On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 03:13:17 +0000, CalgaryAMC
wrote:
>
>Originally posted by Oliver Costich
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004
>10:49:03 +0000, CalgaryAMC
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> >Originally posted by supernav
>> >> >Importing cheap
>labour
>> >is better for the economy than >outsourcing to cheap
>labour in other
>> >countries
>> >>
>> >> Far
>from it.
>> >>
>> >> Importing thru immigration also
>means
>> >you pay for their health care, welfare, illegal
>relatives, their
>> >children they bore here, more cars on the
>freeway, rising rent prices,
>> >crime, etc.
>> >>
>
>> >> Outsourcing means you just pay for the labour. PLUS --
>>
>>it's a global market, so if Jose in mexico now costs $2.00/hr --
>move it
>> >over to Lu Chen in china for $1.00/hr.
>> >>
>
>> >> If american companies
>> >started importing
>indian programmers -- indian programmers would start
>>
>>incurring "american expenses" and would have to demand a higher
>salary.
>> >Easier to keep them programming in their little hut
>to keep costs down.
>> >>
>> >> -= nav =-
>>
>>Back of an envelope economic analysis:
>> >The
>>
>>Indian programmers would presumably also be paying US taxes,
>and
>> >spending much of their income in the US, whilst Lu Chen
>or Jose would be
>> >doing neither.
>> >My argument is
>based on a legal immigrant's marginal
>> >input in tax and
>spending being greater than their marginal cost in
>> >health,
>welfare, traffic congestion and so on, remembering of course
>>
>>that they are not entitled to most benefits. If the difference is
>above
>> >zero for a US worker, it should also be above zero for
>immigrants,
>> >unless there is some factor causing immigrants
>to require more taxpayer-
>> >funded services.
>>
>> The
>your argument rest on a flawed assumption. The costs of social
>>
>benefits, like education for your children, are very high. The
>>
>diifference between contribution and use is NOT greater than zero for
>>
>most US citizens. In addition, immigrants as a whole do consume more
>>
>public services because the majority of them are lower paid cheap
>>
>labor with no job supplied benefits.
>>
>
>That cannot be the
>case for legal immigrants and non-immigrant workers, because they may
>not receive most government benefits.
Check the archives. This has been raised and debunked over and over
again. Californai alone spends nealy $11 billion a year on services
for illegals
>
>The law does not allow for the
>import of cheap labour; it only allows for the import of labour where
>extraordinary ability or domestic skill shortage exists, and then does
>not entitle these workers to any government benefits.
That's bullshit. There is no shortge of labor, just a shortage of
labor at low prices. The meaning of the provison has been distorted to
mean where a domestic shortage exists at prices business wants to pay.
>
>In theory at
>least, I would contend that an employment-based immigrant or non-
>immigrant must be generating more than they are consuming. I will accept
>that the reality may be very different, but suspect that that is the
>case due to inadequate application and enforcement of existing laws.
Then you'd be completely wrong. Unless you have data, shut the .
up. Reality is different? You live in reality ? Apparently not!
>
>
>>At some point this will cease to be the case. Marginal
>
>>cost increases with every immigrant and marginal revenue falls.
>When
>>these two things are equal, a country should close its
>doors.
>
>
>Originally posted by Oliver Costich
>> All
>or nothing? Why not shut off the flow of those who cost more than
>> they
>benefit and accept the rest? That would greatly reduce US
>> immigration,
>but the benefit of immigration would rise substantially.
>>
>
>I
>agree with this. I think if the existing law were properly applied and
>enforced, this would be the case.
So what? "If wishes were horses, then beggars could ride"
>
>Originally posted by Oliver
>Costich
>> >I don't
>> >believe that point has been
>reached in terms of legal immigrants, and
>> >not even close to
>having been reached in terms of legal employment-based
>>
>>immigrants. It may have been reached by factoring in illegal
>immigrants,
>> >but they are illegal, so should not be in the
>country...
>>
>> Even many legal immigrants do not contrinbute more
>than they cost the taxpayers.
>>
>
>Some probably do. It will be
>statistically impossible for bad apples not to exist. But I cannot
>imagine that this is true for the aggregate.
>
>Originally
>posted by Oliver Costich
>> They are imported as cheap labor, so
>that employers can
>> increase profits. The social costs are loaded on
>the taxpayers, so
>> effectively all taxpayers are subsidizing the
>profits of the
>> employers.
>>
>
>We are at cross-purposes. Are
>we talking about illegal fruit-pickers, or legal H-1B holders? I am
>definitely talking about the latter.
>
>Originally posted by
>Oliver Costich
>> A large segment of the current immigranys do have
>a much higher
>> bithrate than others, citizens or not.
>>
>
>I
>don't doubt it. I suspect, however, there exists a significant country-of-
>origin relationship on this though, which is a politically sensitive
>issue.
>
>My initial argument was to refute the claim that importing
>workers is worse than outsourcing jobs. I still maintain that position.
|
