It’s a lonely life for an idea without a name. That is especially true in politics and economics. There may be a lot of profit in an idea, but without a name it’s still lonely … no credit for anything.
One of the great ideas cooked up in the stewpot of politics is simple enough: use taxpayer money to create a problem; then use taxpayer money to fix it. It is possible to take credit for identifying the created problem as well as for fixing it. And, even better, there could be campaign contributions for both parts of the operation.
It clearly is a wonderful idea, with no political downside. No one speaks of this idea, though, because it doesn’t have a name.
“What’s in a name?” Shakespeare’s Juliet asked, and provided her own answer. “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
She was right, of course. Giving a name to something does not change its essential qualities — but what about things that do not have obvious essential qualities like the scent of a rose? In our world we are surrounded by them.
Names are important. Products often live or die by their names. Company names and “brands” have become an obsession for marketers.
Ideas or concepts are similar to products, brands, and companies in one important way. Concepts define what we think and how we think, rather than how we wash our dishes or rid ourselves of extra weight or persistent coughs. A concept without a name cannot be understood as readily as one with a name, though, and, because it cannot be easily discussed or referenced, is far more likely to be forgotten.
There is no better example of a wide-reaching nameless idea than the policy we have followed in immigration — creating a problem, and now fixing it. Few other decisions have the shaping force of this idea, or its impact on our economic development.
It is an idea that is both simple and complicated at the same time. For reasons that are, at best, puzzling, we decided some years ago not to pursue border infringements and illegal crossings vigorously. This led to the growth of an in-country population of individuals and families that were here illegally — and it gradually exerted a force in society, politics, and economics.
There are some who believe that the initial decision to ease enforcement of immigration laws had its roots in economics and was made at the behest of employers who found illegals to be well-suited to their entry-level job requirements. As a practical matter, though, there is little to be gained at this point in determining this. Whatever its initial motivation was, lax enforcement eventually became popular with many religious organizations and local governments, and became a de facto part of life in our country.
As the numbers of illegal immigrants grew, the costs of their residency became more visible. This was unlike the waves of immigrants that had come ashore earlier. After a health screening, when those people walked down the gangplank they were on their own.
Immigrants into 21st-century United States, however, enter a complex world of taxpayer-supported government services that are free to those adept at navigating “the system.”
The beauty of this situation was that as the size of the illegal population grew, politicians could choose how they wanted to profit from its emergence. Some chose to see illegal immigration as fulfilling the promise of America and gained support from that position. Others saw it as a threat to our economy and our way of life, and gained support from that view.
There were some unintended consequences to lax enforcement, of course, because it ignored economics. Somehow it came as a surprise to politicians that when you are constantly boosting the supply of entry level labor with a flow of illegal immigrants exerts a downward force on wages. That’s how economics works.
The fix was obvious to politicians: simply raise the minimum wage. And politicians favoring it quickly found support from workers and unions, along with some popular support as well.
Higher minimum wages in this soggy economy, with an unaltered growth in labor supply, means three things: higher prices for consumers; fewer jobs; and higher taxpayer costs for unemployment and other services provided to those left jobless by the fix.
In the end, the nameless idea of profiting from creating problems, then fixing them, depends on voters’ never seeing the costs clearly and never realizing that they are paying twice for something they didn’t want in the first place. This idea doesn’t deserve a name. Instead, it should be forgotten, and replaced by a good idea — one that respects reality, honesty, economics, and voters.
James McCusker is a Bothell economist, educator and consultant. He also writes a column for the monthly Herald Business Journal.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
