You are begging the conclusion. And you have now stooped to ad homs.

Hayek and Mises are conservative economists (sadly, I am guessing you have never heard of either, since you are arguing against them). You are right, we should stop discussing this. next thing we know, you will be saying Milton Friedman and Gary Becker are bad liberal economists. I am lucky to personally know better I suppose.

A valid contract requires that a person is eligible to work in the field of labor. Illegal aliens are not eligible to work here in any field, as opposed to high school dropouts who are not allowed to perform brain surgery in this country. Or maybe they do.

Frankly speaking, your irrational reasoning indicates that perhaps you were the patient in such a lobotomy. I think that I will discontinue the discourse with such a sycophant.

“And, no, you penalize the employers so strongly that they no longer provide the magnet that draws the illegals across the border. It is already being demonstrated that a large percentage are already self-deporting due to a lack of job opportunities. Exactly what the supporters of the crackdown on workplace enforcement predicted.”

Ok. Where are the studies showing this? I am frankly shocked that they would self-deport instead of catching a six hour ride to California.

“The children in sweat shops in Asia work there willingly since it helps the family survive. Does that make it right?”

There are probably two arguments: 1) this is a clear case of duress. Differentiating the line between duress and normal market behavior is difficult and has literally made some economists careers, so you can read up on that if you want. 2) sometimes we as humans think that some things supercede a free market, like human rights. It is possible to think that something is economically efficient and yet immoral at the same time. For instance, in many states there are laws about how much a truck can carry. Shipping companies often still break those weight limits, knowing that they will get the ticket, because the value of being able to ship the extra goods outweighs the probability of being caught times the ticket value. That is a case of efficiency beating morals. Now, if it was the case that killing 10 people would result in better gains for the trucking company (say they purposefully gave all their truckers speed that they knew would kill them w/in a year), we would say that the immorality of the act defeats the efficient result.

The theory of market value requires a valid contract (this also includes what is known as the “right to free contract” that we used to have in this country. See, e.g. Lochner v. United States, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)) Unfortunately, protectionist and progressive New Deal judges destroyed this right, under guess what, the arguments YOU are making. So, feel proud, you are essentially a New Dealer.

“As to the value of a service, you look at the going rate for more than a decade with moderate growth in an industry, then, in the midst of a historic high rate of growth of the same industry, the wages go down by 50% during an enormous increase in employment opportunities, it demonstrates clearly there is some other factor outside the normal supply and demand quotient.”

Big assumption. It could be that the service was being artificially propped up by market regulation (but I forget you are for market regulation by the gov’t), that people were being irrational in choosing their service (ie., not knowing that there were other competitors in the market), and so on. Would you say that the internet bust of the early 2000s was because there was some illegal force? No, you would say that the market corrected, as it does. Housing market bust? Market corrected. Lowering rates? market is correcting based on more accurate information as to what the absolute value is.

AZ gnat:

You have moved from a theoretical discussion to a hypothetical (which is different), without even noticing it. Too many assumptions in your hypo. One, the illegal must be a legal immigrant to enter into any employment contract, unfortunately. This is the exact problem, are you are just throwing out red herrings to avoid addressing it. Second, and this is a side point, you talk about minimum wage now like you support it… being awfully new deal again, aren’t you? I really don’t understand how you can consider McCain liberal. Third, yes, the point is I would like to see current working illegals be given legal protection, so that the market could work correctly. I did not focus on econometrics, and this would be incredibly difficult to figure out, but I would guess that if the value of construction was 20/hr w/out illegal, 10/hr w/illegal, then it is probably somewhere around 13/hr in absolute value (which is different to the relative value of what you actually pay when you go somewhere). AZ gnat and LAW supporter, you both would be really helped by reading “Road to Serfdom” by Hayek. One of the most important economics books ever written (IMO), and should help you guys see the beauty of conservative economics.

succinct and efficacious

Undocumented immigrant: “Your honor I am working in the county illegally for less than the minimum wage. My employer did not pay me the full amount promised when I agreed to work for him last Thursday.”

Judge: “Ruling in favor of plaintiff for $17.”

Andrew Thomas: “Come this way seňor.”

As to the value of a service, you look at the going rate for more than a decade with moderate growth in an industry, then, in the midst of a historic high rate of growth of the same industry, the wages go down by 50% during an enormous increase in employment opportunities, it demonstrates clearly there is some other factor outside the normal supply and demand quotient.

In this case it is the illegal invasion of our Sovereignty by workers from a third world country who are encouraged to come here by employers who work outside the rule of law for millions of dollars of additional profit.

These employers are no different than the smugglers that make millions on transporting the illegals for the scofflaw employers.

And, no, you penalize the employers so strongly that they no longer provide the magnet that draws the illegals across the border. It is already being demonstrated that a large percentage are already self-deporting due to a lack of job opportunities. Exactly what the supporters of the crackdown on workplace enforcement predicted.

Lawsupporter:

NO. Please re-read post 43. It needs to be a valid contract. Duress, unconscionability, fraud, etc invalidate a contract.

“your argument that if someone comes here illegally and works for an employer for less than the going rate out of fear of being deported”

Hm, then I guess the solution is to stop threatening to deport them, right?

Let me ask you: how do you determine the *value* of a service?

So you believe in child labor sweat shops because they will work for less because of threat to life and limb if they don’t. Your argument that if someone comes here illegally and works for an employer for less than the going rate out of fear of being deported makes that the going rate is absolutely insane. The only people who believe in that absurd policy are the ones taking advantage of these 21st century slaves.

AZ Gnat:

Not by my logic, by the logic of the market. yes, if there are people that are willing to only working for 10 cents an hour, than that is the value of the service that they provide. You might not like that, but that is what “free market” means. This is commonly called the “race to the bottom.”

There is a difference between a slave and someone who voluntarily elects to enter into a private contract for some consideration (the formal term for what is required to constitute a legal contract). You should consider reading “The Road to Serfdom” if you have not already.

Ann and AZ Gnat:

I am NOT arguing the law does not matter. What I am arguing is that arguments that illegals are stealing jobs, artificially lowering salaries, etc., are either (a) bad arguments (this is an empirical question that is highly debateable) or (b) not conservative arguments. I just find it ironic that y’all claim to be conservatives, except for when it might hurt you. The free market is taking your jobs? Get rid of the people that are taking the jobs. Unfair competition? There is no market manipulation in the traditional ‘unfair competition’ sense.

We need to secure the border for national security. These other arguments just give the Republican party a bad image, and need to be abandoned. Unless we want to repeat losing entire block of voters like we did during the Civil Rights movement advancing the wrong arguments there as well (I recommend “Parting the Waters” by Taylor Branch if you don’t know what I am saying).

Laws are meant to be enforced. Despite the rules of the market, our sovereignty is the real issue. We must secure our borders. As for the certification of the borders by the Governor’s, it has not been said that the process of certification would be at their discretion. That is a red herring used to confuse the issue.

Be your logic it would be fine to employ slaves for $1/hour. If the law doesn’t matter then why not go all the way. Maybe 10¢ per hour.

If you draw the line at slavery then let’s bring over some people from Myanmar or Somalia to undercut the illegal Mexican’s and get the prevailing construction wage down to $4/hr. No problem with the minimum wage because the law does not matter, private voluntary contact between employer and employee. They could sleep on cardboard mats at the work site to save a little more on housing cost.

Hm. No. You need to read Hayek and Mises a bit more my friend. Free markets makes the assumption of unregulated, unmanipulated markets by an outside force. This is generally why conservatives are against such things as minimum wages. If there was no regulation of immigration at all (which is not what I am advocating for), and everyone had to compete with everyone, what do you think the value of the construction service would be? That is its ‘true’ market value. If you say that citizens of the U.S. could get 20/hr for something that non-citizens get 10/hr for, then what is the extra 10/hr that the U.S. citizen is providing, that is not some sort of externality?

I believe in enforced borders. But if you think that the market value of something is X, when the market actually provides Y, and there is not market-manipulation (which does not mean arbitrary immigration laws that can be changed at any time), then you don’t understand markets. Sorry.

…fetch “illegaly?” Who ever brought up race? “Free Markets” makes the assumption of “Legal” Markets. We don’t allow the cocaine market to operate where we can shut it down. It’s bad for society and therefore, illegal. McCain receives substantial funding from businesses that profit from illegal hiring. Hence, his wink and a nod border security plan straight into amnesty.

This thread is down to playing the racist card against people that believe in enforced U.S. Borders. Read Bob Haran again. I’m off to report another illegal employer.