Are you saying that your comment, "I have some misgivings about getting
involved in the discussion that Randy started but, whatever." is NOT an
#### No, it was not intended as such and, as I would imagine, the vast
majority of people wouild not see it as such. I merely expressed my
reservations about joining a discussion (no matter who started it) about a
higly emotionally charged subject, with unsavory epithets flying.
Let me clarify: I think that people with advanced degrees in science and
expecially MD's are beneficial to the "owners" of America (its citizens) and
therefore I espouse allowing them into our country, our commonly property.
Just as many businesses seek to hire people who will benefit the business.
If I, Randy Smith, own a business, and I want to hire, I hire the person who
will benefit me, Randy Smith. And if I am a partner in a business, we, the
partners, will dicuss candidates, and hire the ones that benefit us, the
partners, the most. The candidates that are more likely to put more pieces
of green paper in the wallets of the partners are those candidates who will
be hired. An advanced degree is science is often a good marker of such a
candidate (in many cases).
#### So, if you want to fire a few slow and spoiled locals and hire a few
cheaper but faster and better immigrants, it's a good business practice. I
agree. And I like your metaphor of America as a common business property of
all its citizens.
That, my friend, is the way of the world. Unfortunately, many of my AMerican
citizen-partners have been swayed by very wealthy parties such as corporations, who benefit from bringing in more immigrants to lower wages.
### But now you are saying that the impersonal "corporations" should not be allowed to follow your personal lead and hire cheap immigrants, as you descibed in the preceding paragraph. Are you saying that the coporations and their mainly American owners and employees should be denied the same rights of association that you claim for yourself? They also want to "put more pieces of green paper in the wallets of the partners", just like you do. > >----
What do you think of MY "impartial economic analysis" above?
##### I understand your position well, but I wouldn't call it impartial - you would like to have the benefits (ability to hire a cheaper worker for your business) but not the costs (possibility of having to compete against the cheaper worker). This is an eminently personal point of view.
An impartial analysis would look for maximizing the average and total benefit to the average and all Americans, while assuring that no "partner in business" has to bear the brunt of the costs without reaping any benefits.
If the immigrants are as good as possible in their ability to generate economic and scientific advances (meaning - better than the average American), the first of the above conditions would be satisfied. There would be maximum benefit to the business owners who would be able to produce cheaper and better, and to their customers, who would get better prices and products. The overall improvement in labor efficiency would greatly exceed any losses due to the changes brought about by the restructuring of economy, just as the introduction of information technologies allowed the economic growth of the eighties and nineties, benefitting almost everybody despite destroying millions of (now useless) jobs. As long as significant unemployment does not develop, due to excessively fast changes, the costs of such restructuring would not be unduly focused on one subgroup of the population, satisfying the other condition.
Both you as a business owner and you as an employee would be satisfied with the outcome.
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT