It's a catch 22. If all the low skilled labor starts leaving an area, the need for that labor doesn't go away, the labor market becomes tighter, and wages need to rise in order to attract that labor.

So, the people who rely on low skilled labor have two options -- (1) pay more or (2) move their business to a lower-cost labor market.

Except that there are certain low skilled labor needs that are required where people live and can't be moved elsewhere. Such as trash collection, etc. Now you have only option 1.

__________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

I think that's generally right, because if a large number of low-skilled workers leave the market, then competition is reduced and, all things being equal, wages for those low-skilled jobs will rise. In the absence of external intervention, there would presumably be some equilibrium wage that would attract a sufficient number of low-skilled workers and not discourage their employers.

I think the first two sentences are correct, but you've lost me on the third. If some low-skilled workers move to other markets, then competition decreases and wages presumably increase. [Sorry, forgot to complete my thought here: But you presumably get back to some equilibrium that attracts workers but does not repel employers.]

In light of your comments, I suppose I'd amend my earlier post to say that you have three options:

1. Become a higher-skilled worker
2. Move to a lower-cost market
3. Accept low wages in the short run and hope that enough other low-skilled workers choose option 2 to boost your wages over time

The first option is almost always the best strategy. The second option is viable in the short-run, although you have the risk of other low-skilled workers following you to the new market. The third option is, I think, where most people get into trouble -- accepting low wages and hoping that things will change.

__________________
"Everything that guy just said is bull$h!t! Thank you."

-- Vincent LaGuardia Gambini

The unionization rate in Texas is 5.7% (almost the lowest in the country - NC is 3.9%)

The rate in NY State is 26.3% as a comparison.
PA is 16.6%
Ohio is 15.4% (and both of these states have seen the numbers dropped considerably from the 80's when the decline of industry started).

This is why it is chepaer to run a manufacturating operation out of Texas rather than in up state western NY even when the cost of living may be similar.

__________________
"If you have the courage to begin, you have the courage to succeed." -- David Viscott

on the other hand, the immigrants were coming here for jobs which were in abundance because of the liberal regulatory and tax environment, natural resources, and the ability to attract the best and the brightest as well as the most motivated unskilled workers. When wages rise, it has to be displaced, on a per unit basis, with automation. It's a two way street.

I don;t know whether Canadians feel that way or not, but they are undoubtedly less displeased with their country than Mexicans. I also pointed out that growth in the US isn't strictly border growth.

I'm not sure there is one single category wehre the northeast is cheaper. It's not just labor at all. In fact, you have to ask yourself, why does it cost so much to live in Philadelphia? We have plenty of land, why can you profitably build a home in Austin Tx for middle class prices and not Philadelphia? It's not jsut the cost of labor, to a large extent, it's the artifical cost of living here. people just accept the cost of living as something that's not controlled, but it is. wages here have to be higher because it's artificially expensive to live here. People have figured it out (that's why they leave) and so have businesses. Why is my gas bill so high relative to the suburbs? why is it so hard to open a business? why are the streets so filthy but I have the highest tax burden in the US?
and some equally large and, of course, interconnected.

US Car manufacturers set up plants in Mexico and had tons of quality problems. Asian car manufacturers set up in the US, paid less than Detroit, but far more than MExico and ended up with better products. Aside from "wages" there's work rules. I read something about toyota back in the 1980's. they had three or four job codes, Ford had 70-some odd codes. That's not a "cost of living" that's an artificial cost. Places in the south are cheaper not only because the wages are a bit lower, but because you don't have to pay as many people to do nothing.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

Option 4. Collective bargaining.

__________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

that worked for the last generation at the expense of their children.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

Ask the steelworkers in Bucks County how that worked out for them.

Funny to see Obama at the same location that used to employ 10,000 people (including my father who was an engineer who did his co-op from Drexel there and stayed on for another 30 years until he got a buy out to retire early). It now employs about 600 people. Only another 9,400 to go...

__________________
"If you have the courage to begin, you have the courage to succeed." -- David Viscott

Really? My dad was in the union. I'm doing pretty well. I would say his ability to provide a good, stable, middle class home as a result of busting his ass in construction all day was a factor in that. If not for his union wages, negotiated health care, etc., me and my siblings would probably be worse off.

Sure, I guess he could have packed up his family and moved them somewhere else away from their extended family, friends, good school, etc.

__________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

Aside from the obvious that good schools exist elsewhere, your story doesn't prove anything. So you're dad was a union construction worker. Plenty of non-union construction workers in the suburbs as well as Texas do well for their children. It may not have worked out so well for the minorities who were excluded or the thousands who moved elsewhere because artificially high construction costs in Philadelphia meant a limited number of jobs...or houses they couldn't afford. Collective bargaining guaranteed lots of pensions, but those companies (and ones like them) either folded or moved to non-union states. there are good unions out there (although none of them may exist in Philly) but the answer isn't as simplistic as unionizing.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

It proves that your blanket claim that the children of union workers were hurt as a result of their parents being in unions is wrong.

And I never said the answer was as simplistic as unionizing. I mentioned it as an option that workers have and use when they are facing low wages and a high cost of living.

It's also not as simplistic as just moving somewhere else or re-educating yourself and changing careers. That was my point.

__________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin