It’s wrong because it’s against the law. Companies do not serve their shareholders by breaking the law. Perhaps in the short term they might, but certainly not in the long term.
If it weren’t against the law to hire illegals, then the only concerns a company would have would be: 1) Possible loss of trained employees who are arrested and deported or 2) A public relations backlash if the practice comes to light. But if it were legal to hire illegals, a company would be right in assessing the risk of doing so and proceding accordingly. It might makes sense in some instances and not in others.
It does favor companies, but it also favors consumers, or so they claim. The problem is that most consumers are also workers, and need to be in order to carry on being a consumer. If enough well-paid jobs are eliminated or sent offshore, then the consumer base starts to wither and profits go down. It’s really ironic, because a company like Wal-Mart would love to pay its people as little as possible. Yet, they love to have well-paid people on the other side of the counter. They NEED those unionized grocery workers, those engineers and programmers, and other well paid workers to spend their dollars at Wal-Mart. They need for that disposable income to exist, and if everyone were making Wal-Mart wages, that wouldn’t be the case.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by John Mace *
I’m not sure what you are getting at. I would make a distinction between legal and illegal imigrants. The former should have the basically same rights, short of voting, as citizens.
[quote]
And that this is also a form of protectionism escapes the analysis?
Extend the same reasoning that demands workers relocate, drop their wages, etc, at the behest of the economy and you’ll get the idea.
So is getting other countries’ labor to me. If you want Indian labor so much, go be an Indian company. Give up our legal system, our legislature, our police, our laws, etc. MHO.
Well, that’s exactly what a company does when it locates an operation overseas. That operation is an entity subject to the laws of the country wherein it resides.
You have to realize that there is simply no way to stop comanies from outsourcing job functions overseas, even if that was a good thing to do. If they can’t have their own operations there, they will simply subcontract out the jobs to overseas companies set up for that purpose.
I’m still waiting for you, or some other person arguing the same side with you, to tell me the differenct between the 2 scenarios I outlined in the first post I made to this thread. Why don’t you take a crack at it?
It seems like a small price to pay to keep every Al Qaeda member from coming here and blowing up the entire country. But that’s just me-- I happen to like being alive.
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that if we threw open the borders, there would be no (or few) safety issues?
Actually, I would have no problems with an open borders policy as long as each entrant were 1) subject to good background security checks and 2) disallowed from receiving any form of government welfare for an extended period of time (eg, 5 years).
I’ve seen ideas floated the the entrant should have to post a bond to be used to deport that person if he becomes unable to support himself during a probationary period. Not sure I buy into that, but it is worth consideration.
I’m not on the ‘other’ side, but I’ll take a shot at it John, if you don’t mind.
The company moving jobs to Bangalor are employing workers, improving the infrastructure in Bangalor (to write invoices and coordinate with your workers in the States, you will need a decent network infrastrucure, data communications capabilities, phone system, etc), infusing capital into the area, etc, over a period of time (residual expenses). In the long term, this will provide new markets for both local Indian companies and also foreign companies, as the workers become consumers in their own right.
The company buying a process to automatically packing boxes is paying probably a one time fee (capital expenditures) for the devices themselves, and maybe money to the British company for use of their patent (if its a patent). The 10 people still working will have to be trained with higher level skills (assuming you were going to keep 10 of the original 100 box packers and retrain them to be able to maintain the machines), or new people will need to be hired with more technical skills. In the long term, this will have little effect, either locally or in Britian, as far as new markets go.
The net effect on US workers is the same of course, 180 will lose their jobs…however its a lot harder to hate a machine than it is some worker in Bangalor who ‘took’ your job away. Its short sighted, but its very human.
An honest answer, and I think that sums it up perfectly. But don’t forget the the 10 people remaining in Company ABC will also most likely be doing higher skilled jobs (as you pointed out for those in Company XYZ).
No. Did I say that? I’ll be more careful next time: It’s one important part of the process that keeps bad guys out.
No, to prevent people from coming here for the sole reason that living on welfare here gives you a better life than what half the world’s population can get in their own countries. They should have to pay taxes. Call that a small price to pay to come here. Alternatively, they could post a bond equivalent to 5 years worth of wealfare payments, refundable in 1 year increments.
I think you’re on to something. Maybe we can also automate the shopping and consuming processes, and eliminate the need for consumers. The jobs are always necessary, because without them there is too little purchasing power in the economy. What’s more, I’m no economist, but I’ll hazard a guess that the optimal revenue across an economy occurs when the income distribution is diamond-shaped, i.e., with most people earning middle incomes. Poor people have too little money to do much consuming, and rich people have more money than they can spend in a way that drives the economy.
You just gave me a business idea. Why buy food which you have to cook, eat, digest and defecate? We will do it all for you for a small markup. Just phone in your order telling us what foods you would like. We will buy them, cook them, eat them and once defecated we will ship the product to you in a lovely container. We save you all the work and our rates are very reasonable.
Oh, Spectre, how could you dare place anyone’s needs over the stockholders?! When the bottom line drops, it must always be someone else’s. We aren’t subserviant to the needs of the state as workers, but the needs of the corporations (the silly old philosophers got it wrong, you see). If it weren’t for stockholders, none of this would be possible! Therefore they are the most protected class and should be free to do whatever they want. The rest of us always live by their glorious sufferance, and if they leave then it is only because we didn’t pay them the proper respect.
When we wish to keep our jobs, it is naughty protectionism. When they wish to drop us like stones, it is Natural Order. I trust you’ll get it right in the future.
Regards,
erl
for The Aristocracy of Yesterday Can Be Yours Today Society and Hunting Club
>> If it weren’t for stockholders, none of this would be possible!
Well, companies need workers as much as workers need companies to employ them. It is a mutual benefit and both sides are free and should be free to enter the relationship under whatever terms they please. That’s freedom.
I cannot see how you can advocate limiting the freedom of corporations to hire and fire without correspondingly advocate limiting the rights of workers.
The fact is that most people are both employed workers and stockholders (through their savings and investments).
The fact is, also, that the more protectionist the policies of any given country the worse the economy and the worse off the workers are. If there is any one thing where economists agree is that protectionism is a bad thing.
This is true, sailor, and I thank you for not taking my hyperbolic remarks too literally. My concern here is only that the system we are discussing is such that it helps stockholders in both the short and long term, while it hurts current workers in the short term and maybe helps the global economy in the long term.
I’m no fan of protectionism, either, but I see it everywhere from the laws we make, to crony capitalism, to the whole of human behavior. People look out for their own interests. Fighting it as if it were the dumbest thing ever is undermining the entire human race. I think a different approach is necessary to overcoming it, that’s all.
Admittedly I have no immediate solution. I just get tired of the win-win scenario business owners get while workers are just supposed to grin and bear it.
My bolding. Nice try, but you’re still wrong. Yes, jobs are necessary, but no particular job or set of jobs is necessary. Jobs have been eliminated due to automation and transfer to lower wage areas for centuries. There is nothing new about what is going on now.
erislover: Still waiting for your reply to my first post in this thread…
Well, I think it depends on what you consider to be fair. Does Joe America have any more right to a certain job than Sanjay India? I mean, if Sanjay can do a better job than Joe, or is willing to do the same level of work for cheaper, then I think it’s only fair that he gets the job. For certain jobs, global competition is increasing, which means Joe is not only competing with Bob and Phil but with Sanjay, as well. But really, if he loses out because someone else is making a better offer, isn’t that perfectly fair? After all, if he loses to Bob or Phil because they had a better offer, no one would complain, right?
Perhaps a mechanism can be put in place so that Joe can outbid Sanjay; perhaps that means lowering or abolishing the minimum wage?
I guess the problem is the difference in cost of living here vs. India; Sanjay can afford to accept the lower wage and still live decently, while Joe may take the same wage and be below the poverty line here. So it is a bit of an unfair advantage, until the exchange rate reflects similar purchasing power.
