I start with the postulate that the only legitimate function of government is to promote the welfare of its citizens. This is something at which they typically fail, but in my view it's the only thing they ought to be doing.
(image from photobucket.com)
If this is the case, then our immigration policy should be clear. We should only admit those immigrants likely to enhance the general prosperity of our economy. That would seem to consist of workers currently being admitted as temporary workers under H1 visas. If we can get them to stay, we should. They tend to be highly paid, and by definition they have skill sets for which there's constant demand, even in this economy. The argument has been made that this has the effect of depressing wages in the nursing and tech industries. By and large, I'm willing to allow that, as providing a more generalized benefit to the country than the cost it exacts from a subgroup of the nation's citizens. I think the health of the whole country suffers when there's a nursing shortage.
(image from eduinreview.com)
This logic does not apply to H2 visas, nor does it apply to illegal immigrants. The effect of increasing the labor supply in the fields of agriculture or construction or hospitality will again be to depress the average wage in those fields. But this increased productivity benefits a far more narrow segment of the citizenry than is the case with nurses or programmers. Meanwhile, the number of people whose wages are impacted is much larger in the case of low-skill, low wage jobs. Instead of the costs being born by a small segment of the middle class, the costs are born by the working and lower classes. And the difference between $8 and $12 per hour is MUCH greater than the difference between $20 and $30 per hour.
It is constantly claimed that "Americans don't want these jobs." That is demonstrably untrue. Americans don't want those jobs at that particular rate of pay. If you pay a busboy $12 an hour, you'll have a line of American applicants stretching into your dining room. If you can't afford to pay a living wage to your employees, you need to raise your prices. And, I want to see your books, because you're doing something wrong.
On the other hand...
it's awfully hard for me to justify telling Mexicans that they can't look for work in parts of our country that we stole from them, in an unjustifiable war of aggression aimed at creating more slave states.
While I agree with “the legitimate function of government” stance, I do not believe I agree with you on H1 or H2 Visas, or at least I want nuances to them.
ReplyDelete1. When H1 are used for nurses, in particular – I have a problem. Only 25% of Americans have a 4-year degree. A nursing degree is not particularly easy to get, but anyone with one will always be able to find a job. Friday, the New York Times published an article that suggested part of the problem with our slow economic recovery and in particular labor recovery was that this downturn, like previous downturns destroyed permanently unskilled jobs and skilled jobs are going unfilled. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/business/economy/02manufacturing.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=job%20skills&st=cse)
As a business manager, I completely understand the short-term positive impact of relieving my labor shortage problem with extra-nationals, and I know that their receiving paychecks and benefits and living here improves the economy. However, by relieving my pain, you reduce the incentive of businesses to creatively solve (maybe through informal – or maybe formal methods) and cooperate with the education system or even their own employees who’ve proven themselves smart and capable to receive additional training.
For instance, in healthcare and hospitals (my industry) is there a program to identify ward clerks, LPNs and nursing assistants, with the requisite potential and then an investment is made allowing them to become degreed RNs? These kinds of arrangements are made all of the time for physicians. You have an internal medicine physician and resident, for instance, who wants to do a neurology fellowship to become a neurologist. Often, a hospital will pay for the neuro fellowship, and may even pay the physician a stipend while he or she attends school to bring them back. Why not lower level workers with critical skills?
My perception is that business practices are a type of chaotic activity. There are “micro rules” for how it is practiced at a highly granular level, but really – at the macro level, it is like all other human activity. It has a certain amount of randomness, it responds to fads and fashion, it is self-interested but inefficiently, over time, it responds to pressure points. Relieving the pressure on common labor positions, even with critical skills may help our economy grow in the short-term, but it reduces incentives to grow our own people and the long-term benefits to our citizens (the only legitimate role for government) is abrogated.
2. I am not against allowing the “exceptional” migration of people with key skills or knowledge. But, I don’t think nurses, or machinists, or engineers, or software developers represent the level of specialization necessary to get the exception. Ph.Ds in physics? OK
I think your idea of identifying employees with the potential to become RNs is fascinating. In my own 3 year brush with the healthcare system, there was a steady migration of housekeepers into nursing aid positions. Many of those people might have made terrific nurses, and had they been encouraged and nurtured, would have been thrilled to continue moving up the ladder.
ReplyDeleteAre there programs like this in place (at the nursing level) that you know of? If not, what are the barriers to implementing them?