Thoughts on Unemployment

Much to the chagrin of my good friend and former roommate, Hyrum J. Hemingway, I will now expound to you my thoughts on illegal immigration, it's political and economic repercussions, and what I think should be done about it. Now, you might think I'm a racist for picking on Mexicans. Let me just give you two pieces of perspective that will help you to understand why I don't care. The first is that I refer to anyone who lives south of the US border and speaks Spanish as a Mexican. This makes the only people in Latin America to whom I don't refer as Mexicans, Brazilians, to whom I refer as Brazilians. Secondly, my dad likes to walk around town wearing a shirt with a confederate flag on it that says, "The South will Rise Again." At some point, I'll probably also blag about my thoughts on airport security... then you'll REALLY think I'm a racist.

For some time now, I've been hearing that the United States has been hovering right around 9.5 to 10% unemployment, according to U-4. Naturally, other measures of unemployment will be higher. I can't seem to shake the idea in my mind that this is, at least partially, because illegal, and many legal, immigrants are coming into the United States and shifting the supply curve in the labor market to the right. This will cause a decrease in the free market price of labor and with the price floor of the minimum wage, an increase in the surplus of workers that we call unemployment. Now, I've heard it said One hundred billion times before that illegal immigrants are only doing the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do. Frankly, this is Bullsh*t. When construction workers are making $10 to $25 an hour and literally not a single one of them speaks English, this cannot possibly be the case. There are thousands of American citizens who would love to have construction jobs that paid that well, myself included. Granted, there are jobs like picking cabbage and making burritos in the back of a van that most Americans aren't willing to do for 4 cents a cabbage, or the like. However, I'm pretty sure that Americans opposition to these jobs isn't the adverse conditions, but rather, the adverse pay. If the labor curve was shifted back to it's legitimate leftward place, employers would have to pay a higher wage for these workers and many Americans would be willing to perform their tasks. This leftward shift in the labor market supply would also bring the equilibrium free market price up and bring it closer to the price floor, the minimum wage.

Now, most economists would balk at this idea, citing that this is an inhibition of free trade and would result in a reduction of total surplus for the United States. I'm generally a fan of free trade, but I also believe that trade should be fair between the two participating parties. In order for this trade to be fair, I, as an American who's never been to Mexico or anywhere in Latin America, would need to be able to walk into Mexico without even being questioned by the government, get a job, and reap government benefits, which include more or less free healthcare and retirement benefits. As far as I can tell, if I just tried to walk into Mexico, the government would either 1) shoot me or 2) send me to jail, then deport me. Until Mexico and most other Latin American countries are willing to give all of the benefits that their citizens have come to expect in the United States, there should be no labor trade between these parties.

On the topic of a reduction in surplus, I would argue that surplus is not necessarily the best way to tell if the people in a country truly have a high quality of life. In the 1770s and '80s in France, the total surplus of country was through the roof. However, this was because the high class was spending an incredible amount of money on things that may or may not have had any value while exploiting the poor and the ever-diverging middle class. Though there was a large surplus in the country, it was only a very small portion of the populous that was able to take advantage of it, while the vast majority of the people suffered inhumanely. In this case, the "self interest," or just plain greed, of the French Bourgeoisie failed them when the oppressed lower class rebelled against them, brutally killed them, took all of their worldly possessions, and established a new form of government and social system.

In the contemporary United States, we are at a similar, yet drastically milder juncture, at least at this point. There is a very small, elite class of people who make most of the income in the United States and use the wealth that they have gained to usurp power from the rest of the populous. These people have decided that, in order to increase total surplus, which will go mostly to them and their businesses, the country should import a large quantity of illegal immigrants to cut costs and increase profits. The middle class is rapidly diverging into those who are somewhat close to joining the privileged elite and those who are on the verge of poverty. What remains of the middle class believes that these illegal immigrants should be deported, but is mostly powerless to do so because the elite have usurped so much power from them. Complicating this matter is that the illegal immigrants have received a hefty assortment of benefits (as already alluded to) from the more liberal side of the government. This causes what illegal immigrants who become citizens to vote very far left because they stand to benefit personally. What it comes down to is that elite politicians on both sides of the aisle have tremendous incentives to keep illegal immigrants here and to keep shipping in more, while the majority of the United States populous wants them gone.

While we will probably not see change quite on the same level as the French Revolution, if change does not come soon, blood just might flow down the streets of Washington DC. Being the ruthless dictator type that I am, if it was up to me, I would make a massive manhunt for everyone who was not in this country legally and kill them on site, just to send a message to anyone who is thinking that it might be worth it come to the States. I would then commandeer a 10-mile section of land on the US side of the border and fill it with landmines. On the north edge of this "death zone" would stand a 20-ft high, reinforced masonry wall that extends with 10 feet of reinforced concrete below the ground and 3 coils of razor wire on the top. The fill dirt used in this project would also be laced with thousands of pounds of cyanide and radon gas balloons would be placed every so often to prevent tunnelling. A guard tower would be built at intervals of 200 yards and border patrol agents would be placed in them with 30 calibur machine guns and a megaphone. While these measures might be drastic and terribly unrealistic, I would place them anyway, just to be safe. However, it is entirely not up to me, and I believe that strong and well-enforced deportation policies and even stronger and better-enforced border control policies would be sufficient. I don't, however, think that this issue can be resolved entirely without the shedding of blood. Illegal immigrants have come to expect too much from this country and it's government to go entirely peacefully.

At last, lest you think I'm a Marxist, I do believe in fair free trade and the application of self interest to help economies and individuals reach their goals and new heights and do things that they could not do otherwise. However, I also believe that with wealth also comes power, and as we should know, power corrupts. Those who have large quantities of wealth also have the capacity to oppress those who have less. When self interest causes one truly rightful citizen to harm or take away from another, it is time for something to happen that removes that person from power, even if it means removing the wealth of that person. In the case of the contemporary United States, the wealthy elite are using the power that they have gained to oppress what middle class by bringing in illegal immigrants by the vanload and change will come soon; hopefully in a way which is less violent and upheaving than the French Revolution.