Labor economists have concluded that undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to 7.4 percent.
We haven't eliminated poverty in this country because we keep moving the goalposts.
> The impact on everyone else, though, is surprisingly positive. Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis, has written a series of influential papers comparing the labor markets in states with high immigration levels to those with low ones. He concluded that undocumented workers do not compete with skilled laborers — instead, they complement them. Economies, as Adam Smith argued in “Wealth of Nations,” work best when workers become specialized and divide up tasks among themselves. Pedro Chan’s ability to take care of routine tasks on a work site allows carpenters and electricians to focus on what they do best. In states with more undocumented immigrants, Peri said, skilled workers made more money and worked more hours; the economy’s productivity grew. From 1990 to 2007, undocumented workers increased legal workers’ pay in complementary jobs by up to 10 percent.
Don't make it look one-sided.
Besides, you didn't tell me what you think a ditch digger should earn, which is what I asked. But that's fine, because you can't tell me, because you don't know. In fact, nobody knows. It is an unanswerable question. Much like determining what someone's "fair share" of taxes or benefits is, or their fair standard of living, it is impossible to determine the income they "deserve." There is no absolute standard for any of these things. The only way to know if someone is being fairly compensated is to compare their income to some kind of absolute standard -- but such a standard does not exist.
In the case of unskilled American workers, maybe their incomes are 0.4-7.4% lower than they would have been in the absence of immigrants. But that by itself does not tell us anything about fairness. Perhaps they were overpaid before the immigrants showed up -- after all, there were other people willing to do the job for less money, so what did the American workers have to offer that justified a higher salary for doing the same work? Again, in the absence of an absolute standard of what their income ought to be, it is impossible to know if they are fairly paid, underpaid, or overpaid.
As for the rest of your post, my comment implied a context of the moral an legal framework currently in place in the US and most countries people would actually want to live in. But you're willing to dismiss major components of domestic and international law as well as the basic moral principles most of us live by with a vague existentialist argument about whether fairness even exists. We're not even debating the same thing, and what you want to debate isn't something I'm interested in debating.
Where did I write that? I included the excerpt from the article to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty in selectively quoting a single sentence from an article that is positive about the effects of immigration. I did not make any moral judgments anywhere in my comment. Quite the contrary -- I argued that a moral judgment in this situation was not possible to make.
What legal framework have I dismissed which determines what someone deserves to earn, aside from the minimum wage?
We are debating the same thing. I'm arguing that your assertions have no basis. If you don't know what is fair, you cannot know if someone is treated fairly or not.
You have no basis for your claim that some people are paid less than they deserve to be paid, unless you know what they deserve to be paid, and can demonstrate that what they are actually paid is a lower number than what they deserve to be paid. That's not a vague argument. It is very clear. It's also not existentialist, and if you think it is, you don't know what existentialism is.
