The other idea is where my mixed feeling on immigration come in. Cheap labor is wrecking parts of the economy for a certain class of people in the US. The anger over immigration comes from a lot of sources, many of them unjustified. However, many of us on liberal side of the spectrum forget the affect immigration has on workers that are not college educated or highly skilled. This is a real problem...
There are many potential solutions: Provide easier access to education and skilled training programs, apply the minimum wage to undocumented workers, etc. The point is that if we want cheap labor, we must find ways to take care of our displaced fellow citizens. At the same time, we cannot tolerate racist, demonizing or inhumane treatment of immigrant laborers.
Oh, and one last thing, I am really sick of hearing that immigrants are doing the work that Americans do not want to do. I think this quote says it all...
The law could have a chilling effect on the state’s entire economy, warned Elliott Pollack, one of the state’s top economists. The law will certainly make it harder for the agricultural and hospitality industries that depend on illegal immigrants to fill jobs. This will force businesses to pay more for employees living here legally, he said. And that extra cost will be passed on to consumers.
Would that really be so bad?
9 comments:
now, maybe I'm being to simplistic, but if one person needs employment, another person needs labor, and the two agree on a rate of pay, then what business is it of the Government to get involved?
All the labor laws will do is raise the price of goods and raise the rate of unemployment. When prices get too high for consumers, growers will need to cut costs. That means fewer employees. So the immigrant who once came for a "low paying job" will soon leave unemployed. How is that compassionate?
You are assuming that the market is always inherently rational. The model you are speaking of was tried previously (for much of the 19th and early 20th century) and it did not work that well. It was a period of labor unrest and societal upheaval.
I think the market works best when a certain level of standard (safety, wage, labor etc) is maintained. It is my belief that economic models of the right (free market evangelism) and the old left (soft socialism), don't work very well. I believe that we should begin a new model based on national self-interest.
We should design our policy to promote competitiveness internationally though a combination of government policy (universal free college education, improved primary and secondary education with a science and math focus, some sort of universal healthcare provided someone other than an employer and better trade policies in response aggressive unfair practices to protect American business interests and improved research funding) and business practices (obviously our businesses already do things pretty well). I think we collectively need to make the circumstances right for our competitiveness improve.
As far as compassion for the person losing their job, I do have compassion. I talk a lot about the consequences of public policy... Lots of people who have worked hard and been an asset will be displaced by this law.
That sounds awful. I'd rather manage my own life.
If you ever got your way, could I opt out?
Which part don’t you like? Safe work places? Reasonable wages? An efficient healthcare system that does not put our companies at a disadvantage (we pay more per person for healthcare than anywhere in the world at $4,499 per person/year or 13% of our GDP, the next closest is Japan at $2,908 or 8% of GDP)? Or is the part where we lose our super power status to China and India because we cannot compete that you like?
As far as I know, I am not advocating anything compulsory (although some aspects of healthcare, it is hard to say that...), I want people with the freedom and opportunity to do what they do best. How many people would choose to be entrepreneurs if their healthcare was portable? How many people want a better life, but cannot afford more education?
Is that good for us as a society? Does that make us stronger? More competitive?
I want people to worry less about how they will get an education or healthcare and more about they education they will need in a global economy. I want them more concerned with researching a break through new medicine, developing that new business or inventing that new technology than whether they will go bankrupt because their student loans are unmanageable or because their kid got cancer (and they were dropped by their provider).
I don’t think the concept of everyman for himself works… I guess I hope for something better. No one says that you have to utilize these opportunities, but I would like to make sure they are available to everyone (even you, incase you change your mind :)
BTW -- I dig the beer site. Makes me want to dust off my old home brew kit.
Thanks about the beer site.
Yeah, I see what you're saying and I agree that those are all good goals. It just seems to me that all the ideas you propose ultimately do the exact opposite of what they intend to do.
In the example of you post, regulating employment of legal/illegal labor, I understand that your goal is to create safe working conditions and a fair wage for laborers. That all sounds great. I just don't agree with your judgment of what a "fair wage" might be. If your goal is a "livable wage" and you implement a minimum wage, the end result will be unemployed laborers. Why not let the employee and the employer decide how much his labor is worth?
I'd like to see a lot less regulation. For example, I'd love to open a brew pub some day, but the reality is that I probably never will. Not because of healthcare, but because of how regulated the industry is. It's cost prohibitive, and I'm a young middle class white male. How many lower class black individuals can afford all the licensing, and tax overhead associated with starting a business? And, you're calling for more of it.
As for what I don't like about your ideas, I don't like the idea of someone else deciding what constitutes a "safe working environment or a "reasonable wage." I think I'm more than capable of making that decision myself. I think the same of any person who enters a consenting agreement with another individual. Anything less would be an insult.
I'd also opt out because I like to decide where my charity should go. I give plenty of charity, but I don't like the idea of my pay check being taken from me and given to someone else against my consent.
Is your program still compulsory? What happens if I don't pay?
I certainly get your point, the devil is in the details and regulation can be dangerous. I guess I would like to see less regulation in some areas and more in other areas.
As far as work safety, the simple fact is that many people are probably not as decent as you. I think we should always strike a balance between the onerous affects of regulation and the intended purpose. These things should be regularly evaluated and changed accordingly, but we have to make sure that certain conditions are off-limits.
As far as your small business example, I would be all for reducing the regulations necessary to start your own brew pub. We as a society should recognize the difficulties regulations can cause and make every effort to assist businesses with complying. They should not be unfunded mandates. A good idea should be your only hindrance, not regulation.
I ran a small business until last year (when I sold out to a bigger firm) and I was very frustrated at times with the regulatory issues. More than that, I was frustrated with my inability to even get health coverage for my employees. I stopped expanding because financially it just did not make sense. I built an innovative (albeit small) and aggressive firm, but could not complete on the basis of healthcare costs.
My parents recently retired and having done quite well for themselves, but they had a gap in coverage. In spite, of them both being quite healthy, they could not get coverage for any price, literally.
As far as fair wage and safe work places, I think common sense can go a long way in sorting these out.
Unfortunately, I think the market can be quite irrational and arbitrary in the short-term (say 5 to 10 years). It does better over the longer term, but I see a role for government in providing cushion in the periods where the market sorts itself out.
Of course, if we as a society decide to provide these sorts of services, paying would not be voluntary. Having said that I think that most of the costs could be made up in greater efficiency and eliminating unnecessary programs. For healthcare, couldn’t we just roll our current spending (employers) into our current programs for Medicare, Medicaid and veterans healthcare? It would probably provide a cost-savings to the employer and provide portability to the individuals.
Yeah, I agree with you about the market not always being "rational." I don't think that the market always chooses what I think it "right" every time. I just don't agree that government intervention is a good solution. It may be appropriate in some circumstances, but generally it has the opposite consequence of what it intends to do. Not only that, but it's a bit arrogant for some legislators to assume they know what's best for other people. What makes a legislator more qualified to determine if my working condition is "unsafe?" Shouldn't I be able to make that determination for myself? If my employer is unfair, then I can leave or if it's bad enough, sue. I guess I have faith in people to determine what is best for themselves. I'm a fan of personal liberty, even if people choose what I think may be bad for them.
As for healthcare, I think the issue is way more complicated than I can hash out in a blog comment, but I'll agree that of all the things a government could provide, healthcare would not be the worst. Having said that, I'd never want to mandate universal healthcare. If a person wants to live without healthcare, the should not ever be required to pay into that system. And, if a person wants private healthcare, they should be allowed to do so. Competition is a good thing.
anyway, you've got a good blog here. It's been nice chatting with you. I'll check back sometime later.
Yeah, I agree with you about the market not always being "rational." I don't think that the market always chooses what I think it "right" every time. I just don't agree that government intervention is a good solution. It may be appropriate in some circumstances, but generally it has the opposite consequence of what it intends to do. Not only that, but it's a bit arrogant for some legislators to assume they know what's best for other people. What makes a legislator more qualified to determine if my working condition is "unsafe?" Shouldn't I be able to make that determination for myself? If my employer is unfair, then I can leave or if it's bad enough, sue. I guess I have faith in people to determine what is best for themselves. I'm a fan of personal liberty, even if people choose what I think may be bad for them.
As for healthcare, I think the issue is way more complicated than I can hash out in a blog comment, but I'll agree that of all the things a government could provide, healthcare would not be the worst. Having said that, I'd never want to mandate universal healthcare. If a person wants to live without healthcare, the should not ever be required to pay into that system. And, if a person wants private healthcare, they should be allowed to do so. Competition is a good thing.
anyway, you've got a good blog here. It's been nice chatting with you. I'll check back sometime later.
Thanks for comments... Let me know when you open your brew pub
Post a Comment