Replies

THE SCHEME SETS UP A STRUCTURE TO LET COMPANIES PUT LABOR OUT THE LOWEST BIDDER!

And the problem with that is...???? I belive that is called "capitalism", a very conservative concept.

The problem is you're basically stacking the deck in favor of the employer. The reason there are so called "jobs that americans won't do" is because usually these jobs have very low pay and no benifits. As long as you keep a flood of people coming in from the third world who will work under those conditions, there's no reason for the conditions to change. If you pay someone enough, you'll have people willing to do any job. Americans will do the work, but a person living even a modest middle income lifestyle can't afford to work for $5.50/hr with basically no protections on the job.

If you were running a job such as asbestos removal, for example, and you didn't feel like paying extra $$$ for things like safety equipment and resparators who would you rather hire an american citizen with all the rights and protections afforded under OSHA and the EPA or an illegal mexican, who won't dare complain for fear of deportation? Take the same scenario, who's more likely to demand higher wages for hazardous work? Again, it isn't that americans are too lazy to work, but they won't work under slave conditions.

Looks like it's time to dig out that Adam Smith book -- "capitalism" is not about everyone out for themselves. That's called selfish mercantilism or simply parasitism, and no society on earth has long survived with the parasites controlling most of the economic decisions. If this is news to you it is because you probably were "educated" in the post-1960s culture of America where the term has been hijacked by two camps -- both internationalist in agenda: neo-libertarians and socialists. There is a middle ground, and it was at the heart of Adam Smith's notion of "capitalism" benefiting societies as well as individuals (striking a rational balance), as well as concepts like "scientific management for profitability" (American Management Association) and U.S. economic policies right through the 1960s.

Two words: free and market. The LIBs love "free," but they LIE about the meaning of the word "market." Define it and enact policies to ensure it remains relatively "free" over generations. If you mean that employers, many of which receive protections from liability by incorporating (SCOTUS: a corporation is a "creature of the law"), and which benefit from the wealth and investments of U.S. citizens primarily -- and the blood of its heroes fighting to sustain it -- will be "free" to import foreign guest workers to substitute for American labor, then it's not truly "free" any more.

Freedom 101 from Jefferson: it comes with responsibilities.

The tax basis for participation will be different in some states (foreign workers on short-term seasonal or "project" assignments routinely get around state and local tax liability). Moreover, there are associated macroeconomic and business costs that are not even reflected in the $ contract between employer and employee:
1. Top consulting firms actually get paid $MM to "train" companies to deal with language and culture issues that DESTROY economic value at firms (all things considered, and assuming an ability to substitute even with HIGHER paid American labor)
2. Tax burden on infrastructure -- health care, insurance, training, welfare, SS, prisons, on and on. Business 101: the full cost of an employee is not simply a function of the negotiated salary. Cheap imported labor, for a large minority share of the pool, merely passes on HIGHER costs for that illusion of "cheaper" labor onto states and the Feds (US via taxes). The net result is an effective cost subsidy for less competitive enterprises for a large minority share of the total firms employing such labor.
3. Productivity. US Federal Reserve bank economists have proven quantitatively in several studies that few have the guts to report on that immigrant labor subsitution has dramatically REDUCED productivity growth in the United States. In other words -- NO KIDDING -- language, training, social and cultural gaps do matter and are weighing on the total wealth creating capacity of the United States.

What we have done is basically create a huge share of the U.S. economy (ballparked in studies at 10-12% of GDP) that is fundamentally dependent upon indirect labor cost subsidies through illegal and legal immigrant labor.

"Free Markets 101" -- that results in ineffective allocations of investment capital that DESTROYS long-run productivity and job creation for short-term gains for a relatively narrow fringe of firms.

Moreover: Many immigrant laborers have subsidies from foreign governments affecting the cost basis for their participation in the non-market "free for all." Indeed one of the lesser known dirty secrets of the racket is that governments in China, South Korea, Egypt, and elsewhere deliberately have incentive/subsidy programs to send people here to work in professional jobs (with rotations back home expected after a few years) or even to set up small "mom and up" shops. Why? Hard currency is the name of the game. They need the $ flowing back into the economies to subsidize a host of programs. The world outside the US exports two things mainly -- natural resources and cheap/slave labor.

The bottom line is that the WH is taking a radical libertarian approach, which, like the "free trade" argument, is not about "free trade" or "free labor markets" at ALL. They are policies for "open markets" that seek the ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF SOCIALIST SUBSIDIES AND INEFFECIENCIES RESULTING FROM POORLY REGULATED MARKETS (E.G., ALLOWING COUNTRIES TO EFFECTIVELY "DUMP" LABOR AND ASSOCIATED POLITICAL COSTS ONTO THE U.S. MARKET -- E.G., MEXICO). MEXICO WOULD HAVE EXPLODED IN ANOTHER REVOLUTION A LONG TIME AGO -- MAYBE RESULTING IN A REAL FREE MARKET THAT WOULD SEE THE END OF THE SOCIALISTS -- WITHOUT SUCKERS IN THE US TO SUPPORT THEM.

Even the advocates who know what the heck they are talking about are careful not to call it "free markets."