Capitalists have never been very popular among anti-immigration activists. It is not uncommon to come across anti-immigration pundits like Lou Dobbs discussing the evils of “corporate America” and its efforts to “exploit cheap labor” at the expense of the American worker. Business owners are not persons with rights, but are instead part of a faceless entity known as “corporate America.” And their businesses do not hire people to perform productive work. Instead, they “exploit” cheap foreign labor. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6211/do-we-exploit-cheap-immigrant-labor/
Do We Exploit Cheap Immigrant Labor?
Previous post: A glimpse of today’s India
Next post: An old Flynn barnburner
{ 33 comments }
But, illegal immigration does lead to the “exploitation” of labor. For example, an employer may feel free to beat the crap out of an employee knowing that if the employee complains – he can turn them into the government to be exported. Also, many are suggesting that the recent government raids of meat packing plants were designed to fear-monger employees into not demanding higher pay. (Of course, the government promotes union extortion too, so what can you say)
“Immigrants, illegal and otherwise, should be denied access to welfare benefits of all types. This includes not just traditional “welfare” like TANF and Medicaid, but also public schooling, public higher education, public housing, and other taxpayer-supported amenities. Indeed, such policies should be extended to the entire population, but failing that (as is likely to be the case), immigrants would be a good place to start.” and “And secondly, birthright citizenship should be abolished immediately. Since, in the modern world, the extension of citizenship is essentially an extension of the welfare state, the numbers of people to whom such status can be extended must be greatly restricted.”
This can lead to problems. Specifically France! The two class system in France and all the riots associated with deprived opportunities are specifically a result of a policy that treats immigrants different than citizens. I think a better strategy would be open the immigration floodgates, and force the bankruptcy of the welfare state. Water down the benefits so much, that by time we kill it nobody will notice. The evil isn’t in the immigrants accepting the freebies, but in the government coercing them. Trying to address the latter by restricting the former will only lead to a caste system at the expense of a solution.
But then again for an employer (violence exploitation aside) if a migrant worker wants to get a job from another person by working for less how is that the employer’s fault?
If the minimum wage is eliminated, non-immigrants can compete with immigrants for low-wage jobs. Also, if greedy consumers would not demand such low prices for the products they buy, the greedy coorporations could afford to pay more to their employees.
As far as I’m concerned, immigration should be a matter of invitation only. In a system comprised of only private property, there is really no such thing as immigration. I should be able to invite some while excluding others. In the abscence of that system, I would like to see the government exclude those that don’t have some sort of pre-arranged contractual agreement before they can immigrate, and have their sponser citizen take some measure of responsibility for the immigrant’s actions. Anyhing else is forced integration.
As far as I’m concerned, immigration should be a matter of invitation only. In a system comprised of only private property, there is really no such thing as immigration. I should be able to invite some while excluding others. In the abscence of that system, I would like to see the government exclude those that don’t have some sort of pre-arranged contractual agreement before they can immigrate, and have their sponser citizen take some measure of responsibility for the immigrant’s actions. Anyhing else is forced integration.
In a system comprised of only private property…
There is no reason to believe that all property would be private in a free market.
True, with private property, people are allowed on the property with permission only. However, it’s a mistake to expect government to treat all public property like private property. The incentives for handling it like that just aren’t there. Thus, the next best step is, as mentioned, cut back on the welfare state, get rid of or lower the minimum wage, and strong enforcement of property rights, esp. trespassing. If immigrants create real problems, like engaging in crime, they should be punished like anyone else. If they aren’t causing problems, then, as the author suggested, “punishing” people for non-crimes isn’t going to help matters.
Irrational fears about culture, language, and other such things are just that: irrational.
For example, an employer may feel free to beat the crap out of an employee knowing that if the employee complains – he can turn them into the government to be exported.
perhaps, but what if we had completely, come as you will, leave as you will, open borders? Assumably, then the government wouldn’t care where you were from, except to gather those immoral income taxes. Then the employers threat would be an empty threat. And in any case, there is a reason an illegal immigrant allows him/herself to be “exploited” – they must be getting paid better here than they would in any other place!
And seriously, invite only? You can bet the agricultural industry loves cheap migrant labor – but they have to stay somewhere… an opportunity for cheap rental apartments, if only it weren’t for rent control…
Well, so far the comments are about immigration. But the article, at least for me, was yet another depressing story of how 1984-sh this country is becoming.
As I listen to the helicopters overhead and see more and more cameras watching me, all that remains is the telescreen in each of my rooms. It’s truly sad. Mises was right, he only miscalculated the speed at which the “third way” would lead to toltalitarianism. The march continues. An occasional soft squeek from some of us mice.
I am awaiting the passage of the bill that will make it economically infeasable to have websites like mises.org. That is comming, as surely as anything on the horizon.
No need to outlaw directly, just create reporting requirements, like those described in the article. Maybe mises.org will have to prove that any comments come from citizens. There’s already a law coming that will require all sorts of reporting for email lists with more than 500 subscribers.
Capitalism is a system whereby individuals are free to pursue their own goals with a view to improving their lives. The system works through markets, where buyers and sellers express their preferences and exchange goods and services for money which they can then use as need be.
A consumer’s main aim is to purchase valued goods and services for as low a price as possible in order to maximise consumer surplus. In a similar manner, a firm’s aim is to produce goods and services which the people want as cheaply as possible in order to register the highest possible profit. Fostering free trade in unison with free movement of persons and capital, merely means that the country’s market (which is made up of a myriad of markets) is joined to that of another country, facilitating commerce between them.
The pressure of globalisation and the emerging market economies is driving competition to an increasing intensity. So who could blame a firm for hiring cheap immigrants who can carry out a job well at half the wage? And in turn, would a consumer be willing to pay double the price for products to enable firms to employ local workers? So the free hand of capitalism in such an open system pushes to this inevitable equilibrium.
While this process enables less developed economies such as China and India to catch up, it also enables developed ones to further develop. If traditional industries (consider textile production) in advanced countries do not make way for higher value added industries such as the fast food industry, clothing design and marketing industry, financial services, and what have you, what prospect is there for anyone’s future?
However, while the underlying reason for capitalism and free markets is strong indeed, one cannot forget to remember that we are dealing with people and not with robots. Low skill and lower wage jobs will always exist within an economy, and since every individual is unique, one cannot expect that everyone is capable and willing to learn to become the president or the next Bill Gates. So, one may ask if it is fair for these individuals to have to travel out of their home country unless they want to remain out of a job. The key is a balanced approach to both opening markets to the rest of the world, as well as immigration. Every country makes a distinction between accepting labourers and high skilled workers in fact. The latter are clearly much facilitated, since they offer growth prospects to the host country.
Ryan McMaken makes a valid point in arguing that immigrants should be denied access to welfare benefits. The government could reduce the availability of such expenditure to immigrants since they are not paying for it. If an immigrant succeeds in working and living in a particular country, paying taxes in the process, then the provision of such services could be opened up. Whether locals are to be denied welfare or not is for them to choose in an election however. They pay taxes to get these services presently.
Abolishing birthright citizenship and length of time required for an award of full citizenship are even better proposals. These two policies would tend to reduce the pressure of immigration over time. However, the lure of high wages and opportunites in developed economies may still prove too much for immigrants!
Turning to the government pushing for the duty of informing oneself with respect to clients is not an evil thing in itself, although it may lead to rising prices. Just as it is in the banks’ interest to control their clients in order to recoup their loans in due time and register a profit, so it is in the landlord’s interest to check on the integrity of his clients for similar reasons. Bureaucracy has to refrain from being excessive, while inducing sellers to inform themselves. This may be necessary considering that the two proposals outlined above may not be enough to slow down immigration but not stopping it entirely. A known fact is that a progressing country’s firms find it increasingly harder to employ low skill local workers, as people get used to higher standards of living. UK taxis are virtually run by foreigners!
Finally, I would like to turn to the last point regarding the portrayal of prohibitionists philosophy as banning anything likely to be negative. While this reasoning is fallacious as it might engender resitance and induce illegality as individuals battle to go round the law (how would a responsible individual who enjoys some drinks be able to do without drinks?!), it does not mean that gun purchases or what have you can be compared to drinking for instance. Besides, remember that prevension is better than cure. So it turns out that punishing actual crimes as they happen may be more painful for society than instilling some caution too by appropriate legislation. What would we do with people who end up being stolen by fraudulent and unlicensed brokers? Having a gun does not mean that one would go out on a firing spree, but not having a gun surely means not firing at someone! Moreover, some countries such as Malta possess gun licensing laws and have not experienced an increasing government size.
Seeking out what society thinks about such issues is paramount to ensure the working of democracy and the voting process. This would no doubt increase the freedom of society. An efficient level of legislation can be approached with a view to both prevening and combatting ‘illnesses’.
i thought austrian economists were supposed to be color-blind and not xenophobic?
what’s the matter? scared of competition? if capital and technology can cross borders, so should labor. stop quibbling.
and that welfare-sucking immigrant is a crap. there is at least $6BILLION collected ANNUALLY for social security that “illegals” using fake SS #’s that they will never benefit from.
livingplanet,
I would not say the austrian school is color-blind. From my point of view, the austrian school seeks equality before the law in spite of other inequalities, whether income, racial, etc.
You must have posted your comment here by mistake. The comments here have so far been quite supportive of immigration.
Regarding citizenship: No taxation without representation, right? I say that if they can’t vote then they don’t have to pay taxes. Hell, where do I sign up?
Those illegal aliens here are not the only ones facing hardship due to massive illegal immigration: it’s also their home countries, whose leaders have become dependent on money sent home. That also causes states to be deprived of the workers they need. Perhaps the author should consider that form of exploitation.
And, perhaps those who support massive immigration would care to explain exactly how we could avoid stronger (than us as libertarians) and more cohesive societies (such as Mexico or China) from gaining massive political power (in the case of Mexico even more than they have now) in the U.S.
If we lost all sense and suddenly declared libertarianism, and that resulted in Mexico sending us 20 million more people and China sending us 50 million, wouldn’t that have an impact on our political system? Even if they were forbidden from voting, wouldn’t their sheer numbers make them at the least a political force and a threatening physical force as well? Wouldn’t the U.S. eventually change from libertarianism to something more suiting the Mexican and Chinese governments?
I’ll stop here since I hear lights going on across Auburn Alabama.
Once all landlords and all farmers are forced to do immigration checks why stop there? Government can extend this to grocery stores, department stores and then all retail businesses. Sounds like the first steps taken in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. All in the name of national security.
What would you base citizenship on –if not birthright?
if “no taxation without representation” –then why legal, non-citizen immigrants do not have the right to vote?
Besides, remember that prevention is better than cure. So it turns out that punishing actual crimes as they happen may be more painful for society than instilling some caution too by appropriate legislation. What would we do with people who end up being stolen by fraudulent and unlicensed brokers?
Um, what do they do NOW with people who are victims of fraudulent and unlicensed brokers? Licensing doesn’t ensure that such crimes don’t occur, but it does increase the burden on responsible brokers and on law enforcement to enforce the licenses. Prevention is a good idea, but the form of that prevention is very important. Private certification and insurance are both good, voluntary ways of ensuring prevention without the unintended consequences of government prohibition.
If we lost all sense and suddenly declared libertarianism, and that resulted in Mexico sending us 20 million more people and China sending us 50 million, wouldn’t that have an impact on our political system?
You mean, if we as a nation turned largely or completely over to libertarianism? In that case, there would be strong presumption towards limited government, a diminishment of abusive regulation, and little or no positivist rights in welfare, education, jobs, etc. In that case, there may indeed be lots of immigrants, but they wouldn’t be coming for public benefits but private productivity, and they couldn’t (and wouldn’t want to) significantly change the political system in the U.S.
By far, the greater threat is a partial conversion to libertarian views, but it varies considerably depending upon which views the nation became libertarian on, and which ones they didn’t.
The problem birthright is it covers those born to illegal parents. Mothers in Mexico know if they can sneak across the boarder, and stay on the US side long enough for the kid to be born, the kid is now a US citizen, with full rights to welfare. The US can send mom back, but the kid has a right to stay, and can now sponsor his parents to the US.
Personally I’d prefer to see unlimited immigration. I’ve outlined other proposals (such as stay no more than 3 months at a time), but only as a compromise that has a slight chance of getting some support.
Congratulations to Ryan McMaken on a very good and thoughtful article. I wrote a short, similar article (in English and Spanish) on my own blog: Five Steps to Immigration Reform. To summarize:
http://howardhyde.blogspot.com/2006/11/five-steps-to-immigration-reform.html
“You mean, if we as a nation turned largely or completely over to libertarianism?”
I meant what I wrote, but I’ll modify it a bit: if the U.S. goes completely bonkers – stark raving mad, no-sense-at-all, completely-and-utterly idiotic crazy – and decides to pursue the libertarian dream, what I described above will come to pass.
“In that case, there may indeed be lots of immigrants, but they wouldn’t be coming for public benefits but private productivity, and they couldn’t (and wouldn’t want to) significantly change the political system in the U.S.”
What a wonderful fantasy world you inhabit. The 10+ million illegal aliens already here have a great deal of political power, and they recently physically threatened this country by marching in our streets and making a show of force.
With a libertarian system, even more foreign citizens would come here, and at a certain critical mass we would have to do what they say.
If the foreign nation(s) they’re from can incite them, they could easily topple the libertarian government and replace it with something more to those country’s liking. You do understand that, right? If our law says that you can’t jaywalk, but half of our population wants to jaywalk, we don’t have the manpower to prevent jaywalking. If there are 30 million Mexican partisans in the U.S., and they want to establish their own country, tell me exactly what we could do about it (other than capitulating).
Just because libertarians have even less sense than the most starry-eyed, out-to-space pacifist does not mean that the leaders of China or Mexico or other countries are similarly handicapped.
Click the link to read about Mexico’s links to the marches, then put on your thinking caps and imagine what it would be like under libertarianism.
Financial services brokers, electricians, plumbers, accountants and other similar service suppliers are all ultimately responsible to their present and potential clients. It is in the interest of each service provider to ensure that he is of the necessary competence and offers value for money services in order to win custom.
So competition will drive towards efficiency within the system. Private initiative (like brokers unions) may decide to issue certifications in order to prove the ‘good’ from the ‘bad’. Such certification would help to elevate further the status of the law respecting firms, helping to increase customer confidence and business along the way.
However, that does not mean that fraudulent service providers will not exist anymore. Since these firms are cooperating, they may also charge higher fees which they would argue are due to their higher quality offered. (That is what happens under government regulation, so what is the difference?) Besides, consumers might also argue that they still do not have faith in the prudential and licensing standards which these private unions decided to put in place. There would be some drive pushing the union to respect client wishes no doubt (competition remember?), but as long as customers do not have much choice between different service providers belonging to different unions, then it would be another situation altogether.
The main argument is that government regulation is no unnecessary evil which produces results totally afar from those under private regulation for instance. Ensuring responsible, capable and prudent service providers is essential to the safety and health of their customers. So, government regulation may be though necessary by society to guarantee all of this. Once the private sector initiative catches up and unions are in place, the government may consider removing the regulation which is no longer needed. But in the meantime, there may be no considerable effort towards this reform in licensing.
[I]What a wonderful fantasy world you inhabit. The 10+ million illegal aliens already here have a great deal of political power, and they recently physically threatened this country by marching in our streets and making a show of force.[/I]
Why would they want to change the system. If they were looking for a new home based upon its welfare system they would go to a state with a welfare state, they would not come to a libertarian state.
“What would you base citizenship on –if not birthright?”
I don’t know what the basis ought to be for citizenship. For instance in Italy, if your ancestors are Italian, you can be a resident in Italy (hence you see South American footballers working in Italy). In any case, one issue with birthright is, there are foreigners who go to the US to give birth so their kids have US citizenship and they go back to their country to live.
So, in everyone’s mind who posted what exactly does citizenship entitle someone? Just unhindered access to the host country?
Good question banker. I’d guess that since Libertarians don’t seem to believe in nation states then so should be no such thing as a citizen (a word from Ancient Rome to denote an insider from an outsider, a barbarian?). Only rather property owners, tenants and trespassers?
However, that does not mean that fraudulent service providers will not exist anymore. Since these firms are cooperating, they may also charge higher fees which they would argue are due to their higher quality offered. (That is what happens under government regulation, so what is the difference?)
The problem with the “Trust” theory is that, even giving credence to the idea of a “brokers union” or guild, some suppliers would still underbid their competition in order to get more business. This is why you do not see a Fast Food Cartel, or a Bubble Gum Manufacturers’ Trust. Even if all owners got together and fixed a price, one of them is bound to say “Yeah, sure, whatever you say, and thanks for letting me know how much to underquote your price, by the way!”.
Besides, consumers might also argue that they still do not have faith in the prudential and licensing standards which these private unions decided to put in place.
Which consumers would argue? Because Consumers do not argue – they either do business with you, or they DON’T, and that is more powerful than anything imagined by politicians and their cronies.
“…if the U.S. goes completely bonkers – stark raving mad no-sense-at-all, completely-and-utterly idiotic crazy – and decides to pursue the libertarian dream…”
Interesting assessment there, RAYF. Care to share with us the plan that you believe to be sane? Every critique of libertarianism that I’ve ever come across is either firmly seated in the topsy-turvy Marxist view, where voluntary interactions become coercive exploitation, or the person possesses a wildly incomplete or just plain wrong assessment of libertarianism.
“…what I described above will come to pass. What a wonderful fantasy world you inhabit. The 10+ million illegal aliens already here have a great deal of political power, and they recently physically threatened this country by marching in our streets and making a show of force.”
How would they do this? If society becomes truly voluntary, the massive federal political machine that was the target of those demonstrations would no longer exist. The only way that immigrants could impose socialism would be a violent uprising against their neighbors. As Michael Clem pointed out, immigrants would have to accept that the nanny-state is not their to help them if they choose to come over. Also, you seem to want to treat immigrants as a homogeneous body of automatons, which is more than a little disingenuous.
One thing that many who view libertarianism with disdain fail to consider is that private citizens and organizations will have greater power, more control, when it comes to their own property. Your 70 million immigrants are going to have to buy or rent property. They are going to have to become productive to support themselves and their families. And, without the state to monitor, they are going to have to deal with prejudice. If 70 million socialists come knocking at the doors, my guess is that in a libertarian society they are going to find themselves homeless and jobless if they aren’t willing to play by the rules. And if it comes to violence, they are going to find that violence visited back upon them by a populace that relies upon themselves rather than the nanny-state for protection.
“Just because libertarians have even less sense than the most starry-eyed, out-to-space pacifist does not mean that the leaders of China or Mexico or other countries are similarly handicapped.”
Ah, so you believe that libertarians are (or have ideologies that are very similar to) pacifists. That explains a lot of your misconceptions.
I think it is a mistake to categorize anti-immigration activists as generally anti-capitalist. Lou Dobbs and his economic gibberish do not speak for all anti-immigration activists. Those on the left, who favor full-throttle socialism in the US, wholeheartedly support open borders. Most of those on the Right (excluding the Corporate Right) oppose open borders.
Does anybody have any explaination for this, or is another internal contradiction in our ideological makeup? Is it the same reason the the generally free market-oriented Right supports intervention abroad, while the generally statist-oriented Left opposes intervention abroad? What Gives?
Isn’t Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul anti-immigration??? I hope his dark-horse presidential bid goes well, by the way…
If the nation were to suddenly “go libertarian”, there would be a lot less governmental power for different groups to fight over. The machinery required for one group to impose its will on others would be nonexistent. Without that, I have no more fear of Mexicans, Chinese than I have of my fellow Americans. As for citizenship, it should be a commodity that can be bought and sold.
Sam wrote: “I’d guess that since Libertarians don’t seem to believe in nation states then so should be no such thing as a citizen (a word from Ancient Rome to denote an insider from an outsider, a barbarian?). Only rather property owners, tenants and trespassers?”
Yes, even if they are known by different names…
What better way to ponder the immigration issue than by looking out your home-office window at four Mexicans landscaping your yard. Are they documented? Beats me, but no matter, as I’m paying them more than twice the minimum wage but happily so, as they more than make up for it due to their enormous productivity. Man, can these people work!
Or DOES it matter? Hoppe says it does, and I well understand his argument that since states exist (even though they shouldn’t), the least they can do is assure that those who cross their borders do so according to its laws. That is, states should be able to prohibit trespassing on their property the same way individual property owners should. Otherwise, states could be overrun.
I mean, imagine what would happen if China were our neighbor, and we had open borders. The fact is, China wouldn’t then BE our neighbor. Rather, “Chimerica” would be the result — i.e., a two-province super-state, each with its own laws, perhaps, but really no different from those of the states that make up the US today.
But on the other hand, the US government is desperate for new workers to pay into its grossly overburdened welfare system, rendering border protection counterproductive. “Legal or illegal,” the government says (to itself), “we need all the foreign workers we can get.”
So no wonder that an EU-like North American Union has been proposed — http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965 — complete with a new currency to replace the collapsing dollar — http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15017. For welfare and monetary socialism have degenerated to the point that further centralization of power is required to keep the contraption going. And can a world state then be far behind?
Meanwhile, I stare in wonder as my yard is transformed before my eyes.
(Just don’t tell Lou Dobbs.)
There are huge problems with the article, ignoring externalities, looking at the practical political effect of immigration (the Latino caucus in the Congress are not friends of economic liberty). But what stood out most is the absurd notion that enforcing immigration law raises rents. Immigration impacted California has incredibly high rents; that’s what happens when you pack more people into limited amounts of land. (Yeah yeah, zoning etc plays a part, but I could make a case that immigration actually strengthens the hand of the planners too, as the rich, servant employing class in California — hello Dave White — seeks physical separation from those they employ). I am quite willing to believe that enforcing immigration law would impinge on landlord’s liberties (my answer, buy property in Mexico if it bugs you so much). But empirically immigration–legal and illegal–raises rents)
Also, the commenter on France is wrong. France is very assimiliationist in its immigration policies. the UK is a birthright citizenship country just like the US, and pursues multiculturalism. Both have had frequent269859 immigrant/immigrant children riots
In contrast, Germany which pursued a ‘guest worker’ model and until recently made it very difficult for immigrants and guest worker children to become citizens (and it is still tougher than France) has had close to zero problem with riots.
You can theorize all you want, but the world is what it is.
Comments on this entry are closed.