The economic damage of harsh immigration laws

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/immigration-law

ANOTHER month, another court, another plank of Alabama's controversial immigration law enjoined. Last month a federal district court enjoined Alabama from enforcing the most controversial part of its law: the one making it a crime to conceal, harbour or transport illegal immigrants, along with three others related to employment. Last Friday a federal appellate court enjoined another two sections: one that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants not to have proper identity documentation, and another that requires Alabama's public schools to check their students' immigration status. That latter plank reportedly caused hundreds of Latino students to withdraw from Alabama's public schools. Perhaps the law's proponents are happy about this; perhaps they will argue that because their parents brought them to America illegally, they had no claim on any public service (for that same reason, perhaps these students' parents don't deserve water, either).

But I defy them to read this dispatch from Alabama and cheer. One woman is too scared to leave her apartment. Another family flees in the middle of the night, heading for North Carolina because the police followed the father home from work. A law office draws up papers detailing how eight- and ten-year-old children should be cared for if both of their parents should be seized. Students who look Hispanic receive print-outs explaining the harsh new law. These are people living in terror of a government with vastly expanded new powers—and to what end? Let's assume Alabama's crack state troopers had the resources to round up every single undocumented immigrant in Alabama: what would that do? Would it make the state any better off? Its unemployment rate is already high, crops are already rotting in the field; the opportunity exists for unemployed Alabamans to pick them and get paid for it. Apparently, they don't want to. And small wonder, too: it is backbreaking labour (a Georgia field worker who I interviewed for a previous piece—an undocumented immigrant who had been picking onions in Vidalia for 18 years—said that in the entire time he had been working in the fields he had never worked with a white or black person—only with other Latinos). Proponents say that illegal means illegal, and they shouldn't be here anyway. Well, fine. But they are here and they do work that benefits the rest of the state.

As it happens, Georgia's immigration law is slightly less harsh than Alabama's, but also modelled on Arizona's. It passed just before harvest time in a heavily agricultural state. The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association released a report showing economic losses incurred by their members after the law passed. It is depressing, but not surprising. More than 80% of respondents, by acreage, experienced labour shortages of around 40% compared with normal peak-harvest employment, leading to losses in seven spring crops of $75m. Assuming the survey respondents are representative, total statewide losses in those seven crops would be nearly twice that. Factor in goods and services and the total rises to $181m—and again, that is from just seven crops, harvesting of which appears to rely on the labour of undocumented immigrants; that says nothing about other crops, or about Georgia's sizable poultry and construction industries. More than one-third of farmers surveyed plan to decrease acreage in 2012. Why plant it if the crop is just going to rot in the field?

Most of Alabama's immigration law has been upheld, and the enjoined sections will get their day in court too (though it will likely not turn out well for those sections: to have an injunction granted pending appeal, petitioners have to show "a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of the appeal"). States may well have the right to rigorously enforce federal immigration law, but again, to what end? People (and undocumented immigrants may not be Americans, but they are still people) do not uproot themselves from their country and family to go someplace where they don't speak the language and get paid peanuts just for the fun of it. They do it for economic opportunities that do not exist in their home country. Like it or not they are a part of America's labour market. Simply removing them may be legal, but it is a demonstrably bad idea. Just ask Georgia's farmers.

So proof that two states are suffering economically from this-- as well as the old adage that nobody wants the jos the immigrants (illegal or not) are taking... at the same time, the article is right that they're well within their legal rights to do what they're doing, and it does seem to have political support...

So, what's your opinions on the suject?

edit: When I say harsh, I'm not at all joking.

**Redbeard**

I think that reality is harsh.

If we have minimum wage laws, then those laws should apply to all who work, legal or illegal.

If we have immigration laws, then those laws should be applied, regardless of the 'economic cost' to employers.

Reality is, produce should cost much more than it does, based on the rules that our society has enacted. And yet, as consumers, we demand low prices, leading to a situation that is only sustainable by violating both labour and immigration laws.

This seems, to me, to be just another side of how disconnected most of the country is with the real costs of living. We demand cheap food, cheap goods, and cheap gas, and yet get angry when the only way we can have these things is by offshoring jobs, or hiring illegal workers at well below the established minimum wage.

**Lordhat**

Melissia wrote:http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/immigration-law

ANOTHER month, another court, another plank of Alabama's controversial immigration law enjoined. Last month a federal district court enjoined Alabama from enforcing the most controversial part of its law: the one making it a crime to conceal, harbour or transport criminals, along with three others related to employment. Last Friday a federal appellate court enjoined another two sections: one that makes it a crime for criminals not to have proper identity documentation, and another that requires Alabama's public schools to check their students' immigration status. That latter plank reportedly caused hundreds of Latino students to withdraw from Alabama's public schools. Perhaps the law's proponents are happy about this; perhaps they will argue that because their parents brought them to America criminally, they had no claim on any public service (for that same reason, perhaps these students' parents don't deserve water, either).

But I defy them to read this dispatch from Alabama and cheer. One woman is too scared to leave her apartment. Another family flees in the middle of the night, heading for North Carolina because the police followed the father home from work. A law office draws up papers detailing how eight- and ten-year-old children should be cared for if both of their parents should be seized. Students who look Hispanic receive print-outs explaining the harsh new law. These are people living in terror of a government with vastly expanded new powers—and to what end? Let's assume Alabama's crack state troopers had the resources to round up every single undocumented immigrant in Alabama: what would that do? Would it make the state any better off? Its unemployment rate is already high, crops are already rotting in the field; the opportunity exists for unemployed Alabamans to pick them and get paid for it. Apparently, they don't want to. And small wonder, too: it is backbreaking labour (a Georgia field worker who I interviewed for a previous piece—an undocumented immigrant who had been picking onions in Vidalia for 18 years—said that in the entire time he had been working in the fields he had never worked with a white or black person—only with other Latinos). Proponents say that criminal means criminal, and they shouldn't be here anyway. Well, fine. But they are here and they do work that benefits the rest of the state.

As it happens, Georgia's immigration law is slightly less harsh than Alabama's, but also modelled on Arizona's. It passed just before harvest time in a heavily agricultural state. The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association released a report showing economic losses incurred by their members after the law passed. It is depressing, but not surprising. More than 80% of respondents, by acreage, experienced labour shortages of around 40% compared with normal peak-harvest employment, leading to losses in seven spring crops of $75m. Assuming the survey respondents are representative, total statewide losses in those seven crops would be nearly twice that. Factor in goods and services and the total rises to $181m—and again, that is from just seven crops, harvesting of which appears to rely on the labour of undocumented immigrants; that says nothing about other crops, or about Georgia's sizable poultry and construction industries. More than one-third of farmers surveyed plan to decrease acreage in 2012. Why plant it if the crop is just going to rot in the field?

Most of Alabama's immigration law has been upheld, and the enjoined sections will get their day in court too (though it will likely not turn out well for those sections: to have an injunction granted pending appeal, petitioners have to show "a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of the appeal"). States may well have the right to rigorously enforce federal immigration law, but again, to what end? People (and undocumented immigrants may not be Americans, but they are still people) do not uproot themselves from their country and family to go someplace where they don't speak the language and get paid peanuts just for the fun of it. They do it for economic opportunities that do not exist in their home country. Like it or not they are a part of America's labour market. Simply removing them may be legal, but it is a demonstrably bad idea. Just ask Georgia's farmers.

So proof that two states are suffering economically from this-- as well as the old adage that nobody wants the jos the immigrants (criminal or not) are taking... at the same time, the article is right that they're well within their legal rights to do what they're doing, and it does seem to have political support...

So, what's your opinions on the suject?

edit: When I say harsh, I'm not at all joking.

I edited your post to reflect how I feel about this. It's not that American citizens don't want these jobs, it's that we refuse to be paid next to nothing to do them. I've lived in the barrios of Phoenix for years and I see what it take to live on the wages the illegals will accept. 15-20 people in a 3/4 bedroom house so they can pay bills and still send money out of the country to their families..... and no that is not exaggeration or hyperbole.

**Melissia**

Actually I recall another article where they were offering a dollar over minimum wage per hour to work fields, but nobody wanted to do it.

**curtis**

They are perfectly in their right to deport all illegal immigrants but I feel the overzealousness (ie handing all latino looking info about it and cutting off electric/water) might be scaring those there legally which can create problems.

About fruit picking depends whats the pay is less than 100 quid a week can't help but sympathise (spelling?) with the 'lazy whites'.

I feel that the dollar above min wage didn't start till after they found out they were down the crapper, of course i have no idea how much usa min wage is some help please?

**mattyrm**

It's a good point, and it is harsh, but, I find it hard to get annoyed about strict immigration laws.

Immigrants flagrantly take the piss In England.

In the States they dont get free houses and wellfare cheques though, so I find it odd that people get so pissed about it.

I have no issues with anyone who works, and it looks like almost all these Mexicans are working!

I hate white British people that don't work for a living, but we HAVE to let those fethers stay, so clearly ima hate immigrants who take from a system that nobody in their lineage has EVER paid into.

We should start getting alabama on all those gypsies in the UK.

**AustonT**

My opinion is that illegal immigrants are not entitled to public services provided by a country that they are not a citizen of, or a welcome resident in (by visa or permit). The water bit is a bit much since you pay directly for the service. But public schools should have to check for identification regardless of immigration status. If scaring illegal immigrants in a country with such high unemployment causes a labor shortage then there must not be an unemployment problem right? This is really endemic of larger social problems like welfare, and unemployment checks that allow people to turn their noses up to work.
It's not just one problem, it's a culmination of many problems. At the end of the day, illegal immigrants don't belong here they cost us money and jobs in welfare, education, prison costs, and tax revenue. Immigrate legally or be deported. Potential immigrants with useful skills should have a fast track to a leas a work visa and eventually citizenship. Carpenters, masons, physicists and physicians.

**Lordhat**

Melissia wrote:Actually I recall another article where they were offering a dollar over minimum wage per hour to work fields, but nobody wanted to do it.

True enough, but then again, one dollar over minimum wage is still a non-livable wage (That's approx. what I make right now and without the help of my friends I certainly wouldn't be able to afford an apartment and bills and food, much less internet.) There is definitely a very large disconnect between pay rates and cost of living in this country, and illegal immigrant employees is just a part of the problem. I don't know the solution, but I know that simply maintaining the status quo isn't helping.

**DickBandit**

I still don't understand the issue.

Illegal immigrant = person who does not have proper documentation to be in a country.

So they get sent back to their country, or deported.

But I guess people are upset about that.... because..... it's not fair?

Confused.

**Ensis Ferrae**

I think that, if the federal government refuses to enforce it's laws, then the states should most definitely make, and enforce their own.

Being originally from a state where illegal immigration is a problem, I know first hand the "positives" and "negatives" of having illegals, or fresh immigrants there to do the crap jobs that "no one" wants. But, if I were a politician, I have a solution in mind to fix both problems. Welfare reform... Basically, instead of getting money for doing nothing because someone is too fat, stupid, lazy, incompetent, drug addled (whatever term is used to describe many who are on welfare for long periods of time), the folks who receive a government paycheck for food (thats basically what it is), they get to suddenly DO all those skill-less jobs that the illegals and immigrants are currently doing. At the same time, you remove illegals from the country, including those in American prisons.

That's basically my opinion, and I am in no way an "expert" on these sorts of matters, though I have spent a couple years conducting "foreign relations" operations.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

DickBandit wrote:I still don't understand the issue.

Illegal immigrant = person who does not have proper documentation to be in a country.

So they get sent back to their country, or deported.

But I guess people are upset about that.... because..... it's not fair?

Confused.

People are convinced that illegals being present takes money from the country.

Most illegals I know work harder than any white person I've ever met (not implying that race is the factor here, just pointing to the culture and upbringing) and often for a hell of a lot less. The other side of this is, as was pointed out earlier, goods are being made for cheaper than they should be so the savings are passed on too.

**Phanatik**

Redbeard wrote:Reality is, produce should cost much more than it does, based on the rules that our society has enacted. And yet, as consumers, we demand low prices, leading to a situation that is only sustainable by violating both labour and immigration laws.

Actually, I believe that if america's farmers weren't paid to not farm, if we didn't burn for fuel what we do grow, and if we utilized every source of energy (drilling, shale, natural gas, coal, etc) we'd have both cheaper food and cheaper gas. We could have .50cent gas (plus @ .70cent+ taxes). Cheaper gas would make everything else cheaper that has to be trucked around.

Illegals Thread:
As for illegals, look up the definition of illegal and that should end any debate. And if we cut off all social program support, no schools, no jobs and no financial services, they'd leave. It wouldn't cost us anything to deport them.

Regards,

**curtis**

Lordhat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Actually I recall another article where they were offering a dollar over minimum wage per hour to work fields, but nobody wanted to do it.

True enough, but then again, one dollar over minimum wage is still a non-livable wage (That's approx. what I make right now and without the help of my friends I certainly wouldn't be able to afford an apartment and bills and food, much less internet.) There is definitely a very large disconnect between pay rates and cost of living in this country, and illegal immigrant employees is just a part of the problem. I don't know the solution, but I know that simply maintaining the status quo isn't helping.

The solution is quite simple either pay the lower class a wage they can live on meaning everything costs more or make it so the lower class have no other option but to take crappy pay

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:
Melissia wrote:Actually I recall another article where they were offering a dollar over minimum wage per hour to work fields, but nobody wanted to do it.

True enough, but then again, one dollar over minimum wage is still a non-livable wage (That's approx. what I make right now and without the help of my friends I certainly wouldn't be able to afford an apartment and bills and food, much less internet.) There is definitely a very large disconnect between pay rates and cost of living in this country, and illegal immigrant employees is just a part of the problem. I don't know the solution, but I know that simply maintaining the status quo isn't helping.

The solution is quite simple either pay the lower class a wage they can live on meaning everything costs more or make it so the lower class have no other option but to take crappy pay

**Redbeard**

Phanatik wrote:
Actually, I believe that if america's farmers weren't paid to not farm,

If we didn't pay the farmers not to farm, the over-surplus of food would drop the prices so low that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to farm at all. But we're not talking wheat and corn here, which are easily harvestable with machinery, we're talking about fruits like tomatoes, oranges, apples, which still have to be picked by hand. There are no subsidies for apple farmers.

Furthermore, even reductions in subsidies have led to increased health costs. One of the largest subsidy reductions took place during the 80s. In order to make up the lost revenue, farmers had to sell more product at lower prices. This led, directly, to the obesity epidemic that the country faces now, as this extra food was snapped up by restaurants and mass-food producers who sell in quantities far exceeding what is healthy to eat. A safe rule-of-thumb is to halve any portion of anything you get in a restaurant.

if we didn't burn for fuel what we do grow, and if we utilized every source of energy

This sentence clause directly contradicts itself. Do you want to use all energy, including refined corn, or do you not want to utilize all energy sources?

... We could have .50cent gas (plus @ .70cent+ taxes). Cheaper gas would make everything else cheaper that has to be trucked around.

Cheaper gas would indeed make everything else cheaper, although if you believe we'll ever see $.50 gas, you're living in a fantasy world.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Redbeard wrote:
Cheaper gas would indeed make everything else cheaper, although if you believe we'll ever see $.50 gas, you're living in a fantasy world.

"In the grim darkness of the far future, there is 50 cent gas."

**Phanatik**

Redbeard wrote:This sentence clause directly contradicts itself. Do you want to use all energy, including refined corn, or do you not want to utilize all energy sources?

One would have to ignore commas or the easily discernable intent of my message to think I would contradict myself.

All food sources should be utilized for food production.
All energy sources should be utlized for energy production.

I'm not advocating burning food for fuel or using people for Soylent Green (just in case that comes up).

Best,

**dogma**

Phanatik wrote:
One would have to ignore commas or the easily discernable intent of my message to think I would contradict myself.

Intention has no bearing on contradiction, nor does placing a comma between two contradictory statements make them any less contradictory.

Phanatik wrote:
All food sources should be utilized for food production.
All energy sources should be utlized for energy production.

The two categories overlap.

Phanatik wrote:
I'm not advocating burning food for fuel or using people for Soylent Green (just in case that comes up).

So you're not advocating using all energy sources for the the production energy. You're advocating using all energy sources, except those that can be used for food, as energy.

**Phanatik**

Lordhat wrote:True enough, but then again, one dollar over minimum wage is still a non-livable wage (That's approx. what I make right now and without the help of my friends I certainly wouldn't be able to afford an apartment and bills and food, much less internet.) There is definitely a very large disconnect between pay rates and cost of living in this country, and illegal immigrant employees is just a part of the problem. I don't know the solution, but I know that simply maintaining the status quo isn't helping.

The minimum wage, like unions, developed from the days of sweatshops. Their time of usefulness has come and gone. They are now used by the left to further the careers of lefty politicians and union bosses. The minimum wage isn't supposed to provide a "living" wage, and certainly not to fund the internet, cable, WoW or porn site memberships. There are probably negative results from raising the minimum wage. If a person wants a "living" wage, I'd suggest getting an education or a trade skill.

Regards,

**LordofHats**

The whole illegal immigrant issue is so twisted and messed up its unbelievable. Americans complain about Immigrants taking our jobs from us, when frankly they take jobs in fast food, minimum wage fields, and manual labor, things none of us want to do. There seems to be some myth that immigrants have been taking skilled labor jobs, which largely I don't think they are, not yet. Even those who can do the work can't get the jobs because they're illegal and companies that hire for those fields don't like hiring illegals to do them.

So you're not advocating using all energy sources for the the production energy. You're advocating using all energy sources, except those that can be used for food, as energy.

Corn is a horrible source of energy. It costs more to turn it into ethanol than the ethanol gives back. If the government ceased subsidizing ethanol from corn, a gallon of gas would cost over $20. Ethanol from corn is one of the dumbest acts of energy reform we've committed and it's not that great for the environment either.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:The whole illegal immigrant issue is so twisted and messed up its unbelievable. Americans complain about Immigrants taking our jobs from us, when frankly they take jobs in fast food, minimum wage fields, and manual labor, things none of us want to do. There seems to be some myth that immigrants have been taking skilled labor jobs, which largely I don't think they are, not yet. Even those who can do the work can't get the jobs because they're illegal and companies that hire for those fields don't like hiring illegals to do them.

don't forget:
-construction
-manufacturing

While many of these jobs may not be high paying now, they were. They were also a large part of the jobs that Afircan Americans did historically.

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:-construction
-manufacturing

While many of these jobs may not be high paying now, they were. They were also a large part of the jobs that Afircan Americans did historically.

In manufacturing, I think unions have largely forced many illegals out of the line of work. The laborer Unions are one of the strongest advocates of immigration reform and really don't like illegals. In construction I suppose I hear lots about illegals doing cheap day labor, but honestly, is the work they're doing 'skilled?' I suppose I'm just not clear on where the line between skilled and unskilled labor exists in this case.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:-construction
-manufacturing

While many of these jobs may not be high paying now, they were. They were also a large part of the jobs that Afircan Americans did historically.

In manufacturing, I think unions have largely forced many illegals out of the line of work. The laborer Unions are one of the strongest advocates of immigration reform and really don't like illegals. In construction I suppose I hear lots about illegals doing cheap day labor, but honestly, is the work they're doing 'skilled?' I suppose I'm just not clear on where the line between skilled and unskilled labor exists in this case.

Unions in manufacturing do not have that sort of power in the South.

**Phanatik**

The problem with illegals taking fast food jobs is that those were normally jobs teenagers would use as an entryway into the workforce.

Labor Unions would love to have every illegal that can climb or swim cross the border. Democrats are ready to meet them to sign them up for social services, and push for amnesty, as most illegals would vote democratic. That would swell union rolls which have been declining for years. Why do you think democrats protest over any republican attempt to have voter verification laws passed?

Regards,

**curtis**

Phanatik wrote:
Lordhat wrote:True enough, but then again, one dollar over minimum wage is still a non-livable wage (That's approx. what I make right now and without the help of my friends I certainly wouldn't be able to afford an apartment and bills and food, much less internet.) There is definitely a very large disconnect between pay rates and cost of living in this country, and illegal immigrant employees is just a part of the problem. I don't know the solution, but I know that simply maintaining the status quo isn't helping.

The minimum wage, like unions, developed from the days of sweatshops. Their time of usefulness has come and gone. They are now used by the left to further the careers of lefty politicians and union bosses. The minimum wage isn't supposed to provide a "living" wage, and certainly not to fund the internet, cable, WoW or porn site memberships. There are probably negative results from raising the minimum wage. If a person wants a "living" wage, I'd suggest getting an education or a trade skill.

Regards,

Seriously who pays for porn?

Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?

**biccat**

curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?

What is a living wage?

**Lordhat**

LordofHats wrote:
In construction ...... is the work they're doing 'skilled?'

Absolutely. Granted, a lot of the skills are easily learned, but that makes them no less a skill set. At the very least construction workers need to know how to... construct... correctly. Building codes govern everything nowadays, from the exact concrete mixture for floors and walls, to what type of fasteners may be used on what type of roofing, to exactly how you assemble the framework of the walls. Simply needing this knowledge as it pertains to your particular job makes these 'skilled labor positions'. Then there's the knowledge and skillsets needed to conform to all these rules and regulations while still being efficient and productive.

I would happily work next to these gentlemen ( as I do less happily now) if they were to get work visas, or at least begin/continue the process of naturalization. The vast majority of them are just human beings trying the best they can (just like the rest of us), but the sad truth is they're a large part of the reason why my ( and their) backbreaking labor earns less than it costs to provide.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?

What is a living wage?

A wage that will allow you to pay your (and your family's if applicable) bills.

**Phanatik**

curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?

It affects me not if one is or isn't happy in life, has enough to eat, has to work 3 jobs, or needs welfare because they have 12 cats.

I'm not responsible (or shouldn't be) for anyone other than myself and my family.

Have a nice day!

**Frazzled**

Lordhat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
In construction ...... is the work they're doing 'skilled?'
Absolutely. Granted, a lot of the skills are easily learned, but that makes them no less a skill set. At the very least construction workers need to know how to... construct... correctly. Building codes govern everything nowadays, from the exact concrete mixture for floors and walls, to what type of fasteners may be used on what type of roofing, to exactly how you assemble the framework of the walls. Simply needing this knowledge as it pertains to your particular job makes these 'skilled labor positions'. Then there's the knowledge and skillsets needed to conform to all these rules and regulations while still being efficient and productive.

I would happily work next to these gentlemen ( as I do less happily now) if they were to get work visas, or at least begin/continue the process of naturalization. The vast majority of them are just human beings trying the best they can (just like the rest of us), but the sad truth is they're a large part of the reason why my ( and their) backbreaking labor earns less than it costs to provide.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?

What is a living wage?
A wage that will allow you to pay your (and your family's if applicable) bills.

So what would DOnald Trump's living wage be?

**curtis**

Phanatik wrote:
curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?

It affects me not if one is or isn't happy in life, has enough to eat, has to work 3 jobs, or needs welfare because they have 12 cats.

I'm not responsible (or shouldn't be) for anyone other than myself and my family.

Have a nice day!

Hi John Gault

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:
curtis wrote:Also more seriously how don't you have a problem with people actually working not being able to have a living wage?

What is a living wage?

Being able to obtain the basic necessities of life (fresh, non-rotten food; clean water, for both drinking and cleaning; shelter, including air conditioning and heating depending on the climate; and obtain viable transport from home to work, as otherwise they'll not be able to hold the job in the first place) without goin into debt.

This is, in many places, not possible with a minimum wage job. Minimum wage has not managed to keep up with inflation.

In truth, minimum wage laws shouldd have always scale with inflation, but companies lobby HARD to prevent this so we only ever see flat increases.