We've been searching for an analogy to the Bush guest-worker proposal, the better to test the proposal and find where people's objections to it truly originate. So how about this?
Imagine that a class of foreigners seeks to enter the United States because they see opportunities for themselves that do not exist in their home countries. Brokerages arise to match the foreigners to such positions. The positions are plentiful but the cost of the transaction, increased artificially by US immigration controls and delays, makes recruitment unaffordable for most US firms who would otherwise offer these positions: pent-up demand.
Comparably-qualified native US citizens are not filling all of these positions because the compensation and perks are widely variable. The lowest compensated positions are going vacant and even many middle-level ones if the perks aren't quite right. They are satisfied with the tight immigration controls that keep foreign candidates out and artificially increase the aggregate price of the positions they do take.
Like it or not, this is an Econ 101 question graphing supply against demand.
Are we discussing peach pickers on the Western Slope? Framers and landscapers on the Front Range? Meatpackers in Fort Morgan? Pakistani software engineers on H1Bs?
No. Mail-order brides.
Bonus points if you can draw a parallel with the Bush proposals to "promote healthy marriages."
Discuss until I get back. Will be below radar until after some exercises and the birthing of one Tadpole; posting will remain light.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment