We probably wouldn't have any of these problems if the minimum wage wasn't such a joke. Even if you worked 80 hours a week at the minimum wage rate you would still be approximately $10,000 short of the median annual U.S. income (before taxes and other deductions). In the normal scheme of things an individual person, let alone a family, cannot survive on the minimum wage in this country. And that is also a factor in the welfare conundrum. What we have is an awful lot of people have made a conscious decision to take welfare rather than allow themselves to be taken advantage of by the system. Chances are very good that if these minimum wage jobs paid a living wage people would take them, illegal’s wouldn't be able to get them (it would be in our interest to prevent it), and we would all be better off for it. It's that simple.

thepeoplechoose

Perhaps a little more focus on how much NAFTA has ruined the Mexican economy would be in order as well. People weren't flooding the border before US corn exports killed the Mexican agricultural sector and before the US firms that had relocated to Mexico decide to re-relocate to China.

Fixing the Mexican economy would change the immigration dynamics. It's time to include revising of NAFTA (and CAFTA) into the discussions.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Corvid

Amnesty for millions of low-wage workers--no matter what one does with the minimum wage--would never produce anywhere near enough tax revenue to pay for even the shabby, worn-out social safety net we have now, right? So a "Newer Deal" of some sort would be rendered even more unlikely, right?

But even setting that side, I'd like to know this: If we grant amnesty, what do you say to all those millions of working Americans who quite correctly feel they have been betrayed by the presence of all these illegals? What do you say to those millions who (like the man cited by Nicholas Kristof in the Times over the weekend) have gone from a good, middle-class income to poverty strictly because of the presence of illegals? There is a huge, boiling sense of injustice out there that is not just the stuff of bigots.

So far, the only answer I've seen is a brushoff. That's not good enough. Even if you think an amnesty will ultimately be good for everyone, that's not the point. It's much more focused: These angry Americans had EVERY RIGHT to expect the laws to be enforced. They had EVERY RIGHT to expect that they would compete on the same level playing field with people who were here legally. They have watched as these rights have been thrown out the window by successive Republican and Democratic governments. And now they see that those who broke the law are about to be rewarded.

Answering with practicalities won't wash. To say , Trust us, everything will work out fine in the long run, or, Believe us, we can't expel 12 million illegals, is a copout. Above all, it is unacceptable to say that making these immigrants legal will give them the leverage to help raise the wages of everyone. This has never been the case in the past. The history indicates that sheer supply and demand far outweighs any political influence of the masses. Otherwise, Latin America would be a worker paradise, and our previous amnesties here would have had some beneficial effect and no one would be upset at the prospect of yet another one.

I think the only honest answer a liberal can give to a working-class American is, Yes, you're right. You've been screwed and, regardless of the law, regardless of what rights you think you have, we're going to continue for the foreseeable future to diminish your life so we can achieve an unbeatable electoral majority. Yes, we've accomplished this by subterfuge, but we don't care.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, maybe there's a better answer than that. So anyone out there, please try. I am genuinely interested in how you quite specifically address this narrow question of justice as it applies to American workers, not the illegals.

This is the best idea I have heard so far. And I think most Americans would be for it. Raise the minimum wage to $12-15/hour.

You would need major crackdown on employers hiring illegal workers. It's the more humane way to solve this, better than rounding them up and putting on trains back to Mexico. If immigrants can’t find a job, they will need to leave. Or they wont come over in the first place.

There would be backlash from both sides. The corporate-right would be opposed because they can’t get cheap labor.

And Mexicans would be opposed because they wouldn’t be able to find jobs.

The other side, is the arguable notion that higher minimum wage creates inflation. I mean the old "A burger would cost $10" argument.

Start here

for some discussion of the impact of NAFTA and the rise in the rate of immigration. I found this within two minutes via Google, I'm sure you can find primary sources yourself by spending a little more time...

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Democrats are at last beginning to grasp that by representing a multi-ethnic, multilingual coalition of hard working strivers for the fruits of the American Dream they can recreate a Newer Deal coalition that will grant them political power for a generation.

The economic situation is similar to the way it was around the time of the New Deal.  High unemployment, the rights of workers in debate, a huge gap between the upper- and lower-classes.  Now would be the time for the Democrats to fight like hell on immigration, win, and use that momentum to introduce a New Deal-type plan that focuses on jobs, health care reform and retirement just in time for November elections.  If the Republican Party can split the nation on values, the Democrats can split the nation on economics.   

"Twirling round with this familiar parabol, spinning, weaving round each new experience. Recognize this as a holy gift and celebrate this chance to be alive and breathing..." - Tool, "Parabola", 2001. http://peopledontcareaboutpolitics.blogspot.com

That makes sense to me.

Something occurred to me as I read your post, Wonka, and the preceding one. If the minimum wage were to go up and if there were a slight rise in inflation, wouldn't the following happen: the Fed would raise interest rates, making it less likely people would use/abuse credit cards and more likely to save? In other words, isn't the $15/hour earner be more likely to be a lender to banks (as the owner of a savings account) and corporations (through share ownership) than a debtor (owned by credit companies)? Wouldn't that further empower the working class?

Just think of how the American political right-center (Dem) or far-right (Rep) might react to that! Then, too, imagine the outcry, not just from employers but from the banking industry and from increasing numbers of shareholders from the working class! (Already corporations are being faced with more and more protest from shareholders about CEO pay, environmental damage, etc. Just imagine...)

the surprising, peaceful, inspiring, and enormous marches have already changed everyone's political calculation. Democrats are at last beginning to grasp that by representing a multi-ethnic, multilingual coalition of hard working strivers for the fruits of the American Dream they can recreate a Newer Deal coalition that will grant them political power for a generation.

The Georgia march was organized by a former Mexican Consul General. One of the groups involved in the previous L.A. march allegedly has collaborated with the Mexican government. The recent protests were organized by ANSWER, WCW, and others. The May 1 rally is being organized by someone who was booted off the largely-Hispanic Santa Ana school board in that largely-Hispanic city because of his views.

And, many or most of those marching are foreign citizens. If something like that happened in another country I think this would seen a bit more clearly as a show of power and not as just a peaceful march.

What, for instance, happens if those marching don't get what they want?

Could there ever be any downsides to being seen to be capitulating to demands made by foreign citizens who are marching in our streets?

And, of course, if we capitulate now, what do we say to the next 10 or 20 or 30 million illegal aliens who come here and march in our streets demanding to be given citizenship?

Please detail exactly how and when this is expected to end, and exactly what political system this country will have at that time.

 "What do you say to those millions who (like the man cited by Nicholas Kristof in the Times over the weekend) have gone from a good, middle-class income to poverty strictly because of the presence of illegals?"

 The first thing that needs to be said is that the premise is incorrect.  Illegal immigrants have not caused millions of citizens to go from good, middle-class incomes to poverty.  Illegal immigrants are taking below minimum wage jobs, in below standard working conditions - hardly "good middle-class income" jobs.  Legal immigrants are taking jobs here, many of them good jobs, but those are legal immigrants, not illegal.

When a job will not pay enough to live on, compared to welfare, and requires working in dangerous or otherwise substandard conditions, Americans don't take those jobs.  Our goal should be to elevate those jobs so that out of work Americans will find them preferable to being on welfare.  And, raising the minimum wage so that it yields an above poverty level living is the first step in doing that.  The next step is to step up enforcement of OSHA work rules.  These steps will have some effect on the prices we pay for some items, but it needn't have a big effect.  American business is supposed to be managed well enough to improve worker productivity enough to offset most of the increased per worker cost.

Once the "jobs Americans wont take" become jobs Americans will take, the demand for illegal immigrant labor will shrink to near zero, and the problem will be solved.  Meanwhile, the children of the illegal immigrants now here, who are citizens, will become productive members of our society, just as all immigrant groups have done, solving that problem as well. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Reed it's too late now for the CA Senate seat, and little more advanced planning wouldn't hurt the effort.

How woould you like to move to beautiful El Segundo?

Draft Reed Hundt, Congress 2008

CA 36 Needs a REAL Deomcrat

thepeoplechoose, you wrote: "Chances are very good that if these minimum wage jobs paid a living wage people would take them, illegal’s wouldn't be able to get them (it would be in our interest to prevent it), and we would all be better off for it.

Why do you believe illegal immigrants who are here in the country would not be able to get living wage jobs? Do you believe they would not apply for them? Do you believe employers would not hire them, preferring American citizens instead? If so, why do you believe that?

Sure, some employers are nativists or xenophobes or racists and won't hire for that reason. But others no doubt operate off of a perception that immigrants, legal or illegal, have a better work ethic and are "less trouble" than are American citizens. And they are especially likely to be "less trouble" when they are illegally in the country and are not unionized. (query: do unions require citizenship or legal residence as a condition for membership, or do they accept as members those who are here illegally?)

You say it would be in our interest to prevent hiring of illegal immigrants if jobs paid living wages. But, again, if the flow of illegal immigrants continues as is, or increases because the wage differential is higher than it is now, how do you believe the hiring of illegal immigrants could be stopped absent--among other conditions--some form of electronic ID or identification requirement which permits humane and feasible monitoring of citizenship status by employers and law enforcement officials?

So long as so many people can get into the country illegally and enter the labor pool, many of them are going to be hired, at any wage level. And many others, or their offspring, are going to use public services, at cost to those who are playing by the rules. Their presence will remain a source of great resentment and anger. Those who attribute all of this to xenophobia, racism or nativism are not grasping essential dimensions of this issue.

I realize many do not want to really square up to the issue of how to reduce dramatically the numbers of people who are here illegally. This is totally understandable given that the options that are put forward for how to do this tend to be terrifically unappealing on policy or political grounds, or both. So the tendency instead is to wish the matter away, or else support measures which likely are far too feeble to do the job.

I would be delighted to learn of an option for greatly reducing the numbers of future illegal immigrants strong enough to have a chance of working but which would require neither the building of a wall on the Mexican border nor any other measure which would do violence to our other values and sensibilities.

I agree that this is the best idea I've heard in a long time. Polls show that most Americans do not think immigrants should be criminalized, or even necessarily sent home. Contrary to popular belief, it's not that hard to draw a distinction between immigrants breaking the law to escape poverty, and companies breaking the law to improve their bottom line - particularly because the immigrants admit to their actions, while business claim "they didn't know workers were aliens".

What people want is economic security and opportunity; the Dems' DNA is government helping provide economic opportunity and security for working class folks. It's our brand, and even if it's gotten a bit tarnished, we own it in a way the Republicans never can. Raise the minimum wage, propose limited healthcare coverage for all, and find a sensible balance between decriminalizing the immigrants who are here and discouraging further floods of immigration, and I believe you can win over a lot of voters. Nativists and economic conservatives will resist, but others can be persuaded.

As I listen to conservative arguments it becomes that the first rule is attack the liberals. It really doesn't matter what the issue is just attack. Take Gettysburg for example, he posts here often and seems to be making a point that he wants to argue against. But the real point is that he has no point. He just wants to create a straw man. Lets take a Senate bill that sets criteria for legalization based on being in the US for 5 years rather than 2 years. How would the length be documented? By the crack force at homeland security?
And if every Democrat voted for the bill. Gettysburg would then take Ann Coulter's position that the truly patriotic American bill is the one that GOP House members support which is based on sending people back to Mexico and starting over.
There is rarely going to be a point where Gettysburg is going to agree with the majority on this site. The point of contention will shift even to arguing against points on which most Senate Republicans agree.
Gettysburg represents the 36-38% who believe Bush is a incarnation of George Washington (Fred Barnes new book), all liberals are traitors
(Ann Couler, O'Reilly , etc), all liberals are Godless (Ann Coulter's upcoming book)
Gettysburgers are unshakeable in their worldview.
I have a Gettysburger in my workplace. as the Plame affair arose. He stated that the people at the CIA officials who felt that an investigation was in order where are liberal Democrats. He was serious.
You can try to address flaws in their statements, but you'll be entering a Moebius strip

This is not a zero, not even a one.

Now, since that little order of business is taken care of...

because it shows that Republicans truly are interested in compromise

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Dissent Protects Democracy

I don't think you know very much about economics.

Illegal immigrants are taking below minimum wage jobs, in below standard working conditions - hardly "good middle-class income" jobs.

You have to look at why employers are able to get the jobs done by workers to whom they are paying less than the minimum wage. It's because there is a large pool of illegal immigrant labor willing to do these jobs for below minimum wage.

Our goal should be to elevate those jobs so that out of work Americans will find them preferable to being on welfare.

Right, and those jobs will be elevated when employers can't find anyone who will put up with low wages and substandard working conditions. That won't happen as long as employers are able to get away with offering low wages and substandard working conditions to desperate people who are fleeing even lower wages and even worse working conditions.

Once the "jobs Americans wont take" become jobs Americans will take, the demand for illegal immigrant labor will shrink to near zero, and the problem will be solved.

Employers will pay as little as they can get away with, so the demand for a worker who will work for less than someone else will always be there. Therefore, so will the demand for illegal immigrant labor.

As an aside, it's interesting to contemplate what would have happened in Congress had there been no marches, which may lead to at least one conclusion, namely, marches can rouse this do-nothing congress to get off their asses. What if we marched for a single-payer health care plan?

"I don't think you know very much about economics."

Well,  you certainly proved that you don't read very carefully before offering up insults. The minimum wage is the minimum wage a business can pay an employee, except for very few exceptions, and those exceptions are not applicable to what we are discussing.  The fact that there are people willing to work for less money doesn't enter into the equation.  A business has to pay them the minimum wage, which is the minimum wage the business is legally allowed to pay, even if they are willing to work for less.  That is what minimum wage means.

Middle class income earners are not working for minimum wage, nor are illegal immigrants replacing them in their middle class income jobs, generally because they are not qualified to do the work.  If the jobs in question are not union  jobs, the middle class income earners should form a union, join a union, support their union, which is the only protection such jobs can have. 

The other issue is working conditions.  OSHA was set up to enforce safe working conditions.  And example of an unsafe working condition, where illegal immigrants work, is cultivating food crops using a short  hoe.  There are, beyond any doubt, options to cultivating with a short hoe, or, if not, any halfway competent agricultural engineer could design an alternative in a few days at most.  OSHA regulations must be enforced for many reasons, but a side effect of doing so is to eliminate the unsafe jobs that so many illegal immigrants must do to earn their livings. 

Hoppy in Sacramento