Lite green cards

Lite green cards
: The assumed take on Bush’s worker immigration reform program — the take I heard on NPR tonight — is that it affects farm workers and maids and their employers and, along with them, it assumes political impact from the Hispanic demographic.

But John Robb has it right, I think: This is really the answer to outsourcing. Rather than sending jobs to India, we can now keep the jobs and bring the workers here. We can reduce the risk of sending too much employment overseas. That’s the essence of it. So instead of “oursourcing,” the buzzphrase will be “guest worker.”

“Guest worker” became a very problematic phrase in Germany after its boom busted, after the Turks wouldn’t go home and Germany suddenly had a new minority in a country that doesn’t deal with minorities well (understatement). America is, of course, different. We grow with immigration. We are immigration. So this gives us growth with a return policy. And the political impact may be from where you least expect it: From the working middle class, afraid all their jobs were going to be exported. Winners all around, for now.

: See this [via the Boston.com job blog]:

Worried about possible government reaction to the movement of U.S. technology jobs overseas, leading American computer companies are defending recent shifts in employment to Asia and elsewhere as necessary for future profits and warning policy makers against restrictions.

In a report released Wednesday, the companies said government efforts to preserve American jobs through limits on overseas trade would backfire and “could lead to retaliation from our trading partners and even an all-out trade war.”

The effort by the technology industry represents an early response to their growing concerns that U.S. lawmakers may clamp down on the practice, known as “offshoring,” especially during an election year.

See, that’s the hot button.

7 responses to “Lite green cards”

  1. Scott Avatar

    I’d buy it if the main thrust of immigrants spoke English and could do professional services on the cheap, but they can’t. Jobs are being outsourced to India NOT China because of those two reasons.
    This is about cheap manual labor. Does it depress the overall pay scales? Well, yes. But, it’s no joke to say that there are jobs that Americans, even poor Americans won’t do. Certain types of jobs (in certain areas) have two types of workers: hardworking Mexicans/Central Americans and not so hard working Americans, too messed up to work anywhere else.
    A little OT, My brother worked in such a job for a month one summer while in college. It was him, three other white guys and the rest FOB hispanic. The Mexican foreman was so impressed with his work ethic compared to the other three white workers (who like to sneak off and smoke dope), that he asked him to stay on. My brother took it as high praise that that a Mexican foreman appreciated his work.

  2. Sandy P. Avatar
    Sandy P.

    This applies in other areas as well, from December (my hubby’s in mfg) Via trendmacro.
    Manufacturing
    A new report from the National Association of Manufacturers and the Manufacturing Alliance (MAPI) found that much of the manufacturing sector’s problems are not due to unfair actions by our trading partners, but are self-imposed. It notes that we have higher corporate taxes, higher pollution abatement costs, and higher tort liability costs than our key competitors. Overall manufacturing costs are 22.4 percent higher in the U.S. as a result of such self-imposed costs, reducing our competitiveness and contributing to the trade deficit.
    In terms of tort liability, a new report from Tillinghast-Towers Perrin estimates this cost at $233 billion last year, up $27 billion from 2001. The report estimates tort costs at 2.33 percent of GDP, or $809 per person in the U.S. Of this amount, only 22 cents on the dollar goes to compensate victims for actual economic loss. The rest is for lawyers and additional payments for punitive damages and “pain and suffering.”
    We may be reaching the point where something will be done. On December 8, the Wall Street Journal noted that vaccines–including for this year’s flu epidemic–are increasingly unavailable in part due to lawsuits. The cover story in Newsweek this week (Dec. 15 issue) details case after case of absurd lawsuits with multi-billion dollar awards and the ways in which society has been made worse off. A new study from the Congressional Budget Office also examines the growing cost of the tort liability system.
    —
    Also, either hobbsonline/econopundit and/or Marginalrevolutions made the point that frivolous suits cost about $200 bill a year AND the trial lawyers grossed(?) $40 billion could be net, I don’t remember. Either way, they should be considered evil corporate America IMHO.
    —
    Think about what the asbestos litigation has done to the industry, all those billions and the fake boobs, too w/junk science.

  3. henrycopeland Avatar

    “And the political impact may be from where you least expect it: From the working middle class, afraid all their jobs were going to be exported. Winners all around, for now.”
    So US-based jobs won’t be exported, but the workers will be imported? Good for the balance of trade, I guess, but not exactly comforting to US voters, who will still be losing their jobs to cheaper foreign laborers.
    Do states stand any chance against the twin blades of global capitalism and the Internet? Rereading last night William Greider’s 1997 book “One world, ready or not,” I was blown away by how accurate Greider was and is. “Wage arbitrage” has been going on for 50 years, and it’s just getting easier.

  4. Ken Avatar

    “So US-based jobs won’t be exported, but the workers will be imported? Good for the balance of trade, I guess, but not exactly comforting to US voters, who will still be losing their jobs to cheaper foreign laborers. ”
    Yeah, but at least if they come here and compete with us, they’ll have to bear a higher cost of living the same way we do, and use our currency the same way we do.

  5. EB Avatar

    … And pay taxes. Yes? No?

  6. Jennifer Rice Avatar

    I’ve been doing a bit of research on the topic and found a great white paper called “Sorting Through Humanitarian Clashes in Immigration Policy”. . It outlines pros and cons of open, closed and restricted immigration policies. Here are a couple factoids that jumped out at me:
    – Middle-class taxpayers in high-immigration states who subsidize the average immigrant by $1,500 to $4,000 each
    – Because the effect of current immigration numbers is so drastic on the rate of population growth, people who place a high ethical value on clean air and water, protecting eco-systems, resisting congestion and sprawl, and preserving community cultures will have to consider great reductions in the overall numbers as they create an ethically ideal immigration policy.
    – the U.S. Census Bureau projects that under the current rate of immigration the 1970 population of 203 million will nearly double to 394 million by the year 2050… The Census Bureau states that replacement-level immigration currently is 225,000. So illegal immigration would have to be stopped entirely, and legal immigration reduced from 915,000 in 1996 to 225,000 to allow the U.S. population (267 million in 1997) to stabilize soon after 2050 at around 320 million. If we don

  7. California Yankee Avatar

    President Bush should be commended for addressing this issue. But does’t this proposal really amount to an amnesty for those “undocumented men and women now employed in the United States” to whom the President now proposes to give “legal status?”
    President Bush also said “our borders should be shut and barred tight to criminals.” Those “undocumented Workers” are here illegally and are criminals.
    We tried amnesty once before. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made nearly 4 million illegals eligible for legal residency. That policy was an obvious failure because now there are between 8 and 12 “undocumented workers.” If amnesty is now given to these millions, then we should only expect that fifteen years from now we will have to consider amnesty for 20 or 30 million more.