Race, labor, immigration & the political landscape

I have heard over the past two years from various managers of businesses that depend on unskilled labor that legal or not, the only people they can hire who will do the work, and will do it with hustle and dependability, are Latino immigrants. As a general matter, whites and blacks both consider this kind of work beneath their dignity, my sources say.

I'm hearing the same thing, both from my brother who owns a nursery (plants, not kids) and from others.

I imagine this sounds like heresy, but what if people are just tired of the economic status quo? What if they're tired of a system that rewards wealth more than work, ownership more than labor? What if the idea of working 40 hours of back-breaking labor in the sun each week for "minimum wage", which simply leaves them among the working poor, is no longer acceptable, in the face of: Paris Hilton, grotesquely incompetent elected officials, Halliburton overcharges, wanton malfeasance in the use of our national resources, etc.

I imagine the immigrants who are willing to work for those wages do so because they believe that through hard work, they can eventually reap superior rewards, particularly in comparison to their country of origin. Perhaps those who are growing up in this nation, seeing how the game is rigged, and watching the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, have just decided that since those at the top don't play by the rules, why should they? Maybe they should just bleed the beast, and do their own version of "working the system" to get what they want, since that's what Dick Cheney does.

Even the one business owner mention in this story was perfectly happy to take advantage of poor immigrant workers, until he began to fear for his own legal safety. Others, as mentioned, are still doing so. If they're willing to game the system for greater personal profit, how is that any different from those choosing to live on welfare et. al. rather than work?

Perhaps we'll be more willing as a nation to do the necessary dirty work when our working poor begin to see that we are a nation of justice for all, instead of merely justice for some. Immigrant workers taking jobs is merely a symptom of the disease: our mistreatment of our own working, and non-workingm poor.

And please, don't bother with the whole "it's so much better here, that's why they come. If you don't like it, go live in their country." Of course it's much better here. That doesn't make it equitable. Communism did a great job of distribution, but produced nothing. Hence, it was fabulous at spreading poverty equally. Capitalism has done a hell of a job at production, but more and more is failing at spreading the wealth equitably. Hence, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow.

Expecting everyone to get the same, regardless of their effort, is communism. Expecting that the average CEO not make over 300 times the amount his lowest paid employee does, even if the company is failing, is equity.

For several years now, my kids have worked summer jobs in a popular resort on the East Coast (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware). Their co-workers often are legal guest workers (is that the right term?) from Eastern Europe and Russia, who come over for the summer work. The employers say they can't find enough American kids to keep their businesses going. Amazing. Can't find enough American kids from the Eastern megalopolis, and have to take kids from thousands of miles away. In fact, most of the Eastern European and Russian kids hold down two or three jobs while in the US.
By the way, Rod, you might want to look at the thread going off today on illegal immigration on the God's Politics blog. I posted a couple of mild criticisms of illegal immigration in that thread and got called a racist, a hypocrite, a neo-con and a reactionary. Most of the posters over there simply cannot stomach even the most moderate, respectful suggestion that illegal immigration is a problem. Really makes me appreciate the (usually) decent level of discussion that goes on here at the Crunchy Con blog.

JPL Said:
"Even the one business owner mention in this story was perfectly happy to take advantage of poor immigrant workers, until he began to fear for his own legal safety. Others, as mentioned, are still doing so. If they're willing to game the system for greater personal profit, how is that any different from those choosing to live on welfare et. al. rather than work?"

In Rod's example, his friend's father didn't hire illegal immigrants to make a higher profit--he did it because he had to just to survive. It looks like that's the norm--hiring illegals does not increase profits, it's just the difference between being in business and not being in business. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that a great many business people, deep down in their heart of hearts, would like to not hire illegal immigrants--but have no choice.

The government needs to fix this problem--blame them.

It's the old story.

Immigrants from poor countries are willing to work hard, long hours, for wages that don't interest the native-born.

The next thing you know, the immigrants are living in big houses. Many of my acquaintances from Mexico - originally illegals - now have the money to straighten out their legal status and buy McMansions.

Then their kids go to good colleges, and work for good money as professionals.

Then the kids of the professionals don't finish college or something, and consider low-wage work beneath them.

Then a new group of immigrants arrives. And so forth.

Race is only a tangent. If market wages were not supressed by illegals taking practically dirt to do such work, then labor prices would rise and then level off. People-young people, students, working poor of all backgrounds- did manual labor, construction, food service, etc. in America before this current stupidity. Plus that income would at least be taxed.

It's the nature of the Business Beast that immigrants are better suited for many jobs. As an employer of two (legal) immigrants - one Hungarian and one Vietnamese - I have found that they do quality, skilled work at fair market pay. In my particular case, these men are craftsmen and it is in my enlightened best interest to pay them as much as I can because they contribute to my top and bottom line.

Here's the dirty little reality of hiring legal labor: As an employer with tax filing obligations four times a year, I claim them as a cost of doing business. This means that I am reporting their wages and will be issuing them a w-4 at the end of the tax year. Since they are contract employees, I'm not required to pay the extra 7% FICA. That becomes their sole responsibility. Such is not the case with full-time employees.

I suspect many small businesses are operating under the tax radar, independent of the immigration status of their employees. It is very, very expensive to employ people in a competitive job market, due to the 7% the employer is required to pay for non-contract employees.

I see the landscaping-type business as cutting costs at both ends. Wages are kept artificially down due to a "captive", full-time labor market, while employers skirt their responsibility to pony up that 7% FICA.

I doubt we'd be having the minimum wage discussion at all if the marketplace didn't incorporate illegals. As Thomas Sowell rhetorically asked (regarding low-skill labor) several years ago: "Tell me why what you do is WORTH more than minimum wage?"

Unskilled jobs are only "worth" more than minimum wage in a tight labor market.

Circuitously bringing this around to the original blog post on this subject: As soon as unskilled blacks figure all this out and realize that the illegal day laborers are NOT their friends, we'll see a revolution at the bottom of the job market.

Rod, this looks like a simple economics lesson. The wages being offered by Bill were not high enough to attract laborers. Call them lazy, worthless, or whatever, but they merely are part of the economic picture. Now, I suspect if Bill were offering $20 per hour for the work he would be able to pick and choose who would work for him.

You can say what you want about the black laborers who refused to work for minimum wage. But did Bill offer them more to see if they would work for more than minimum, or did he simply walk away complaining about the lazy blacks in town?

Now, if illegals enter into the equation, they are often quite willing to work for less due to their illegal status. And opportunistic employers will take advantage of that to pay them less than what legal workers would accept for the job.

We, the consumers, do not want to pay more than the absolute minimum for our services and products we consume. Business owners know this, and seek to cut costs wherever possible. Labor is an easily controlled cost, and therefore they offer workers less and less. Of course, these workers who make less then become more and more cost-conscious with their money, and price-pressure forces business owners to cut costs in order to meet the consumers demand for lower prices. Thus they cut labor costs again, which feeds the demand for lower prices.

Consumers who base their purchase decision primarily on price contribute greatly to this cycle. Illegal immigration is a hidden cost of the products they purchase. When they complain about illegal immigration and then purchase products and services based primarily on price, they are often working against their own stated self-interests.

We say we want illegal immigration to go away. But we also do not want to see our prices increase.

Which is more important, Rod?

"A few months back, I went over to [a part of town] where I used to be able to hire guys, and asked if anybody wanted to come spend the day helping me do odd jobs around the place," Bill said. "They wanted to know how much I was paying. I told them I paid minimum wage. Not a single one of those guys would agree to do it, even though not a one of them holds a job, and they were doing nothing but sitting around shooting the breeze."

Bill, who is elderly and lives on a fixed income, said he had no choice but to drive on and make arrangements with family members to get the work done. Rod Dreher

I know Rod hates hearing/reading this but it must be said, "southern racism is so quaint."

If Bill lived in Dallas, Plano, Garland, etc and so on and he went down to the local labor center where all the legal and illegal laborers solicited work he'd have gotten the very same exact reaction as he did with the small town blacks. But without the re-inforcement of his racism being right che ous.

If Bill had went down the block on his side of town looking for teenagers to work for minimum wage to help him around the place he'd not only had the kids slamming the door in his face, their parents would have if given the chance.

Face it, no one is going to do manual labor of their own free will for next to nothing, minimum wage is nothing. An old white guy especially asking for a day laborer is not going to get a worker for less than eight to ten dollars an hour because they know he's going to be a real pain in the butt.

So Rod it isn't just the black do nothings that's the problem, the attitude of the whites expecting the blacks to work for next to nothing that's at least half or more of the problem.

Americans have a laziness problem all over the place. In silicon valley we have to import technical talent from all over the world. Why, cause american parents won't push their kids to succeed at math. These jobs are very well paying and they go begging. In terms of manual trades that pay very well, I just don't see native born americans very interested. I do see however a huge investment in training kids for entertainment, be it singing and dancing or sports. So whose gonna do the work? Forigners of course. White people seem to just want to be salesman or lawyers.

And just in case you think I don't put my money where my mouth is, my kids are pushed to succeed at math. My son and daughter who are good math students take summer school every year to get ahead and my son is taking 2nd year high school math (geometry in CA) in 8th grade. The goal is AP Calculus in high school (for both of them). In 11th grade if possible.

JPL, I don't think your comments (above, 6:46 p.m.) are heretical at all. I would have made similar comments and appreciate you doing so.

HL-

Increasingly middle class kids(teens, 20s) who don't see school as an option have no problem going into labor jobs, especially if it's high wage and often union employment. Not everyone is suited for college, and not everyone is going to get on MTV Cribs. Reality-wanting a car, your own aprtment-hits everyone. Does it occur to anyone that wage suppresssion is encoruaging teens and 20s to stay home out of economic necessity? I hope you like you cheap lettuce, because between bankrupting schools, hospitals and social services run by municipalities and states, it's taking a toll on famileis in other ways. But cheap lettuce uber alles, I guess.

I get kinda angry when I hear how people don't want to pay decent wages for common labor.I have no sympathy. I hope such people do go out of business and worse if they resort to hiring illegals who invariably ship their cash home and don't pay taxes. And what is the social cost to families in Mexico torn apart by encouraging this?

I have no problem paying more, and that goes for construction, meat, produce. If companies advertised how they did NOT use illegal aliens, I'd be more inclined to buy their products and I suspect most Americans would be too. Heck, they might even attract people to buy their stocks.

I washed dishes, bussed tables and peeled potatoes. The construction trades used to schedule their projects for summers to attract students. I didn't know anyone who didn't have a entry level low skill job from 16 on.

"So Rod it isn't just the black do nothings that's the problem, the attitude of the whites expecting the blacks to work for next to nothing that's at least half or more of the problem.

Posted by: harvey lacey | November 26, 2007 8:32 PM"

I'd tend to agree.

Current Federal minimum wage appears to be $5.85; Texas matches that. There appears to be no minimum wage required in Louisiana at all:

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm (scroll down)

When I was between professional careers in my mid-thirties years ago I did the sort of shovel labor for a year or so in the South that illegal aliens do now. There's nothing magic, or heroic, or iconic about it, it's really nothing more than working out at the gym, continuously, for eight or nine hours a day, six days a week, outdoors, rain or shine. You get completely ripped physically while you do it, you could bounce a manhole cover off your abs. You also get permanent joint and nerve damage which, if you're lucky, is mostly trivial.

When I was doing that in the eighties I got $5.25 an hour. I'd really be surprised if, outside of maybe teens working fast food or one of Elizabeth Villafranca's bus boys, you could actually hire an illegal Hispanic in North Texas for general labor for $5.85 these days. $10.00 is really more like it, to start, and up from there.

Theoretical Weberian underpinnings notwithstanding, work "ethic" is driven by the relative needs of the worker, not by the supply side volume of the work needed to be done.

Like cornering your friends in college when you need to move, it really sounds as if Bill finally found those laborers he could pay less to help him than local blacks or hypothetical local Mexicans: his family.

>>>
I would like to agree with you -- honestly, I would; it suits my biases in this case -- but you tell me, what is a business owner who wants to play by the rules (for whatever reason) and hire only legal workers to do when so many of his competitors are willing to break the law, and prosper by it?
>>>

Demand that politicians enforce the immigration and labor laws or work to elect politicians who will.

>>>
From his telling, the able-bodied young men he offered $7 an hour, or whatever minimum wage is, to help him work for a day around his place chose to sit on their butts doing nothing rather than make some money doing yard work. As somebody who made money doing this kind of thing as a teenager, I share Bill's contempt (assuming the facts he reported were accurate).
>>>

As many others have pointed out here, you have an unusually moralistic attitude toward what is, ultimately, merely a business transaction.

These fellows weren't willing to sell their labor for the wage offered. Why are you so offended by that?

Morning Bugg,

One of my closest friends/client/attorney likes to talk about his youth and working construction during the summers. He was worked like a dog and now he can look back and appreciate it. Those were the days.

What's ironic is those days are still here, just the faces have changed. You see back then your dad, my friend's dad, had friends in the trades and they were more than willing to take in helpers that were the kids of their friends as a favor. The very same thing is happening now, with those in the trades hiring the kids of the their friends to break them in to working the trades. But there are few whites and fewer blacks in the trades so the cycle is repeated in the Hispanic community.

There's a young man on his way up at Verizon (MCI) that worked with me for awhile some years ago while waiting for an opening just after college. He's got the stories. Occasionally the stories will work their way back to me and I have to smile. I'm tough. But I didn't know I was that tough.

It is ironical that as we make the world better for our own we also deprive them of the opportunity to experience the world that made us what we are. They know what a hamburger is because they've been to McDonalds. But they don't know what makes a hamburger a hamburger and how good they can taste because they've never cooked one of their own over an open fire.

Knowing Bill, I had to laugh at this. Hard. He is pretty much an old country geezer who doesn't have a lot of money, and wanted to hire someone to help him clean up his place, dig a few postholes, that sort of thing. Bill's one of those men of my father's generation, raised in the country during the Depression, who learned to work their a**es off, and to despise people who won't work. I mean, look, I didn't give the old guy the third degree about the precise nature of the job he offered to any takers, but it sounded like the kind of thing I did when I was a teenager. From his telling, the able-bodied young men he offered $7 an hour, or whatever minimum wage is, to help him work for a day around his place chose to sit on their butts doing nothing rather than make some money doing yard work. As somebody who made money doing this kind of thing as a teenager, I share Bill's contempt (assuming the facts he reported were accurate). Rod Dreher

Rod, my example is still dead on. What Bill has done is exactly like your price price shopping. Or let's say your day off is Wednesdays and you're kicking back and I come up and hand you a treatise and offer you a pittance to edit it immediately. The group that Bill approached might have been night workers or having the day off for all we know. Then there's the truth truth that I always like to quote, "they're perpetually unemployed and we're surprised when they don't want to work." Bill would have probably had much better luck asking a man working in his own yard for help. But then he wouldn't have been able to confirm his bigotry would he?

I smile at your contempt sharing, southern racism is quaint, and silly.

K Street,

It is my understanding, the dividing line for the IRS determination boils down to the amount of control the employer has over the employee.

For example, I "farm out" jobs to independent contractors. They do the job in their own workspace and under their own terms. If they were to report to my place of business, everyday, and do the work here, I doubt the IRS would look favorably on their "independent" status.

In your case, I assume the work is being provided in your home. You have full control over that employee, therefore, would not qualify for "contract" status. If you "farmed out" your sitting jobs to several different people, who picked up and delivered your child and did most of the job off-site, they I think you could justifiably reclassify.

Of course, big business is a different matter altogether. If memory serves me right, Microsoft had some trouble in this area with the definition of contract vs. common law employee.

In the case of my Louisiana friend, not enough people are willing to purchase his landscaping services for the price he would have to charge to pay wages at which laborers are willing to work -- assuming he could get them in his region at any price. What is that business owner supposed to do?

The same thing millions of other Americans do when they're business is uneconomical: find another line of work. We didn't textile workers a break, or auto assembly workers or a number of other people who've been laid off over the past few decades.

I don't see why it's such a bad thing that people do their own lawns anyhow.

An old white guy especially asking for a day laborer...

In fairness to the anonymous "old white guy", Atlanta Journal-Constitution editor Cynthia Tucker--black and liberal--related a similar story from her own experience. Her conclusions were just as wrong as this guy, but the belief is not limited to the easily hateable "old white guy."

>>
The Hispanics are hustling. From my little corner of the world, some match but nobody bests their work ethic when it comes to manual labor.
>>

Thirty bucks to an American - pizza money.

Thirty bucks to a Hispanic sending the money back to Mexico - groceries for a week for his family back home.

My husband has worked for a decade with a very successful small subcontractor in the Atlanta area. They use almost exclusively Hispanic labor and the one time I remember them hiring a black man he was told that he wouldn't be able to keep up with the Hispanics. They were right...but I think mainly b/c the Hispanics worked harder and faster when he was there just to cut out their competition. He quit.

As for the question of if they're legal or not...that's tricky b/c if they give you a valid SSN I don't believe there's much a company can do to figure it out (you can call the gov't and check the validity but I think that's it). They have hired several guys at one time and a couple of them will give the same SSN...then they don't get hired.

We have a lot of respect for the guys who work with my husband. They're respectful, family-oriented, and hard workers. They are sending SO much of their money home. And it's true...they're trying to live the American dream. A lot of these guys have been working here for years and now they're middle-class (Susan was right there).

Derek:

Glad you grew up with Ozzie and Harriet. I didn't.

And we've been over this. It's at least worthy of discussion whether telling the G-d's honest truth about one's elders is really "dishonoring" them.

Foxfier, I think you've hit the nail on the head here. How/why/when you work all comes back to how you were raised to view "work." Growing up, we (city kids) helped around the house, then went out and babysat or whatever. I remember being stunned when a classmate was handed $20 to go shopping. My folks never left us wanting, but they didn't hand out money like that! My oldest is now a teen and working his first job -- he's thrilled with what he's earning, but another kid sneered at it and commented that *he* would require more $. I would guess that folks who were brought up to regard "work" as a dirty word, or to believe that Someone Owed Them, or some such, would have a vastly different view of things.

For an interesting take on poverty and "work ethic," Jason DeParle's book "American Dream" about the successes and failures from Clinton's Welfare reform is a must read.

Not to completely change the subject but since we are talking about the work ethic which seems to be the result of certain values inherent in illegal immigrants, I always find it funny that some Republicans assume illegal immigrants, if given the chance to vote, will vote exactly like African Americans. Speaking in electoral terms, I think the immigrants are much closer in values to your average conservative than your average Democrat. Unless, of course, we show them we all hate them and think they should be sent home.

Mexico is a mess because of business regulations that favor an elite few. Entrepreneurship, like we see here, aka "The American Dream" is squelched at the medium-grade level by oppressive government in Mexico.

Thus, they are left with an economy of mom-and pop bodegas (that operate under the radar) and large, concentrated wealth. Carlos Sim is as much a product of government policies as he is a savvy businessman.

Maybe landscapers SHOULD be out of business. Imagine there are no illegals and they can't find anyone to work for low wages. Customers refuse to pay the higher costs that are required to hire workers. What will the landscaper do? He will start a business that has a higher value to society. He can find customers to pay a higher price for that product or service, and he can pay his workers more. (He may still need illegals though, some are working factory jobs for $15-20 per hour.)

I can think of plenty of work to do if I can pay someone $1 an hour, and there are probably foreigners willing to come here to work for those wages (considering there are hundreds of millions living on $1 a day!). I bet I would be called lots of names if I did that though. Somehow at $5 it magically becomes OK. Then again, maybe people wouldn't care if illegals were working for $1/hr, because then no one would accuse them of stealing jobs. But then again, if no one will work at $5, they're not stealing jobs, but people still say that. It's hard to find someone who isn't holding very contradictory opinions on the issue, on both the left and right.

Chris,

Path to legal citizenship = ethnic pandering? Give us your tired, poor huddled masses = more ethnic pandering. All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness = more ethnic pandering.

And what do you mean "pandering" hasn't worked? Didn't Bush get like 40% of the Hispanic vote in either 2000 or 2004? Sure conservatives' share went down in 2006 which was after we made it clear we think they are the second coming of the Huns.

BTW, wouldn't the ones coming here be fleeing the "socialism" of Mexico. If they loved "socialism," wouldn't they stay there? I don't think it's fair to pin that our illegals. Sure they do have some problems (not to say I agree the criticisms you list are valid). But they could never be perfect like us white folks, right?

Here is what I mean:

1. Typical conservative: loves America. Typical liberal: well, you know ... some routinely vow to leave if Rep's win.
2. Typical conservative: hard working, self sufficient. Typical liberal: well, you know.
3. Typical conservative: highly religious. Typical liberal: well, you know.
4. Typical conservative: family oriented. Typical liberal: hates mommy and daddy (to quote another comment).

Look at your typical illegal immigrant and see which one you think he best matches up with. I would argue it is not your typical liberal.

Soop

As many others have pointed out here, you have an unusually moralistic attitude toward what is, ultimately, merely a business transaction.

These fellows weren't willing to sell their labor for the wage offered. Why are you so offended by that?

Because these guys were unemployed, and it apparently meant more to them to sit on their butts with no visible means of support than work even for a short time. You're not going to get me to sympathize with you on this one, and I'm just rolling my eyes and laughing at Harvey's condescending twaddle about "Southern racism." I did this kind of yardwork when I was a teenager, and hated it. There were a million other things I would rather have been doing. And it wasn't strictly necessary that I do it either; my parents paid my bills. But my parents expected me to do some kind of work for the sake of working, even though I earned minimum wage, in part because they believed that being a layabout was bad for your character. I agree.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were unemployed, and an old dude offered me the chance to make $40 or $50 doing odd jobs around a farm for a day, in the absence of a better offer I'd do it, if only out of self-respect.

Derek:

I don't hate my parents.

I do hate their stand on illegal immigration -- not because there aren't legitimate arguments against it (which I don't happen to agree with), but rather because it comes straight out of the prejudice they taught me as a child not to have.

?Comprende, senor?

He said he has hired white and black workers in the past but none of them have worked out because they all turned out to be drug addicts(meth and crack). His Hispanic workers, by contrast, are the only ones he can find who show up for work sober and work hard all day. They leave their beer drinking for off hours.

Somehow Japan manages to get along fine without any substantial immigration whatsoever, legal or illegal. There are plenty of prosperous states in the northern tier with little to no illegal immigration, yet they don't fall off the face of the earth.

Maybe it's time to start questioning exactly how badly do we need these services for which no labor can allegedly be found. The closest thing to "need" that I can find is in construction, but are just building bigger and larger structures to house yet more people (and their kids) in one large Ponzi scheme?

"As many others have pointed out here, you have an unusually moralistic attitude toward what is, ultimately, merely a business transaction.

These fellows weren't willing to sell their labor for the wage offered. Why are you so offended by that?

Because these guys were unemployed, and it apparently meant more to them to sit on their butts with no visible means of support than work even for a short time. You're not going to get me to sympathize with you on this one, and I'm just rolling my eyes and laughing at Harvey's condescending twaddle about "Southern racism." I did this kind of yardwork when I was a teenager, and hated it. There were a million other things I would rather have been doing. And it wasn't strictly necessary that I do it either; my parents paid my bills. But my parents expected me to do some kind of work for the sake of working, even though I earned minimum wage, in part because they believed that being a layabout was bad for your character. I agree.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were unemployed, and an old dude offered me the chance to make $40 or $50 doing odd jobs around a farm for a day, in the absence of a better offer I'd do it, if only out of self-respect.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | November 27, 2007 4:27 PM"

This is actually more interesting than it would appear to be on its surface, namely, that Rod would simply appear to be subsequently playing in absentia to the unemployed blacks the role of morally normative and instructive parent that Rod's parents had previously played in his life when he was a teenager.

As we discovered, Louisiana has no state minimum wage that governs this situation.

Either:

there is an hourly wage price point below which the blacks solicited for labor by Bill could legitimately refuse to do the work Bill wanted done when he wanted it done and not be castigated as layabouts by Bill and Rod, even though they were all unemployed anyway; or

there is no hourly wage price point below which the blacks solicited for labor by Bill could legitimately refuse to do the work Bill wanted done when he wanted it done and not be castigated as layabouts by Bill and Rod, because they were all unemployed anyway.

Is there such a price point, in 2007, in Louisiana?

If there is such a price point, which party, retired white contractor Bill or the unemplowed black contractee, determines what that price point is, in 2007, in Louisiana?

In either case, why?

What is that price point, in 2007, in Louisiana?

Brad,
Applying the adage, "We've already determined what you are - now we're just haggling over the price", Mr. Dreher's trump card is the inexorable character of the individuals in question.

The purchase of labor is an economic transaction. The "men of leisure" had a commodity ostensibly for sale: their labor. The prospective buyer of that commodity offered a price. The price was refused.

Why is this any different than a car salesman turning down an offer on the car he wants to sell because it is too low?

Does Rod somehow believe that the laws of economics should be suspended or turned on their head simply because the "men of leisure" did not wish to trade their labor for that price?

What are you, Rod, some sort of commie-pinko that believes the customer (Bill) should be able to purchase whatever he wants at a price he sets?

That ain't how it works in our capitalist economy.

Geez, the ad homs are flying fast tonight ...

Derek:

Hating one's parents wouldn't be self-hatred, but for the record ...

OF COURSE I have a tendency to self-hatred. I have bipolar disorder. It comes as a package deal with the disease.

If you read CC religiously enough to remember me criticizing my parents before (on the same issue, as you'll recall, so it really wasn't a double slam), you certainly have to remember that small detail about my life.

Sheesh.

Wow. The thread has got itself some legs. Race, economy, and bigotry can get a pot boiling evidently.

Allow me to add the one missing ingredient needed to take this campfire into bonfire status.

"Anecdotal", Rod's disclaimer abused one more time. Earlier this year a group of us construction oldtimers were discussing the sad state of our young help. One of the contributors happens to be a teacher who teaches some classes on construction trades at a high school.

One of us offered the observation, guess who, that the problem was the femininization of the work force because of the single parent family plague. My guesstimation of the source of the problem is the nature of women versus the nature of men.

Women, unfairly I know, come with the burden of family. That's why they're first and foremost collaborators when it comes to problem solving. They know they can't do it all and are willing to collaborate to get the job done.

Men, because collaboration is admitting you can't do it all, ie weakness, assume working harder or faster or longer will suffice.

Us oldtimers agreed that you could spot a single parent raised boy on the job immediately. You really have to work to get the "just do it" out of them. Where a boy with a strong male presence in his upbringing instinctively digs in and puts his back into it the female raised boy will look around for help.

The teacher told us he can really see in his students. The girls and female raised boys cave in and want to quit as soon as boredom or tired comes to the party while the male raised boy will be getting it done. The good thing he noticed is the female raised boys will usually have the male brought out in them with the exposure to the male raised ones.

A couple of points. One, this came to mind as I was getting after it, the old get the hands and back getting it and the mind will take a stroll and have some fun. Two, if we look at the Hispanic culture, male dominated, versus the American black culture, single female parent households, we see defined what us oldtimers were discussing about white boys. Three, the problem is marriage.

Marriage as we have it now has two problems. Existing culture with it's male domination is a failure under the pressure of modernity. There was an appearance of success when it's inherent weakness was out of sight, men aren't divine. And the single female parent doesn't work any better. We need a realistic and meaningfull definition of marriage.

As someone who has been a temp in warehouses on and off for over a decade - last stint briefly in 2006 for a month between academic jobs - this discussion seems to have missed a few things about these kinds of jobs. Discussing the role of narcotics policy may seem to be off-topic here, but I think it is a mistake to overlook it.

First off, let me get something straight. Is it a bigger crime to fail a drug test (odds are marijuana - I doubt a lot of places will pay the big fees for hair tests that would catch a lot more than that) or to enter the US illegally? Why should failing a drug test disqualify one from a manual job? What a fair number of temp companies that supply industrial laborers will do is not test unless there is an accident - a positive test will often allow the company to avoid having to pay anything if they are sued. Some of the anglo (white and black) temps (mainly in New England, but also in Tennessee) would make it pretty clear that they did use narcotics at least to some degree, and/or had prison records. Should they not work? This isn't always a matter of lazy workers, but rather employers preferring one (cheaper) kind of labor linked to illegality over another.

Now one certainly could make many arguments as an employer why hiring people who use narcotics of different sorts would be a bad idea. But I think an unintended result of the focus on testing for many manual labor jobs - as opposed to being an entertainer or a pundit or an attorney, because I guess it doesn't matter if one is intoxicated in any of those professions - is that it provides another rationale to hire illegal aliens.

Part of the issue is that the impact of the use of narcotics varies so much by class. Poor people generally face much harder penalties - drugs tests for lower-paying, manual labor jobs; a stronger sense among managers and employers of their inability to work; and of course, less opportunity to avoid jail time due to their limited access to legal support. I was a volunteer for my parish in a group that held Bible study for prisoners for over a year, and sometimes would go to hearings just to see how the judge would hear their cases. People who could present themselves as misguided middle-class people would get out of jail time despite repeat violations - and some of these people in jail away from court were making it pretty clear they would get high as soon as they got out. If a prisoner did not seem to fit the model - or just happened to be Native American - back to jail they went. Only prison could apparently redeem them. The higher up the class ladder you go, the penalties become less severe as a whole - to the point that visits to the Netherlands or southern Mexico in part to get high are now so common.

How accurate is all this as a whole? Would people now disqualified by drug tests work at manual labor work if there were no tests? Obviously, I don't know...