I don’t think so. I’ve definitely had drivers who spoke little to no english.

I think there is a whole category of “unskilled” jobs. Jobs that need no education and very little training. It’s hard to argue high wages when there is almost no barrier to entry.

Stockers, cleaning, dishwashers, picking produce, landscaping, painting stuff… you can get better and more productive at these jobs, but you understand them after your first day. I had those jobs before college.

The problem is, people call these “teenager jobs”. That’s fine for teenagers moving on to higher education but hard for an adult to live on, I agree.

The number one thing balancing profitability from unprofitability in my last company (that I started) was labor. Need another person on the shift? All of a sudden you are in the red. Labor is no joke, besides rent it’s usually your number one expense.

If a company can’t afford to higher and keep legal workers, as in workers that are legally allowed to work in that country, and stay in business, we don’t need that business. How do I know that, the market said so.

I have heard conservatives refer to them as starter jobs. You are supposed to work them until you magically find or qualify for something better. Like flipping burgers will lead to you doing brain surgery. But there is some truth to that. Employers like that probably never envisioned having a work force that would depend on those type jobs for raising a family.

I work in a job where I get to see what people make and there is a way I can tell (with some certainty) if they are here legally or not. There are some who make decent money. Construction trades and some ag work can pay pretty good regardless of who you are. There is a huge cash economy in construction. Much of that work does take away from American born workers. Ag not so much.

That was what the Immigration Chief Ken Cuccinelli said! This was the “tired and sick… but on your own two feet” guy.

No, it literally isn’t.

Yep, they quoted him on the same NPR story. He said those companies that can’t get by without undocumented workers should go out of business and make room for those who can.

And which exact quote is that, where he said businesses were abusing and taking advantage of illegal immigrants, treating them like dirt, not paying them a decent wage, threatening them because they know they can’t go to authorities and then the business turned around and whined about not getting Americans to fill the roles. That’s a big quote. I look forward to seeing it.

It is wasn’t that complex, obviously. It was almost verbatim what you said above and I quoted.

My argument is, a lot of businesses would disappear if they couldn’t at all use illegal labor. Oranges would disappear, for instance.

Ag is slowly going to mechanical harvesting because of labor problems. But not every fruit and veggie can be picked or maintained that way. Few American born will do the work, and many of those who have done it want to move up in the world. One big problem is the transitory nature of the work.

You took one sentence out of my entire point and decided to equate it to someone who is largely saying the opposite, and you know it. It was a dick move.

This is bullshit. It’s not going to happen, but it sure makes a nice sob story for someone who won’t pay their workers and protect them to use when the news comes around.

We’ll import the product. Prices will go up, or somehow the industry will become more efficient. Either way, there is no requirement for or to maintain exploitative businesses out there.

I apologize if you thought I was taking you out of context. I was just quoting your one post.

I can understand your perspective about illegal labor driving down labor rates. I get that on a macro level. Though the point of the NPR story and the interview of the restauranteur was that she didn’t drop rates, she left them alone at a decent rate. It’s that she had great difficulty finding people that wanted to do the job AT ALL. So she constantly turns to illegal labor, not because of the rate but because they are is the only people who will put their “pride” aside and do the job. Dishwashing, short order cooks, etc. One guy had been there 8 years.

It’s complex. On the one hand we want living wages for the entire world. On the other hand even though we have a seemingly huge labor surplus for a lot of jobs, we have a deficit for other jobs. Labor, both legal and illegal, skirts this second category.

I guess I would be surprised to discover that very many cooks in diners and cafes in middle America were being paid $16/hr. Certainly the wait and bus staff and dishwashers aren’t being paid that.

As a teenager way back in the 70s, I worked in a discount department store (a K-Mart) most evenings and on weekends. I ran a register, stocked shelves, etc. I didn’t do any cleaning, really, but I did everything else. Eventually I worked in the appliance department.

There were other high schoolers like me, but there were also a lot of adults doing the same work, particularly the cashiers. We all got paid the same rates, we all started at the minimum wage, we all got scheduled for shifts the same way, and the only real distinction is that I worked 30 hrs a week most weeks while my adult co-workers worked 40.

The difference was that the minimum wage in 1977 was still just barely meaningful. And no one thought those were kid jobs.

Accepted

It’s more like… As long as these business owners think there is a supply of cheap labor to exploit and use without consequences, they have no incentive to change. In fact, they really just won’t change. Why would they if they can get their cake and then cry when it’s taken away until they get more?

I’m not sure what to mean by this? We’re at full employment, statistically speaking.

Not really. The unemployment rate excludes people who have given up looking for a job and dropped out of the workforce. If you look at the labor force participation rate, you’ll see there are a lot of people in that group — something like 4% of the workforce compared to a couple of decades ago.

Edit: Basically the 2008 recession dumped a lot of people out of work, and some of them never returned.

Unemployment in New Hampshire is at 2.5% and my wife has a hell of a time filling positions like dining staff, cleaning, etc. (Well, and nurses too but that’s a nation wide shortage for a skilled position,).

She’s trying to get her company to sponsor workers through a visa program so that she’ll have a steady stream of people eager to work these jobs that no one local wants.

Have they tried raising wages? Because, you know, that’s a market based solution that doesn’t involve government intervention.

On a more meta note on the issue of employment, jobs, unemployment , etc. I’d like the board here to think about this: why do so many “discussions” of this issue leave out wages? The money being paid is a major factor in employment (in many cases the income offered by a job is the by far predominant factor in taking a job). So why isn’t it discussed?

I’ve reached the point where when someone tries to make a statement about employment without discussing the actual recompense for the employment, I pretty much dismiss the statement as useless anecdata.