« Thursday Think Tank Round-Up | Main | Your World in Graphs: Social Mobility Edition »
June 01, 2007
Concerns About Guest Workers
Dani Rodrik has a very useful post laying out his arguments with economist George Borjas on guest worker programs. Particularly important is his point on how settled the facts of the matter tend to be: " Our best point estimate has to be that guest workers will create a small net gain for the U.S. economy, with a large margin of uncertainty on both sides. They would also likely exert downward pressure on U.S. wages, especially in the short run. On the other hand, the gains to guest workers themselves is quite large. If you are in gross disagreement with any of these points, do not look to either one of us for support for your position."
Rodrik continues: "But, and here is where we begin to disagree, I do not find putting zero weight on foreigners to be an acceptable moral position. I am willing to accept--and in fact would advocate--a weighting scheme that overweights our own citizens relative to other countries'. But a weight of zero is surely unacceptable. This has bite precisely because the gains to foreign workers are so huge--given the big differences in labor productivity in sending countries. Given these large differences, you would have to put if not zero, a near-zero weight on foreigners to still think that a guest worker program is a lousy idea."
That's not quite true. There are a variety of political reasons you could think guest workers are a bad idea, including a concern over populating the country with a class of workers who are completely disenfranchised and temporary. The larger that class becomes, the more political problems one could imagine occurring. But so far as the economic argument goes, Rodrik's point is sound. Indeed, the economics blogger NotSneaky cleverly mathed it up here.
June 1, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Well, the effect of guest workers on lower-end wages here is acknowledged (to hold down the entry wages), and that seems like a good reason for a progressive to oppose it from the start - particularly since lower quartile wages haven't kept up with the cost of living or the rise in productivity. The positive impact on the families of the guest workers is also good, but there is no way we can make a major dent in supplying-country standards of living just from this program.
My objection, and I hope the objection of all progressives is to the social effect within the US. A two-tier structure is just way to close to indentured servitude for me (or actual slavery, as many of these people essentially live in captivity working off the fees charged for bringing them into the country).
Our mythology is that we are classless, while we know that isn't true economically. But let's not make the classes legal as well as economic.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jun 1, 2007 1:30:37 PM
"Rodrik continues: "But, and here is where we begin to disagree, I do not find putting zero weight on foreigners to be an acceptable moral position. I am willing to accept--and in fact would advocate--a weighting scheme that overweights our own citizens relative to other countries'. But a weight of zero is surely unacceptable. This has bite precisely because the gains to foreign workers are so huge--given the big differences in labor productivity in sending countries"
If we are going to be brutally honest, let's replace 'sending countries' with 'Mexico'. Unless we decide to take our fair share of Iraqi refugees, which we won't, Mexico is where the vast bulk of them come from.
So, we as US citizens now have to put a non-zero value on gains to Mexican immigrants (just legal immigrants? Or those violating the law too?). What say do we get in Mexican social and financial policy? Do we get to vote in Mexican elections? What is our control over PEMEX?
Even more bluntly: are talks underway to merge Mexico into the United States? Or perhaps we should keep Mr. Cheney on for another term and have him invade Mexico after the next election fiasco there.
I trust my point is clear: there would also seem to be a bit of a moral problem with the citizens of one political entity being able to dump all their problems and misjudgements onto the citizens of another political entity without the latter having any say in the process. No Taxation Without Representation, Boston Tea Party, that sort of thing.
Perpetual Worrier
Posted by: Perpetual Worrier | Jun 1, 2007 1:33:26 PM
It is pretty pathetic that America's ruling class and their sycophants can think of no other way to benefit people suffering in other lands than to make them US slaves and indentured servants. The fact that all the benefits of this arrangement accrue to the upper class has no bearing on the ruling classes assessment of the situation...no conflict of interest here...move along.
Oh yeah...and anybody who doesn't agree is a jerk...now that is truly a great augment for a ruling class.
If these people were truly concerned with Mexicans [and it is largely Mexicans] then how about telling the American farming interests that benefited from having NAFTA push Mexican farmers off their land with subsidized US crops to shove off? Let's see if farm interests concern for the downtrodden Mexicans extend to the business of their benefiting from our unfair trade practices...I mean only a jerk wouldn't at least point out that many who come to the US are forced off their land by the same group that professes concern in this instance.
And while we are on the subject...how come Mexicans can own American land, but Americans must lease Mexican land? Could it be the elites of both countries don't want ordinary Americans going down to Mexico and creating Mexican jobs through direct investment? Now that's something that would benefit ordinary people, but upper incomes types would lose their cheap labor, both in the US and Mexico and that wouldn't benefit anybody important would it?
Posted by: S Brennan | Jun 1, 2007 3:22:06 PM
I think that with regard to the issue of guest worker welfare "lui-meme," the absolute welfare gain is, to an extent, offset by the relative welfare loss. The guest worker goes from being the 50th well-off person in a country of 100 people to the 95th well-off person in a richer country of the same size. Liberals have long argued that relative wellbeing matters, for precisely the reasons Ezra states: relative deprivation yields disenfranchisement and an unhealthy, less-cohesive social order, not simply fewer material goods.
I'm not saying the relative loss offsets the absolute gain, but surely it's worth weighing the relative loss in the equation.
Posted by: Marshall | Jun 1, 2007 4:30:54 PM
Here is a Boston Globe article on guest workers:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/04/19/a_lesson_in_immigration/
Guest workers seem like a bad idea.
Posted by: joeo | Jun 1, 2007 7:23:22 PM
It sucks having to choose between American poor and people from poor countries. I'm not sure we should accept that choice--if we simply rule out anything that harms the American working-class, that might force our leaders to expand the options--I'd rather it would be the American rich who pay to benefit the global poor.
Let's think outside the box a little before we let the wealthy instigate an intra-class war between American and foreign poor.
Posted by: Consumatopia | Jun 1, 2007 7:42:17 PM
There's no such thing as "the economy." I couldn't give a rat's ass about raising the per capital GDP if it's just the rich bastards getting richer who shift the average upward. If "downward pressure on wages" is "good for the economy," then screw the economy. To the business wonks and MSNBC talking heads, apparently, the Gateses and Waltons *are* the economy.
Posted by: Kevin Carson | Jun 2, 2007 2:30:05 AM
If these people were truly concerned with Mexicans [and it is largely Mexicans] then how about telling the American farming interests that benefited from having NAFTA push Mexican farmers off their land with subsidized US crops to shove off?
And this is the key point. We do not "have" to choose between poor Mexicans and poor Americans ... it is straightfoward to establish policies that benefit both. However, having benefits for poor Mexicans, poor Americans, and a substantial share of benefits for multi-national corporations is nowhere near as easy, to the policies that "merely" help the poor of both countries is considered "off the table".
Ravaging the Mexican middle-sized farmers ... who are the main source of income to the microfundistas ... as a side effect of subsidizing the profits of Agri-Business is one example. Another is the impact of a FTA when the FTA partners have a net trade deficit, exporting employment from inside to outside the FTA zone.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Jun 2, 2007 10:26:36 AM
Instead of a guest worker program, they should just let them immigrate and stay. But barring that, a guest workers program is a next best option & will add to the guest workers' welfare.
Posted by: DRR | Jun 2, 2007 10:55:00 AM
Did anything ever come of the provision of this bill that mandates that all hiring choices, civilian and governmental alike, must be run through a federal database? I saw a couple of blog posts about this and a few news stories, then people just stopped talking about it. While a guest worker program would be terrible in my view, the aforementioned provision would turn a bad bill that exploits our citizens for the gain of the elite into a massively flawed bill designed to create nation-wide blacklists. Anyone who doubts this would be the result should look into how the government has handled the terrorist and no-fly lists. Anyone here anything else about this?
Posted by: soullite | Jun 2, 2007 10:57:47 AM
The majority immigration problem is from Central America. Isn't it time to look at longer term solutions? A commitment to building a Union like the EU, complete with structural funds transfers is the way to ameliorate the disruptive elements of NAFTA.
Posted by: Meh | Jun 2, 2007 1:53:18 PM
There are serious downsides to guest worker programs, so I was surprised when I called my progressive immigration lawyer friend and found that she favors a guest worker program, as long as the visas are portable (so the workers aren't tied to a particular employer, which gives employers too much power) and there can be dual intent (so guest workers can also apply for other status, such as permanent residency or citizenship, under normal rules for those types of immigration). Last I heard, only the first condition is met in the immigration bill, but it's the more important one, in my view, as it protects the guest workers, makes it practical for them to join unions, and thus also helps mitigate some of the downward pressure on wages.
By itself, I don't know that I'd support this guest worker program, but in the context of the immigration bill, it comes as the price for a humane way to deal with the 12 million illegals who are already here. It's also bound to decrease the number of illegal immigrants, who have even fewer rights than guest workers. That's one reason some immigration activists actually support a guest worker program over what we have now: it's better for everyone, including the workers themselves and low-wage American citizens.
(It should also be mentioned that the downward pressure on wages will be countered somewhat by downward pressure on prices in some areas especially important to low-wage workers, such as food.)
Soullite, I'm sure the federal database will remain part of the bill. I don't see any way around knowing who you're bringing into the country and hiring. How else can you deal with illegal immigration?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 2, 2007 3:43:46 PM
18wK6B Hey, there is what you need.
Posted by: AAS | Jun 17, 2007 9:00:34 PM
Kg60wH First of all, there’s no one else like YOU—your story is unique and you can tell about people, times, and places that only YOU can share.
Why not tell your grandchildren about you….plus their grandparents, great-grandparents, and even their great-great grandparents (that’s
your grandparents)! It’s really about creating a loving, lasting bond—preserving not just life stories, but relationships, for
generations to come.
Of course, you can also give them your own advice about love, work, and how to lead a good life. Here was my grandma’s advice to me: “Be
what you want. If you do something, do it the best you can.” Because it’s my grandma, it means so much more. I’ll always be able to
remember what she said because it was actually written down. What’s your advice for your family? This is your opportunity to write it
down.
Reminiscing is good for you too! Over 100 studies over the last 10 years have found that reminiscing lowers depression, alleviates
physical symptoms (arthritis, asthma), and stimulates the hippocampus where memories are stored in the brain. So consider the great
health reasons for reminiscing too.
Posted by: Beth Sanders | Jul 18, 2007 12:23:39 PM
E1fkVW First there is the need to find the real meaning life has for you. This journey we are all on is a varied one, for sure, but there are some similar things we are all going through.
Each of us, in our search for meaning in life, has a vast amount of experience to draw upon. Our struggles and hardship, along with our achievements and blessings, teach us life’s lessons. Your experience, your strength and the hope that endures are part of your unique story — and part of the reason why you should tell your life story.
The second primary reason to tell your life story is to leave your mark. We all want to be remembered. Certainly we want to be remembered for the good we've done and for the significant accomplishments in our lives. There is satisfaction in a life well-lived. Living a life fully... richly experiencing what it means to be alive and involved in helping others is a great thing. To share with others who you are, what you are about and what you believe in is passing on some very valuable personal history.
Posted by: Maria Sanches | Jul 18, 2007 7:24:31 PM
9eSoVp Parks was born Rosa McCauley in Tuskegee, Alabama. When she was still a young child her parents separated, and she moved with her mother to Montgomery. There she grew up in an extended family that included her maternal grandparents and her younger brother, Sylvester. Montgomery, Alabama, was hardly a hospitable city for blacks in the 1920s and 1930s. As she grew up, Rosa was shunted into second-rate all-black schools, such as the Montgomery Industrial School for Girls, and she faced daily rounds of laws governing her behavior in public places. Ms. magazine contributor Eloise Greenfield noted that Rosa always detested having to drink from special water fountains and having to forgo lunch at the whites-only restaurants downtown. Still, wrote Greenfield, "with her mother's help, Rosa was able to grow up proud of herself and other black people, even while living with these rules.... People should be judged by the respect they have for themselves and others, Mrs. McCauley said. Rosa grew up believing this."
Posted by: Rosa McCauley | Jul 21, 2007 12:41:44 PM
oqmwkU The Jim Crow rules for the public bus system in Montgomery almost defy belief today. Black customers had to enter the bus at the front door, pay the fare, exit the front door and climb aboard again at the rear door. Even though the majority of bus passengers were black, the front four rows of seats were always reserved for white customers. Bennett wrote: "It was a common sight in those days to see Black men and women standing in silence and silent fury over the four empty seats reserved for whites." Behind these seats was a middle section that blacks could use only if there was no white demand. However, if so much as one white customer needed a seat in this "no- man's land," all the blacks in that section had to move. Bennett concluded: "This was, as you can see, pure madness, and it caused no end of trouble and hard feeling." In fact, Parks herself was once thrown off a bus for refusing to endure the charade of entry by the back door. In the year preceding Parks's fateful ride, three other black women had been arrested for refusing to give their seats to white men. Still the system was firmly entrenched, and Parks would often walk to her home to spare herself the humiliation of the bus.
Posted by: Jim Crow | Jul 22, 2007 2:05:57 PM
Best prices for xanax.
xanax in Canada drugstores.
illegal xanax bar
xanax g3722
xanax without prescription
2mg xanax
xanax and serapax
xanax
buy xanax without prescription in usa
Posted by: Drygrough | Feb 5, 2008 1:21:49 AM
How do you do...
http://renerpal.com
Excellent site with fantastic references and reading.... well done indeed...!
The Regard! The Excellent forum! Thank you!
Posted by: Drygrough | Mar 19, 2008 2:42:54 AM
lakebtzux yztmnxve zuve vxefrkotc dzjcxymu mrvbnxz ypugkf
Posted by: igfujr kmuw | May 4, 2008 9:25:25 AM
