Anderson 1

Broox Anderson English 2010-53 5 December 2013 Re-Ascension: How Removing the Minimum Wage, Allowing Immigration, and Decriminalizing Drugs Would Ease the Recession How many times have you stared out through a window thinking about the happiness, joy, and almost tangible hope youve experiencedfleetinglyin the moments of the past? The yearning felt is not unique; no, it is not singular. We are mired, here in a recessiona very real economic downturn. It is only habit, a natural one at that, to look back at more pleasant times filled with dreams and confidence. Now it seems as though it has all been replaced with fear, doubt, and questioning birthed by an uncertain future. There is probably no set of ingredients that concretely ensures a coming time full of achievement and devoid of worry, but it is possible to look at the past, at the causes of our current downfall, and make amendments. A growing economy provides not only present comfort and status, but hope for the future. It is with a strong economy that we can move forward and aim to live our lives to fullest extent. It provides for our necessities, our goals, and our freedoms. The current missteps that have affected our economy are hardly new, and are nowhere near the realm of irreversibility. It is my purpose, and the objective of this essay, to proffer ideals that address the economy. This essay analyzes how three simple acts: removing the minimum wage, allowing immigration, and decriminalizing drugs, would ease the recession.

Anderson 2

To begin: the 18th amendment to the constitution of the United States was passed into effect in 1919. This piece of history denoted, After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited (Hall 1165). This simple but profound act of legislature completely disrupted the social infrastructure of pre-modern America. Alcohol consumption did not cease with the passing of this constitutional amendment, however, and, causally, its mode of exchange and production turned to that which its demand required: organized crime, underground bidding, and corruption. It is a common assumption that if a party criminalizes a good that many people use and acquire, those people will not simply acquiescethey will seek out and devise ways to undermine authority in order to satisfy a desire. This is what preemptively occurred during the Prohibition of 1919-1933. National prohibition produced a huge black market for alcohol; especially in major cities like New York and Chicago. Bootlegging created large sources of illegal income, which led to corruption of enforcement officials and other law officers. Murders increased greatly in the city of Chicago during this time (Hall 1168). It appears that the ideals behind enforcing prohibition of alcohol were stymied by their very own efforts. Crime, violence, and danger increased at the hands of prohibitionists in reaction to the outlaw of alcoholic goods.

Anderson 3

Thefts and burglaries increased at a nine percent tick; assault, battery, and homicide increased by 13 percent; the federal prison population increased 366 percent; and, most importantly, the total federal expenditures on penal institutions increased by a staggering one thousand percent (Meredith). After the prohibition, these statistics dropped substantially across the board. Speaking of a visual aid in his report Organized Crime and Prohibition, William A. Meredith notes, When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, [homicide] rates dropped dramatically (Meredith). This exemplifies just how black-and-white the situation was. A simple act reared beneficial results. The most alarming statistic from an economic standpoint is the one thousand percent increase in federal expenditures on prison operations. This number equals millions of dollars in tax revenue. Its almost a complete surety that prohibitionists did not foresee this aspect, as William A. Meredith lightly adds a quote by Reverend Billy Sunday in 1919, The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent (Meredith). The naivety of the prohibitionists is the underlying cause of so much crime and devastation. To use a popular idiom, they fought fire with fire, and ended up getting burned. This quote fairly well sums up the crime reaction of the period: Not only did the number of serious crimes increase, but crime became organized. Criminal groups organize around the steady source of income provided by laws against victimless crimes such as consuming alcohol or drugs, gambling and prostitution. In the

Anderson 4

process of providing goods and services those criminal organizations resort to real crimes in defense of sales territories, brand names, and labor contracts. That is true of extensive crime syndicates (the Mafia) as well as street gangs, a criminal element that first surfaced during prohibition. (Meredith) Without the preemptive strike against alcoholic substances, many of todays crime consortiums would not exist. To conclude, without thinking about the logical ripple effects of an action, many unplanned reprisals can occur and have lasting, devastating impacts. Obviously, this glimpse of the prohibitionof past mistakesapplies sinfully well to the war on drugs. As Jefferson M. Fish notes, The so-called war on drugs has lasted more than four decades and increasing numbers of people are convinced that it is not only unwinnable but also misguided (12). Many economists count themselves among those people. Professor of Economics at Dixie State University for over 33 years, Professor Joe Green offers his stance on drugs: Im not in favor of drugs. I dont think anybody should use them. But, criminalizing them is a completely counterproductive policy. It doesnt stop them. The price of heroin thirty years ago compared to the price of heroin now has come down, which suggests theres a huge amount of heroin here. Theres a huge amount of cocaine here, theres a huge amount of marijuana here in spite of forty years of drug laws. They just dont work. Essentially what youre saying is you have a choice between having it legal or illegal. If you have it legal, you have the stuff and you have to deal with it, but at least you deal with it in a peaceful, law-abiding way. You dont mess up your justice system, and you dont mess up inner cities. If you choose to make it illegal, then you dont make it go

Anderson 5

away. You simply say, were going to have a bunch of really bad, horrible people be the ones who run it, who bribe public officials, do drive-by shootings, etc. As far as Im concerned, theres not really a choice there. You get the same amount of drug use either way. (Personal) Essentially, Professor Green hits the nail on the head. In every section of his description, he notes the terrible economic and moral policy constituted by drug criminalization. But what would some of the positive economic effects of decriminalizing drugs be? Cartels would immediately dissipate. Also, members who work for the cartels in a 700 billion dollar drug market would have to become legitimate workers. There would no longer be a system that rewards drug traffickers for being violent. Thinking about negative effects that could be anticipated, Professor Green notes that we might get an increase in drug use, but that it would likely be among people who are already using drugs. The laws against use and disbursement of illegal substances are inadvertently causing an international network of crime to thrive in its entirety, as was witnessed in the 1920s during the Prohibition of Alcohol. Innocent citizens die at the hands of drug traffickers every day. Billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours are spent trying to contain and uncontainable surge of drug handling and use. I would say its a lot like trying to dam an ocean And rather than fight the force of that unswayable river, why not collect it, turn it, and use it? The economic benefits of simply allowing and regulating drug manufacture, trade, and use approaches unfathomability.

Anderson 6

The tax revenue alone would amount to billions of dollars per fiscal year. Outside of that, crime would diminishnot entirely, grantedbut noticeably as efforts on the illegal substance front turned to legal manufacture and distribution. Previously unemployable men and women would find themselves in a demanding market with the skills and knowledge to be successful in earning a legal living. Analytically, this new market would employ the heralded economic principle of supply and demand. As a key factor of production changes (government subsidy/policy) the supply of now-legal substances would increase dramatically. Furthermore, the new legal demand would logically help the high price of these substances decrease gradually. Next, this decline in price creates a low-margin market for which many would not be able to compete, thus creating a smaller, manageable industry. This enactment would not only save lives and deter drug-related crime, but stimulate a faltering economy and put capable people to work. William A. Meredith said it best: Many people like to say that we should learn history so that it does not repeat itself. However, some people argue that the United States' position on [drugs] is still like the Prohibition of Alcohol (Meredith). Regarding current legislation and policy, it truly is. Another situation in which we find economic benefits is through immigration into the United States of America. Generally, immigrants bring with them a resolve to work hard, to accomplish their goals, and to build a legacy for their anticipated lineage in America. This excerpt from The Economics of Immigration: Theory and Policy is helpful in understanding the bases of immigration in relation to the economy:

Anderson 7

Immigration is a prominent economic and political issue in Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and many other high income countries. Today, over 200 million people, or about 3% of the worlds population, live outside their country of birth. Immigration has grown rapidly in recent decades, a trend that, if continued, will result in the number of immigrants approaching 4-5% of the worlds population within a generation. Immigration is one of the international economic activities that is part of the phenomenon often referred to as globalization. As more and more immigrants move from one country to another in search of better jobs, preferred lifestyles, and changing economic opportunities, the lives of the people already residing in the destination countries are often changed in unanticipated and little understood ways. (Bodvarsson 2) This excerpt very broadly but effectively covers the definition and connotation of immigration with respect to us, here, in America. It is truly a hot political debate in every election in every format of representation. But, without immigration, many of us would not be here. In fact, almost none of us would have the privilege of calling ourselves American. We all stem from immigrants of times past, and need to truly consider this in analyzing the effects of immigration in relation to the economy. The hardest knock on immigration seems to be that it invariably institutes labor competition. As rn B. Bodvarsson and Hendrik Van den Berg realize, *The labor market+ causes conflicting opinions about the desirability of immigration (4). In essence, American workers who compete for jobs with the newcomers seem to view immigration negatively. On the off hand, employers view immigrants as assets and more profitable workers, thus generating a more positive view on immigration as a whole. However,

Anderson 8

unlike machines or buildings, immigrants are people, and therefore dynamic consumers. Their arrival boosts demand for all factors of production, including labor (Bodvarsson 4). Thus, the arrival of immigrants may not have the dreaded downward effect on the wages of competing workers after all (Bodvarsson 4). Indeed, it is apparent that it has the opposite effect: It is a common and stereotypical misconception that immigration hurts American workers. Immigrants engage in the work that we generally do not aspire to do. They prevail in manual, hard labor. Immigrants sacrifice their bodies for their livelihood, thus creating opportunities for others to work without sacrificing physically. By using their skills and knowledge, non-immigrants benefit from the physical labor and prideful exertion of immigrant workers. This has an understatedly huge effect on the economy. It births an economy of innovation. No longer bound to laborious jobs, average Americans can enjoy a career full of achievement and aspiration, discovery and innovation. Without immigration, there would be no modern iPhones, no television, no Internet. It simply would not have been realistic for anyone to create these things while they suffered through long hours of manual work to earn a living. It is also importantthat people are carriers of new ideas and knowledge (Bodvarsson 4). America is the proud, shining monolith of the culmination of many foreign ideas that lifted this country to modern prominence. It is needless to say, without the contributions of such great immigrants like Albert Einstein, a German; Joseph Pulitzer, a Hungarian; Levi Strauss, a Bavarian; and a host of countless others, we would not enjoy many comforts in America today. Current immigration policies contradict the great nature and foundation-building of past globalized immigration to America. It is extremely difficult for any foreign citizen to become a

Anderson 9

citizen of the United States. This is due to many thingsamong them are political constituency agendas, as addressed above. In an interview, Professor Green of DSU offered his view on immigration policy: I think its awful, I think its horrible. If somebody wants to work for an employer, they ought to be able to make that contract. Things ought to be run by contract and not by rules like [the immigration policy]. The main reason most people are coming is because they make five dollars a day in Mexico, and they can make seven, eight, nine dollars an hour here. So their familys way better offthey can educate them, feed them, all of that. If you stop them at the border, youre essentially saying, You have to stay in your slave-like job because of this artificial boundary we have here. (Personal) In order to continue growing economically, we, as a country, society, and people, need immigration to continue steadfastly. If immigration policies continue to narrow pathways to this great United States, we will soon be forced downwardto satisfy the need for manual labor positionsand innovation, technology, discovery, and advancement will yield as a result. In sequence, this now brings attention to the existence of laws that apply to the mass of all unskilled workers in the United Statesour minimum wage laws. Wrought with righteous intent, these laws seemingly provide protection to low-income, unskilled workers. However, these laws have effectively undermined their own intent. As Professor Joe Green of DSU tells, Im opposed to the minimum wage. The minimum wage creates unemployment among the people who are trying to get their first step on the ladder of the economy; so you keep them off. He further explains that, as a country we should always let the market determine if employers want to hire somebody.

Anderson 10

This is an absolutely crucial and integral part of basic economic functions. In an entryexit system, the market for labor should undoubtedly determine the wagethe price the employer must payof menial workers. As Roger Koopman of Foundation for Economic Education reveals, The minimum wage is a classic example of a good intention and a bad idea. The idea behind minimum wage legislation is that government, by simple decree, can increase the earning power of all marginal workers (Koopman). But, by increasing the earning power of all marginal workers, the labor costs of employers directly increase. Consequently, employers terminate workers to recover the costs, or neglect to hire new employees at all in the first place. It is bad economic policy for government to set a price floor on labor. The price floor, the minimum wage, inadvertently creates unemployment. This idea is described eloquently in The Minimum Wage: Good Intentions, Bad Results: You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn... (Koopman). Essentially, the minimum wage creates less opportunity for the large amount of menial workers in the United States. This keeps unemployment at a higher rate, and decreases the overall economic productivity of the nation. In conclusion, think back to looking out that window. How is it possible to recreate and sustain the prosperity, the pride, of the past? There are many things that need to change in order to for us to advocate the US as a moral and economic power once again. The moral issues, however blatant and however urgent, must be delegated to the people and influences of forthcoming generations. But, rather gloriously, we can take a present stance against our

Anderson 11

economic woes. An economy in its entirety is a very intricate and multifaceted thing, of course; but, simple things can cause greater things to take shape. It is the undying purpose of this essay to advocate that, by removing the minimum wage, allowing immigration, and decriminalizing drugs, we can take a substantial step toward a future as inherent and successful as our great past.

Anderson 12

Works Cited Bodvarsson, rn B., and Hendrik Van den Berg. "Introduction to Immigration Economics." The Economics of Immigration: Theory and Policy. New York: Springer, 2009. 1-6. Print. Fish, Jefferson M. "Rethinking Drug Policy Assumptions." Humanist 73.2 (2013): 12-15. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. Hall, Wayne. "What Are the Policy Lessons of National Alcohol Prohibition in the United States, 19201933?" Addiction 105.7 (2010): 1164-173. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. Koopman, Roger. "The Minimum Wage: Good Intentions, Bad Results." Foundation for Economic Education. FEE, 1 Mar. 1988. Web. 09 Nov. 2013. <http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-minimum-wage-good-intentions-badresults>. Meredith, William A. "Organized Crime and Prohibition." Organized Crime and Prohibition. University at Albany, 29 Apr. 2005. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. <http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html>. Personal interview. 18 Nov. 2013.