Oliver Costich wrote in
news:038i80hr6l9pmurauvar87k1p2c80i7fo9@4ax.com:
> 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.
Which you could fix by offering to work for minimum wage. Not interested?
Gee, I wonder why not? The funny thing is that _legal_ immigrants aren't
either, at least not the job-related ones.
> 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.
>
>
Actually the real problem is that most immigrants get in on family
reunification. The ones who get in on job-related preferences are
_required_ to make relatively decent wages, and are really very well
prevented from consuming more in services than they contribute. Ironically,
since I haven't chosen to become a US citizen I can't bring in all my poor
relations, not that I really have any. Of course, I'm sure it must be fun
coming on here to do some immigrant-bating, but it would be more
constructive to look at how the immigration system really works.
There are only two things that can be done to make sure the economic
balance works out:-
1) Reduce or even eliminate family reunification preferences, which is
politically difficult, although those of us from developped countries
wouldn't really care as we don't bring in lots of relatives;
2) Keep out the illegals, which is almost impossible to acheive from a
practical standpoint, plus who will do the jobs that nobody wants? |
