>From: "Smigrodzki, Rafal" <SmigrodzkiR@MSX.UPMC.EDU>
>To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: the waves of immigration that now plague this nation
>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:36:11 -0400
>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)
>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
>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
Only when the numbers involved are small, and the benefit is great. By great
benefit, I mean *real science*, or some *special* skill. Importing database
coders to enhance stockholder wallets and CEO bonuses does not qualify.
>And I like your metaphor of America as a common business property of
>all its citizens.
Just remember something--"laziness" of a business owner is a meaningless
concept unless you are a *partner* in the business. If you own a welding
shop, and you prefer not to work on weekends, I, as a non-partner, have no
right to throw you out and take because I see you as lazy.
>That, my friend, is the way of the world. Unfortunately, many of my
>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
Yes, but naturally there are conflicting interests involved in such a large
partnership. And when the partnership is so large, and the money involved
is so great, and so much is concentrated in so few hands, I expect to see
massive propaganda campaigns waged, just as in any election, etc.
>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
I never said that. You are making up stuff. You are implying that I said
that I myself want the choice of hiring cheap immigrant labor, but no one
else can. Why stop there? I am sure there are many other things you can
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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
>Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT