what we need is useful work to give unskilled people. something that pays at least minimum wage. Come on now, I know there is /something/ these people can do. How about cleaning houses? the barrier to hiring housekeepers, I believe, is mostly social. (and I think the problem with the employment market there is that most housekeepers work through agencies, which take huge cuts in exchange for providing little more than a classified ad and insurance.)
Obviously, that won't solve the problem by itself. But we need to focus on finding something productive for the unskilled masses to do.
I applaud you for your sanity, despite it risking not being politically correct.
I'll risk being even less PC and point out the elephant in the room: illegal immigrants aren't an insignificant factor.
If I'm to trust my anlysis of the context of popular media[1], illegal immigration was already considered a problem by the late 70s. Does anyone know how many people were included in amnesties[2]?
My belief here is that "undocumented" workers aren't subject to the same rules, parrticularly minimum wage. If there are millions of illegal immigrants (not all of whom are workers, granted), there are already jobs out there.
The question is, can those jobs pay at least minimum wage? Even if they could, how many currently unemployed would be willing and able to work them. This, as it applies to farm labor, has been discussed previously on YC[3].
Your mentioning cleaning houses, however, is what prompted me to think in this direction. One of the most valuable things the agencies provide is a membrane of legitimacy, shielding the customer from the liability and administrative headaches (insurance, which you mention, being one of them) of being an employer.
In any case, I agree that finding or creating productive (even minimum wage worthy) work for unskilled (not-yet-skilled?) labor is beneficial to the economy and society as a whole. The confounding factor is that such work in the US tends to attract such labor from outside our borders. I posit that even a successful effort would have no effect until the flow is stopped.
Whether stopping the ingress of unskilled workers is feasible, politically or economically, is another matter.
>Your mentioning cleaning houses, however, is what prompted me to think in this direction. One of the most valuable things the agencies provide is a membrane of legitimacy, shielding the customer from the liability and administrative headaches (insurance, which you mention, being one of them) of being an employer.
Really, I think it's a pretty big problem... There are /many/ people (US citizens, even) willing to clean houses for $10/hr... and I think the difference between $10/hr and the $30/hr you are going to pay an agency (of which $7/hr goes to the poor schlep actually doing the work) makes the difference, for many people, between a weekly cleaner making sense and not.
I think that lowering the liability and hassle barriers to becoming an employer (with an eye towards cutting the agencies off at the knees) would benefit the workers on the low end quite a lot.
As for illegal immigration, I think it really only makes a difference in service jobs that need to be done in person. I have to compete with foreigners, and that wouldn't change even if you completely eliminated immigrants. the service I provide is also provided by companies in other countries, and really, location doesn't matter that much.
I'm just pointing out, even if you completely stop immigration, manufacturing jobs and service jobs that are done over the 'net will still need to compete internationally, unless you also want to completely shut down international trade. So why should in-person service jobs get a subsidy that other types of work don't?
Personally, I think the next outsourcing craze will be "inshoring" - if you are willing to hire a Midwesterner, you can get an American accent at Indian rates.
Obviously, that won't solve the problem by itself. But we need to focus on finding something productive for the unskilled masses to do.