a lower end job, raising the wage there, would have positive effects both on the individual and the overall system.
The man washing cars, or mowing lawns, might be able to live on that, instead of be motivated to compete for a better job. An odd factor that still reduces demand for the middle class jobs.
I've seen people forced out of manual labor jobs, and thus be motivated to get training and then move into a higher paying job, competing in that labor pool increasing demand.
To put it bluntly. What do you think the chances are that a person working the line in a meat packing plant will be offered enough a year going by your lowest number to make the household he's or she is a part of qualify for middle class? (A number I realize is an average and can vary, and across sectors so meatpacking is only one job.)
But the point stands.
My understanding is that meatCUTTER used to be a middle class job, until the flood of illegals depressed wages to the point it is a low income job. I know that landscaping CAN be a very upperwardly mobile job, if a man can save enough to buy his own truck. I've seen people build serious lives on GRAVE DIGGING, once they saved enough to buy their own backhoe. ect.
Is the elasticity of wages in low-skill labor markets strong enough that deportation would raise wages into middle-class territory without generating higher offsetting inflation?
The sectors that employ illegals, (food production, transport, construction, hospitality tend to work under slim profit margins as is.)
Under your own criterion, the policy only succeeds if real middle-class income rises. So can you explain the mechanism by which wage gains outpace inflationary pressures in low-skill sectors? What evidence makes you confident the elasticity is strong enough?
You cite transport as an example.
Average truck driver wage is 27 to 35$ an hour. Middle class is 27-40$ an hour.
I just saw a video on youtube of a cop pulling over a truckdriver, chinese, mostly naked, unable to speak english. With a valid drivers license.
I expect that before the mid terms we will see a rise in middle class and lower incomes.
Also, this discussion had rised an interesting point. Most Americans are middle class. And that is what I want to track to judge this by.
BUT, raising lower end wages, would also be of benefit to millions of Americans.
I've seen the difference for the same job, (nurse's aide) in two cities say... 40 minutes apart, with a difference of a few dollars an hour, and it made the difference in the lives of people, from poverty, to working poor...
which, let me tell you, is a HUGE and VERY NICE difference.
Can we redefine teh goal to benefiting middle AND lower class American wages?
