This Bloomberg BusinessWork cover story from last week on “Why Americans Won’t Do Dirty Jobs” takes an uneven look at the issues surrounding cheap immigrant labor and what happens when states pass strict anti-illegal-immigrant laws.
Uneven because there’s some good reporting here. But ultimately it oversells its case, in that way magazines are wont to do, by using inflated stats on how Americans supposedly won’t do tough work like farm labor. For instance:
“Agricultural labor is basically 100 percent an immigrant job category,” says Princeton University sociologist Doug Massey, who studies population migration. “Once an occupational category becomes dominated by immigrants, it becomes very difficult to erase the stigma.”
“Basically” gives Massey and BusinessWeek a little bit of wiggle room below 100 percent, but not as much as they need. The USDA’s National Agricultural Workers Survey reports that 29 percent of hired cropworkers are Americans by birth (and most of them were non-Hispanic, at least as of 1995, the latest data I found) .
Worse for BW’s thesis (and its assertion that “Native-born Americans never returned to the fields”), the percentage of America-born cropworkers has risen sharply in the last decade or so. In 1998 and 1999 just 18 percent of hired cropworkers were born in the U.S. or Puerto Rico. That number has jumped eleven percentage points since then. What’s going on there? Sounds like a story to me.
BusinessWeek does a good job of showing how the jobs it’s talking about pay below-poverty wages for body-destroying labor, and it quotes an Alabama official up high calling the issue a pay problem, but it undermines that by quoting the same professor above blaming the dearth of native workers on a social phenomenon, rather than extremely low pay:
Massey says Americans didn’t turn away from the work merely because it was hard or because of the pay but because they had come to think of it as beneath them. “It doesn’t have anything to do with the job itself,” he says. In other countries, citizens refuse to take jobs that Americans compete for. In Europe, Massey says, “auto manufacturing is an immigrant job category. Whereas in the States, it’s a native category.”
If Massey is to be believed, Americans won’t pick tomatoes, not because they’ll get paid less than minimum wage to do backbreaking work in the hot sun, but because the status of the job is too low. One wonders how they ever find garbagemen, much less Porta-Potty (Honey Bucket, here in the Northwest) cleaners.
Status is worth something, and a functioning market would raise the monetary value of a job to offset the negative nonmonetary value of a lower-status job.
This story has excellent reporting from the fields of Alabama on immigrants making $60 for an eleven-hour day of picking tomatoes, based on their estimates of how many twenty-five-pound baskets they can fill at two bucks a pop. That comes to about $5.45 an hour—and the inexperienced American pickers would make far less than that. The minimum wage is $7.25. You tell me: Is this a status problem or a wage problem? Doubling picking wages would add about 8 cents a pound to the price of tomatoes.
And is it really true that auto manufacturing is an immigrant job category in Europe? Germans can’t find native Germans to make cars for $30 an hour?
Even this anecdote on a catfish processor undermines the magazine’s thesis that “In the wake of an immigrant exodus, Alabama has jobs. Trouble is, Americans don’t want them”:
A large white banner hangs on the chain-link fence outside the Harvest Select plant: “Now Hiring: Filleters/Trimmers. Stop Here To Apply.” Randy Rhodes unfurled it the day after the law took effect. “We’re getting applications, but you have to weed through those three and four times,” says Amy Hart, the company’s human resources manager. A job fair she held attracted 50 people, and Hart offered positions to 13 of them. Two failed the drug test. One applicant asked her out on a date during the interview. “People reapply who have been terminated for stealing, for fighting, for drugs,” she says. “Nope, not that desperate yet!”


Picking tomatoes is "backbreaking" work? "Body-destroying labor"?
What, are they concrete tomatoes or something?
Hold on now... I thought the biggest health problem we have is obesity and our sedentary lifestyles? Now you're telling us that hefting a couple of dozen bushels of tomatoes in a day leaves "destroyed bodies" in the fields?
Only in Chittumland can such "advocacy for government-endorsed redistribution of wealth" (that can no longer be called a "commie" policy under Pravda's... er, I mean CJR's new commenting censorship) count as "professional journalism".
The simple reality is that the majority of the "poor" of America are lazy, uneducated, overfed, dependent leeches who would rather riot or steal than actually do work for a living.
According the census data I posted on another thread on this site, for every one hour worked by an adult in the lowest 20% of American households (by income), an adult in the top 20% works 11.6 hours.
And the "poor" of America wonder why there's "income inequality"!
A little tomato picking wouldn't hurt these tubby welfare mooches a bit, and forcing the lazy sponges to choose between working for a living or going hungry would do them and this country a world of good.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 09:29 PM
commies! leeches! lazy! overfed! mooches! sponges!!!!!!!!!
#2 Posted by hmmm, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 10:32 PM
You can't say "commies" anymore here at Pravda.. er, I mean CJR.
Or maybe it's just me who labors under the censorship...
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 10:53 PM
The interesting thing is, since the latest wave of anti-immigrant laws in the states, there's been a whole slew of fruit and veg left rotting in the fields
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-20/alabama-immigration-law-robs-citizens-of-their-own-future-view.html
and left some states seeking prison labor.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/02/129064/washington-state-gov-prisoners.html
People will work heavy labor for the same money as the farms will pay for prison labor, but the farms won't hire free labor for that much.
Wouldn't this kind of thing make for a nice stimulus program? Instead of paying people unemployment, pay them to work!
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 11:51 PM
I think it also might be a question of power dynamics. When an employer gets accustomed to using immigrant labor that it can rat out to INS whenever it starts to get feisty about its demands, it's hard for those employers to go back to having to pay for medical, pay for overtime, and take steps to ensure worker health and safety as is done under free labor. The perception of employers towards their labor force shifts as they exploit the disempowered. When that happens, the perception of the tasks also shifts.
I mean why else would an employer consider a bandana around the face sufficient protection from pesticide exposure?
http://ehstoday.com/health/news/correlation-pesticides-wage-violations-0818/
It's because they know no-one is going to inform OSHA who would tell him otherwise. Employers have the power to set all the standards with immigrant labor. What are they going to do, form a union?
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 22 Nov 2011 at 02:14 AM
Now wait a minute!...
Where is Thimbles, and what have you done with him?
You're advocating replacing unemployment benefits with wages AND cracking down on illegal immigration?
Is there a meteor headed for Earth or something?
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 22 Nov 2011 at 01:18 PM
[Only in Chittumland can such "advocacy for government-endorsed redistribution of wealth" (that can no longer be called a "commie" policy under Pravda's... er, I mean CJR's new commenting censorship) count as "professional journalism".
The simple reality is that the majority of the "poor" of America are lazy, uneducated, overfed, dependent leeches who would rather riot or steal than actually do work for a living.]
The first paragraph above is a violation of the spirit of CJR's recently-emphasized comment policy.
The second paragraph above is factually wrong, suspiciously tinged with an implicit racial perspective, and unworthy of CJR reader comment.
#7 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 22 Nov 2011 at 03:09 PM
Now, now...
I've had the language pre-approved by the censors here at Pravda... er, I mean CJR and I have the email to prove it.
And what on Earth is "implicitly racist" in noting that the majority of the "poor" of America are lazy, uneducated, overfed, dependent leeches who would rather riot or steal than actually do work for a living?
What are you trying to say, Clayton? Are you trying to say that only a particular race is "poor"? Lazy? Uneducated? Overfed? Dependent?
I make no such claim and disavow any such assertion. The lazy, dependent underclass of America incorporates all of our races.
But obviously you correlate these adjectives with one particular race - a decidedly bigoted and narrow-minded perspective that should be soundly rejected by any educated reader.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 22 Nov 2011 at 03:34 PM
By saying that you are meeting CJR censorship requirements, you are telling a number of whoppers.
There is no CJR censorship. If there were, you would have been banned from the site long ago. You are violating the mild requirements of reasonable comment repeatedly.
Lazy and parasitic. That is just code for "blacks." And "immigrants."
Having proven your hostility and manipulative nature, you expect us to believe you? I think not.
#9 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 22 Nov 2011 at 04:08 PM
"You're advocating replacing unemployment benefits with wages AND cracking down on illegal immigration?"
Sure. I've never been supportive of illegal immigration, I just think the enforcement mechanism is backwards. We shouldn't be combing the streets stopping people with unlicenced skin tones to check for their papers, we should be going to businesses who choose to employ non-legal labor and punish them for violations. The system is more punative towards the victims and rewards the perpetrators.
I'd also consider changing the trade/drug enforcement policies which are causing hard working immigrants to seek work in the US instead of their domestic labor market.
And yeah, when there is work and there are people who can do the work for a decent wage, then I TOTALLY support putting those people to work instead of having them sit at home waiting for callbacks that will never come in this job environment. That's exactly what the federally funded jobs/infrastructure upgrade bill needs to do, put people to work and get them trained in the jobs that need doing but can't be done for lack of cash and credit. In the depression era this took the form of the WPA and, eventually, the draft. In this era, we have options other than war and boot camps to invest and train in.
And yet we can't even get a simple program together to put free labor to work picking apples?
Eventually we're going to have a real crisis to deal with:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1721584909067928384
And we're going to have to learn some new approaches for food and labor.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 02:48 AM
By the by, it's interesting that the right wing scandal de jour is "Obama called Americans lazy"
(which, if you look at the quote, he's referring to the American government being lazy at promoting domestic industry and foreign investment in American production - thanks politifact for the "Mostly False" rating on a pure republican lie.)
Yet if you look at the right wingers, the ones here and the one played on tv, they call Americans lazy 99% of the time.
http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/201111210008
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 03:19 AM
Americans ARE lazy..
Especially the 99%.
The average household in the bottom quintile of America (by income) has wage earners putting in less than 7 hours per week of work.
The average household in the top quintile has wage earners putting in more than 73 hours per week of work.
There is an undeniable correlation between the number of hours worked per week and income.
More work = more income...
What a concept!
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 06:19 AM
Clayton...
You need to calm down and lay off.
Nothing good comes out of acting this way:
http://e.szeto.angelfire.com/exile.pdf
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 11:32 AM
You are an idiot, "padikiller."
Emails show UBC Bookstore told supplier to cut off student union ...
Oct 26, 2011 ... Debbie Harvie, managing director of the Bookstore, said that Melanie Dodig, the buyer in question, acted inappropriately and that the practice ...
ubyssey.ca/.../emails-show-ubc-bookstore-told-supplier-to-cut-off-student- union/
Debbie Harvie of UBC is a well-known liar who has been exposed as such repeatedly. You are libeling me. Retract your post.
#14 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 12:17 PM
Mike: The 'padikiller' link to a former reporter's botched story about me at UBC, originally in The Ubyssey, must be removed.
I am going to report this to Columbia, and I am considering reporting it to the NYPD.
The link is not to The Ubyssey because that student paper does not stand behind the ridiculous story, which offers no witnesses for its most ridiculous claims.
It is a ridiculous fantasy on the part of the chronic liar Debbie Harvie about a final shouting match that never happened. She made it up to deflect criticism of her. Eric, the student reporter, failed to contact any "victim" or witnesses. I let it go to an extent because he apologized and he was just a student.
The Ubyssey has carried articles about Debbie Harvie, one this term, that destroy her credibility.
If the link does not go down, I am going to make sure that CJR becomes known for deliberate criminal libel.
Clayton Burns PhD Vancouver.
#15 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 12:41 PM
Eric, The link to the story about me that you wrote has to go down. This link is being used repeatedly to libel me online.
There is zero evidence of any final shouting match at the bookstore. Zero. There is no evidence in your story that you spoke with a "victim" or witnesses.
Debbie Harvie does not respond to direct challenges to her account.
Her credibility has been shredded. An indicative Ubyssey article on the UBC bookstore this term proves that she can't keep her facts straight. A reasonable person could conclude that she engages in fabrication as a matter of practice.
I was told that she was wild with anger over my criticisms of her, and she was out to get me by imposing the War Measures Act. Is this sane?
Also, did you have any relative or friend as an undisclosed source who had an interest in this story?
If you take the link down and stop referring to this article, I may just forget it. Otherwise, I will take it up with your employer and consider other ways of bringing this to an honest resolution.
Clayton Burns PhD Vancouver. claytonburns@gmail.com
eric.g.szeto@gmail.com
Clayton...
You need to calm down and lay off.
Nothing good comes out of acting this way:
http://e.szeto.angelfire.com/exile.pdf
#13 Posted by padikiller on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 11:32 AM
#16 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 01:10 PM
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just linking to a pdf of a relevant newspaper article.
The article is authentic, and if there is a problem with the content, the paper is responsible.
This isn't libel. It's news coverage. Posted in a forum about news coverage, and directly related to the tone of the comments here.
Now calling the manager of a bookstore a "liar" in a public forum, on the other hand...
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 01:11 PM
You are pulling away from your libel? Then apologize and ask CJR to delete it. You are reckless and hateful. You could have asked me if you could e-mail me about this, and I would have given you my e-mail address.
If you do not try to determine if the information makes sense by asking a simple question of who it is about, then you are responsible.
You just can't resist. Calling Debbie Harvie a "liar" is safe, because that fact is well-documented.
The link is not to The Ubyssey. If you had looked carefully, you would have seen that. Reckless people want to slime someone, so they do not look.
#18 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 01:37 PM
Carefull Padkiller, UBC says he's a nut! LOL.
#19 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 01:42 PM
Drama.
This is why I use a pseudonym. If I wanted to talk about myself, I'd post my name and let the tens of tens who've heard of me google my name and make fun of my choice of shirts (and I have a wife for that).
As an anonymous person, I can talk about issues without people bringing up distractions like my stunning good looks and my various Nobel prizes. I'm rhetorically free of baggage.
Whereas physically, my wife will kill me if I don't do something about my shirts.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 01:51 PM
It makes sense to post pseudonymously in any serious debate over politically charged subjects - witness the efficacy of "Silence Dogood", "Publius", and "Junius".
On the internet, pseudonymous posting is a must in any rancorous discussion.
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 02:10 PM
Stop agreeing with me or I'll be forced to change my mind.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 02:48 PM