Bravo. Decades ago a Constitutional Law professor who authored one of the definitive textbooks on the Civil War, noted the entire bloody conflict could be summarized with the phrase, "but who will pick the cotton?"
Now that flawed economic theory, that should have long ago been relegated to the dustbin of history, is meeting ever improving tech.
Last fall a new neighbor purchased a home and arrived with a Roomba type lawn mower that mows his entire 1/2 acre lawn, dotted with trees and bordered with numerous flower beds, perfectly. It never hits a tree or causes a plant to inadvertently drop a flower. It was an oddity, but has since been joined by a handful of others at nearby houses. All as the army of foreign gardeners that tend to large lawns, shrinks noticeably.
Homeowners are catching up to US grain farmers that have never utilized foreign labor. They do need them, having long ago modernized. With tech and ever larger machinery, they now farm exponentially more acreage with ever fewer bodies.
US produce growers refuse to join them, because it is cheaper for them to hire exploitable undocumented labor, pay them peanuts and allow taxpayers to make up the difference with ever growing welfare rolls, free healthcare and NGOs who disguise their taxpayer financing.
These beast of burden adjacent people dwell in near abject poverty, unacceptable by any Western living standard, while their nations of origin lose any chance at development when their young and ambitious flee in large swaths to take low paying jobs, doomed to be replaced by tech sooner, rather than later.
I'd like to suggest an addition to your theory. Money. Not all jobs can be replaced by smart machines, for those jobs, if they are lowly enough, and if not enough want to do them, employers will pay higher and higher wages until the position is filled. I know, I've done many of those jobs.
Half of ag workers are legal. What would their lives look like if wages increased high enough? It used to be that schools would allow teens to take days off, housewives would find someone to watch the kids, everyone would turn out for the huge daily paychecks to pick crops. How many workers would ag get at $500 a day?
Employers are just beginning to scream, and they have an attentive ear in Trump who has imported workers before. I'm waiting on wages which haven't budged in years. Doubling the cost of low wage labor wouldn't hurt much.
People who have never been an employer shed tears imagining their restaurant bill or cleaning ladies costing twice as much. In reality labor is only a portion of even the most labor intensive businesses. When I do the math the cost of a Big Mack hardly goes up.
Money. It's something everyone can understand, even those doing dirty dangerous jobs.
Meh. Capitalists exploit labor no matter the circumstances or public policy. When public policy seeks to address the wrongs of that exploitation, the howls of “burdensome regulations” begins. When labor seeks to organize to address exploitation themselves, capital fights it tooth and nail. It will be ever thus, no matter how many words the author puts out.
Interesting article. I think it does conflate some important historical ideas however. Lincoln, the Wilmot Proviso, and the Free Soil party were against slavery for economic reasons first and foremost. Slavery caused DISTORTION to the marketplace. Labor or working class people could not compete with a slave wage. Now, the article did elude vaguely to sponsorship with temporary immigrant workers but this seems like a stretch to the “peculiar institution” alive in the pre-Civil War South.
The more important questions:
Has immigrant labor caused high unemployment for US citizens in the past 40 years?
Does an orderly immigration process (unlike what happened for the two years following Covid) hurt the fabric or delude the culture of the USA?
Does economic growth and dynamism improve by a closed door immigration policy which has been promoted by this administration?
Answer to all three- NO!!!
We are a nation of immigrants who have continually assimilated and strengthened our country on multiple levels! Immigration has been and probably will continue to be our biggest comparative advantage in the most Ricardian sense of that phrase.
The growth of credentialism and the suppression of job opportunities for teenagers have combined to greatly undermine Lincoln's vision that “The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him.”
Bravo. Decades ago a Constitutional Law professor who authored one of the definitive textbooks on the Civil War, noted the entire bloody conflict could be summarized with the phrase, "but who will pick the cotton?"
Now that flawed economic theory, that should have long ago been relegated to the dustbin of history, is meeting ever improving tech.
Last fall a new neighbor purchased a home and arrived with a Roomba type lawn mower that mows his entire 1/2 acre lawn, dotted with trees and bordered with numerous flower beds, perfectly. It never hits a tree or causes a plant to inadvertently drop a flower. It was an oddity, but has since been joined by a handful of others at nearby houses. All as the army of foreign gardeners that tend to large lawns, shrinks noticeably.
Homeowners are catching up to US grain farmers that have never utilized foreign labor. They do need them, having long ago modernized. With tech and ever larger machinery, they now farm exponentially more acreage with ever fewer bodies.
US produce growers refuse to join them, because it is cheaper for them to hire exploitable undocumented labor, pay them peanuts and allow taxpayers to make up the difference with ever growing welfare rolls, free healthcare and NGOs who disguise their taxpayer financing.
These beast of burden adjacent people dwell in near abject poverty, unacceptable by any Western living standard, while their nations of origin lose any chance at development when their young and ambitious flee in large swaths to take low paying jobs, doomed to be replaced by tech sooner, rather than later.
I'd like to suggest an addition to your theory. Money. Not all jobs can be replaced by smart machines, for those jobs, if they are lowly enough, and if not enough want to do them, employers will pay higher and higher wages until the position is filled. I know, I've done many of those jobs.
Half of ag workers are legal. What would their lives look like if wages increased high enough? It used to be that schools would allow teens to take days off, housewives would find someone to watch the kids, everyone would turn out for the huge daily paychecks to pick crops. How many workers would ag get at $500 a day?
Employers are just beginning to scream, and they have an attentive ear in Trump who has imported workers before. I'm waiting on wages which haven't budged in years. Doubling the cost of low wage labor wouldn't hurt much.
People who have never been an employer shed tears imagining their restaurant bill or cleaning ladies costing twice as much. In reality labor is only a portion of even the most labor intensive businesses. When I do the math the cost of a Big Mack hardly goes up.
Money. It's something everyone can understand, even those doing dirty dangerous jobs.
Meh. Capitalists exploit labor no matter the circumstances or public policy. When public policy seeks to address the wrongs of that exploitation, the howls of “burdensome regulations” begins. When labor seeks to organize to address exploitation themselves, capital fights it tooth and nail. It will be ever thus, no matter how many words the author puts out.
Interesting article. I think it does conflate some important historical ideas however. Lincoln, the Wilmot Proviso, and the Free Soil party were against slavery for economic reasons first and foremost. Slavery caused DISTORTION to the marketplace. Labor or working class people could not compete with a slave wage. Now, the article did elude vaguely to sponsorship with temporary immigrant workers but this seems like a stretch to the “peculiar institution” alive in the pre-Civil War South.
The more important questions:
Has immigrant labor caused high unemployment for US citizens in the past 40 years?
Does an orderly immigration process (unlike what happened for the two years following Covid) hurt the fabric or delude the culture of the USA?
Does economic growth and dynamism improve by a closed door immigration policy which has been promoted by this administration?
Answer to all three- NO!!!
We are a nation of immigrants who have continually assimilated and strengthened our country on multiple levels! Immigration has been and probably will continue to be our biggest comparative advantage in the most Ricardian sense of that phrase.
No one is trying to immigrate to Russia or China!
The growth of credentialism and the suppression of job opportunities for teenagers have combined to greatly undermine Lincoln's vision that “The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him.”
Mudsill is a potential niche for grievance studies majors but don't let them drive semis.