• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Farmers Strain to Hire American in Place of Migrant Labor

1Perry said:
It wouldn't double the price of produce. I agree in market principles but they can't be skewed with illegal activities.
Click to expand...

It's only illegal BECAUSE you (and many other people) don't actually agree with market principles. You want to shield wages from market forces.

Look, I'm all for helping the poor. If we as a society believe that people earning less than $7.25 per hour aren't making enough to have a decent standard of living, then we as a society should pay taxes and support the anti-poverty programs to raise their standard of living. What we should NOT do is stick their would-be employer with the cost of supporting them; all that does is distort the market, increase unemployment, and increase prices for consumers.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I have argued no such thing. Getting paid $3 per hour is a lot better than getting paid $0 per hour because you can't find a job. An artificial price floor creates unemployment and economic deadweight loss.
Click to expand...

O.K. perhaps I stated this poorly. As I said, I have no idea with the arguement of market principles. As I also said, it's not a true market when you interject illegal activity.
 
Kandahar said:
It's only illegal BECAUSE you (and many other people) don't actually agree with market principles. You want to shield wages from market forces.
Click to expand...

A circular arguement if I ever saw one. If we simply allow them here legally they are going to demand higher wages. I have no problem with allowing as many as we need to come here.

Look, I'm all for helping the poor. If we as a society believe that people earning less than $7.25 per hour aren't making enough to have a decent standard of living, then we as a society should pay taxes and support the anti-poverty programs to raise their standard of living. What we should NOT do is stick their would-be employer with the cost of supporting them; all that does is distort the market, increase unemployment, and increase prices for consumers.
Click to expand...

If you want to argue against a minimum wage, have at it. Argue it. The other side of your arguement though is that I should support them even though they are not working for me.
 
1Perry said:
A circular arguement if I ever saw one. If we simply allow them here legally they are going to demand higher wages.
Click to expand...

That's fine. As their economic conditions improve, they will indeed demand higher wages. And they'll move up to more advanced jobs that can support higher wages, and be replaced by other workers who are happy to have the opportunity to pick crops at $3 per hour.

I have no problem with allowing as many as we need to come here.
Click to expand...

Then we don't actually disagree on this.

If you want to argue against a minimum wage, have at it. Argue it. The other side of your arguement though is that I should support them even though they are not working for me.
Click to expand...

If the public thinks that their standard of living is inadequate, it makes more sense for the public to support them, rather than forcing some specific individual to do so (whose only connection to that person is a business transaction). From an economic standpoint, public assistance is a better option than price controls on labor and/or heavy-handed labor regulations. Social programs are much less distorting to wages for workers, prices for consumers, costs for businesses, and the unemployment rate as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
That's fine. As their economic conditions improve, they will indeed demand higher wages. And they'll move up to more advanced jobs that can support higher wages, and be replaced by other workers who are happy to have the opportunity to pick crops at $3 per hour.
Click to expand...

Not if they are here illegally.

Then we don't actually disagree on this.
Click to expand...

As long as it's done legally. Legally never means (to me) simple open borders.


If the public thinks that their standard of living is inadequate, it makes more sense for the public to support them, rather than forcing some specific individual to do so (whose only connection to that person is a business transaction). From an economic standpoint, public assistance is a better option than price controls on labor and/or heavy-handed labor regulations. Social programs are much less distorting to wages for workers, prices for consumers, costs for businesses, and the unemployment rate as a whole.
Click to expand...

I disagree that me paying for the work the employer gets is a better solution.
 
1Perry said:
Not if they are here illegally.



As long as it's done legally. Legally never means (to me) simple open borders.
Click to expand...

We need not throw open our borders entirely, but I see no reason to crack down on the illegal immigrants who are here. Some degree of illegal immigration (or at least, immigrants who are willing and able to work for less than the minimum wage) is a good thing. Especially for jobs that require little training and are in unpleasant conditions, which Americans won't do unless they are paid an inflated wage.

I disagree that me paying for the work the employer gets is a better solution.
Click to expand...

But that isn't paying them for the work they do. If the market value of a job is $3 per hour, and the government demands that the employer pay $7.25 per hour, then the employer is essentially paying them $3 for their work and $4.25 in economic support because they're poor. I'm not saying supporting the poor is a bad thing, far from it. But the public should pay for it. And more importantly than the moral argument is the practical argument: labor restrictions are usually much more distortive than social programs.
 
Kandahar said:
We need not throw open our borders entirely
Click to expand...


Sorry, you lost me. Market principles do not work when you interject illegal activity into it. Farmer A can beat farmer B's prices easily if he decides that the best way to do that is in not pay his taxes.

But that isn't paying them for the work they do. If the market value of a job is $3 per hour, and the government demands that the employer pay $7.25 per hour, then the employer is essentially paying them $3 for their work and $4.25 in economic support because they're poor. I'm not saying supporting the poor is a bad thing, far from it. But the public should pay for it. And more importantly than the moral argument is the practical argument: labor restrictions are usually much more distortive than social programs.
Click to expand...

I'll pass on that concept.
 
Kandahar said:
We need not throw open our borders entirely, but I see no reason to crack down on the illegal immigrants who are here. Some degree of illegal immigration (or at least, immigrants who are willing and able to work for less than the minimum wage) is a good thing. Especially for jobs that require little training and are in unpleasant conditions, which Americans won't do unless they are paid an inflated wage.
Click to expand...

All we have to do it start enforcing the law and a large portion of the illegals will leave.



But that isn't paying them for the work they do. If the market value of a job is $3 per hour, and the government demands that the employer pay $7.25 per hour, then the employer is essentially paying them $3 for their work and $4.25 in economic support because they're poor. I'm not saying supporting the poor is a bad thing, far from it. But the public should pay for it. And more importantly than the moral argument is the practical argument: labor restrictions are usually much more distortive than social programs.
Click to expand...

Farmers are, "the public". What with the money that farmers get from farm subsidies, I don't have much sympathy for them if they have to start paying a hand 7 bucks an hour vice 3 bucks an hour.
 
apdst said:
All we have to do it start enforcing the law and a large portion of the illegals will leave.
Click to expand...

Yeah but as I said:
Some degree of illegal immigration (or at least, immigrants who are willing and able to work for less than the minimum wage) is a good thing. Especially for jobs that require little training and are in unpleasant conditions, which Americans won't do unless they are paid an inflated wage.
Click to expand...

So before you start trying to convince me of your solutions you'd need to convince me why it's a problem in the first place. ;)

Farmers are, "the public". What with the money that farmers get from farm subsidies, I don't have much sympathy for them if they have to start paying a hand 7 bucks an hour vice 3 bucks an hour.
Click to expand...

Adding one more market-distorting regulation doesn't cancel the other out. The more appropriate solution is to end farm subsidies AND allow them to hire whomever they want, at whatever wage the market will bear.
 
Kandahar said:
That is the very issue being discussed. Shielding people from market forces by cracking down on illegal immigration just makes the economy worse off.



Good. Then people would have jobs at a wage they could live with, and employers would have workers at a wage they could afford. Win/win.



Yes. The minimum wage is horridly counterproductive, and the people it harms most of all are the poorest. It prevents people whose skillset isn't WORTH $7.25 per hour from finding a job at all.
Click to expand...

I agree. Minimum wages increase unemployment... just a fact of life. Perhaps a minimum wage is nessecary for other social reasons, but we should appreciate that it increases friction in the labor market, and puts the very least skilled and capable out of work.
 
nijato said:
I agree. Minimum wages increase unemployment... just a fact of life. Perhaps a minimum wage is nessecary for other social reasons, but we should appreciate that it increases friction in the labor market, and puts the very least skilled and capable out of work.
Click to expand...

It is ridiculous to say that minimum wage is necessary for "social reasons." It's not. It's holding back the economy. "Social reasons" demand that we abolish the minimum wage.
 
The original justification for the minimum wage law was actually rooted in Jim Crow ideology. White people didn't like blacks taking "white jobs" for lower wages, so they implemented a minimum wage law forcing employers to pay wages that white people would work for (thus taking away the economic incentive to hire blacks instead of whites). That's not to say that most modern supporters of the minimum wage aren't well-intentioned, but I think the parallels are pretty obvious.
 
Guy Incognito said:
It is ridiculous to say that minimum wage is necessary for "social reasons." It's not. It's holding back the economy. "Social reasons" demand that we abolish the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

Well, I concede that reasonable people could disagree on the point, hence my use of the words "perhaps." Here's my concern:

Below some minimal level of income, workers are still dependent on society at large for their needs. Consider healthcare for example. A very low-wage worker can't afford emergency room visits, but will use one in emergency situations. The cost of treating that worker is then socialized, either through increased surcharges for the paying users of the hospital or through some other form of socialized medicine.

Therefore, the employer has only succeded in passing the costs of caring for that worker on to society at large. In other words, the employer is forcing the taxpayer or hospital goer to make up the difference between what they pay and a true living wage.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Except if hiring illegals to do work no American wants to do keeps prices low so consumers can spend more money elsewhere and allows food to be produced in the United States and even forms part of your exports, then it would actually have the same effect as a... TAX CUT! :lamo
Click to expand...


Well not exactly, it's a tax increase, when after the seasonal work is done, we have to house them, feed them, educate them, give them free medical, and in just as many cases pay to house them in our jails ..
 
Helix said:
maybe working the fields should be a condition of the wealthiest keeping their low tax rate, also.

after all, they are not "lazy people" who are afraid of hard work. and they should be happy to do it for less than minimum wage, as minimum wage is some kind of an abomination that kills jobs.

i think we might have a real solution here.
Click to expand...

That's a brilliant idea that only non thinking liberals could come up with, lets see, lets take the educated skilled people that pay the majority of the taxes in this country, and put them to work in the fields, where after the work is completed, we get to support them by giving them housing, medical, schooling for them and their family members, food stamps, and whatever other benefits these illegals get after the harvest is done.

Yep brilliant reduce our taxable income even more, add more money to the giveaway programs I can see where liberals would see this as a solution
 
nijato said:
Well, I concede that reasonable people could disagree on the point, hence my use of the words "perhaps."
Click to expand...

Nothing personal, but I can't even go that far. There is nothing reasonable about the minimum wage.

nijato said:
Here's my concern:

Below some minimal level of income, workers are still dependent on society at large for their needs.
Click to expand...

Let me stop you right there. Minimum wage and total income are totally different things. You can't assume that, because a job pays below minimum wage it necessitates that a worker is making a minimal level of total income.

nijato said:
Consider healthcare for example. A very low-wage worker can't afford emergency room visits, but will use one in emergency situations. The cost of treating that worker is then socialized, either through increased surcharges for the paying users of the hospital or through some other form of socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

Who knows how that will change absent minimum wage? When employers are not forced to pay employees more than they are worth, they will have more money to play around with. It might be cheaper to pay a fry-cook four bucks and hour plus health insurance than to pay him minimum wage without health insurance. Truly, it seems like a good case for healthcare reform, but it is hardly a good reason for minimum wage laws.

nijato said:
Therefore, the employer has only succeded in passing the costs of caring for that worker on to society at large. In other words, the employer is forcing the taxpayer or hospital goer to make up the difference between what they pay and a true living wage.
Click to expand...

The costs to society that I am concerned about are the massive amount of unemployed people caused by minimum wage laws. Your own concerns are wasted when you apply minimum wage to teenagers who live with their parents and have no expenses. These undeserving types are kept at an artificially inflated wage at the expense of jobs going to the unemployed adults who need them. If an employer was allowed to pay his teenagers three seventy-five, he could hire an adult worker at three seventy-five who actually needed the money. Or maybe he'd hire the teenager for two bucks and pay the adult worker five. The point is, people are getting paid for the value they add, not based on some arbitrary government-enforced minimum.
 
If he pays more, we pay more. We won't pay more. The market will kill the American farmer. The tragedy here is not that it's "hard work and the farmer doesn't pay enough." The tragedy is that we are making it too easy for unemployed Americans to choose staying home. I don't care that the work is hard. A farmer has to make a profit to stay in business. This nations political parties and governmental leadership, both Republican and Democrat, have made it too damned easy for Americans to get lazy through bloated and fiscally fatal entitlement programs. We've globalized our economy to the point that we simply cannot maintain our "standard of living" without cheap imported goods and cheap immigrant labor...and we've essentially said (through entitlements) "it's okay American worker, be lazy, you don't have to work hard, if you don't like picking in the fields stay home, other tax payers will make sure your bills are paid."
 
Guy Incognito said:
If an employer was allowed to pay his teenagers three seventy-five, he could hire an adult worker at three seventy-five who actually needed the money. Or maybe he'd hire the teenager for two bucks and pay the adult worker five. The point is, people are getting paid for the value they add, not based on some arbitrary government-enforced minimum.
Click to expand...

Other countries see the same light you do!! They have some of the most efficient manufacturing plants in the world. We have a nickname for them: sweatshops.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Pay more, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Are you willing to pay more for your food? $5 per pound for apples instead $.99? $8 for a gallon of milk?

Everything is so simple until your own neck is on the line.
 
MaggieD said:
Other countries see the same light you do!! They have some of the most efficient manufacturing plants in the world. We have a nickname for them: sweatshops.
Click to expand...

This kind of thinking like this is leading us down the garden path to total economic collapse. When you're unemployed with no prospects those jobs you deride look pretty good. But I'm glad we have enlightened folks like you who know better than the individual. Lord knows people are too stupid to think for themselves, thank God we have Maggie to prevent stupid people from working at jobs that pay because Maggie thinks they pay too little. Bless you, Maggie. Bless you.
 
1Perry said:
Really, backbreaking work is only worth sub minimum wage pay?
Click to expand...

Nope its worth much more...but the basis of the entire problem is the employers DO NOT WANT TO PAY they want dirtcheap illegal immigrant labor that never complains
 
Starving people will eat sand. That's what a sweatshop is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom