Billionaires: It's good to import foreign workers

May 7, 2014 6:30:57 GMT pjohns1873 said:

What do America's billionaires have to say about our importing foreign workers?

From the Bangor Daily News (in Bangor, Maine): 

Billionaires buy whatever they want. And not just mansions and Teslas but elections and legislation. The recent Supreme Court decision lifting caps on campaign contributions gives them even more power. The libertarian

Koch brothers have already pumped millions into this year’s elections. But Michael Bloomberg, Mark Zuckerberg, Rupert Murdoch and George Soros are no less guilty of buying our political system, and all of them, from libertarian Koch brothers to liberal Soros, are united in one cause: Bring in more foreign workers, increase job competition, and allow “market forces” to drive down wages.

Since 2007, political lobbies spent a whopping $1.5 billion to expand immigration, according to the watchdog Sunlight Foundation. A mind boggling array of Washington power brokers are behind that money: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, American Immigration Lawyers, National Association of Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association and others. A few years ago, former Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, sent me a 12-page list of Washington lobbies working for expanded immigration. Talk about David and Goliath.

But how do you convince Americans that it’s good for us to import millions of new foreign workers? Create a media blitz based on slogans, misinformation, political theater and guilt...

But that is just an excerpt.

Here is a link to the rest of the story, outlining the "hows":  bangordailynews.com/2014/05/05/opinion/contributors/billionaires-try-to-convince-americans-its-good-to-import-foreign-workers-increase-immigration/?ref=comments

As you well know I hate it when the media protrays non-libertarians as libertarians and the Koch brothers are not libertarians. With that said let's address the real issues presented.

I have no problem, nor would a libertarian, with the elimination of campaign contribution limits. Where the problem exists is when the contributions are hidden from public scrutiny when they are channeled through 501(c) non-profit tax exempt organizations. We need transparancy related to these massive political contributions but that hasn't existed because they can be hidden from review by simply channeling them through a 501(c) organization like Obama's "Organization for America" or through the "Tea Party Patriots" where they don't have to disclose who's funding their political activism.  

I'm not really an advocate of "shooting the messenger" when it comes to what is good for America or for people in general which is what is really going in here. This is also an "OpEd" that on the one hand condemns false statements and arguments and then rebutts them with false statements and arguments. Let me provide an example that just addresses the first "bullet" point:

Yes, there are millions of jobs that are traditionally tied to immigrant labor that are not being filled today such as home construction, agriculture, and domestic services. About 10% of new housing starts after the permits have been issued are being postponed due to a lack of "Mexican" labor that returned to Mexico because of the mortgage banking collapse. In some agricultural sectors like apple harvesting billions of dollars are left to rot because they are normally picked by immigrant workers. Millions of domestic service jobs such as housekeeping and "nanny" services are traditionally associated with immigrant labor are going unfilled. No one denies this shortage of immigrant labor is hurting the US economy. It isn't whining to point out these facts.

Every immigrant spends money and this creates the "multiplier effect" in stimulating economic growth.

In her OpEd Jonette Christian asks how low paid immigrants create jobs for "engineering graduates" and because I've worked in an "engineering" field for the last 30 years in aerospace I can answer that directly. The median wage for aerospace engineering jobs falls in the top 25% of income earners and every commercial aerospace engineering job depends upon millions of people that earn substanially less flying on commerical airlines. It really doesn't matter how much less so much as the fact that there aren't enough people earning more to support the high wages for aerospace engineers.

The truth is that we have an economic pyramid where every lower level of income provides the spending that supports the higher income of those above them except for the very lowest paying jobs in the economy. The lowest paying jobs are the foundation of the economic pyramid and upon it all other incomes are based. If we expand the foundation then we increase the number of higher paying jobs above it.

The "billionare" at the top of the pyramid knows that their income is ulitmately derived from the spending by the lowest earning person in the economic pyramid. We can remove the tip of the pyramid (i.e. the billionaire) and the economy really doesn't suffer because they don't spend enough on goods and services to create a significant increase in the job market. They "invest" but investing doesn't create jobs that provide goods and services. Only purchasing goods and services creates jobs. The lowest paid immigrant basically spends 100% of their disposable income on goods and services and that creates jobs.  

What many seem to ignore is the muliplier effect which is why every low paid immigrant when they fill an unfilled job, that only immigrant labor traditionally fills, they create 1.8 jobs for American workers and that trickles up and creates the "engineering jobs" in our economy. "Tickle-up" does work while "trickle-down" doesn't because our entire economy is based upon the foundation of the lowest paid workers.

May 7, 2014 23:51:38 GMT pjohns1873 said:

In none of the above do I see a suggestion of our creating a guest-worker program; but just a wink-and-nod approach to clearly illegal activity.

And I would just note that "trickle down" is really a pejorative term for Austrian-school economics.  It would probably be better to refrain from using such loaded terminology. 

The topic is not about a "guest worker program" and has to do with open immigration and not illegal immigration.

The United States government is highly interventionistic and has nothing in common with the Austrian school of economics. "Trickle-down" is actually a reference to Crony Capitalism where wealthy investors receive preferential treatment under our tax codes.

May 8, 2014 23:05:55 GMT pjohns1873 said:

May 8, 2014 9:01:53 GMT ShivaTD said:

The topic is not about a "guest worker program" and has to do with open immigration and not illegal immigration.

The United States government is highly interventionistic and has nothing in common with the Austrian school of economics. "Trickle-down" is actually a reference to Crony Capitalism where wealthy investors receive preferential treatment under our tax codes.

I really do not see any difference between illegal immigration and "open immigration."  (The latter seems to be just a euphemism for the former.)

And I have never before heard of the term, "trickle-down economics," being used as a synonym for crony capitalism.   

"Illegal immigration" refers to those that are in the United States without proper documentation authorizing their being here. Under "open immigration" those that want to come here to work are authorized to do so by the government. I forgot the exact number but as I recall the number of lawful immigrants to the United States is about 55 million. Legal immigrants, for the most part, are a part of the naturalization process to become US citizens while "illegal" immigrants are not because a person has to be in the country legally to enter the naturalization process.

"Trickle-down" economics is based upon providing favorable tax treatment to wealthy investors when compared to workers under the false belief that external investments in enterprise creates jobs. The "Capital Gains" tax where "unearned income" taxed at 1/2 the tax rate when compared to "earned income" is crony capitalism. "Crony capitalism" refers to "favoritism by government" and investors receive "very favorable tax treatment" when compared to workers. Compare the tax rates on the following chart:

In truth jobs are created by consumption (sales of goods and services) and not external investments which rarely invest in actual enterprises as they are secondary financial transactions. The vast majority of "investments" in enterprise are internal investments, not external investments, and the money derived from the profits on sales of goods/services by the enterprise.  

May 10, 2014 1:25:09 GMT pjohns1873 said:

To a large extent, it may just be a matter of semantics. If you are saying, essentially, that the US should create a guest-worker program, I certainly would not wish to argue with that.

Our discussion related to immigration have stimulated me to think more about it from a more detailed perspective that covers several issues we've addressed. Let me toss out my thoughts for your consideration.

First we should allow a "guest worker" program for those that want to come here for gainful employment (or the spouse and/or dependent child of a worker). As studies have shown they actually create more jobs than they fill and typically they fill jobs that Americans are reluctant to fill to begin with. They would receive a limited term "green card" for perhaps a year or two. If they can establish that they are actually working (allowing some time for "between jobs" as being reasonable) then their "green card" would be extended.

After perhaps five years of employment they could apply for a "permanent resident" card that would be the first step towards naturalization but they could be required to take a basic test on the political structure and ideology of the United States to enter the "naturalization" process. Upon being issued the "permanent resident" card they would also receive a "Voting ID" card that would allow them to vote.

BTW Some states currently have restrictions on real estate ownership for immigrants where only an immigrant seeking naturalization can own real estate. Foreign individual ownership of real estate is prohibited at least in the state of WA and I believe that is true in other states as well.  

I believe this would provide a seemless transition based upon logical and reasonable steps that fill jobs, that creates even more jobs for Americans, expands the US economy, and eventually leads to the naturalization of immigrants that strengthens America.  

Your thoughts?

May 11, 2014 0:03:26 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I agree completely that the deficit spending of recent decades is very much like an individual's "living off a credit card" lavishly, for a short time, only (eventually) to have to pay the piper.

And I also agree that a Rainy Day Fund is a very good idea--for governments, as well as for individuals.   (I fund mine to the tune of more than $1,000 per month, every month, without exception.  And many state governments--that are usually prohibited by law or by state constitutions from running deficits--also have Rainy Day Funds.  Tennessee certainly does.) 

Although it is certainly true that much of America's infrastructure needs repairing--some of it, desperately so--I am not sure why this should be the responsibility of the federal government (except, of course, for interstate highways).  In most cases, the respective state governments or local governments should take responsibility for this. 

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree as regarding John Maynard Keynes' view of "priming the pump" in order to secure robust economic activity.   

I'm not a Keynesian but really his proposition was that if the government provided infrastructure is in need of repair or improvement, and it almost always is, then doing that work during a recession is a damn good time to do it. He didn't necessarily imply whether this should be "nationally" funded or "locally" funded but he did advocate "saving" up for it or if borrowing was necessary than the borrowing must be paid off.  

The greatest problem I see with infrastructure projects is that they are often related to "specific needs" where the funding should come from those that use the infrastructure. For example, we would agree that the federal government does have some responsibility for the interstate highways under the US Constitution. Providing for the "postal roads" and the necessity of the interstate highway system for national defense both fall under Article I Section 8 authorizations. When it comes to funding our interstate highway systems we have a federal fuel tax and that makes sense to me. The problem is that the tax isn't enough to fund the interstate highway projects. I looked into this for 2007 (as I recall) and the federal fuel tax collected about $30 billion but the authorized expenditures were $40 billion for the year (and didn't even provide enough funding at that).

Based upon that year alone the federal fuel taxes should have been increased by 1/3rd to increase revenue from $30 billion to $40 billion just to fund the authorized expenditures and probably should be double because our highway systems are crumbling and have been for decades.

We can't really argue that the spending isn't an authorized necessity but there are some that would scream bloody murder if we proposed increasing the federal fuel tax by 1/3rd just to fund the "authorized" expenditure or by doubling it to fund the actual need. Instead we use the "income tax" to fund 25% of the authorized expendature and then the same people complain about the income tax. I know that a $10 billion reduction in spending of "income tax" revenue isn't a lot but it is something that would help balance the budget.

Many of the necessary expenditures for "infrascture" simply aren't being funded for by usage "fees" for the infrastructure collected by government. New York's sewer and water supply systems are up to 100 years old and they could have been collecting fees for 100 years to fund the upgrade necessary but they didn't for example.

What part of "plan ahead" do the people and the politicians not understand?