Illegal Immigration & The Minimum Wage

[IBCoupe]

[This was inspired by something that came up in another recent thread.]

Illegal immigrants should be paid the minimum wage. They should be compensated for expenses that should contractually or legally be compensated for.

Ah, but you protest: IT'S ILLEGAL! THIS IS A NATION OF LAWS!

So let me put it another way:
Illegal immigrants shouldn't be paid at a discount. They should be just as expensive to hire as a legal citizen.

If we excuse employer misbehavior on the grounds that the employee shouldn't be an employee in the first place, we create an incentive for employers to try and save a buck by hiring those employees. If we, instead, make illegal immigrants exactly the same in the eye of employers, we eliminate that incentive. In that case, the risk that they could get caught for employing illegal immigrant doesn't have an accompanying benefit of decreased costs. It makes absolutely no sense to say that a illegal immigrant should be paid less. In fact, that they're paid less is part of the problem.

Your thoughts?

[96Qowner]

Ok, it's late, I'm in a thinking mood - I'll bite.

My first reaction is hell yeah. Part of our problems with law is that it has too much overlap. One law gets all in the business of some other thing. Why should an employer be able to pay illegals less? Keep it simple - one law for everybody. And it has side benefits, as you point out.

But ok, do we just refuse to acknowledge the cash labor market? I'm not sure what percentage of illegals are paid in cash. If not cash, then are we talking about illegals with a SSN and the other stuff they need to file a W-4? Who else does that leave? I'm kinda ignorant about this big illegals employment industry. If you're not being paid in cash (meaning no withholding, no FICA, etc), you need to have legitimate documentation, don't you?

And I'm opposed to the minimum wage in the first place. A job is worth what it's worth. If you set wage controls, the people at the bottom get screwed, 'cause they jus' ain' worth that much, too bad, suckers.

But as a matter of principle, yes, it's never been a good thing, throughout history, when an employer has been able to take advantage of a labor force's illegitimacy. That gets nasty.

[audtatious]

If you are here illegally you are not covered via our laws so you should not expect minimum wage IF your employer is aware you are an illegal. While the laws won't protect the illegal they should punish the employer if they are caught hiring illegals. If the financial punishment is harsh enough, and enforced, then hiring illegals will end.

[IBCoupe]

96- It seems to me that we're not going to be able to get a handle on the cash market, and there are a great many American citizens who work for less than the minimum wage under the table. That's certainly an avenue through which employers could continue to stiff their employees.

Aud- So what about the incentives? You're making it cheaper for someone to hire an illegal immigrant. That means that while there's a risk that they'll get caught and have to pay a fine, they can quantify that risk, and all they have to do is balance it out by using the cheap labor. Look at it this way: say the fine is $50/year if they get caught per employee. So, the employer just pays its illegal immigrant employees $50/year less, and hopes they don't get caught. If they do get caught, the employer ends up paying exactly what they would have paid with a legal employee; if they don't get caught, they end up profiting from the gamble.

So why would we ever want to tell employers that they can pay illegal immigrants that they know to be illegal less?

[audtatious]

Aud- So what about the incentives? You're making it cheaper for someone to hire an illegal immigrant. That means that while there's a risk that they'll get caught and have to pay a fine, they can quantify that risk, and all they have to do is balance it out by using the cheap labor. Look at it this way: say the fine is $50/year if they get caught per employee. So, the employer just pays its illegal immigrant employees $50/year less, and hopes they don't get caught. If they do get caught, the employer ends up paying exactly what they would have paid with a legal employee; if they don't get caught, they end up profiting from the gamble.

Where did I say "cheap"? If jail time and large penalties are worth $50/year less and they are a gambler then go for it.

So why would we ever want to tell employers that they can pay illegal immigrants that they know to be illegal less?

f*** it, not worth my time.

[IBCoupe]

Where did I say "cheap"? If jail time and large penalties are worth $50/year less and they are a gambler then go for it.

My point is that it can be quantified, and thus accounted for. This is the reason that public worker protection agencies promise people that they will, under no circumstances, report the immigration status of a complaining employee to INS - we want the incentive to be that illegal employees report their violating employers, so that the employers don't have the incentive to hire illegal employees in the first place.

[audtatious]

or implement a proper system that will allow employers to adequately and cheaply validate SSN's (required for a job) or green cards and mandate they do so. Why do things have to be so complicated?

[IBCoupe]

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? If you require that illegal immigrants be paid equally, you now create another avenue of enforcement against employers who may not wish to seek out the proper procedures.

[stebo0728]

Ok heres my take, in 2 parts.

1. I have advocated for a while that law should have a swift retribution for any company that has the audacity to hire an illegal intentionally anyway. Passing law that says illegals have to be paid the same as legals, well thats just counter intuitive to reducing and eradicating illegal immigration in the first place. Thats like saying "ok we know you are hiring illegals, were gonna look the other way on that, but be damn sure you pay them enough!" No, illegals should not be paid minimum wage, they should not be paid in the first place, as in, they should not be employed. There is a LEGAL way to get here, and to work, and if you are following those avenues, you will get at least the minimum wage, no issue. If you are on one of these Work Visas, you have valid legal status, and will be paid accordingly. If you are here illegally, and getting anally raped, well thats not our problem, and further more, were gonna find out about it, and have your employment terminated, and your employer sanctioned. Sorry but thats my take.

2. I dont subscribe to the need for a minimum wage in the first place. The market place should be allowed to freely set wages.

[wingFeather]

[This was inspired by something that came up in another recent thread.]

Illegal immigrants should be paid the minimum wage. They should be compensated for expenses that should contractually or legally be compensated for.

Ah, but you protest: IT'S ILLEGAL! THIS IS A NATION OF LAWS!

So let me put it another way:
Illegal immigrants shouldn't be paid at a discount. They should be just as expensive to hire as a legal citizen.

If we excuse employer misbehavior on the grounds that the employee shouldn't be an employee in the first place, we create an incentive for employers to try and save a buck by hiring those employees. If we, instead, make illegal immigrants exactly the same in the eye of employers, we eliminate that incentive. In that case, the risk that they could get caught for employing illegal immigrant doesn't have an accompanying benefit of decreased costs. It makes absolutely no sense to say that a illegal immigrant should be paid less. In fact, that they're paid less is part of the problem.

Your thoughts?

Great thinking bro!

We should also make murder legal to cut down on crime!

[audtatious]

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? If you require that illegal immigrants be paid equally, you now create another avenue of enforcement against employers who may not wish to seek out the proper procedures.

I don't require that illegal immigrants be paid equally. I require that they not be allowed a job at all.

[AppleBonker]

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? If you require that illegal immigrants be paid equally, you now create another avenue of enforcement against employers who may not wish to seek out the proper procedures.

I don't require that illegal immigrants be paid equally. I require that they not be allowed a job at all.

This. IBC, you usually make some decent points. But this one confuses me. These workers are already being hired illegally, yes? So what would stop an employer from paying them less than minimum wage illegally? If they're already content breaking one law, what is another?

[wingFeather]

If they're already content breaking one law, what is another?

EXACTLY.

[AZhitman]

And again, even though I know it pisses you off, I have to throw out the fact that the experience of those in border states is FAR removed from those in DC setting policy, or those in Kennebunkport and Martha's Vineyard, squabbling over things they think they know.

And my knee-jerk reaction is, yes, you're absolutely right, but it's not that simple. Think about it:

You're going to enact a law that proposes to punish an employer for an act that results from already breaking another law, in order to protect a person who's also breaking the law?

Two guys rob a bank. During the getaway, one pushes the other one out of the way and makes him fall and break his arm. We're gonna charge the first guy with assault?

We're doing an awful lot of work to avoid just addressing the real problem in the first place.

Also: You actually quoted yourself in your sig?

[audtatious]

Martha's Vineyard, squabbling over things they think they know.

I was in Martha's Vineyard earlier this week as I took the boat over for dinner on Sunday at Zephrus Grill. There are some very nice houses on that island. Food was "ok" although I thought the chowder was crappy.

in case you cared

[IBCoupe]

If they're already content breaking one law, what is another?

Further disincentives in light of greater punishments. Look, you guys are sort of missing the big point: if you're right, and we should have a government that prevents employers from hiring illegal immigrants in the first place, than the worst thing this policy does is kill a tree.

What's the negative? Nothing will change except that employers will begin to violate two laws instead of one because those who hire illegal immigrants won't bother paying them well?

What's the potential positive? Fewer illegal immigrants will be hired because why bother going through the hassle of hiring illegal immigrants and break that one law and incur the risks when you could, for the same price, hire a legal resident?

This doesn't seem like a toughy, guys. The point isn't to pay illegal immigrants better; the point is to create a system of incentives that prevent them from being hired in the first place. Rather than have only the INS breathing down your neck, now you have the INS and the Department of Labor breathing down your neck.

Again, I can't stress this enough:
Worst case scenario: this policy is absolutely ineffective and employers continue to operate as they have. Nothing is actually made worse than it would otherwise be.
Best case scenario: this policy succeeds in increasing disincentives for employers, and illegal immigration rates decline because there are fewer employers willing to run the risk of hiring illegal immigrants for no actual savings.

[IBCoupe]

If you are here illegally, and getting anally raped, well thats not our problem,

Very short-sighted. It is our problem - the employer benefits from the rape. As I explained to Aud, if you can quantify and account for the risks associated with hiring illegal immigrants by cutting into their wages, the worst case scenario for hiring illegal immigrants is that you break even.

[AZhitman]

I don't think we're missing your point, and it's a good one.

No employer who knowingly violates the first law is going to comply with the second - that's just silly to assume that the second one really represents any type of deterrent.

I just think we have bigger fish to fry.

[IBCoupe]

Well, if we have bigger fish to fry, let's stop quibbling about this policy which has no downside and possible upsides so we can go on with getting to those bigger fish.

[stebo0728]

Also, more so than what harm does the extra law do tangibly, what harm would it do socia-phychologically? What kinds of message does it send? As I said in my first post on it, its like saying "ok so we know your hiring illegals, we're gonna ignore that for now, but if you dont pay em fairly were comin after you". To impost such a law is to admit that you know the underlying problem exists, yet you care to do nothing about it, and have just resorted to forming new laws that you would rather enforce in the name of "humanity and fairness". Deny that perceived "human rights violations" is the true goal of this if you like, but underneath the bridge, everyone knows the troll is there.

[AppleBonker]

No employer who knowingly violates the first law is going to comply with the second - that's just silly to assume that the second one really represents any type of deterrent.

If anything, the punishment would be the only deterrent. Being charged with one violation versus three doesn't make a difference. Why not spend the time to make the penalties harsher for being in violation of the law already in place. I just don't see a new law as being necessary (though I agree that it wouldn't HURT anything - I just don't see it helping either).

[AZhitman]

Well, if we have bigger fish to fry, let's stop quibbling about this policy which has no downside and possible upsides so we can go on with getting to those bigger fish.

That's big-government. Innocuousness does not make its passage a foregone conclusion.

[wingFeather]

Well, if we have bigger fish to fry, let's stop quibbling about this policy which has no downside and possible upsides so we can go on with getting to those bigger fish.

Yeah, because we need another lame duck law on the books

How about enforcing existing laws instead?

[IBCoupe]

"Possible upsides," Greg, "possible upsides."

[IBCoupe]

admit that you know the underlying problem exists, yet you care to do nothing about it

That's only the case if this is meant to replace existing enforcement, rather than supplement it.

If you don't like it worded the way I have, Stebo, would it make you feel better if i said this:

"From now on, the Department of Labor will enforce labor laws equally for all workers employed in the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of those workers."

...and accomplished exactly the same thing without "the message?"

[stebo0728]

admit that you know the underlying problem exists, yet you care to do nothing about it

That's only the case if this is meant to replace existing enforcement, rather than supplement it.

Perhaps, but if your passing new law you intend to enforce on top of current law you really dont care to enforce, are you basically replacing the old law any way in effect?

[audtatious]

Nothing will change when laws are not enforced or rarely enforced.

[IBCoupe]

Perhaps, but if your passing new law you intend to enforce on top of current law you really dont care to enforce, are you basically replacing the old law any way in effect?

I'd agree with you if it were the same department. But it's two different departments with two different sets of resources, two different motivations and two different sets of administrators.

[audtatious]

Double down and still do nothing but grow Gov? Sounds like the normal path today.

[IBCoupe]

How is government size increased at all?