Posted on 03/02/2015 6:17:09 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The problem with your statement is that guest worker programs create that “local market” - a captive market used against US citizens.
The US would be better off to repeal the 1965 Immigration Act and remove the regulations that enable any guest worker programs.
Oh, I’d love to see much of our current immigration law repealed—from chain migration to lotteries to much of our approach to refugees. And I would kick out illegals here currently while shutting down “guest worker” programs for low-skill workers.
We’ve got more low-skill workers than we know what to do with already!
I’d also be fine with essentially shutting down immigration for a generation or so to at least attempt better assimilation.
But if we’re gonna let anyone in, it surely ought to be those with high skill levels who not only pay their own way, but also help to cover the cost of our surfeit of low-skill American workers.
I am entirely against illegal immigration and much of the legal immigration we’re allowing currently.
I am simply observing that high-skill immigration both helps our economy and government coffers and helps to forestall more offshoring, whereas low-skill immigration is actually a net drag on our economy and government coffers and isn’t a useful response to international competition by keeping more desirable jobs at home.
Right—Congress can regulate international trade as it does interstate trade.
Are you saying Americans have no right to interstate trade either?
You cannot tariff interstate trade, foreign trade can be tariffed.
I tend to believe that US citizen born ‘high skills’ have been eroded and even sacked for the quick and cheap money made by using cheap labor in other countries. The pursuit of ‘wealth’ in/by itself is not to be trash canned, but such pursuit that ignores the roots of achievement is a show of disdain for the roots.
The feds are getting ready to tax the Internet, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a right to engage in Internet commerce. In reality, the feds can do pretty much what they want, but that is stomping on our rights for economic interaction domestically—or abroad.
The "global trend" is a race to the bottom, where everyone makes 3rd-world wages - and barely survives in 3rd-world living standards. Worse yet, most working people will be captives of their employers; basically they will be property.
This was the system in past millennia, and it is the system that the elites have always preferred in every age and place.
No, thank you. I don't want to go back to that future.
This ought to be true in theory. It does not work so well in practice.
In practice we are not getting very much high-skill immigration. What we are getting is a subservient and mostly docile immigrant workforce that is used to disempower the natives. That is the entire point of it.
Rulers have been playing this game at least since Babylonian times. It generally works well for them, for as long as they live. In the long run, the immigrants become the new rulers.
As for the natives - they usually don't do so well.
We don’t get much high skill immigration because we make it very difficult for such people to come and stay, whereas we allow in many legal and illegal low-skill immigrants whose offspring at least three generations in continue to be low-skill drains on us.
Countries like Canada and Australia have figured out how to allow in the high-skill folks only—and they do help those economies quite a bit. As I posted elsewhere on this thread I’d be fine with stopping immigration altogether for a period of assimilation, but yes, even high-skill people if allowed in should be allowed only in moderation.
The Schadenfreude was amusing. In their quest for cheap foreign workers they put the date center in the interior of India. Their communications worked pretty well to the cable head in Mumbai but the final link was the local phone company in India. I don't know what they used for data transmission but the joke around the office was it was barbed wire. Deloitte had about as much down time as up time. They lost a lot of money over that. They were constantly screaming at us over outages that always proved out to be Indian local services.
The Indian local telco was a bureaucratic cluster **** and basically didn't give a damn. They worked when they felt like it and we didn't have any leverage. Once the line went into interior of India it went to hell and Deloitte was hoisted on their own petard in their quest to save money and cull American workers.
I agree. This is outsourcing in a nutshell. This concept is rarely the right approach yet is has become the norm in corp America.
Think about it in simple terms. "Managed Services", "Outsourcing" is always sold on the basis of cost. Now think about this. Pretend your home is a corporation. Is it cheaper for you to mow the lawn yourself or to "outsource" it to someone else? Which is likely to produce the high quality outcome?
This is merely a rationalization for outsourcing. The real reason in most cases is that management does not know how to run an operation and is sick of dealing with it. In many situations, the executives will gladly pay premiums to unload a troublesome department or division.
Things rarely work out well for the staff in such conditions. They often do not work out well for the company either. The executives generally do not care. They will be promoted or retired before the effects of their decisions are manifested.
Leaving problems for successors to deal with is a time-honored strategy at all levels in an organization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.