Immigration Samachar - 05

[garam.chadi]

ANALYSIS-Immigration debate reveals limits of market "freedom"
By Nicolaci da Costa

When it comes to commercial agreements, there is no shortage of rhetoric about freedom: free markets, free trade, and the free movement of goods and capital are held up as basic prerequisites for a healthy economy.

Yet when the subject turns to freedom of movement for human beings, emotions get roused, fingers are pointed, anger simmers, legislators make speeches.

"The world is moving ahead in more integrated product markets of goods and services, in capital markets and cross-border investments, and yet we seem to want to hold up a stop-sign to labor mobility," said Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies.

"There is a disconnect there," he said.

Many experts agree that the country would not only be able to absorb the more than 11 million illegal immigrants currently thought to be living in the United States, but it might actually stand to benefit economically from such a move.

In fact, analysts point out that cross-border movement of workers is a quite natural extension of the Western world's predominant free market economic model, where resources are naturally distributed to where they are most needed.

=====================================​

I saw troops of monkey ( Langur ) from India at the Zoo, last summer.
Wonder what Visa they have .. to be here.

 

[marlon2006]

That's the most absurd comment I've ever heard.
It is obvious that immigration inspires competition and that is a good thing. Nicolaci da Costa seems to ignore the US currently allows 1.1-1.5 million immigrants on yearly basis. That is a lot. Even trade of goods and services have tariffs and restrictions imposed. Humans are not goods and services though. Humans make part of the decision process of a country. You cannot just allow an uncontrolled number of individuals come here and exchange people as you do by replacing cars or computers that offer a better price.

How can one allow 'free influx' of immigrants from one country to the other, when the US is the only superpower in the world. The disparity is immense between the US and other countries shipping workers here. Could that benefit employers in the short-term ? Sure, probably Bill Gates and other employers would love to pay $10/hour for a programmer. Think what that would do the average American worker. People from third and overpopulated countries pose what I call an unfair competition. Countries were overpopulated and education somehow was made available to millions at a fraction of the cost of what it cost to get education here in America. That was possible usually thanks to corruption, exploitation and other injustices. It is not fair to expose American workers or any other desirable country to the open market of cheap labor. Opening the doors to the influx of cheap labor would drastically decrease the standard of living of Americans. If you let the free cheap labor get in, you hit the middle class of this country so hard that there is no strong America anymore. What makes this and other developed countries thrive are the strength of the middle class. The comments below are simply absurd.

A good example of this again is the meat-packing industry. It seems that many years ago the meat-packing used to pay $19/hour. Now most of people employed there are making $9/hour, and are immigrants.

ANALYSIS-Immigration debate reveals limits of market "freedom"
By Nicolaci da Costa

When it comes to commercial agreements, there is no shortage of rhetoric about freedom: free markets, free trade, and the free movement of goods and capital are held up as basic prerequisites for a healthy economy.

Yet when the subject turns to freedom of movement for human beings, emotions get roused, fingers are pointed, anger simmers, legislators make speeches.

"The world is moving ahead in more integrated product markets of goods and services, in capital markets and cross-border investments, and yet we seem to want to hold up a stop-sign to labor mobility," said Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies.

"There is a disconnect there," he said.

Many experts agree that the country would not only be able to absorb the more than 11 million illegal immigrants currently thought to be living in the United States, but it might actually stand to benefit economically from such a move.

In fact, analysts point out that cross-border movement of workers is a quite natural extension of the Western world's predominant free market economic model, where resources are naturally distributed to where they are most needed.

=====================================​

I saw troops of monkey ( Langur ) from India at the Zoo, last summer.
Wonder what Visa they have .. to be here.

 

[chanduv23]

That's the most absurd comment I've ever heard.
It is obvious that immigration inspires competition and that is a good thing. Nicolaci da Costa seems to ignore the US currently allows 1.1-1.5 million immigrants on yearly basis. That is a lot. Even trade of goods and services have tariffs and restrictions imposed. Humans are not goods and services though. Humans make part of the decision process of a country. You cannot just allow an uncontrolled number of individuals come here and exchange people as you do by replacing cars or computers that offer a better price.

How can one allow 'free influx' of immigrants from one country to the other, when the US is the only superpower in the world. The disparity is immense between the US and other countries shipping workers here. Could that benefit employers in the short-term ? Sure, probably Bill Gates and other employers would love to pay $10/hour for a programmer. Think what that would do the average American worker. People from third and overpopulated countries pose what I call an unfair competition. Countries were overpopulated and education somehow was made available to millions at a fraction of the cost of what it cost to get education here in America. That was possible usually thanks to corruption, exploitation and other injustices. It is not fair to expose American workers or any other desirable country to the open market of cheap labor. Opening the doors to the influx of cheap labor would drastically decrease the standard of living of Americans. If you let the free cheap labor get in, you hit the middle class of this country so hard that there is no strong America anymore. What makes this and other developed countries thrive are the strength of the middle class. The comments below are simply absurd.

A good example of this again is the meat-packing industry. It seems that many years ago the meat-packing used to pay $19/hour. Now most of people employed there are making $9/hour, and are immigrants.

marlon, your analysis is very good. In general, middle class (honest tax paying rule abiding responsible citizens) gets hit easily. Changing laws and regulations affect the middle class the most. Skilled immigrants are also mostly middle class people in their own country who get promising opportunities in the United States and prefer to immigrate. The system was developed to absorb the best of the people of world while also providing ample opportunities to its citizens. Times have changed now and rules remain the same. Growing population and increasing immigrant population which is more competitive. On one side it is difficult to send these people away because of the value they add, on the other side low skilled and undocumented workers actually do not want to go away. The laws still remain same and does protect locals by having minimum pay and job requirement standards. But then the corporate world is always selfish as it is always. They want to make their penny in any possible way and prey on desperate low skilled or undocumented workers. While many employers adopt and adhere to standards, there are many of them that employ undocumented and low skilled workers so that they can thrive and survive on them and make their penny.
Illegals have officially endorsed through their rallies that they are illegally employed which contradicts the labor law. We can now see how many companies will be cracked down. But what is the long term solution? Will America continue to stack up immigrants knowingly(illegal and legal) and slowly allow the cream to migrate permanantly? I think a long term solution is in its way and we can see some good laws.

 

[gcstrat]

What is progress?

Guys and Gals

The article is written from an ECONOMIST view point. Economist are generally worried about the market i.e. demand and supply and how "freely" the players can intereact in this market.

If you see the world today, there is practically free movement of MONEY i.e. capital; products i.e. goods and services and ideas (patent protection not withstanding). Knowledge access is also relatively free. However, "physical" labor mobility is restricted within a geographic territory (i.e. country). While, you are free to move from Florida to DC or from Hawaii to NY, you are not to free to move from Buffalo to Toronto. How does this affect the market.

Balance or imbalance between the two - supply & demand - affects the "market" pricing of that "commodity". When economists talk about "labor", they are essentially talking about "skills" and nothing much. Social implications are not what economists are trained to do. For that we need behaviorial psychologists.

So, yes, economists are worried about obtaining the "right" resource at the "right time". Even though US allows about a 1 million of so new immigrants, they allow only 140K EB based - i.e. only 140K is the number that can move up or down relative to demand for skills.

For a labor market of over 100 million, this is less than 0.14% of the market - hardly any flexibility in econimic terms.

For 50 years, America was practically the only player in global markets, now the entire world is playing the global game and America is realising it cannot win all the games. And when it loses, it cries foul.

Welcome to 21st century where globalization is a two-way street. You will some, you lose some.

So, economists are right from their perspective. But, if you are Lou Dobbs or any member of NumbersUSA, all this talk is "Anti-American".

Regards
GCStrat

PS: For anyone interested in globalization, I suggest reading Kenichi Ohmae books and articles. Kenichi Ohmae used to the head of Japan geography for McKinsey & Co. Now, I think (not sure) he is a Consultant to the Government of Japan.