How will the Guest Worker program affect America?

[techs]

With the only thing stopping Republicans from controllig both houses of Congress being the relatively few Senators up for re-election, we have to consider a Republican sweep in 2 years.

So, when the Republicans institute their Guest Worker program what do you think will be the effects??


I think that while the expected horde of Mexican workers displacing almost all lower paying jobs will certainly happen, the biggest change will be amongst higher paid, technical workers.

After all, replacing a 10 dollar an hour worker with a 7.25 dollar an hour worker is nowhere as valuable as replacing a 70 thousand dollar a year worker with a 25 thousand dollar a year worker. So I expect the biggest change to be a hord of Indian workers, many in I.T. I'm guessing a couple of million I.T. workers from India would be here within a year or two.

It will take a little longer, but auto repair, electricians and plumbers will also be pretty much replaced.

Lastly, I think it will pretty much end small businesses. Since large corporations will have far greater access to the cheaper foreign workers.

 

[her209]

I've always wondered about the Constitutionality of the Guest Worker Program. You're basically creating a second class of "citizens" that has less rights than everyone else.

 

[theeedude]

GOP sweep in 2 years, not with Boehner running the House, that's plenty of time to demonstrate they have no clue how to run the country, for those who missed previous memos.

 

[techs]

GOP sweep in 2 years, not with Boehner running the House, that's plenty of time to demonstrate they have no clue how to run the country, for those who missed previous memos.

You overstimate the the intelligence of the American people.

 

[shortylickens]

We already have 11 million guest workers. Why should making a program be any different?

 

[irishScott]

I've always wondered about the Constitutionality of the Guest Worker Program. You're basically creating a second class of "citizens" that has less rights than everyone else.

And we have diplomats that while effectively living here have more rights than everyone else. Not like the concept is anything new.

 

[werepossum]

We already have 11 million guest workers. Why should making a program be any different?

Because it would be a Republican program. Duh!

 

[techs]

And we have diplomats that while effectively living here have more rights than everyone else. Not like the concept is anything new.

Uh, no. Right now many jobs can't be filled by illegals due to things like insurance, etc. Plus, it presents a terrible image problem when a company gets caught using illegals.

So, making them technically legal allows all sorts of goodies for corps. They can then recruit them, fly them in, etc.

 

[shortylickens]

Uh, no. Right now many jobs can't be filled by illegals due to things like insurance, etc.

Which is why those jobs went to China and India.

 

[irishScott]

Uh, no. Right now many jobs can't be filled by illegals due to things like insurance, etc. Plus, it presents a terrible image problem when a company gets caught using illegals.

So, making them technically legal allows all sorts of goodies for corps. They can then recruit them, fly them in, etc.

My point was that her209's complaint that such a program might be unconstitutional was somewhat unfounded given the legal statuses we already give to other non-citizens.

If it's still not clear enough, I'm actually in favor of a guest worker program.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It doesn't matter which party gets into office. They're both fundamentally the same as far as basic economic policy goes, and that policy is one that exposes us to global labor arbitrage which will ultimately result in our nation's transformation into a third world economy. A small percentage of Americans will be very rich and the vast majority of the masses will be poor.

 

[glenn1]

I've not yet heard anyone explain why we should support differential wages for workers just because of nationality. If you're an American whose education and skill set can be matched by a Mexican immigrant, why do you presume you deserve a premium wage? You're doing no favors to the poor by attempting to sever the link between effort/educational achievement and wages - if you drop out of high school, you should get low wages, even perhaps less than what a Mexican immigrant makes.

 

[trenchfoot]

Gee, I wonder if the guest worker program will allow all of these new workers to collectively bargain (unionize) for fair wages and benefits. I mean, we wouldn't want to discriminate against them, right? lol Viva la Chavez

 

[CycloWizard]

I've not yet heard anyone explain why we should support differential wages for workers just because of nationality. If you're an American whose education and skill set can be matched by a Mexican immigrant, why do you presume you deserve a premium wage? You're doing no favors to the poor by attempting to sever the link between effort/educational achievement and wages - if you drop out of high school, you should get low wages, even perhaps less than what a Mexican immigrant makes.

Because it feels good! Same reason a minimum wage exists. If you and your employer agree to a wage below the legal minimum, someone will face charges. The joke is that a president can sign a piece of paper given to him by a bunch of other idiots and decide what the wage floor will be, thereby making anyone who would voluntarily work for less a criminal. Illegal immigration is the inevitable result of this policy and its associated attitude of differential wage entitlement.

 

[her209]

Gee, I wonder if the guest worker program will allow all of these new workers to collectively bargain (unionize) for fair wages and benefits. I mean, we wouldn't want to discriminate against them, right? lol Viva la Chavez

What's wrong with collective bargaining? Capital is allowed to organize in order to maximize gains for the investors.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I've not yet heard anyone explain why we should support differential wages for workers just because of nationality. If you're an American whose education and skill set can be matched by a Mexican immigrant, why do you presume you deserve a premium wage? You're doing no favors to the poor by attempting to sever the link between effort/educational achievement and wages - if you drop out of high school, you should get low wages, even perhaps less than what a Mexican immigrant makes.

Answer: It's good for Americans, in general, when our nation has a low unemployment rate, ladders of upward mobility for people who are willing to work, and a strong middle class.

Basically, it's better for Americans overall for an American to have a job than for a Mexican (or some guy in India or China) to have that job. Why is that? Because when Americans are unemployed or underemployed it costs other Americans money to support them and potentially increases the crime rate.

Consider these three options:

(A) An American is employed and earns a lower middle class wage and is able to live independently without financial assistance from the government.

(B) A Mexican is employed at that job instead and earns poverty level wages. He and his family need government support (housing help, welfare, education, health care, etc.). Also, the American that would have worked that job is now poor and he too needs government support.

(C) We have real capitalism. The Mexican is employed at that job and earns poverty level wages but receives no support from the government. The American who would otherwise work that job is now starving to death and/or dying of a treatable ailment since he doesn't have health insurance and can't afford medical treatment.

Which of those three options is best for the overwhelming majority of Americans? The wealthy would like Option C obviously. Right now our nation is pursuing Option B. It would make the most sense to simply pursue Option A.

What the free market dogmatists don't realize is that under real capitalism, which would fully expose us to global labor arbitrage, a tiny percentage of the population would be very wealthy and the rest of the populace would be very poor--just like in all of those other third world countries.

 

[blackangst1]

I've always wondered about the Constitutionality of the Guest Worker Program. You're basically creating a second class of "citizens" that has less rights than everyone else.

What rights would, say, a permanant resident have that a guest worker wouldnt...I can think of one: able to serve in the military. Does that make them second class citizens?

BTW Roosevelt did this in 1942 with the Bracero Program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program

 

[CycloWizard]

Answer: It's good for Americans, in general, when our nation has a low unemployment rate, ladders of upward mobility for people who are willing to work, and a strong middle class.

Basically, it's better for Americans overall for an American to have a job than for a Mexican (or some guy in India or China) to have that job. Why is that? Because when Americans are unemployed or underemployed it costs other Americans money to support them and potentially increases the crime rate.

Consider these three options:

(A) An American is employed and earns a lower middle class wage and is able to live independently without financial assistance from the government.

(B) A Mexican is employed at that job instead and earns poverty level wages. He and his family need government support (housing help, welfare, education, health care, etc.). Also, the American that would have worked that job is now poor and he too needs government support.

(C) We have real capitalism. The Mexican is employed at that job and earns poverty level wages but receives no support from the government. The American who would otherwise work that job is now starving to death and/or dying of a treatable ailment since he doesn't have health insurance and can't afford medical treatment.

Which of those three options is best for the overwhelming majority of Americans? The wealthy would like Option C obviously. Right now our nation is pursuing Option B. It would make the most sense to simply pursue Option A.

What the free market dogmatists don't realize is that under real capitalism, which would fully expose us to global labor arbitrage, a tiny percentage of the population would be very wealthy and the rest of the populace would be very poor--just like in all of those other third world countries.

False dilemma. In real capitalism, the American worker would get off his ass and work for the same wage as his competitor. Why does the American have the right to work for a wage higher than his competitor?

 

[trenchfoot]

What's wrong with collective bargaining? Capital is allowed to organize in order to maximize gains for the investors.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm a Union Business Agent for a local union. It just struck me funny that I didn't hear a word about guest workers being able to organize in all the talk about the guest worker program.

 

[BoomerD]

I'm all for a guest worker program...limited to farm work.
A major portion of each worker's check should be withheld until they leave the country every year, they they get that money with interest...payable on a Mexican bank, and they must cash/deposit that check in person, not by mail, not sent to a family member. If they chose to stay in the US and not return, the withheld monies are forfeited to the US government, they get rounded up and deported...and disqualified from the program for 5 years.

I realize that most farm jobs fit the "jobs Americans won't do" category. It's usually hard, dirty work for little pay, and if we won't do the work, let them hire temp workers from Mexico...but the temps have to return to their own country every year.

Keep them out of construction, keep them out of the fast food jobs...let them work on the farms...or stay home.