The morality of the "unskilled labor" argument

[soccerballtux]

I'm trying to come up with solid arguments for why it is a bad thing to erode native worker's manual labor wages by allowing an influx of illegal immigrants.

The common argument used as to why this is not a problem, is that "it's unskilled labor, who cares."

Why can't an unskilled laborer have the right to freedom from unfair competition? Why does him being unskilled somehow make his right to freedom (right to happiness) less important than the construction firm's right to higher profit? His pathway to happiness is more difficult, because he endures excess financial strain.

Seems to be because we simply value the unskilled laborer less, for being unskilled.

This intrigues me because the argument made by big business is the same one made by all economists, and pretty much everyone with the brain capacity for higher-skilled labor.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I could be way off, but I think it's just a fact that because the economy is global now, it really isn't feasible for employers to cater to american labor specifically. There is now a global pool for workers and they're cheaper because of it.

 

[Fern]

From what I've seen, most deny that any unskilled laborer is being disadvantaged.

Most seem to say that Americans will NOT take those jobs, period. (At least not at those wages. "Those wages" being the operative assumption, I don't think most people actually know what "those wages" are.)

I.e., the question you raise is avoided altogther by claiming such a class of disadvantaged unskilled American workers doesn't exist

Fern

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Fern
From what I've seen, most deny that any unskilled laborer is being disadvantaged.

Most seem to say that Americans will NOT take those jobs, period. (At least not at those wages. "Those wages" being the operative assumption, I don't think most people actually know what "those wages" are.)

I.e., the question you raise is avoided altogther.

Fern

I'm talking more about the people who have no choice. It may be a lot of them.

Guy I worked with over a summer job in construction, American, worked harder than anyone I've seen in my life. No one matched his drive and vigor.
Yet he probably only made about $16/hour. The contractor we worked for charged $24/hour to our clients. I made $8, so he pocketed $16 on me/hour and $8 on this guy/hour.

Contractor also hired immigrants, illegal ones AFAIK. Because of this, he was probably able to depress my coworker's wages, because there was more competition, from the illegals, for that job.

I'm simply concerned that we're forcing people, who may be perfectly happy to work with their hands and build structures their whole life, to change careers into something they like less. If this were an argument over machines replacing humans, then obviously it would be a no-contest, because this is perfectly legal and economically required to remain competitive. But using illegals is illegal, and thus should not be economically required to remain competitive.

I think we need more controls on businesses to keep them from hiring illegal immigrants; such as a mandatory SSN-Name check between the employer and the government. If someone comes up with a bad SSN-Name combination, and the employer continues to employ them, they should get fined.

Ultimately my frustration stems from a desire to make sure life is fair for those less fortunate. I don't mean we have to tax the wealthy to give them handouts, because is plain stupid for various reasons which are not applicable to this thread; but some people simply didn't have the parents to force them to do well in school. They had no control over having sucky parents, so I don't think it's fair to penalize them by depressing their wages.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I'm trying to come up with solid arguments for why it is a bad thing to erode native worker's manual labor wages by allowing an influx of illegal immigrants.

The common argument used as to why this is not a problem, is that "it's unskilled labor, who cares."

Why can't an unskilled laborer have the right to freedom from unfair competition? Why does him being unskilled somehow make his right to freedom (right to happiness) less important than the construction firm's right to higher profit? His pathway to happiness is more difficult, because he endures excess financial strain.

Seems to be because we simply value the unskilled laborer less, for being unskilled.

This intrigues me because the argument made by big business is the same one made by all economists, and pretty much everyone with the brain capacity for higher-skilled labor.

First, there's no right to happiness. There's a right to the pursuit of happiness.

Also, if the competition is legal, there's no such thing as unfair competition.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I'm trying to come up with solid arguments for why it is a bad thing to erode native worker's manual labor wages by allowing an influx of illegal immigrants.

The common argument used as to why this is not a problem, is that "it's unskilled labor, who cares."

Why can't an unskilled laborer have the right to freedom from unfair competition? Why does him being unskilled somehow make his right to freedom (right to happiness) less important than the construction firm's right to higher profit? His pathway to happiness is more difficult, because he endures excess financial strain.

Seems to be because we simply value the unskilled laborer less, for being unskilled.

This intrigues me because the argument made by big business is the same one made by all economists, and pretty much everyone with the brain capacity for higher-skilled labor.

Also, if the competition is legal, there's no such thing as unfair competition.

...but its unfair competetion, hence the term 'illegal'.

 

[CycloWizard]

How is an American disadvantaged relative to an illegal immigrant seeking to fill the same position? The only possible disadvantage is that the government will not allow a legal worker to accept a wage below the minimum wage. Therefore, if the minimum wage is higher than what employers are willing to pay for a job, the illegal immigrant becomes the only choice. Thus, the disadvantage is the direct result of regulation. I'm sure there will be quite a few chucking rotten tomatoes at me for saying this, but I doubt any of them can tell me what is actually incorrect about my assessment. Our government has created the two-tiered playing field by creating an artificial cost floor.

edit: I'll also add that unskilled labor is inherently less valuable than skilled labor because anyone who is a skilled laborer can also fulfill the duties of an unskilled laborer, while the opposite is not true.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How is an American disadvantaged relative to an illegal immigrant seeking to fill the same position?

Is this question a joke?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How is an American disadvantaged relative to an illegal immigrant seeking to fill the same position? The only possible disadvantage is that the government will not allow a legal worker to accept a wage below the minimum wage. Therefore, if the minimum wage is higher than what employers are willing to pay for a job, the illegal immigrant becomes the only choice. Thus, the disadvantage is the direct result of regulation. I'm sure there will be quite a few chucking rotten tomatoes at me for saying this, but I doubt any of them can tell me what is actually incorrect about my assessment. Our government has created the two-tiered playing field by creating an artificial cost floor.

edit: I'll also add that unskilled labor is inherently less valuable than skilled labor because anyone who is a skilled laborer can also fulfill the duties of an unskilled laborer, while the opposite is not true.

I can't/won't speak for him. But I took his remarks to have a far broader/deeper meaning.

We complain about outsourcing.

We complain about foreign companies coming here frely, yet our companies can't go into their country.

Unfair competition is his complaint as I see it.

Would people be screaming if domestic companies had competition from other foreign corporations coming over, dis-obeying the rules, and competing directly against them for American customers?

Well, why not the same consideration for unskilled American workers?

Not sure that what's he meant, but that's how I took it.

Fern

 

[neodyn55]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How is an American disadvantaged relative to an illegal immigrant seeking to fill the same position? The only possible disadvantage is that the government will not allow a legal worker to accept a wage below the minimum wage. Therefore, if the minimum wage is higher than what employers are willing to pay for a job, the illegal immigrant becomes the only choice. Thus, the disadvantage is the direct result of regulation. I'm sure there will be quite a few chucking rotten tomatoes at me for saying this, but I doubt any of them can tell me what is actually incorrect about my assessment. Our government has created the two-tiered playing field by creating an artificial cost floor.

edit: I'll also add that unskilled labor is inherently less valuable than skilled labor because anyone who is a skilled laborer can also fulfill the duties of an unskilled laborer, while the opposite is not true.

If the labor pool is insufficient or wages for unskilled labor are too high, then the correct solution is to increase the labor pool by visas or removing the minimum wage.

Allowing illegal immigration is not the right way to go about it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: neodyn55
If the labor pool is insufficient or wages for unskilled labor are too high, then the correct solution is to increase the labor pool by visas or removing the minimum wage.

Allowing illegal immigration is not the right way to go about it.

I agree, which is why I said the minimum wage is really the problem. Illegal immigration is the market's solution to the problem that regulation has created. If we want to end illegal immigration, we should end the minimum wage. Instead, the minimum wage is being jacked up left and right, which will only exacerbate the problem.

 

[Journer]

i dont have a problem with illegal immigration as long as they dont break the law and pay taxes, but wait, they dont. there are special previsions setup for people to pay income tax even if they are illegals. if we had a fair tax then immigration wouldn't be a problem as long as no one gets paid less than minimum. if you don't want to do an unskileld job for minimum wage and someone else does (who pays taxes) then fuck you.

 

[ProfJohn]

"Undoubtedly a part of why illegal immigration is not talked about more"

I think you are wrong in that assessment.

It is not talked about more because:
1. It is a very difficult problem to solve.

2. Any type of solution risks angering the large hispanic population in this country and politicians are scared to do that.

Thus the rest of us are essentially be held hostage by a small, but vocal, group of citizens.

Now if all the blacks and white in America stood up and said solve this problem or else we are going vote for someone else then the politicians would take action, but since most of non-hispanics are ambivalent about the problem the politicians don't really care about us and instead focus on the one group that cares about the problem.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
The contractor we worked for charged $24/hour to our clients. I made $8, so he pocketed $16 on me/hour and $8 on this guy/hour.

What your employer actually "pocketed" would depend on the insurance and taxes paid. If a person is on the books their employer matches the amount of social security taxes the employee paid. Then there is supposed to be employment taxes, workers comp etc that can be very expensive. Then each employee should have civil liability coverage (often a small contractor will have CL just for himself but technically all employees on a site are meant to be covered). Of course there are also the various licensing fees (which can be high if your plumber or electrician etc). People dont see all the costs involved in hiring people.

Illegals who are contracting are often using family members who came up (and they were making 2 dollars a day in a place like Ecuador if they even had a job) to join them. The contractors often have no insurance for workers and pay few taxes unless they have been in biz long enough to have to show some income just because of all the things they start to own (houses, trucks, vans).

A US citizen who is a contractor and who has been paying taxes and has had a SS# since a young age can hardly compete following the rules because the illegals aren't following the same. We are at the point now where even the established illegals are complaining because the new illegals are undercutting them. The work quality is often inferior as these workers are good laborers but quality standards are low. Two coats of paint to them can mean one coat made twice as thick and the lead paint they scrapped off the house they will clean up with leaf blowers (thus dosing the whole area). Illegal electric work is especially scary.

Many of the illegals are nice people and they often value their kids more than the Americans. When school gets out the illegal kids are nice and orderly and avoid the thug lifers who cant get any play from them. However they suck up lots of resources and send money home. We have all different diseases raging here from bed bugs to TB.

They bought up all the affordable housing and use double and triple occupancy. They drive with no licenses or insurance while a citizen gets reamed. Indeed, the fee for not having aninsurance ID card and registration in car being stopped has higher fine in New Jersey than driving without a license (only $200 fine). Its like America has a big tape worm sucking nutrients and lowering quailty of life.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I'm trying to come up with solid arguments for why it is a bad thing to erode native worker's manual labor wages by allowing an influx of illegal immigrants.

The common argument used as to why this is not a problem, is that "it's unskilled labor, who cares."

Why can't an unskilled laborer have the right to freedom from unfair competition?

WTF? Why can't the big guy be free from unfair competition from the little guy who has a much smaller overhead?

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Why does him being unskilled somehow make his right to freedom (right to happiness) less important than the construction firm's right to higher profit?

He doesn't have a right to happiness. He is free to pursue happiness all he wants.

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
His pathway to happiness is more difficult, because he endures excess financial strain.

We are still talking about "unskilled" right? A person should only be "unskilled" for a few years at the very most. If your not "skilled" after that then its usually your own fault.

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Seems to be because we simply value the unskilled laborer less, for being unskilled.

Holy hell, please tell me you aren't serious.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How is an American disadvantaged relative to an illegal immigrant seeking to fill the same position? The only possible disadvantage is that the government will not allow a legal worker to accept a wage below the minimum wage. Therefore, if the minimum wage is higher than what employers are willing to pay for a job, the illegal immigrant becomes the only choice. Thus, the disadvantage is the direct result of regulation. I'm sure there will be quite a few chucking rotten tomatoes at me for saying this, but I doubt any of them can tell me what is actually incorrect about my assessment. Our government has created the two-tiered playing field by creating an artificial cost floor.

edit: I'll also add that unskilled labor is inherently less valuable than skilled labor because anyone who is a skilled laborer can also fulfill the duties of an unskilled laborer, while the opposite is not true.

In situations where there is a use for low-wage labor, its often as a replacement for capital. For example, lets say it costs 60 dollars per hour of use to use, operate and maintain a backhoe. For that same amount, you can hire 15 illegals to shovel sand. Your minimum wage example fails because there is no meaningful unemployment in the united states, beyond the occasional structure losses, job-swapping, etc. If you want A job, in most places you can get one very quickly. If minimum wage did impede with hiring, you would see much more significant unemployment.

minimum wage laws mostly just keep monopolistic labor markets in check, ie small towns with a single factory or mill or whatever.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: neodyn55
If the labor pool is insufficient or wages for unskilled labor are too high, then the correct solution is to increase the labor pool by visas or removing the minimum wage.

Allowing illegal immigration is not the right way to go about it.

I agree, which is why I said the minimum wage is really the problem. Illegal immigration is the market's solution to the problem that regulation has created. If we want to end illegal immigration, we should end the minimum wage. Instead, the minimum wage is being jacked up left and right, which will only exacerbate the problem.

If employment is full, then why would these employers that previously used illegal labor switch to more expensive legal labor? Why would employed citizens who can get one of the many available legal jobs, take a job paying less than the going rate for their labor?

The legal employee would take one of the many available higher-paying jobs, and the illegals would continue to take the ultra-low-wage jobs. Nothing would change in 99% of labor markets.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: neodyn55
If the labor pool is insufficient or wages for unskilled labor are too high, then the correct solution is to increase the labor pool by visas or removing the minimum wage.

Who is to say that wages for unskilled labor are too high? Isn't that something that should be determined by the American labor market? How do we know that profits from unskilled laborers' labor aren't too high? If there's an alleged labor shortage, wouldn't the market find a way to take care of that problem?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
In situations where there is a use for low-wage labor, its often as a replacement for capital. For example, lets say it costs 60 dollars per hour of use to use, operate and maintain a backhoe. For that same amount, you can hire 15 illegals to shovel sand. Your minimum wage example fails because there is no meaningful unemployment in the united states, beyond the occasional structure losses, job-swapping, etc. If you want A job, in most places you can get one very quickly. If minimum wage did impede with hiring, you would see much more significant unemployment.

Great, but this thread is about competition between illegal and legal laborers, not the unemployment level. If the labor market is overwhelmed with people looking for work, which was what the OP implied, then what I said is true. If there is instead a paucity of labor, then of course what you said is true. They are simply two different regimes governed by different principles.

minimum wage laws mostly just keep monopolistic labor markets in check, ie small towns with a single factory or mill or whatever.

I'm from a small town (Muncie, IN). None of the handful of factories there ever paid even close to minimum wage. I could have dropped out of high school and started at $27/hr. This is the result of union activity, not minimum wage laws. Of course, this same union activity is the same reason all of those factories are now closed, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I'm trying to come up with solid arguments for why it is a bad thing to erode native worker's manual labor wages by allowing an influx of illegal immigrants.

Well...what do you think? Do you think that it's bad or do you not have an opinion? If you think that it's bad, why do you think that?

The common argument used as to why this is not a problem, is that "it's unskilled labor, who cares."

Why can't an unskilled laborer have the right to freedom from unfair competition? Why does him being unskilled somehow make his right to freedom (right to happiness) less important than the construction firm's right to higher profit? His pathway to happiness is more difficult, because he endures excess financial strain.

Seems to be because we simply value the unskilled laborer less, for being unskilled.

Several issues are involved. I'll list the ones I've thought of in no particular order.

(1) In the context of the global labor market and global labor arbitrage, we have to make a policy decision about the size of the labor pool. Will we expand the labor pool to the point where market forces dictate low wages and high profits for business owners or do we lock down the borders and have an insular American free market where laborers will receive American market wages and business owners will not receive inordinate profits? Do we want Americans to merge with th third world and its standard of living or do we want to want to try to increase the chances that Americans can have a traditional middle class standard of living?

(2) In terms of happiness, do we try to maximize happiness amongst Americans or would it be better if a small percentage of Americans were extremely happy and the rest were miserable? If we want to increase the average and median amounts of happiness, what's the best way to do that?

(3) How important is it to us for other Americans to thrive? Does the well-being of other Americans affect us at all and is it possible that you and/or a member of your family could end up joining the class of unskilled labor? What if you can't find a job in your field and end up losing your career for some reason (false criminal accusation, scandal, etc.)? If criminal activity ends up being more profitable than working poverty/slave wage jobs, would it be in Americans' selfish interest to live in a nation with rampant crime and/or packed (and expensive) prisons? Often in these types of discussion you get the sense that we're talking about a distant alien race and not about Americans who live in our own backyard. It's as though many people fail to realize that the well-being of other Americans affects their own well-being.

(4) Are the low wages for the foreign workers really as low as they appear to be or are there other, often conveniently ignored, invisible costs? Do low-skilled low-wage workers fully support themselves in this society or do they consume more taxpayer dollars in terms of public services (education, public health care, etc.) than they contribute in taxes? If so, then does it make sense to import more low-skilled people who will further consume government funds while having low-skilled Americans either end up unemployed or at the least needier than they were before?

This intrigues me because the argument made by big business is the same one made by all economists, and pretty much everyone with the brain capacity for higher-skilled labor.

Could you sum up what this argument is? It's possible that the reason the "economists" make the same argument is that their opinions have been purchased in some sort of a way. "If we give tenure to this guy who questions foreign outsourcing, we'll lose our corporate donations and our donations from wealthy alumni. We'd better go with the candidate who has 'accepted' views."

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I'm trying to come up with solid arguments for why it is a bad thing to erode native worker's manual labor wages by allowing an influx of illegal immigrants.

The common argument used as to why this is not a problem, is that "it's unskilled labor, who cares."

Why can't an unskilled laborer have the right to freedom from unfair competition? Why does him being unskilled somehow make his right to freedom (right to happiness) less important than the construction firm's right to higher profit? His pathway to happiness is more difficult, because he endures excess financial strain.

Seems to be because we simply value the unskilled laborer less, for being unskilled.

This intrigues me because the argument made by big business is the same one made by all economists, and pretty much everyone with the brain capacity for higher-skilled labor.

From a morality perspective, I think it is immoral and shortsighted to be "protectionist".

Immoral: What exactly do you want? A world that prevents people from poor countries from working in order to keep wages artificially high for the native workers? How can those poor countries ever improve their living standards? Do we want a world where the US is the only rich country that is surrounded by poor countries? Is that really moral?

Shortsighted: Sure allowing illegal immigrants to work here will hurt us a little bit. But I think this is a short term thing. Sort of like how exercise will hurt us (we are sore) in the short term but better for us in the long term (we become healthier). Wages will be depressed but they will start increasing again.

A long time ago I saw people bashing Japanese cars with baseball bats and telling everyone they should only buy American cars because the Japanese are unfair competition and taking away jobs from Americans. Thank goodness we didn't listen because what has happened since this unfair competition? American cars have improved in quality (I have a Focus that I think was as good as my old Nissan) and many Japanese car companies now have factories in the US providing many Americans with good jobs. Of course, American car companies are still in trouble mainly because of high fuel costs but that's another story. But my main point is that the competition made us better.

Being protectionist can lead to the following (true) situation. You are a company going to a convention center to show off your products. Your products are in crates and you and your employees are about to unpack them to set up your display. Oops, you can't do that! Why? Well, the convention center has union workers and only they are allowed to unpack and move crates. So, you have to spend unnecessary money to pay them to do it and you waste time while waiting for them to get around to doing it.

In general I feel that free market competition (with tweaks to prevent employers abusing workers) is the best way to go about doing things. It's mutually beneficial for both employers and workers in the long term. Allowing workers from poorer countries to work here gives an opportunity for us to help the world. Competition will make us better. Interaction with them will expose us with new ideas, energy and vibrancy. And as their home countries living standards increase, it will open up new markets for us and everyone in the future.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: neodyn55
If the labor pool is insufficient or wages for unskilled labor are too high, then the correct solution is to increase the labor pool by visas or removing the minimum wage.

Allowing illegal immigration is not the right way to go about it.

I agree, which is why I said the minimum wage is really the problem. Illegal immigration is the market's solution to the problem that regulation has created. If we want to end illegal immigration, we should end the minimum wage. Instead, the minimum wage is being jacked up left and right, which will only exacerbate the problem.

Except the goal isn't to make sure everyone has a job, or to maximize profits for companies, the goal is to make sure people have a living wage. Make all the minimum wage arguments you want, but the fact is that at that wage, you STILL don't make enough money to support yourself, let alone a family. Allowing employers to pay people even less won't solve any problems in the long run. Sure, it may remove part of the market for illegal immigrant labor, but since an even lower wage would be too low to really live on, workers will try to move on to other fields that pay better...if they can. And if they can't, they'll just be a drain on the welfare system.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Except the goal isn't to make sure everyone has a job, or to maximize profits for companies, the goal is to make sure people have a living wage. Make all the minimum wage arguments you want, but the fact is that at that wage, you STILL don't make enough money to support yourself, let alone a family.

Is it the government's job to ensure that everyone has a living wage? I don't think so. All of this complaining that it's the government's job to make sure that people are happy, treated fairly, and so on are absolutely absurd. It's not even the government's job to ensure that you can raise a family on a single minimum wage income, which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you say. The role of government is, and I quote,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The bastardization of the phrase "promote the general Welfare" has caused many more problems than it has solved (e.g. Exhibits A, B, and C after about three seconds of searching). This bastardization is obviated by the clarification found in Article I: "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare...." The problem is that we have redefined "welfare" due to its usage in the current welfare system, wherein our government gives money to people for doing nothing. This is a far cry from what was most likely intended by this clause, which I would probably take to mean building roads and so on.

Allowing employers to pay people even less won't solve any problems in the long run. Sure, it may remove part of the market for illegal immigrant labor, but since an even lower wage would be too low to really live on, workers will try to move on to other fields that pay better...if they can. And if they can't, they'll just be a drain on the welfare system.

Please tell me how creating an artifical cost floor improves anything except the chances that an unskilled position will be given to someone who will work for a lower-than-minimum wage. Please explain how raising the cost floor isn't the problem rather than the solution. It causes inflation by artificially increasing wages, thereby becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: the minimum wage makes the minimum wage an unlivable wage. This is because it will always lag behind the inflation that it causes, since the inflation is nearly instantaneous and the wage is increased incrementally over longer time scales.

 

[piasabird]

College students use to depend on these type of unskilled labor jobs to get through college. How do people go to college now that a lot of the unskilled labor jobs are done by invading immigrants?

The answer is they dont!

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
In situations where there is a use for low-wage labor, its often as a replacement for capital. For example, lets say it costs 60 dollars per hour of use to use, operate and maintain a backhoe. For that same amount, you can hire 15 illegals to shovel sand. Your minimum wage example fails because there is no meaningful unemployment in the united states, beyond the occasional structure losses, job-swapping, etc. If you want A job, in most places you can get one very quickly. If minimum wage did impede with hiring, you would see much more significant unemployment.

Great, but this thread is about competition between illegal and legal laborers, not the unemployment level. If the labor market is overwhelmed with people looking for work, which was what the OP implied, then what I said is true. If there is instead a paucity of labor, then of course what you said is true. They are simply two different regimes governed by different principles.

In a hypothetic environment were the united states was not at or incredibly close to full employment, then you might have a case, however this thread is about reality, and in this reality, people are so desperate for labor at any cost, that they will break the law in order to get it. Luckily for those people, there is an excess supply of illegal labor and they are able to pay low wages.

minimum wage laws mostly just keep monopolistic labor markets in check, ie small towns with a single factory or mill or whatever.

I'm from a small town (Muncie, IN). None of the handful of factories there ever paid even close to minimum wage. I could have dropped out of high school and started at $27/hr. This is the result of union activity, not minimum wage laws. Of course, this same union activity is the same reason all of those factories are now closed, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

when i say small town, i don't mean MSA's with 120k people.

It is the principal city of the Muncie, Indiana Metropolitan Statistical Area, which has a population of 118,769. The population within city limits, as of 2002, was 67,430

the small single factory towns that i was talking about are more like

Gwinner is a city in Sargent County, North Dakota in the United States. The population was 717 at the 2000 census. Gwinner was founded in 1901.

The single factory in Gwinner employs roughly the entire population of the town, i think they also have a subway (restaurant) and a gas station. The nearest other small town is about 20 miles away, and the nearest town with a job market woudl be 100 miles away in Fargo