A recent report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston revealed that the nation’s poorest (incomes less than $12,499) experienced 31% unemployment compared to 3.2% for those earning $150,000 and 4% for those with incomes between $100,000 and $149,000. (
People earning less than $12,499 annually compete directly with illegal immigrants for jobs. While the staggering differences in unemployment rates speaks to a basic economic inequality in the United States, the different rates also make we wonder why companies risk hiring illegal immigrants given the national emphasis on hiring only legal workers. Do illegal immigrants work harder than legal workers? Do low paying employers frequently place illegal demands on their workers, demands that illegal workers are in no position to refuse? Do legal workers (resident aliens and citizens alike) have an entitlement mentality that causes them to disdain low-paying jobs?
Earning minimum wage necessitates a bare-minimum lifestyle. I know. For my three years of seminary, my wife and I lived at 50% or less of the then national poverty level. We lived in a very small apartment. Meals featured inexpensive starches and canned vegetables, e.g., a pound of meat usually provided the “basis” of four or five meals. We walked or took public transit, not owning a car. We did not have telephone service or own a television. Our entertainment mostly consisted of attending free events and long walks. I would not relish returning to that lifestyle. But I know I could and that I and my marriage would survive.
A forty-hour week at the minimum wage for fifty weeks a year pays $15,500. A part-time job would further increase one’s income. Alternatively, two or three part-time jobs might yield a similar level of income. Janitorial work, farm labor, retail clerk, and a host of other jobs require few skills beyond a commitment to the assigned task, persistent diligence, honesty, and minimal intelligence.
Why do employers hire illegal workers?
Addressing those reasons in no way justifies discriminating against illegal workers or failing to address basic economic injustices in the American system. Ignoring those reasons, however, leaves one with an incomplete picture of the economic and social challenges the nation faces. Individual responsibility and a social safety net comprise integral elements of a sustainable, humane society.
2 comments:
I received this comment by email:
I use the term “unadmitted aliens” which is often used by the federal court system. I don’t use “illegal immigrants” because illegality attaches to the act (of entering the country without permission), not to the person.
US citizens with at least one dependent child often find that their benefit entitlements are roughly as lucrative as the minimum wage. Welfare reform has reduced this disincentive to work somewhat, but I don’t believe reform has eliminated it.
Unadmitted aliens aren’t eligible for entitlements; they work or they starve. So they work. And generally speaking, they work hard for their employers – even at the minimum wage, which is far more than they could earn in Mexico. They voluntarily live in crowded conditions in order to afford residency in Wake County, which is an expensive place to live on the minimum wage. (My older son has experienced that!)
So yes, I believe employers hire unadmitted aliens because they are willing to work at the minimum wage when citizens are not. The combination of further welfare reform and raising the minimum wage to a level where someone could actually live on it would address the situation, but that’s a politically infeasible approach. Liberals won’t accept further welfare reform, and conservatives won’t accept a 20% increase in the minimum wage on top of the increases since 2007. On an inflation-adjusted basis, today’s minimum wage – even after the increase to $7.25 – is lower than it was in 1956 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages).
Welfare reform needs to provide an incentive for people to move off welfare. Nicholas Wade in his book, The Faith Instinct, observes that primitive human societies, only a few generations removed from other primates, had to develop a mechanism to prevent freeloading. Social safety nets are great – but these safety nets work best when the protect both individuals and society.
Post a Comment