> A conversation between a conservative and a liberal.

Conservative (C):
The problem is obvious. Foreigners are coming in and working for lower wages than Americans are willing to accept. That drives wages down for everyone else.

Liberal (L):
So they’re offering the same labor for less money?

C:
Exactly. And it hurts American workers.

L:
Isn’t that what competition looks like in a free market?

C:
Not when it’s unfair competition.

L:
What makes it unfair?

C:
They’re willing to work for less.

L:
Right—but in capitalism, isn’t the ability to provide the same service at a lower cost considered a competitive advantage?

C:
In theory, sure. But this is different.

L:
Different how? Are they using force or fraud?

C:
No, but they undercut wages.

L:
So if a native-born worker offered to do the same job for less, would that also be unfair?

C:
No, that’s their right.

L:
So it’s acceptable when Americans do it, but not when foreigners do?

C:
Well, Americans shouldn’t have to compete with people willing to accept poverty wages.

L:
But you oppose minimum wage laws, right?

C:
Absolutely. Wages should be set by the market.

L:
And you support right-to-work laws?

C:
Of course. People should be free to work for whatever wage they agree to.

L:
Even if that wage is lower than what others accept?

C:
Yes. That’s freedom.

L:
Then why shouldn’t a foreign worker have that same freedom to accept a lower wage?

C:
Because it hurts American workers.

L:
But earlier you said unions hurt workers by artificially raising wages.

C:
They do. Unions distort the market.

L:
So raising wages through collective bargaining is bad because it interferes with the market—but lowering wages through increased labor supply is also bad?

C:
Lowering wages isn’t the problem. It’s who’s doing it.

L:
So the issue isn’t wage suppression—it’s competition you don’t like?

C:
That’s not what I said.

L:
Let me check my understanding. You believe:
    •    Workers should be free to work for less
    •    Employers should be free to hire the cheapest labor
    •    The market should set wages without interference
But when the market produces lower wages due to foreign labor, that outcome is suddenly unacceptable?

C:
Well, the market shouldn’t work that way.

L:
Why not?

C:
Because it hurts Americans.

L:
So when the market hurts workers through outsourcing, immigration, or wage competition, you want intervention—but when the market hurts workers through low wages, no benefits, or unsafe conditions, you oppose intervention?

C:
That’s not intervention. That’s protecting our people.

L:
Protected how? By preventing people from competing on price?

C:
Yes.

L:
Isn’t that exactly what you accuse unions of doing?

C:
Unions force wages up.

L:
And restricting labor supply forces wages up too, doesn’t it?

C:
…That’s different.

L:
Different how—economically?

C:
It just is.

L:
So you support free markets, as long as they don’t produce outcomes you don’t like?

C:
I support free markets that work.

L:
And when they don’t?

C:
Then something must be wrong with them.

L:
Not with your assumptions?

C:
…

L:
So maybe the issue isn’t foreigners, unions, or wages—but deciding when “the free market” applies based on who benefits?

C:
I think we’re done here.