Month: May 2005

I’ve been wondering what Thomas Sowell would have to say about the current illegal immigration controversy that’s brewing.

It seemed to me that, as a free market advocate, Sowell might be, not favorable toward illegal immigration, but favorable toward broadening the American market whereby migrants would be able to do work here in America legally on a much larger scale than as been the case heretofore.

If the free exchange of goods and services is the best way to foster economic development then ceteris paribus expanding the U.S. labor market to include neighboring countries might make sense.

One could argue, though, that this is not the case. Having a free market, labor or otherwise, presupposes a kind of institutional openness and level playing field that may not exist between America and Mexico. I haven’t thought through the situation with sufficient thoroughness or researched the America-Mexico situation enough to know whether that relationship would make sense. (Which is why I’m interested in what Sowell has to say. He’s the expert; not me.)

I do know that I am opposed to folks entering America illegally. I especially don’t like long, porous borders in an age of global terrorism with us as the main target of the terrorists’ efforts.

If people want to come here to improve their economic condition and America can handle the influx, fine. But breaking laws is not a good thing. The law might need to be changed to better facilitate matters, but lawbreaking itself is a bad thing, especially when conducted on a massive scale. I understand that desperation can make breaking the law morally licit in extreme individual cases but if we’re talking the kind of humanitarian crisis that would justify mass disregard for the law then something needs to be done to address that desperation. (Massive disregard for the law being itself a huge societal "bad.")

What needs to be fixed in such a case should not be too hastily assumed to be American immigration law. If America has worked out a system that makes it attractive enough that folks want to come here because of the economic opportunities that it offers that their own homeland doesn’t then it seems to me that the logical thing to do is change the country of origin’s system so it it more closely approximates the American model and thus creates economic opportunities that don’t require immigration to a foreign land (which is itself a cost to the immigrants).

For example, if it’s easier to get a business license in America than Mexico, resulting in greater economic opportunity in the former than in the latter, then it seems that the logical first thing to do is not to demand that America change its immigration policy but to change Mexican law so that it’s easier to get a business license there, too.

Indeed, this would seem to be a justice issue. It would seem unjust to ask one country to bear the costs of accepting massive immigration when this immigration is being driven by disordered economic policies in the migrants’ country of origin.

Fixing the situation back home so people aren’t desperate to migrate to a foreign land is the real solution to the problem. Bettering economic conditions back home so that immigration to a foreign land is a matter of personal choice rather than of economic necessity is the real way to help people.

Now, some folks may pick up on one point I just mentioned–the cost of absorbing massive immigration–and say "Ah! But in reality there is no cost! After all, many of the immigrants are taking jobs native-born Americans won’t do! It thus helps them by having them be employed and helps us by getting these undesirable jobs done."

Enter Thomas Sowell.

EXCERPTS:

Virtually every job in the country is work that Americans will not do, if the pay is below a certain level. And the pay will not rise to that level so long as illegal immigrants — "undocumented workers" — are available to work for less.

Even those who write editorials about how we need Mexicans to do work that Americans will not do would not be willing to write editorials for a fraction of what they are being paid. If Mexican editorial writers were coming across the border illegally and taking their jobs, maybe the issue would become clearer.

You cannot discuss jobs without discussing pay, if you are serious. And, if you are really serious, you need to discuss all the welfare state benefits available to Americans who won’t work.

When you say that Americans have a "right" to have their "basic needs" met, you are saying that when some people refuse to supply themselves with food and shelter, other Americans should be forced to supply it for them.

If you subsidize workers when they won’t work and subsidize employers by making illegal aliens available to them, then under those particular conditions it may well be true that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans won’t do. But such statements conceal more than they reveal.

Hard-working immigrants may indeed be a godsend, not only to farmers and other employers, but also to families looking for someone to take care of children or an aged or ill member of the family. But Americans worked as farm laborers and as maids before there were "undocumented workers" to turn these chores over to.

If it has been done before, it can be done again. All that prevents it is the welfare state and the attitudes it spawns.

GET THE STORY.

I originally wrote a form of the following as a comment down yonder, but thought I’d bump it up to the main blog area because of how interesting the idea is.

My Benedictine friend wrote:

The [Rule of St. Benedict] explicitly directs monks to avoid all greed in business, and to sell or barter their goods at prices lower than others asked.

Following which, a reader asked the very perceptive question:

I know this was really not St. Benedict’s plan, but…

If the monks were to sell their goods at prices lower than others asked, wouldn’t that undercut other purveyors of goods?

Fr. Pedrano (a Benedictine) then said:

In St. Benedict’s culture of bartering and trade (not everyone had cold, hard, cash; no one had plastic), merchants always tried to keep their "prices" high. Maybe St. Benedict’s injunction about charging low prices ended up "undercutting other purveyors. I don’t know. He did write of situations where a monastery could be too poor even to hire laborers to help them with the fields, or to keep certain cultural "dietary" standards–specifically wine–on the table. In those cases, he tells his monks to be satisfied with poverty and work, and to be consoled by the resulting fact of being "true monks."

This–the calling to be "true monks"–seems to me to hold the key to the economic dilemma.

Every free economic transaction involves the exchange of a good or service for something or some things perceived to be of comparable value.

But the things of comparable value are not necessarily money or even material. One might, for example, have a transaction in which one person will give a loaf of bread in exchange for having a song sung or in which one sings a sing in exchange for having an essay proofread.

It seems to me that in this case, the monks received some money in exchange for their goods but they also received other, non-material things of value, such as the chance to make a statement about charity, the importance of the spiritual over the temporal, the chance to themselves make a monetary sacrifice, etc.

As a result, it seems to me that, if they were willing to accept these things in exchange for particular goods or services they had to offer that it would constitute a legitimate transaction in a free market, since the market does not presuppose that all transactions are monetary (barter, for example, may be used, and having the chance to make a statement against greed would seem to be a form of non-material barter).

Should the monks carry this too far, it seems that normal market correction methods would likely address the situation. For example, if they accept so little for their goods and services that their monastery can no longer support itself then they’ll either modify their practice or go out of business as monks.

Similarly, if they are undercutting others so much that they are driving people out of business, impoverishing families who were struggling to begin with, and gravely harming the local economy and are so hardcore in their practice that they won’t modify it when this is made known to them then the amount of ill will generated against them is likely to be such that the Medieval town being harmed would would stop patronizing them, dry up their vocations, burn down the monastery, etc.

The market has a way of correcting for severely disruptive business practices, at least in the long run, since nobody has the unlimited resources needed to permanently sustain fundamentally unsound business practices.

As long as extremes are not pursued, though, it seems that the value of being able to make sacrifices and statements about greed and charity can (and even should) form a legitimate part of economic transactions.

What I want to know is: Does this mean I can get a discount next time I’m at the Prince of Peace Abbey book & gift shop? (Kidding!)

Recently I blogged about the fact that it is not morally obligatory to boycott when there is not a well-founded chance that the boycott would bring about the desired change in the behavior of the boycott’s target. For example, there is no realistic chance of getting secular booksellers (online and off) to purge its inventory of anything and everything that is out of keeping with Catholic moral and doctrinal theology.

The attempt to even begin such a boycott against secular booksellers at present would only do damage, as chronicalled in my previous post on the subject.

But not all boycotts are doomed to failure.

After it emerged that eBay did have some offensiveness exceptions in its policy regarding what can be listed on its site, it became a real possibility that pressuring eBay would result in an expansion of its policy to include a prohibition on allowing individuals to sell consecrated Hosts by their service.

And now that’s happened!

I got rumblings of this a few days ago, but now I’ve had multiple individuals e-mail me messages they received from eBay announcing a change in the policy. Here’s the one that such as <Rule 15b>Eric Giunta</Rule 15b> sent:

Hello Eric,

Thank you for your email regarding the sale of the Holy Eucharist by one of our community members. We respect and appreciate your comments regarding this sensitive matter.

As you may know, eBay does not sell items itself. Rather, we are a global marketplace for sellers and buyers who transact directly with one another. Each day eBay’s sellers list 5 million items on the site, and those sellers decide what items they want to list. eBay did not possess, list or approve the sale of the Eucharist. The buyer and seller completed the Eucharist transaction on April 11th, before eBay even became aware of the listing.

As a marketplace, we strive to respect the diverse perspectives of our sellers. We also work hard to promote an open environment for trade. That said, eBay has policies in place to remove listings for illegal items as well as highly offensive listings that promote hate or intolerance.

We understand that the listing of the Eucharist was highly upsetting to Catholic members of the eBay community and Catholics globally. Once this completed sale was brought to our attention, we consulted with a number of our users, including members of the Catholic Church, concerning what course we should take in the future should a similar listing appear on our site. We also consulted with members of other religions about items that might also be highly sacred and inappropriate for sale. As a result of this dialogue, we have concluded that sales of the Eucharist, and similar highly sacred items, are not appropriate on eBay. We have, therefore, broadened our policies and will remove those types of listings should they appear on the site in the future.

As always, we welcome and appreciate the assistance of the community in upholding the rules of our site. Should you see another Eucharist listed on our site, we encourage you to notify us so we can take appropriate action. Further, we encourage you to directly communicate with the seller. Members are often unaware that a particular item is offensive to others. A respectful e-mail to the seller is often all that is needed for the seller to voluntarily remove the item. We believe this modification strikes the appropriate balance between respect for our community’s values and our goal of providing an open marketplace offering practically anything on earth.

Again, we sincerely appreciate your concern and thank you for communicating your views with us. Your input has helped us frame a policy that will enable us to better serve our diverse community of users around the world.

Regards,

Oscar on behalf of Bill Cobb
Community Watch Team
eBay Trust & Safety

And there was much rejoicing!