My undocumented friend: Carlos does the work few in Vermont want to do

piloteer

"@WordsMatter

If Andrew Carnegie aint doin right by you at his place of employment, you don't have to work for him. The 1800s were unprecedented in bringing people out of poverty. At no other time in history were so many people taken out poverty and put into a place of economic comfort, in such a short period of time. If labor costs are cheap, then the things we buy will be cheap. Let Carlos stay!

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter

In a functional free market economy, the range of job offerings is very wide. There will be jobs where you have to work 24 hours a day, and there will be jobs where you have to work 1 minute a day. The job market is enormous, there are jobs for every taste and preference, one must merely be willing to search for them.

On the other hand, in a heavily controlled economy, one's employment essentially depends on the mercy of the government. If the government thinks that 12 hours a day is too much, then you will work less than 12 hours a day; if it thinks that 12 hours a day is too little, then you will work more than 12 hours a day. 

I would rather have my working schedule laying in my hands, rather than in the hands of a bureaucrat who is not even aware of my existence. And the minimum wage, the shift duration restrictions or the workers' union rights contribute to that schedule being snatched away from my hands.

WordsMatter

@MayCaesar I emplore you to give the book "out of this furnace" a read. The late 1800's were miserable for the factory workers and miners. There weren't wide spread strikes because people could choose their work In a fair free market and were climbing the class ladder. They were living in shacks watching their friends die at work and leaving behind a family that got nothing. They were making enough money for food and housing but rarely or never had the time and energy for leisure. It was better than Europe at the time, but I think support for a free and unregulated market would drop drastically if we returned to the policies of 1880-1938

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter

I have always seen it as the consequence of the simple fact that societies at that time were extremely poor by modern standards. Nowadays the average American family has a comfy roomy house or an apartment and a few cars; in those times, few could afford these things. The reason people had to work so much was not because the employers were exploiting them, but simply because the wealth was scarce and the economy needed massive heavy production to grow to be able to eventually offer people a decent quality of life.

Whether the government had controlled the market at the time or not, there would have been strikes, as people would demand more money from the government and their employers than the latter could afford to pay them.

Nowadays the situation is different, as production is very easy to organize with minimal labor involvement. The reason we work for 8 hours and not, say, 12 hours nowadays is not because of the regulations, but because of the changes in the corporate culture induced by the growth of the quality of life. If all restrictions were removed, I do not think the worker conditions would change for the worse (at least, not significantly) - but such an act would increase the mobility and flexibility of businesses, and there would be more room for negotiation between the employer and the employee on the exact contract terms.

In the end, there are pros and cons for both strong worker rights, and strong business rights. Which outweigh which depends heavily on the exact implementation of either, as well as on the personal preference.

WordsMatter

@MayCaesar I can't speak in as much detail generally as I can speak on the steel towns. Carnegie's right hand man there was Henry Clay Frick, a notorious strongman and Union buster. When his workers went on strike and picketed around the factory he hired armed guards to go break up the picketing. This resulted in a gun battle between the protestors, pinkertons, and the guards. 10 people died. It's one thing to form a union to try to negotiate for better pay or rights, it's another thing entirely if you are willing to die to try and win some compensation.

Again I want to be clear I'm only speaking on the steel towns here, it's ludicrous to claim that these workers were asking for money that they couldn't be paid, Carnegie was the richest man in the world at the time and he didn't get there by giving fair compensation for his workers. Carnegie lived in Allegheny city, home to more millionaires than anywhere else in the world at the turn of the century. While just across the river lived Pittsburgh the cholera capital of the world.  To really get an idea of how desperate these people were a quick read about the homestead steel strike should give you a good idea, and is something everyone ought to knowk about as it's one of the most important strikes in the history of labor in America. What kind of market creates the most millionaires in the same place where their workers are willing to die to get some rights. This probably points to the need for a middle ground.

Now to be fair it is true that there was great economic growth in the time. "The Spencer's of Amberson Avenue," highlights this well. It takes place in the same town, at the same time, but I'd written from a young girls diary at the time. Hey father was a manager for Henry Flick and they lived in amazing luxury. The middle class at this time was truly prosperous and it's true this is when the middle class really was born. 

Both of these books are from Pittsburgh in that time. This could have an impact on my views here because Pittsburgh was an exceptionally terrible place to be if you were blue collar, other cities may have been better but I don't have the knowledge to speak on that. When it comes down to it Americans are so much softer today than 140 years ago. They used to fight bears bare-handed (excuse the pun) for fun. It was a very violent, vulgar, and brutal place compared to the America of today.

However my point in writing all of this isn't too argue for or against labor rights. I am just trying to state that manufacturing jobs can be brought back easily if people were willing to give up a lot of the luxury they enjoy now. I don't think they ever could, which makes it a near necessity to include the labor of illegal immigrants. 

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter

I understand your point, but I disagree with the conclusion. Allow me to write a short essay to explain why.

I became interested in economical sciences around mid-teens. I read a very good couple of books, one on Microeconomics and another on Macroeconomics. The central point about the balance of supply and demand on a free market, domestic and international alike, made a lot of sense to me and put a lot of pieces of the puzzle I held in my head for a while together. 
However, the author made a point which I did not quite understand. While not exactly supporting Statist policies, he did dedicate a few chapters to the idea that the supply/demand balance does not always naturally occurs in case of involving potentially damaging or highly essential resources - and sometimes the state involvement is essential to prevent the market participants from exploiting those less fortunate or less self-aware. I somewhat understood this reasoning, but it did not seem to be based on logic to me: the way the author connected the reasons of such a state of affairs to the necessity of the governmental intrusion did not seem right. I read a few more articles on the subject, and the reasoning always seemed to be missing something to me.

At the time I allowed myself to slip into the argument ad populum fallacy: I thought that, while I do not see this reasoning as validated, my ignorance in economics probably causes me to miss something essential. So, begrudgingly, I accepted the conclusion - "Governmental intervention is sometimes necessary" - assuming I would understand the reasons later.
Recently, however, due to my renewed interest in economics, I reexamined those arguments and came to the conclusion that my initial impression was correct: they are not valid - or, rather, they do not describe the entirety of the issue. A few years ago, while still being libertarian overall, I did believe in some level of worker protections and market regulations; nowadays I drifted to the extreme, and I do not think the government should have any involvement in the private market, aside from what is necessary to ensure the fulfillment of people's basic individual rights.

What I think happens is two major points many people miss:
1. Luxury and greed are essential ingredients for positive economical performance long-term.
2. Market is extremely reactive and can deal with any issue thrown at it through inventive thinking of the market participants.
I will elaborate on each of these points, and then conclude with what I see as proper economical policies (which, in my opinion, are much closer to what the US had in 1880-1930s, than to what it has now).

1. While it is tempting to think along the lines you described: "If the rich were willing to give up the luxury, then the job market would be in a better state" - I do not think it is validated. An essential ingredient that is missing here is the fact that the strive for luxurious life is what drives the economy. You mentioned that Carnegie was the richest man in the world and could definitely afford to pay more to his workers. But could he, really? Could he physically afford it? Yes. Could he economically afford it, based on his personal needs? I do not think so.
Carnegie wanting to become extremely rich and doing everything to achieve that dream - led to his business growing, to exploding numbers of jobs available to everyone, and ultimately, to economical and technological development of the country as a whole. Could he pay his workers more and leave himself less? Yes - but he would not be Carnegie then. He would not be such a driven individual, he would not expand his business so much, he would not create so many jobs, and ultimately, the job market would be in a poorer state than it actually was.
Now, it might seem that soft policies, such as a mediocre minimum wage, could be a decent compromise. However, same problem occurs: increase of the minimum wage leads to employers hiring less people to avoid increasing the spending, which increases unemployment. In addition, having to pay more money to the people at the bottom, employers have to pay less money to the people at the top, in order to avoid having to increase expenses - which, in turn, makes those people at the top less willing to work as hard, which, again, decreases the economical output... Ultimately, the seemingly reasonable desire to make the life of the poor better ends up making the life of everyone worse. Except exactly for people like Carnegie, who, unlike the poor workers, have enough resources to mitigate the negative effects of the governmental intrusion.

2. It is my deep conviction that free market, a really free market, deals with monopolies and unethical business behavior much better than the government ever could. Thinking about the necessity to make compromises in the past, I switched to believing that the best compromise is just letting the market do its job. Market is extremely reactive and flexible, and there are no dead ends in a free market economy. "Market finds a way."
A general argument against this would go like this: "What if a company finds a gold deposit, builds a mine around it and bars everyone else from entering? How do we deal with this monopoly?" But the answer actually is: "We do not. Market does." What happens is that, with appropriation of gold by one or more companies, other companies have to think outside the box, look for inventive solutions not involving gold. This urges them to look for new energy sources, to develop new technology, to build international mutually profitable relationships, and so on and so on. At the output, we have an economy of innovators and inventors that go far beyond the basic concepts of production and sales. This is the type of economy that will assure a nation's dominance in the 21st century.

Now, with all this in mind, what would I do if I had a full control over the economy, and what effects would it have on it? These would be my steps:
1. Massive nationalization of public property through sales at half the market price to the interested investors.
2. The public funds freed from having to maintain public property used to subsidize private initiatives in the prioritized scientific, industrial, architectural and technological fields, both for domestic and private companies.
3. Abolition of any control over the private market on the government's part.
4. Slow decrease in the amount of the subsidies, along with slow decrease of taxes on everything.
What I expect to happen as a result is this. At the first few months, many people will lose their jobs or will be paid less. People who were paid above the market price of their services due to the governmental involvement would lose a fraction of their income and have to quickly improve their skill sets in order to become employable again. People who were paid below the market price of their services would be paid what they deserve now. Business owners would benefit from having no governmental grip on their companies. Long-term, everybody wins. Short-term, not everyone is happy, but short-term does not make a strong economy.
In a few years, an enormous influx of investments, from both the inside and the outside, into the new investment heaven will lead to unprecedented economical growth, putting even China of 2000s to shame. As the investments far surpass the needs of the people, the quality of life in all income brackets would explode (in a positive sense). All these debates on income redistribution will become irrelevant, since redistribution will not be needed any more and will be happening naturally.

Perhaps my vision of the economy is slightly idealistic, but all my knowledge to date leads me to conclude that this is the best economical policies pretty much any existing nation could employ at the moment.

---

With regards to Carlos and his employees specifically, the principle "everybody wins long term" also applies. The workers are happy to have moved out of a falling third world economy and received the quality of life they could not even dream of in the motherland, as well as a permanent job owned by someone who knows what they are going through. Carlos receives a cheap work force and his business is thriving. And Americans receive cheap dairy products Carlos' business produces. By extension, the rest of the world gets cheaper dairy product imports as well. Everybody wins. Nobody loses (except maybe for the third-world country that lost some hard-working individuals, but that is a matter for another discussion).

I think the reason this is the case is the same reason why the free market in the US of late 80-s led to such an enormous economical growth: free market (and shadow or semi-shadow economy, as in case of Carlos' business, is also an example of a somewhat free market, if a bit volatile and chaotic) produces much better returns from investments, than regulated market, let alone state-controlled market.

---

These are just some thought on the matter. From the economical point of view, I see Carlos' business as very effective and helpful, and from the personal point of view, I am glad that so many people get to enjoy living in a First World country, in which otherwise they might only dream of living in. As someone who was born in a country at the bottom of all freedom and quality of life rankings and moved to the best country in the world eventually, I can relate to them (to an extent; I do not know what it is like to be an undocumented immigrant, after all) and be happy for their fortune.

Thank you for the book suggestions, I definitely will be interested in reading them!

WordsMatter

First of all thank you for providing such a great and clear argument. I see that we have the same views in terms of Carlos.

However I think I didn't make the specifics of my point clear enough and these sentences the showed me that.

"Ultimately, the seemingly reasonable desire to make the life of the poor better ends up making the life of everyone worse," "If the rich were willing to give up the luxury, then the job market would be in a better state." You disagree with that logic.

I think you got the impression I was arguing that the rich should give up things to create a better market. I was actually arguing somewhat the opposite. I was arguing that those already low on the class ladder would boost the economy by giving up what luxuries they have, the rich aren't the ones benefiting from labor laws and minimum wage, these are the luxuries I'm saying Americans have to give up. I agree with you that giving those up will flood the market with new jobs, because it makes cheap labor in America competitive against cheap labor in poor countries.

It's clear at this point that this current discussion is seperate from the Carlos discussion in a sense, this discussion is much larger.

It's the Americans that complain about the loss of manufacturing jobs that need to give up luxuries if their goal is to get jobs back. The rich will have his workers either in America or China, it makes no difference to him what country produces his product, only that the lowest workers come from the cheaper country.

So I agree with you that's jobs would come back with fewer regulations, I just don't believe the poorest Americans will ever accept that, and thus they are the ones keeping their own jobs from coming back. Here is how the homestead strikes tie into my argument.

1.the workers went on strike and died because they felt they were working in unacceptable conditions, in an all around much more brutal America than the one of today, is important to note.

2. The poor Americans of today want these exact jobs back.

3. There poorest of Americans today enjoys a lifestyle significantly better than those of the 1880's-1930's.

I think when the poor claim that they want jobs back they don't say it but I believe it's implied, "we want jobs back! (And to maintain our current lifestyle)." I don't think they can get both, and to take it further I don't believe they want to accept one without the other.

Using illegal immigrant labor really is a win for everyone. However reverting labor laws back to those of old (I'm tired of writing the dates) isn't a win for everyone. I don't believe the poorest of Americans will ever see their lifestyle match what it is now even in the Long term. 

If there is nothing requiring it what incentive does a business owner have to pay their employee more than they need to be able to continue working for them, especially in manufacturing industries? The man that pours the steel isn't the one that will be buying it, even indirectly he would hardly contribute to buying it. When all you do is work, eat, sleep, and get one day off every two weeks, you aren't putting your money back into the economy outside of housing and clothes. The people paying for the steel are primarily the middle class. Going on trips, buying vehicles, buying lots of products that need to be shipped around. 

I could be wrong but the way I see it is that as long as there is a strong middle class, the poor can be used as labor and prevented from ever moving into the middle class, and if they start to want pay that can give them that then the plant will just move to China. Moving the plant to China hurts the poor but not the middle class. The owner sees no difference in profit, but now hundreds in America are out of a job, all because they asked for enough money for a TV in addition to their housing and clothing.

In terms of economics I believe you are correct that the economy will be boosted by relaxing regulation. However the people who benefit from that boost will be the employers and those who are wealthy enough to make passive income. The poor won't enjoy the boost as they had to give up $4 an hour to create the boost. Even if things get cheaper because of the boost it just means employers can pay even less, so that their workers maintain the same buying power.


The solution that I see  needs more than different labor laws. Invest heavily in education and try to turn America into a full middle class, essentially creating a working class entirely out of foreigners. This was a huge issue I saw between Trump and Hillary where I heavily agree with Hillary. Trump wanted to work to bring these jobs back via cutting regulations. Hillary wanted to retrain these unemployed so that they don't need these manufacturing jobs and instead are more skilled and valuable workers. Both plans can be executed simultaneously and probably should, but education has a better chance to lead to a 2 class America, middle and Rich. 

TTKDB

@love2debate:

If Carlos came to the United States illegally, why shouldn't he be deported, isn't that the law? 

The illegal immigration issue needs a nationwide conversation, that addresses all of the concerns in regards to illegal immigration,.

It's sad to express this, but coming to the United States illegally, is not the way to address the illegal immigration conversation. 

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter

I see your point now, and, indeed, it seems we are coming from the same general mindset.

I am not sure Americans have to give up any luxuries in order to boost the economy - but it depends on what we consider luxuries. The term "luxury" is heavily dependent on the personal outlook. I think that a strong deregulation, while inconveniencing some workers short-term, long-term ultimately leads to even the poorest workers seeing improvement in their lives. You are right that the poor will initially have to give up even more than they are already giving up in order to boost the economy - but at the same time, changes in the economy will prompt them to work on their skills to improve their employability (and today, unlike 100+ years ago, all the education one needs to succeed in life is merely a few clicks away). I think that, rather than trading luxury for economy, what really happens is trading short-term luxury for long-term luxury and economy.
What is better: to receive $1000 every year, or to receive $500 first year, $750 second year, $1000 third year, $1250 fourth year and so on? I think this is closer to what would really happen in case of (reasonable) deregulation. Deregulation, in a way, is a modern investment in the future, that hits at our wallets at the moment, but will fill them with more than we could hope before in the years to come.

The last paragraph in your comment, I think, really strikes at the crux of the issue. It is not just about the pure job count; it is also about what those jobs are. Trump wants to bring back jobs from the previous century, so that people who could work those jobs, but cannot work modern jobs as well, become employed. But I see it as a wrong way to go about it: the truth is, jobs are not a boon, they are the expense. Working a job is the price for getting its benefits, it is not a purpose in itself. 
The reason all those coal and other jobs have disappeared from the market was simply that the return from them became much smaller than that of modern jobs. Rather than trying to bring those jobs back, as Hillary said and you pointed out, it is essential to focus on creation of modern jobs, and on honing of people's skills in order to do this jobs.

Education, indeed, is one of the priorities here. I do not think it is the government that should take care of the education, however. I recently read a good article from Independent Institute arguing that employer-funded higher education can be much more effective than any of the traditional higher education programs, because the employers know exactly what they want and can tweak the curriculum appropriately. Whether correct or not, I think that ultimately education should be defined by what is needed on the market, rather than by what is conventionally considered to be relevant.
Regardless, education is what defines what kind of jobs become available to the majority of the population, and as such, indeed, heavily investing in it is one of the possible ways to redefine the class structure of the economy and to create the situation where there is almost nothing left below the middle class.

Something else that, I think, Trump administration is not doing right is the trade relations with other nations. Trump is of the erroneous opinion that taxing foreign traders equates to better deals for America. However, tariffs on foreign trade feature exactly the same problems as high taxes on domestic trade: they slow down the resource flow and, as such, slow down the economical growth. Deregulating foreign trade and abolishing all tariffs, even if other countries do not return the favor, ultimately will lead to more goods flowing into the country, and that benefits everyone, except for domestic businesses that are less effective than foreign businesses - meaning, again, that these businesses would have to innovate in order to stay on the market, which only benefits them long-term.

So, returning back to Carlos's workers and other poor Americans that, nonetheless, as you pointed out, live significantly better than they did in late 1800-s - it seems to me that they are more than okay working these jobs and getting the respective quality of life in return. Carlos' workers already got much more than they could in their home country, so they are likely to be very happy (and, indeed, interacting with various Spanish-speaking immigrants with poor English on the south, they all seemed pretty happy and cheerful to me, legal and illegal alike). Poor Americans, saying that they want to live better and claiming that in the past they did, might have a point, the exact point you made (they want the old lifestyle back, while not giving up on the luxuries of the modern lifestyle) - but at the same time, they might simply be frustrated with their position on the market and seeming inability to do anything about it. Someone who works as a cashier full-time has a hard time moving up the ranks, because their job does not develop any skills that other employers are interested in.
Someone who worked in the industry in 1800s could hope to slowly, through hard work, get from the base producer to the manager position, and so on higher up the ranks. This is not necessarily the case on the modern job market, where professions are strongly "segregated" by the skills required, and the intersection between them is becoming smaller and smaller.
However, just like Carlos' workers found a way to escape the vicious circle of living in a poor country and not being able to use their poor country job market skills to become employable in the developed world - I think the people who supported Trump's narrative also have all the resources they need to improve their lives. It is not easy, but all the knowledge they need is easily available on the Internet. 

I have a friend who works a low-paid job full-time, and in the spare time writes a series of novels she wants to eventually release, in order to make writing her permanent profession. I also knew a family of immigrants from Australia, who worked as waiters at restaurants, at the same time slowly building up their credit history and studying business via free online resources, so that eventually they could take a loan and open their own restaurant business.

All Americans can do this. And the best the government can do, in my opinion, is to point them in the right direction, while the best they can do is to move in that direction and to build the foundation for their future success. The point is the same as the central point of my general narrative: economical success is not a result of just hard work, it is a result of an investment in the future. Of a temporary sacrifice for the long-term gain. And this is something both the government and the workers should realize and fully process - only then can we finally defeat poverty, once and forever.
In a way, this is what you talked about: giving up the luxury in order to boost the economy. But I would also add to what you said that it is not a permanent sacrifice, it is simply a smart business investment, so to speak. People will get their luxury back, and more, and pretty fast - as long as they are willing to invest initially.

Humbug

@love2debate ;If he is as invaluable to his employer as you say he is, then he should be sponsored by his employer and initiated through the process of legalization which he can obtain if his past is clean of criminal conduct... It's a process, as such it takes time but it's entirely doable and very optimistically viable... There is nothing in place which suggests penalties whatsoever to either him or his employer from the moment or prior which he requests legal status... Must follow compliance with required procedures to the T, which may include him going back to country of origin in order to receive his legal status documentation from the American Embassy at the country of origin... The process is not a joke or fake, it's proven 100% effective in order to obtaining American legal resident status.

all4actt

Arguing that the agricultural farms would colapse and be unable to produce without illegal immigrants is making one of the same arguments that the Southern States made about why they needed to keep thier slaves.

Also there is a way for agricultural buisness' to get foreign workers legally.  The Workers Visa Program.

https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2a-temporary-agricultural-workers

So there is no reason we need illegal immigrants to do these jobs especially when there is a legal way to bring in foreign workers if there are not enough Americans interested in doing the work.