Rogue

Well, those companies that depend on mostly illegals as their customers will certainly go under unless they can attract some legal customers. Those companies that are not efficient and have to have so called cheap illegal Mexican scab labor to stay competitive will certainly go under. Those same scumbag American companies that determined the absolute lowest wage that illegal Mexican scabs would work for and which then became the prevailing wage at those companies will have to do the same thing again with legal American workers, find that lowest wage that legal Americans will work for. We're not talking about wages that an American can buy an SUV on, either, but wages that an American worker can at least live on.

Awesome!

I think the following link will help explain that. It's stating word for word that the "labor market is not-as classical labor market theory depicts it-a single unified market in which each worker is paid according to his/her additional value to the firm and is promoted to better-paid positions as that value increases. Rather, it has two largely separate sectors-a primary sector, which functions more or less as classical theory depicts and a secondary sector, which has few ladders to job advancement, little job stability, and more gender and racial discrimination than the primary market"

http://www.urban.org/publications/309642.html

Which makes perfect sense because how do you explain upward mobility? In the U.S. from my experience it's done through working, on the job experience as well as through an education. For example: How does the Vietnamese immigrant start a business after being in the U.S. a few years, or how does the illegal immigrant drive a decent SUV after being here a few years? I standby my assumption that immigrants work harder and if we had the same work ethic (which a lot of us do) we would be fine?

However if you want to lump all underpayed workers, part time workers, the whole deal basically, well then of course you may have a leg to stand on factoring all of that, but by and large the opportunities are there in the U.S. and it's not a major problem in my opinion.

Awesome!

Fine, if that is your standard, just find a wage to get by on then more power to you. What I am proposing is getting educated, working hard like the immigrants that come here whether legal or illegal, following their example. I think we would be a lot more successful.

Scucca

Labour market segmentation is consistent with my stance. Essentially, labour market flexibility enables the secondary sector to grow and the individual becomes increasingly powerless. The primary sector is largely reliant on internal labour markets (i.e. promotion internally). Access to the sector is restricted by mechanisms such as education signaling (where certification is used to ensure sufficient selection that labour demand is met). What would happen if more people acquire the signal? The signaled would be amended (e.g. postgrad, rather than just undergrad education).

The lack of mobility is then not due to the "individual", but reflects demand-side macroeconomic limitations.

__________________

Rogue

I'm talking about the situation where the SAVE Act is passed and becomes law, or where most of the states have passed tough on the employers of illegals sanctions laws. The universal mandatory e-verification provision of the SAVE Act will force the scumbag employers of illegals to stop hiring illegal Mexican scabs which will cause a mass exodus of illegal Mexican scabs self deporting back to Mexico. Those jobs that were vacated by the illegal Mexican scabs would become available to any unemployed American workers that would be interested in taking them, provided that the wages were higher and an American could live on them. The scumbag employers of illegals, used to paying that lowest wage that an illegal Mexican scab would work for, in order to attract legal American workers, would naturally try to determine what that lowest wage that an American worker would work for.

We're talking about jobs being taken by American unemployed workers that have been vacated by self deporting illegal Mexican scabs here, not major career moves by unemployed American workers.

I mean it's infinitely more important to help our own unemployed American citizen workers than illegal Mexican scabs that shouldn't even be here, and wouldn't even be here except for our own corrupt fed gov that has been paid off by the scumbag employers of illegals.

Awesome!

Your classical theory stance? Sure…of course, just like the theory of a centrally planned economy right? However the secondary sector is not made up of just powerless individuals, or increasingly powerless individuals due to labor market flexibility in the U.S. That same flexibility helps numerous people stay employed while they go to school full-time or whatever their current situation requires which is not always a deficient one factoring upward mobility. For example: Might be nice for a university student to make union wages working at a donut shop to make extra money, but it’s not necessary.

Education is not the only measuring tool for hiring managers like myself. I look for numerous signals when hiring and so do other employers. You’re making the assumption that upward mobility is limited to your education, well then how do you explain the salesman? Are they measured by their education signals, ability to manage? or on their ability to sell? I’m looking for a manager of operations right now, however I’m not considering someone with an MBA or BA. I’m looking for a DOE (depends on experience) Would be nice to have a college grad running operations over the long-term, however our budget is not prepared to pay for what a college grad is demanding, so we consider the less qualified candidate for their immediate production capability over the short term and encourage education so they develop their organizational skills for the long-term. Two examples of where education in the primary sector is not a factor for upward mobility, and happens everyday due to the different needs of each particular hiring business.

An amended educational signal due to so many college grads flooding the job market is not necessarily true either. I would consider a BA degree candidate over an MBA degree candidate because they probably have experience. While the MBA candidate is still in school the BA candidate more than likely has received some real world experience. And then the harsh real world evaluation right? It comes down to their production capability, how the INDIVIDUAL empowers themselves not necessarily with more education or certifications but plain old work ethic. Also, is this person the right fit for our operation, another harsh reality of the real world not measured in theory.

So I stand by the individual who is not powerless, no matter what sector due to upward mobility which is not governed in the real world by just qualifications so to speak.

Awesome!

I don't disagree with you. E-verification is a major concern for us as most of our temp labor is probably illegal,however we are not co-employers. The temp agency is responsible for the audit, checking the I-9 etc. Even so, it's a major concern as we want to be ethical. And factoring E-verification passing, we could lose a lot of our labor under the assumption that a lot of them are illegal with fake documents overlooked or intentionally overlooked by the sourcing agency. A lot of these agencies will go under and us the employeer will have to pay more to source labor because it won't be this vast pool like before. We are getting pro-active now hiring everified labor, but at the same rates though, so not sure how it will play out 100%. May not be a huge increase like minimum wage here for example was, but it will increase our cost. Funny thing is, it will still be the immigrants working for us though, not anglos?

Where I disagree with you is that you can still work in American and make things happen for yourself due to upward mobility. If a legal or illegal immigrant can be successful, I don't think we have an excuse if we are an able individual.

Scucca

Classical theory? That would refer to the labour theory of value. Here, I've referred to the inability of neoclassical theory to understand wage determination. Labour market segmentation actually strengthens my argument (and weakens yours) as it rejects the notion that education enhancement will necessarily lead to wage gains. Without access to the primary sector, the supply-side characteristics of the individual worker are largely irrelevant.

The individual is certainly powerless. Wages are determined by the market. We just cannot assume that those wages will reflect productivity criteria. Even orthodox economics rejects that belief, given job search frictions will ensure monopsony power even in apparently competitive industries.

You can find very specific examples where certification is not paramount. However, that is a "so what?" moment. These jobs will be characterised by excess supply, with the individual therefore (unless lucky) powerless.

I deal with the labour market in general. The evidence supports the hypothesis: as undergraduate numbers rise, graduate unemployment also rises and the individual is forced to invest in postgraduate education. The odd case otherwise is pretty much irrelevant, given that 'excess supply' actually again just suggests luck!

DeeJayH

so do immigrants work harder?
do you have anything outside of economics to say Scucca? seriously?
I dont read every thread here, so maybe i missed one where you did not reply to the OP with economics

__________________
These days it seems that the deadliest place on earth for an American to be is inside the womb. - Joshua P. Allem

Awesome!

I agree that education doesn’t necessarily lead to wage gains. I disagree with your assertion that any other sector other than the primary sector is irrelevant because a lot of the secondary sector is getting ready to enter the primary sector from internships, part time work, any thing to help them differentiate themselves after they graduate with an advantage. Again, factoring the individual effort which trumps excessive supply and luck? Luck? Geez …now I really understand where you are coming from. You want a guarantee from the cradle to the grave, an idealist basically right?

Also, wage gains whether or not they are stagnant do not factor employers using IRA matching, health benefits, or tuition reimbursement to retain their valuable assets: Employees. Common sense will tell you that if your salary stays the same for a long period of time you will up and leave a specific industry and find a new one, new career etc. Again the powerful individual rises to the occasion again, and not the theory.

Of course you cannot assume wages will reflect productivity criteria, just like a company cannot assume that by modifying their markets or products will insure success right? However that is the reality. An individual is not power less and doesn’t need a union to equal the playing field due to monopsony concerns in the U.S. An individual can do many things within the job market to insure their success by studying about an industry/employer, certifications, degrees, and yes luck is a factor but a small percent of the whole.

In a union dominated reality certifications are the paradigm, however in the U.S. it’s not the rule, and salesmen and women, representatives are not “so what” moments or the many immigrants that come here going back to the original post. Work ethic is a huge factor determining your success, and in my opinion immigrants capitalize on it. Many people make a living here in the U.S. without a pandering government or union, without degrees based on their powerful individual efforts. Writing off everything you can’t measure is a school master focus which is relevant to a certain extent, but it’s not relevant in practice, at least in my opinion. In other words, I’m not going to tell a potential employer that I am powerless due to this unfair job market, and due to so many college grads like myself in the market, you probably won’t give me a shot and therefore, I’m going to have to invest in more education without any guarantees of an increase in my wage, so therefore I will leave this interview and start a union. That’s just not reality. You can do better than that maybe with some humanistic psychology.