posted
Pelegius- Pay attention to what Belle said. I didn't see her imply that American workers were somehow more virtuous-she was simply refuting what she saw as OSC implication that Mexican immigrants were harder workers. Also, those employers were not excluding immigrants by national origins, but simply attempting to obey the law. To say such people are xenophobic is just not right.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yay! I agree with OSC about something. Good for him! Italics mine
Hrmm...that's a bit more presumption than I would've expected from you, kmbboots.
You're right. That didn't come out quite the way I intended. I did not mean "good for him (to agree with the wonderful me)" as the juxtapostion suggests.
It was meant in a more "Atta boy" kind of way.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" Also, those employers were not excluding immigrants by national origins, but simply attempting to obey the law." Please see my post on this thread, or, better yet, the thread I created for the purpose, as to why "obeying the law" is, in this instance, not a moral act.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the illegal immigrants in this country work with forged papers. They provide their employers with a social security number and income taxes, FICA and all those other payroll taxes get deducted from their checks.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: " Also, those employers were not excluding immigrants by national origins, but simply attempting to obey the law." Please see my post on this thread, or, better yet, the thread I created for the purpose, as to why "obeying the law" is, in this instance, not a moral act.
If anyone gets to claim the moral high ground in breaking the law, it's not the contractors Belle is speaking of. Maybe a contractor who paid the same wages to illegal immigrants and somehow made sure they gave those immigrants the value for the payroll taxes and other benefits the immigrants can't participate in might successfully make such a claim.
But when those breaking the law are saving thousands and thousands of dollars and getting business you wouldn't otherwise get, it's a little too convenient to say that those breaking the law are being more moral than those who aren't.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would generaly agree, but they could certainly claim to be less immoral than, say, the House.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, they couldn't. They're making a buck and hurting others who obey the law so that they can make a buck. That's not moral.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Schindler was immoral? They are making a profit, albeit in less than perfectly moral manner, by employing people who would else wise be doomed to death or deportation. To be perfectly clear, I believe they should pay minimum wage too. I also think that it is the governments responsibility to ensure this, which they cannot do under their own xenophobic laws.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bringing in the FairTax or a VAT (and eliminating all other non-property non-sales taxes) would level the ground between legals and illegals. Only then could the argument be made that illegals steal jobs. Right now it more or less balances out at the end of the Financial Year.
Privatising Social Security would moot the other argument that they're freeloading, but then who would want to take away your right to get something for nothing anytime you want?
If they did do that, however, does anyone really think medicine, superannuation and insurance wouldn't become cheaper and more valuable?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the illegal immigrants in this country work with forged papers. They provide their employers with a social security number and income taxes, FICA and all those other payroll taxes get deducted from their checks.
I beg to differ, specifically in regards to the construction industry, because I know first hand that the majority of construction companies that employ illegals do so under the table. My husband and I have been in this business for more than a decade and have plenty of first hand knowledge of how things work, I'm not just talking about some abstract problem, we actually face this and deal with it every day.
We have both lost jobs to people who employed under the table illegals and we've known many employers who do it and tell how stupid we are to actually pay taxes on our employers and what the heck are we doing buying worker's comp and paying unemployment taxes. "Just go down to the corner of X and Y streets and pick you up some Mexicans for the day. They work cheap and you ain't gotta pay taxes." We've heard that many, many times.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: One of the few World Watches I have agreed with. He clearly put in enormous effort and argue convincingly.
I think it's funny that OSC only argues convincingly in World Watches with a thesis you already agree with.
Also...
quote:I very much doubt your husband does that work at or near minimum wage, or that his equally experienced coworkers do either.
I employ people at minimum wage (or just above, if they earn it). I have seen countless hardworking, dedicated individuals. No immigrant has a monopoly on that.
All that said... I'm for open borders, and I agree with most of the World Watch.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's an ugly, all too human truth that is ignored in this debate. Our economy requires a group of workers that are not full participants in the social contract.
It's pretty simple math. Materials = M, wages = W, Cost = C.
$1 M + $1 W = $2 C. The person making the $1 can't afford the cost. If you up their wage to $2, then the cost follows to $3.
Staples must be produced by people that by and large cannot afford to buy them. That's just the way it is.
Other cultures and times had slaves or colonies. We have illegal immigrants.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I employ people at minimum wage (or just above, if they earn it). I have seen countless hardworking, dedicated individuals. No immigrant has a monopoly on that.
Who said anything about a monopoly? No one here, that's for sure.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foust, ????? What Economics class did you take? That might be true if our economy produced only one good, but luckily, that's not the case. Our workers, illegal or not, are not limited to buying only the staples they produce.
Everyone else, I also think it's rather funny that there seems to be a rather large group of people here that is usually so quick to complain about the rhetorical embellishments and exaggerations that OSC usually employs, and yet now that he writes something that you agree with in that exact same style, that same group has nothing but praise for him. It’s not everyone, though. At least twinky recognized that it’s still the same Card. Just to clarify, I don’t have that big a problem with OSC’s style no matter which side of the issue I’m on.
In this case, his article did cause me to rethink some of the opinions I had, in particular the “immigrants don’t pay taxes” idea. His explanation does make sense, and I can see how illegal immigration might turn out to be a net positive on that front.
However, the thing that worries me most is one that he does not address, although Belle touched on some of its practical applications. One thing we do know about Mexican immigration is that it drives down wages for the lowest class of workers. This is just simple supply and demand – if the supply of cheap labor goes up, the price of that labor (the wage) will go down. Do we really know how big an effect it would have if we all of the sudden completely opened our southern border? Would there be only a few more immigrants than there are now (I find this doubtful), or would it be a flood? How would our economy handle a supply shock like that?
And it’s no good to just say “well, the wage can’t drop below minimum wage anyway, so there’s nothing to worry about.” Because if the minimum wage is binding – meaning if there are more people willing to work for that wage than employers offering jobs – what we have is higher unemployment, not just for the new immigrants, but for all workers at that wage level. And it could still even drive wages down for the jobs that are now more than minimum wage as well. If that is the case, are we willing to sacrifice some of the quality of life of our current lowest class citizens for the well-being of immigrants?
Now keep in mind that these are not rhetorical questions to me. I really don’t know the answers, and I don’t know if that is actually what would happen if we opened our borders. But I know that it could happen, and I find it troubling that I haven’t heard more discussion on this aspect of the immigration issue.
Lastly, OSC’s spiel about “we have no right to keep the Mexicans out ‘cause we stole the land from them” is not convincing to me. Whether or not his interpretation of events is true, all of that happened 150 years ago, and we have to deal with the situation as it is today. Today the USA is a sovereign nation, and I believe we have the right to control our borders in the way that best serves the interests of our nation. I actually think it might be in our best interests to allow more immigration, but probably not unlimited immigration, and certainly not unlimited immigration all at once.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole "arbitrary lines" thing seems a silly point to argue. If he's going to argue that they should be allowed in because there is no such thing as national boundaries (or that they aren't legitimate in this particular case), then why not just argue that we invade and take over Mexico. We could simplify the process greatly just taking over their country and running it for them.
Instead of bringing Mexicans to America, bring America to the Mexicans.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the kid in that example had called an ambulance rather than taken his car to the hospital? And what if the ambulance drivers had refused to pick him up because some poor hick from the country isn't the kind of riffraff they choose to waste their time on? Wouldn't we have the right to be more morally horrified over their actions as we would be over a highway patrolman who is at least trying to enforce a law that impacts the safety of other citizens?
That being the case, why should people from Mexico, which is an absolute paradise and an economic powerhouse compared to the majority of other places on Earth and times in our history, be the only ones that benefit from the opportunities in America? Why is no one advocating the deployment of all the ships and planes we can build to, say, sub-Saharan Africa to pick up everyone that lives there who wants to come and take them, en masse with no questions asked, to Chicago or Baltimore? I'm sure these people would work just as hard as the Mexicans, and it seems very racist and discriminatory to offer our country's economic advantages only to the people already fortunate enough to have the independent means to get here.
posted
As a retort to Card's essay, I'd like to point out that illegal immigrants get jobs that otherwise might have been taken by American teenagers at a similiarly low wage.
Now what's more important: American teenagers from poverty-stricken families being able to help support their families, or Mexicans likewise?
[ July 14, 2006, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the illegal immigrants in this country work with forged papers. They provide their employers with a social security number and income taxes, FICA and all those other payroll taxes get deducted from their checks.
How do you know?
Technically, no one really knows how many illegal workers there are in the country and what fraction of them work on the books vs. off the books. My statement is based on a variety of studies that has estimated the number of illegal workers and their impact on US taxes. The studies vary but the numbers range between 55 and 75% of illegal immigrants who work 'on the book'. The 55% number comes from an anti-immigration organization and 75% number comes from a pro-amnesty organization, so the real number is probably somewhere in the middle.
All the studies I've seen, indicate that the majority of 'off the books' illegal workers are employed in the agricultural sector where the laws requiring employers to obtain documents from their temporary workers are weaker.
Any way you cut it, if the most conservative anti-immigration organizations agree that the majority of illigal immigrants work on the books and so pay all the payroll taxes.
I agree with Belle that business who pay their workers under the table, are defrauding the American people and undermining honest businesses. Every effort should be made to prosecute employers who do this. But that issue is essentially separate from the immigration issue.
Most off the books workers may be illegal immigrants, but they are certainly not the only people working off the books. What's more, immigrants who work off the books generally do so because they can't get work by any other means, where as US residents who work off the books, like their employers, do so specifically to defraud the US government.
[ July 14, 2006, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a retort to Card's essay, I'd like to point out that illegal immigrants get jobs that otherwise might have been taken by American teenagers at a similiarly low wage.
I don't know how much of that is true. I could see it being the case for high level service jobs, like retail or bus boys, but as far as cleaning houses, mowing lawns, or any of the agriculture, and most of the construction-- since construction is often done during school hours-- I don't know how much of this is true.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, teenagers are bound by the minimum wage law (unless they are illegally working under the table), so if an employer has their choice, it seems to make economical sense to hire the illegal... Unless you lower the minimum wage while creating a guest worker program that is accessible and attractive to those who are looking for work illegally, and those who hire illegal workers (this might include lowering witholding to on guest workers to only include income tax and medicare, while exempting them from Social Security).
Or you could have a lower minimum wage for those who are guest workers.
But that sounds too much like selling fellow citizens down the river to lots of folks, so probably wouldn't fly.
posted
American teenagers aren't exactly lining up for jobs picking strawberries for minimum wages.
There is a 900 lb gorilla in the room that no one is talking about. Our current immigration laws are simply attrocious. They are bad laws which are simply unworkable. The US hasn't issued a single unskilled worker VISA in 20 years. Even in cases where immigration VISA are given, the INS is so understaffed that it can take years to get a VISA. A friend of mine married a Phillipino woman who was living in Canada. After there marriage, it took 2 years for her to get her VISA to come the US. I then took additional VISA to bring her son (He was 6 years old when they were finally able to bring him to the US).
In 1986, the US offered amnesty to thousands of unskilled illegal immigrants and then stopped issueing VISAs to unskilled workers. Most of the people who received amnesty in 1986, have developed language and work skills and moved on to better paying jobs. Its fantastic that these people have become economically mobile and moved on to better jobs, but the strawberries still need to be picked.
The US needs workers and people in latin America need jobs. The real problem is that our immigration laws don't recognize this reality and so it has become necessity for farmers to hire illegal workers and for latin Americans to risk their lives to pick our strawberries.
Given the realities of our economy, why have we had such bad laws on the books for the last 20 years. I'm not sure I understand all the reasons but there are at least two biggies.
1. Money. There are alot of unscrupulous businesses that enjoy having a work force that has no legal rights. Its not just a matter of payroll taxes and decent wages. If your employees are worried that they or their families could be deported at anytime, then they are less likely to complain about breaches of contract, form unions, report safety violations, report on the job injuries and so on. This is just speculation, I personally no of several cases where this has happened. When mine workers in Huntington Utah reported serious safety violations, the mine owner called in immigration to check their papers. In another case, a large building contractor refused to pay workers the money stipulated in their contracts. When they complained, he reported them to the immigration authorities. Illegal immigration is only part of a growing labor problem in the US. We have more working poor in the US than we have had for nearly 100 years and this is despite continually rising worker productivity. Current laws favor businesses that have unscrupulous employee practices. Illegal immigration is only symptom of this larger problem.
2. Racism and Xenophobia. I know that not all people who are opposed to open borders are racist, but the movement definitely preys on the fear of foreigners. Especially dark skinned, spanish speaking foreigners.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think most people consider current immigration laws to be absurd, which is may be they haven't been discussed in detail.
In response to your other points, perhaps the reason unskilled workers haven't received VISAs is because of the amount illegal immigration. It looks like a cycle to me- 1. people come here, bypassing INS (now USCIS), mainly for economic reasons 2. fill a labor need 3. no need is seen by immigration for more unskilled workers 4. Therefore, visas are not issued 5. People can't come here legally, so repeat starting at step 1.
I have many concerns about open borders. One of which was mentioned by Kamisaki. The other has to do with the distribution of wealth in this country as you alluded to and Bob specifically mentioned in another thread. I fail to see how an even greater flood of lower paid workers into the economy does anything put widen the gap. The rich & large corporations benefit from reduced wages, while the lower class suffers from even greater reduced wages. Also the middle class could begin to phase out as will. Software designers and engineers from India would work for half of what American ones do and send money back to their country. There's a potential for a huge amount of cash being sent out of the economy to buy the goods and services in another country.
We've pretty much accepted the need for the Fed to help regulate our economy, why is the thought of a federal organization controlling the flow of workers such anathema to people?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone is advocating wide open borders in the near term, just a more flexible/relaxed set of rules to allow people to legally work here.
Now I will admit that personally I advocate for an eventual dropping of all but the obvious security checks for people coming here; that said, I think it is completely reasonable to mandate that at a certain point other nations will have to start reciprocating with looser immigration roadblocks for Americans. I would think that this would lessen your second worry (which, honestly, already happens to a certain extent, though I know of plenty of Indian software engineers that don't really want to go back).
posted
"Now what's more important: American teenagers from poverty-stricken families being able to help support their families, or Mexicans likewise?" Hath not a Mexican eyes?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think it's funny that OSC only argues convincingly in World Watches with a thesis you already agree with.
It is because I disagree with him so often that I felt it was only proper to give him credit when I think he is right.
Pel, (assuming I understand you) you make a very good point and one that we all should remember. You might (in case reaching even those who don't share you taste in literature is important to you) say something like, "Aren't Mexican poor people just as human, and therefore as worthy of our compassion and of opportunity, as American poor people?"
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Software designers and engineers from India would work for half of what American ones do and send money back to their country.
I no a very large number of Inidan and Chinese engineers and none of them would accept a job in the US for half the money American engineers earn. Not a one. And none of them send any significant portion of their money back home, they bring their families here.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Then I'm not entirely sure what to take 'open borders' as meaning. When I hear the phrase, I think that it means anyone can come here who wishes and receive the same benefits as permanent residents. If not anyone who can come here is allowed in, I don't see it as open, and if they don't receive the benefits of being a resident, then I consider it a similar to indentured servitute (pretty much our current system).
I'm in favor or a much more liberal immigration policy, albiet a very regulated one. I'd like us to massively increase the amount of legal immigration up to the point the economy can sustain, but to do so in an efficent and fair manner.
Perhaps I'm just not understanding what open borders means, but it makes me uneasy for a variety of reasons if I take it at face value.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
What about engineers, IT professionals, and computer scientists in India and China currently making the equivalent of USD 4000 a year? They could come here, make 35K a year, live comfortably, and send 10K USD a month home to India (250% of what they were making before). I spoken with some that would jump at the chance to do this.
I'm not saying this will happen, I just wanted you to know I wasn't pulling that out of thin air. Could you answer some of the questions in my post?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, if a thing such will hapen, then globilization will have worked out well and I, for one, will be pleased, as, doubtless, will those who benefit.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been very frustrated with this debate. People on the get-tough side are very angry, and they refer to Mexicans as "invaders" (thus implying that they rape and pillage rather than wash dishes and cut grass), and I've never gotten a calm, coherent explanation as to why we should boot them all out.
But I never tried expressing what I thought, beyond saying that I think working is a good thing even if the government doesn't approve. (And pointing out that if they all left tomorrow, major recession would start the day after.) OSC gave us several arguments, and they're compelling, and I want everyone to read this.
Especially Republicans. All this intra-party debate can do is lose the party influence. Some things might be worth destroying a party over, but not this.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Aren't Mexican poor people just as human, and therefore as worthy of our compassion and of opportunity, as American poor people?"
But should poor Mexicans be our concern over poor Americans? I'm not advocating one way or the other, but asking.
Should we, as a country, care more about our poor than the poor of another country? Isn't there something to the attitude that one should care for one's own, first? I may have compassion for a poor family, but I'm not going to feed them if if causes my own children to go hungry.
Of course, the poor in America are orders of magnitude better off than the poor in other countries, no denying that. We call someone poor if they can't afford their own home and must live in government housing that is air conditioned and has cable TV. To much of the world, that is luxury.
But if we opened things up wide, and allowed immigrants to come in and work freely, what happens when we do have American citizens saying they can't find work because of illegals? Not just in the jobs that people say no American wants, but in jobs where there is competition? Should an employer be required to hire citizens over guest workers, for example? Again, I'm asking, I'm not really sure how I feel about it for certain.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember when Bob Hope was part of the Buy American campaign: "You better believe it matters to me!" It matters to me, but in the reverse direction. The idea that it's virtuous, not wicked, to make a rule never to buy from the destitute, but only the rich -- it's appalling to me.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't know how to frame arguments if the debate is defined like that. If the proponents of open borders are for the dissolution of the United States as a nation, then I'm afraid I must be at odds with the steps taken to achieve such a goal.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Bao, if a thing such will hapen, then globilization will have worked out well and I, for one, will be pleased, as, doubtless, will those who benefit.
I guarantee you that if the American people see that this is the direction the proponents of open boarders wish this country to go, there will be no resolution to the immigration issue that you will be pleased with.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I have already answered your question. When we prick them, they bleed; when we starve them, they hunger. Humanity matters far more than nationality. States which serve only their citizens disgust me with their cynicism.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I think that it is natural to care more for those we know, friends, family. And not a bad thing. I don't think it is a good thing, though, to extend that feeling to those whom we don't know but with whom we share characteristics like race, religion, or nationality. A stranger in Mexico should not mean more or less to me than a stranger in Ireland or a stranger in Idaho.
I think we all have this tendency - to some extent we are trained to feel this way. I think that the more we can overcome it, the better of the world will be.
It comes down to the "who is my neighbor?" thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Immigration policy needs to be considered as part of a larger picture. In order to deal effectively with all the assorted problems related to immigration, we have to look at labor policy and immigration policy together.
First, we need to strengthen labor laws to ensure that all workers, whether US citizens or otherwise, are paid a fair living wage and guaranteed certain rights. As long as businesses can gain an advantage by having illegal workers who can not demand fair wages and basic rights, there will be unscrupulous businesses who seek to do so. The current situation isn't fair to either workers or ethical businesses. It a sad statement on our society when people like Belle and her husband can get driven out of business by unscrupulous competitors who are willing to both cheat their employees and the government.
Second, we need to make it possible for every business that is willing to pay their workers a fair wage including the payroll taxes, to be able to legally get the workers they need.
And finally, we need to make it so that every worker who comes and gets a legal job at a fair wage, can get a legal VISA and be protect equally by US laws.
Maybe we shouldn't completely 'open the borders' to everyone. But our borders should be open to everyone who is willing to work and is able to get a legal job working for a fair wage.
People who are doing valuable work, shouldn't have to risk their lives crossing the border, shouldn't have to live in constant fear of deportation, and shouldn't have to accept substandard pay and working conditions.
Businesses shouldn't need to hire illegal workers either because of a legal worker shortage or to compete with unscrupulous businesses.
Hard working people of any nationality shouldn't loose their jobs because unscrupulous business people can save money hiring illegal workers who don't enjoy the same rights as citizens and legal residents.
All those pieces need to be considered when we reform the immigration laws, or we will create more problems than we solve.
[ July 14, 2006, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Belle, I have already answered your question. When we prick them, they bleed; when we starve them, they hunger. Humanity matters far more than nationality. States which serve only their citizens disgust me with their cynicism.
Yes, dear, you've read Merchant of Venice . We get that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Rabbit, I pretty much agree with everything you said.
quote:States which serve only their citizens disgust me with their cynicism.
I would suggest that the reason states are created is in order to serve the best interests of its citizens. However, keep in mind I'm not suggesting that they care exclusively about their own citizens.
I think states, like individuals, have a certain heirarchy of responsibility. I believe a person has a responsibility first to himself. Then responsibilities to family, neighbors, communities, states, nations, and humanity. Likewise, a state has a responsibility to its citizens, then its residents, then other friendly states, and finally the world as a whole.
That's kind of one of the lenses through which I view the world. Some people obviously disagree with it and have their own views, and I think that many of the policy difference can be attributed to such basic differences in worldview.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, outside of cheap tech support, salaries have gotten very equitable for engineers in India. Our company has a small India team, and they are always afraid of churn because their economy is such that it is very common to have someone accept an offer, only to accept a better one in 2 weeks. There is definitely a bit of parallel economies in India.
As far as 'open borders' I think many more reasonable folks mean "more open borders'. Very few people outside of, perhaps, the hardcore capitalists or hardcore socialists really advocate immediate, or even near term, opening of borders. I think many of the reasonable folks that do want eventual 'open borders' feel a need to convince people that this end goal is worthwhile. This seems to be a recent thing in our society's dialogue. It's understandable, people are big on wanting to know the motives of people advocating change, and if you don't provide those motives (and a defense of them) up front, lately most people will attribute the worst motives to you.
posted
Are you sure Bok? I saw some articles talking about the $4000 a year figure (which does amount to about $36000 in purchasing power there) that were fairly recent. Admittedly though, I haven't seen any studies.
If what you're saying is the case, then open borders is a poorly chosen phrase, IMO. It brings to mind people advocating what Pelegius mentioned which I'm against. I'm not afraid of increased legal immigration, I've mentioned in almost every immigration thread that I'm strongly for this. However, I am afraid of the consequences of opening floodgates.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people who were added to the numbers of 'engineers' in India and China in a recently publicized study had fewer qualifications than auto mechanics here, so that might be part of the confusion.
posted
Well, my anecdotal evidence is not data, and all that. From what I've learned, though, is that their are definitely some efficiencies, especially as you move down the perceived "IT caste system" (irony!), but what we consider software engineers (QA/developers) are now paid closer to the equivalent.
China, on the other hand, could be a lot different.
posted
BQT, the major difference between you and I is that you could add an "at this time" to your last sentence. I think, assuming the world as a whole doesn't fall into another dark age, that open borders are an inevitablility. In the mean time, I'm willing to make measured changes that may lead in that direction. Now if I'm wrong, so be it, or if opening borders is only beneficial to a certain point, fine.
posted
China's Engineers Note: These are people with degrees. For comparison, American Salaries were about: Doctorate w/ experience: Over $100,000. Bach. starting out: $52,000
quote: Global Sources Ltd. today released the results of its 2004 Annual Salary & Career Development Survey, which compares compensation levels among electronic engineers in mainland China's manufacturing industry. Survey results indicate that salaries are on the increase, particularly among engineers with advanced degrees.
Of the 2,287 electronic engineers surveyed, those with doctorates command an annual average salary of US$10,685, up 12 percent from last year. Engineers with master's degrees receive US$9,853, a six percent rise. Those with bachelor's degrees earn US$7,104, an eight percent increase.
But the specific engineer examples aren't really my point. It's the larger issues.
Bok- I see what you're saying. I would not oppose measures that may lead to open borders in the future. However, it really makes me wary because many of these groups I have seen advocating open borders have philosophies that I am diametrically opposed to.
I guess to summarize, I would not support open borders right now. IMO economic and social chaos would ensue. I actually quite like Bush's guest worker plan, except I would really like them to be able to have a path to citizenship once they get here...not the 5 year and send 'em packing plan I've heard floating around. These people will have lives here in 5 years, and it's not fair to do to them. For the same reason I oppose the massive deportation as well.
Immigrants are vital to our economy, and they bring a lot of good things from their culture to this country. Hopefully the bad parts are replaced by good parts in our culture. I just want to see immigration efficiently and fairly regulated.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It’s not everyone, though. At least twinky recognized that it’s still the same Card. Just to clarify, I don’t have that big a problem with OSC’s style no matter which side of the issue I’m on.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
