|
by Virginia Abernethy Vanderbilt Medical School
Not so long ago, one wage-earner’s take-home pay was sufficient to
support a middle class family. Median wages in today’s economy are too
low, however, to support an ordinary family in many urban settings where
families must live in order to work.
Over half of mothers with very young children are now forced to work
outside the home in order to make ends meet. Too often, mothers and
fathers must choose between living on the edge of poverty so that a parent
can care for their children, and a more secure standard of living that
consigns children to long hours of day-care. Many couples deal with this
dilemma by limiting themselves to one child or no children.
Parents, family values, and children all suffer when both parents must
work outside the home in order to keep a roof over their head and food on
the table. The plight of so many American families leads to demands for a
government-guaranteed "living wage." This is a misguided
demand.
Government can fix the wage inequality that now pervades
American society but not through jimmying with the minimum wage. The
federal government can restore the integrity of American families just one
way: with changes in immigration law and enforcement.
The middle class is destroyed by rapid growth in the labor force - more
growth than can be matched by increasing the stock of capital. Population
growth and immigration cannot be ignored as the cause of the greater, and
growing, inequality in the United States - and also its growing
indebtedness.
The United States population is now growing by 3.2 million people, or
approximately 1.2%, a year. That may not sound like much in a population
of 285 million people. But it is a faster growth rate than in any other
industrialized country in the world, and it is enough to double the size
of the U.S. population in about 60 years.
Immigration and the children of recent immigrants accounted for
approximately 70% of population growth during the 1990s. If American
family-size stays small and immigration continues, the immigrant share of
population growth will become steadily larger.
An oversupply of labor drives down the price of labor (wages) in any
type of economy. Demographer Ronald Lee (1980) documents the effect of
the labor supply on wages in late medieval - that is, pre-industrial -
England. The English population crashed during repeated waves of the
Black Death (approximately 1348 through 1420) but soon rebounded.
Comparing wages in periods of labor shortage caused by premature mortality
with wages after population recovery, Lee concludes that a 10 percent
growth in the population had the effect of raising returns to landowners
(employers) by 19%, at the same time that it depressed real wages by 22%.
The lower and middle class usually do not benefit from population
growth. Economist David Ricardo, early-nineteenth century advocate for
free markets, warned that the power elite benefit from excess - therefore,
cheap - labor at the expense of almost everyone else. The majority, who
depends on wages and salaries, ends up by being worse off.
Demograher Nathan Keyfitz (1990) identifies the same relationship.
Here is his paraphrase of Alfred Sauvey’s reflection on ideal population
size: "The farmer calculating the number of cows to raise in his
pasture will always arrive at a larger number than the cows themselves
would prefer." That is, employers benefit from a population that
grows faster than the stock of capital, worker lose - and economic
disparities widen.
Let us see some recent numbers that compare modern, industrialized
nations. Table I shows a nearly perfect relationship: where the rate of
population growth is smallest (Japan and Germany), wage-inequality is
least. The United States has the fastest growing population by far and
the greatest disparity between CEO pay and average worker pay.
Table I. Population Growth Rates and Corporate Pay Disparities in Selected Industrialized Countries
| Country |
Estimated Population Size, 2000, Millions |
Estimated Population Size, 2001, Millions |
Annual Population Growth Rate, % |
Pay Ratio, Average Worker to CEO |
| Japan | 126.9 | 127.1 | 0.16 | 1:16 |
| Germany | 82.1 | 82.2 | 0.12 | 1:21 |
| U.K | 59.8 | 60.0 | 0.33 | 1:33 |
| U.S. | 275.6 / 281.3* | 284.5 | 1.14** | 1:120 |
|
| Population Size Estimates from Population Reference
Bureau, Washington D.C., except as noted. |
| Pay Ratio data from "Does America Still Work",
Harper’s Magazine, May, 1996, pp. 35-47. |
| *Actual count, year 2000, U.S, Bureau of the Census,
Washington, D.C. Note that the Population Reference Bureau estimates of
U.S. population size for 2000 and 2001 vary by a very much larger amount.
The difference is greater than the amount of annual population growth.
The underestimate in 2000 can be traced to systematic, official
underestimates of annual immigration, which make the estimated population
size progressively less accurate with time. The Population Reference
Bureau estimate for 2001 is corrected by the actual count of the year 2000
census. |
| **The population growth rate is computed on the corrected
base, that is, a population of 281.3 million. |
Does this table suggest that slowing the population growth in the
United States would begin to equalize wage rates? It does. But what
sectors want population growth and immigration to keep booming along? Big
business and the politicians and elite, big media that big business feeds.
Immigration amounts to "high cost cheap labor." "Cheap
labor" so far as employers are concerned. "High cost" to
Americans whose wages are depressed and, adding insult to injury, pay
taxes that support that average immigrants’s high use of social welfare
programs.
The Center for Immigration Studies finds that, "Mexican immigrants
who have lived in the United States for more than 20 years, almost all of
whom are legal residents, still have double the welfare use of
natives....Based on estimates developed by the National Academy of
Sciences for immigrants by age and education at arrival, the lifetime
fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult
Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200." (Immigration from Mexico,
July 12, 2001).
The cost of immigration, by itself, is horrendous. But one should keep
in sight the cost of rapid population growth, regardless of its source. A
larger population more quickly consumes non-renewable and
very-slowly-renewable natural resources - including fresh water and
fossil fuels - gradually shrinking the nation’s store of wealth and
eroding its carrying capacity.
"Energy" emergencies are often described as generation or
distribution problems. But as more generators are built, the fundamental
problem of adequacy of the fossil-fuel energy source will come into focus.
The same with water. Dams, river diversions, and other hydrology projects
will mask for a short time - but not forever - the real truth. The truth
that rivers carry just so much water, snow falls into mountain reservoirs
just so much each winter, and the nation’s largest underground aquifers
are, in fact, being used faster than they recharge.
The average American would be much better off with less population
growth and no immigration. American should call on local media to feature
stories that link local problems to local population growth, and demands
of our national politicians that they enact an immigration moratorium.
Population-Environment Balance is a national, non-profit membership
organization dedicated to maintaining the quality of life in the
United States through population stabilization.
|