The Worker Next Door/(Those Americans who *do* do the jobs some say

Americans won't do)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/opinion/03chiswick.html?ei=5087%0A&en=0bd49bfe6b7a6667&ex=1149480000&pagewanted=print
June 3, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The Worker Next Door
By BARRY R. CHISWICK
Chicago

IT is often said that the American economy needs low-skilled foreign workers to do the jobs that American workers will not do. These foreign workers might be new immigrants, illegal aliens or, in the current debate, temporary or guest workers. But if low-skilled foreign workers were not here, would lettuce not be picked, groceries not bagged, hotel sheets not changed, and lawns not mowed? Would restaurants use disposable plates and utensils?

On the face of it, this assertion seems implausible. Immigrants and low-skilled foreign workers in general are highly concentrated in a few states. The "big six" are California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas. Even within those states, immigrants and low-skilled foreign workers are concentrated in a few metropolitan areas — while there are many in New York City and Chicago, relatively few are in upstate New York or downstate Illinois.

Yet even in areas with few immigrants, grass is cut, groceries are bagged and hotel sheets are changed. Indeed, a large majority of low-skilled workers are native to the United States. A look at the 2000 census is instructive: among males age 25 to 64 years employed that year, of those with less than a high school diploma, 64 percent were born in the United States and 36 percent were foreign born.

Other Americans nominally graduated from high school but did not learn a trade or acquire the literacy, numeracy or decision-making skills needed for higher earnings. Still others suffer from a physical or emotional ailment that limits their labor productivity. And some low-skilled jobs are performed by high school or college students, housewives or the retired who wish to work part time. Put simply, there are no low-skilled jobs that American workers would not and do not do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/opinion/03chiswick.html?ei=5087%0A&en=0bd49bfe6b7a6667&ex=1149480000&pagewanted=print

his case. I agree with the writer.

An economist who tells the truth!

If we paid our peeps a *living wage* they'd do those jobs, too. There are plenty of people (just for one example) who would do landscaping because they like to be outdoors and not chained to a desk somewhere, but the jobs are being taken away from them by illegal immigrants. If everyone were paid a decent salary, they'd love to have those jobs back!!

in the early 1980's, the summer jobs he had been able to get came to an abrupt end because of the low prices the the oil industry. When the last summer before he graduated loomed, he and his college roommate got some lawn equipment from parents, and worked all summer mowing lawns, weeding flower beds, and doing lawn maintenance for upscale neighborhoods.

I helped him all I could, I was a divorced single mom, and his dad didn't contribute, but he got out and hustled, and earned the money. Before illegal immigration was such an issue, it was common for teen-agers to earn money by doing baby-sitting and lawn work.

Americans will do all of the jobs that some employers claim they won't. The issue is not whether Americans will do the work, but how much employers are willing to pay. There is no excuse for paying non-living wages. Over the years, the pay for workers has gone down, while executive pay has soared. If a person is willing to put in an honest day's work, they should be paid an honest day's pay.

Where did this notion that executives could live like emperors, while their employees had to be content to live as serfs? When the right-wing starts throwing around phrases like "liberals hate America", and wish a return to our basic values as a country, I can state that a return would mean paying a living wage for an honest day's work. They long for the worst of both worlds, and they are wrong.

The whole issue is not dependent on the type of work that we are willing to do, but the compensation for that work. If a person is willing to sweat and toil doing backbreaking labor, shouldn't that person be entitled to a wage that will at least provide the basic necessities? If the work is so trivial, so meaningless, that it doesn't merit a living wage, then perhaps the job should be eliminated. The problem, of course, is that making beds, cutting lawns, doing road-work, are all considered necessary. If the jobs are necessary, then they should be compensated fairly.

in the kitchen of a restaurant, cleaning houses for people who didn't want to do it, picked strawberries, and changed adult diapers in a nursing home (while I was in my third trimester of pregnancy) I know that I've worked an awful lot of those jobs that these people say that I wouldn't do. They're so full of shit their eyes are brown.

(yep, toilets bowls) when my kids were young. The hours fit into their school schedules and I felt that I was doing a kindness for the elderly who could no longer do it themselves. Many times some of these women just wanted me to sit and talk to them. I also refused to take their money when I wasn't actually working.

to have something of value to say. I am so sick of these fucking bigots.

a surplus of workers leads to lower wages is xenophobic? Perhaps we should allow the 2 billion poor occupants of the world to immigrate to the US? Wouldn't it be better to promote policies which improve the economies of the countries they live in (and that wouldn't be WTO/NAFTA - type policies. Things along the line of microbank loans are far more effective). Favoring policies which help only the privileged (10's of thousands) who manage to find ways to make it into the US illegally ignores the billions who don't make it into the US). Not many of the world's poor (or even Mexico's poor) can afford to pay a coyote (who is likely to abandon you somewhere along the way) -- those who do pay the coyotes are already fairly privileged.

No one is arguing for zero immigration. Rather, the issue is whether the illegal immigrants should take priority from those who are trying to immigrate legally. I favor the legal approach. And an approach which also protects American workers (many who go without health insurance, aren't saving for retirement, and are barely keeping a roof over their family's head) from forces which drive down wages.

suddenly turned purple, some would go crazy not having anyone to call a racist. Simpletons. Thanks.
quickesst

then insists we need non-educated guests to do the work.

Can't have it both ways, Georgie. We aren't buying it. The whole point is to lower compensation for all labor and national borders don't enter into any boardroom plans.

educated enough to meet the needs of the corporations - they certainly don't want a populace that has critical thinking skills.