Bush urges US Congress to lift H-1B visa limit

PTI ^ | February 03, 2006 | Sridhar Krishnaswami

[JasonC]

Ping means inviting someone to a thread they are not currently participating in. FR term. Replying to others active in the same thread isn't "pinging", it is just discussion.

[maui_hawaii]

Debate about what?

Oh brother.

Debate on trade. Economics and particularly why everyone not on board with your limited view, how they are not doom and gloomers or protectionists, or anti trade.

Its not a fight. I can win with not one slur or attack.

Why would I want to debate you about nothing?

Because its not nothing, and secondly discussing it professionally will hopefully cut out the mud slinging about the stuff on this very thread...

One side yells traitor and the other screams protectionist...

Its like two brick walls arguing with each other....that circle has been going round and round for several years.

I am ready to end it.

[Sam the Sham]

Exporting the American standard of living, levelling it to globalist levels, doesn't do one damn thing for the American worker.

It is great for people who own businesses and live off of returns from investment. It is lousy for the average American. And what does 'record equity' mean, by the way ? Are you pointing to half a million being the median price for a California home as being a sign of strength ? Are you aware most California mortgages are interest only ?

[logician2u]

You are correct that they are doing it for (mostly) big business.

If you think business should be prohibited by law from hiring "furriners", however, you are wrong.

This is -- or was -- a free country, one where free exchanges -- labor or goods -- are not within the purview of federal authorities.

The federal government has no business either promoting or restricting certain transactions, regardless as to their alleged benefit to the economy or detriment to "national security."

[1rudeboy]

Bernie Sanders pod-person alert.

[JasonC]

What playing field? What level? What rigged? I simply pointed out that wages are up 64% in the last 16 years. If companies could pick whatever wage level they wanted to exploit their workers in good Marxist fashion, do you think the level they'd pick would gallop ahead 64% in 16 years? Why?

Real economics understands that wage levels are set by the marginal productivity of labor, not by imaginary conspiracies of exploiters. Wages have risen in the last 16 years - just as they have risen in the last 160 years, since Marx - because what labor is able to do is worth more dollars than it was worth before.

Rising wages over every historical time scale you care to name are a proof that no conspiratorial undersetting of wages is going on because it is not in the alleged interests of the alleged conspirators, yet it relentlessly happens. Proving they are not in control of wages. They also prove that Malthusian arguments about imaginary "races to the bottom" and "iron law of wages" talk is simply (though honestly enough) flat wrong.

Wages rise because work accomplishes more, and those doing the accomplishing, precisely because there is competition *for* them as well as among them, capture the vast majority of those increased accomplishments for themselves.

[JasonC]

The man literally said he was challenging me to a debate without bothering to state what about. Come on people, I don't care how ideological you are, that is more than slightly strange.

[JasonC]

Debate about what?

[maui_hawaii]

I have watched you and a few others post time and time again over time. Constantly its about trade and name calling 'economic doom and gloomers' etc, ie 'the circle'.

Thats the subject.

If you can talk the talk, lets back it up.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You like the rest of the free traders want it both ways. It's ok for the government to help corporations find cheap labor but when it comes American citizens they need to butt out. This is no longer the GOP of Lincoln, McKinley and Coolidge, who saw unrestricted free trade for what it was.

[GregoryFul]

Perhaps, but they shouldn't be taken advantage of because of it. People who sing, probably like it, and can make gobs of money from it. People who like to boss others around like it, and can make money from it. Just because I like to solve problems, and am good at it, shouldn't mean that I cannot make money from that activity and products that enrich many.

[1rudeboy]

Check this out. Our friend Itz might know more about Marxism than it appears.

[JasonC]

Trade. Economics.

I'm talking about immigration policy, and in particular maintaining the distinction between high end immigration of skilled workers through programs like 12b-1, which I support and support increasing for reasons of increased economic competitiveness. While I do not support illegal immigration or amnesties for guest workers. I've also stated that I have no problem with using trade strategically for actual grand strategy purposes or to improve human rights, as long as those don't turn into mere excuses to destroy trade. On other threads I've insisted that trade benefits both parties that engage in it economically - which can result in strategic reasons to oppose some trade, as strengthening people better not strengthened - but does not result in any economic argument against trade.

Would you care to tell me which, if any, of those propositions you disagree with?

[JasonC]

I am quite sure you can. An entirely comfortable middle class living, for which any human being ought to be incredibly thankful. I see precious little of thankful - or of work ethic - or of fairness - or of confidence - in this thread. And I don't find that terribly conservative.

[JasonC]

Trade and name calling is the subject? What proposition I have maintained do you disagree with?

[maui_hawaii]

Trade. Economics. Immigration.

This goes hand in hand with 'globalization'.

Title the discussion how you will.

You are not just talking about immigration. Its all here for everyone to see.

So be it.

I'm out. Gotta go.

[JasonC]

h1-b - getting my silly government codes confused - sorry.

[Itzlzha]

Our friend Itz might know more about Marxism than it appears.

Oh, you'd be AMAZED at what I know...

Like how all you OBL-ers and Laissez Faire types just LOVE to scream "Marxist" when someone calls your BS.

See, you cannot claim that the Free Market is unlimited, then gin the game so that only cheap external labor is allowed to compete in the "Free Market".

That is why they all are against a Wall, and ending Illegal Immigration...as well as being so in favor of outsourcing and H-1B visas.

Then they can't artificially depress the prevailing wage in certain markets without being exposed!

And calling me a Marxist is not only laughable, it's rather pathetic to your argument...better shout "Wolf" a little louder...they didn't hear you in China!

[snowsislander]

Thanks for the article it will help him understand that there are plenty of jobs out there.

I would recommend looking also at the reader comments on that page, which give some very interesting counterpoints to that article.

[1rudeboy]

Still don't get it, do you? You thanked somebody for posting a link to Bernie Sanders' website. Completely laughable, except on a conservative website . . . where it's tragic.