First, reality, it isn't my argument. Second, aren't you failing to include the profit motive? It isn't the consumer's "hardship" that is being considered but rather that of the primarily corporate farming enterprises that is at risk if I understand the argument put forth.
Phil, somehow we're parsing the same words in different ways apparently...
The argument of yours "There is no reasonable refutation that these workers are indispensable to our economy" is what I am primarily addressing (and disagree with).
I suggested that the 'indispensable to the economy' part is a red herring put forth by those employers who want to keep the status quo, and then you said
Reality Bytes, I don't have links available at the moment, but have read reports that quote growers here in California complain that jobs in the fields go begging even when above minimum wages are being paid and that only by expanding the migrant worker program to include more who arrive without permission can the crops get picked.
Obviously I don't know that from personal experience and they could be blowing smoke, but that is what they claim. Yes, I am sure there is some wage that would draw workers from other employment, but that is when they claim produce would no longer be available at the prices Americans are accustomed to.
That is the "economic necessity" argument I refer to.
And I am not convinced that it is (an economic necessity)!
I gave an example where DOUBLING the current wages (somewhere between $4 and $11 per hour) would have a miniscule effect on our cost of produce, around 2 cents per pound.
Still not enough takers? Double it again! So a pound of tomatoes goes up 6 cents instead of 2 cents... so what? If that's what it takes to break the argument that 'migrant workers that work for sub-minimum wages are needed', than so be it - let the market set the price.
As for 'profitability', that too is a red herring - but to get to why I think it is, first I think their whole argument needs to be broken down into three distinct but related arguments:
1) Low wages are needed because otherwise the economy will suffer;
and
2) Immigrant workers are needed because they will work for lower wages than U.S. workers;
and
3) Illegal immigrant workers are hired because they will work for even lower wages than legal immigrant workers.
From what I've read (and doing the math), the first argument of 'economic necessity' is a red herring - yes, they are 'blowing smoke'! And if that is the case, then all three are false!
And even whether or not that is the case, the 'profitability argument' is itself irrelevant because if everyone followed the law, they would all simply raise their prices and profit would go on as before.
In my opinion, they bring up the first and second points above, hoping that the third point gets lost in the weeds - by getting people to go along with the first two points to 'maintain their profitability' while purportedly doing it as a 'benefit to the consumer' (to stay in business, and keep prices low), they can also increase their profitability from the third point as well.
And that's just wrong.
Finally, in your response to stereoman:
Maybe it's just my skewered perspective spinning an otherwise innocuous assertion, but isn't that kind of like saying there aren't enough American citizens and documented workers willing to do the job at the pay rate being offered, so they "have to" hire more undocumented workers because they are willing?
I think that is what I said.
I read Steve's quotated "have to" phrase as being facetious on his part and disingenuous on theirs; if that is what you were also trying to say, than I think we all agree.
