Centerfield

Some Democrats would rather have the issue than the policy

Change "Democrats" to "politicians," carve it in stone, and mount it on Main Street.

Posted by: Tully at May 6, 2007 01:42 PM

I never did buy the argument that illegal immigration benefited the economy, illegals might benefit some sectors of the economy, like agriculture and construction for example, but there are considerable governmental costs associated with immigration as well as lower wages for Americans entering the workforce competing against these low wage workers. I think that low wage workers are a handy solution for some labor intensive industries that could sill mechanize but don’t want to spend the money if they don’t have to. I will use tomato production as an example. In the 1960s when ending the Bracero program was being debated the California tomato growers swore that it would mean the end of production in that state, at that time over 30,000 workers were picking 2.2 million tons of tomatoes. The program ended and the growers, by mechanization, new varieties of tomatoes, and other strategies, now use 5000 workers to harvest 12.3 million tons of tomatoes, and prices declined dramatically. By taking away the easy solution of cheap labor the growers were forced to modernize, and by doing so the marketplace has reaped the rewards. Obviously this spectacular success will not be repeated in every industry but I seriously doubt that there would be any long term economic disruption. There have been a few studies on how the illegal immigration has depressed lower income wages, I have seen everything from 5% to 20%, something like 8% is standard, not a huge amount but for a lower income still significant, add to that the burden on many communities particularly in education costs and do you really have a net economic gain?

Posted by: grognard at May 6, 2007 02:14 PM

On the other hand, by drastic limitation of the number of high-tech workers who can get H1-B visas, we are definitely doing our economy no favors. It may be that more of them would keep wages in high-tech from rising so fast. (Although with salaries running in six figures, it isn't obvious that anybody is suffering severe poverty as a result.)

Then again, consider the number of high-tech companies founded here by the folks who have won the H1-B lottery over the years. It seems at least as likely that the demand for high-tech workers would actually go up if we had more H1-B visas. Not to mention the taxes they would pay.

The alternative, of course, is to keep the numbers restricted, adn force those people to go home and start high tech companies elsewhere. Which will then generate high tech jobs there, not to mention boosting the local economy. Another, if unrecognized, form of foreign aid, I suppose.

Posted by: wj at May 6, 2007 03:14 PM

I never did buy the argument that illegal immigration benefited the economy, illegals might benefit some sectors of the economy . . . The program ended and the growers, by mechanization, new varieties of tomatoes, and other strategies, now use 5000 workers to harvest 12.3 million tons of tomatoes,now use 5000 workers to harvest 12.3 million tons of tomatoes, and prices declined dramatically.

At this point, trust me, they're using immigrants, legal or illegal. Only a tiny minority of native-born Americans want to do farm labor these days. It pays terribly, has long hours, and is uncertain. Even crabbing, a longtime very traditional industry, is done by immigrants because it pays so much worse than other possibilities. Though I don't see farming as such a big benefit.

If nothing else, think about all the restaurants, barbershops, laundromats, coffee shops, etc., you go run by immigrants. None of those would exist, and their economic contribution wouldn't exist. When you go to restaurants, hotels, and any other kind of service, think about who's serving you, and what you might be paying without them, and how much less popular it might be.

I've seen more bigger buildings near the Southern border than the Northern one, no doubt because it's cheaper. Illegal immigrants are even used to construct border segments.

Posted by: Jon Kay at May 7, 2007 01:13 AM

Jon,

Look at many of those immigrant committees. Korean cleaners only employ relatives, cheat on their taxes, violate building codes, and usually have a horrible level of service. I go to one of the few non-Korean owned cleaners in the Dc area just so I can find a native born white or black kid who can speak English and who says hello.

Just look at the towns and neighborhoods that are destroyed by unlimited mexican immigrations. They destroy the school districts, destroy home values, force whites to move out, and lower the stand of living for everyone.

If immigration was good for the economy, El Paso texas would be a boom down where all the rich, white yuppies would be moving. Instead it is a hellhole with high unemployee, super high property crime, lousy schools, and experiencing an exodus of the last few white residents.

Posted by: superdestroyer at May 7, 2007 08:35 AM

Jon, Difficult jobs that pay poorly are jobs nobody wants, but difficult jobs that pay well are a different story. If you have an abundant supply of cheap labor and as a business you don’t pay for any of the associated costs of that labor [schooling, healthcare, etc. ] then you will take full advantage of it. If we change the equation and you have to pay the market rate for labor because society no longer will pay for the social costs you are forced to innovate to stay alive. Innovation itself creates new industries and spurs the economy, and solutions to picking crops might translate into completely unrelated industries. Will there be economic problems in some industries as they adopt? Sure, but the problems would be temporary and manageable. The real benefit is that when low wage jobs disappear you have less need for governmental supplied services and more people paying taxes. A historian once asked the question as to why the Roman Empire never developed steam power, it was well within the technological capabilities of the time. The answer was cheap and abundant slave labor, any problem they faced had the same solution, just throw more people at it, no need to think of alternatives.

Posted by: grognard at May 7, 2007 08:47 AM

SD;

If immigration was good for the economy, El Paso texas would be a boom down where all the rich, white yuppies would be moving.

You mean like San Diego?

Grog;

A historian once asked the question as to why the Roman Empire never developed steam power, it was well within the technological capabilities of the time. The answer was cheap and abundant slave labor, any problem they faced had the same solution, just throw more people at it, no need to think of alternatives.

I guess that explains the slow technology advances of Silicon Valley. Certainly India has some of the cheapest labor in the world available to it. So why then is it one the great tech resouces in the world?

One aspect of the immigration debate that intrigues me is how the right meets the left. On the Right we have the "nativist" viewpoint. On the Left we have the "cheap labor hurting the rest of the workers" argument. I'm still not convinced (sorry guys) that they're both not rooting in a basic "fear of the foreigner"

I guess I'm old fashioned. I think of all of those rich and famous Americans who are 2nd or 3rd generation Americans. What a deal, the hard-driving, eager to get ahead of the world, bring their skills to the US. And we get great businesses like MGM studios or Bank of America.

Here in Phoenix I see Mexican immigrants ("are they legal?") taking second and third jobs as part of a desire to get ahead (i.e. ahead of what they would get in Mexico). I see those same Mexican immigrants driving nice NEW pickups, buying houses and revitalizing rundown neighborhoods. Yes, they speak Spanish. But hey, I grew up in a town with a traditional Italian immigrant population. Many years ago they mostly spoke Italian. But by the 3rd generation they were all speaking English AND they had an advantage over me because the still spoke decent Italian.

Again, call me old-fashioned but I'll keep saying "Bring me your tired, your hungry, your huddled masses..."

Posted by: c3 at May 7, 2007 09:41 AM

I dunno if a physical wall will make us much safer. Certainly it can be only something of a deterrent at best. So the response to the survey question makes sense to me.

But it doesn't answer the question of whether or not folks support a comprehensive effort to manage and control immigration, reducing illegal immigration by making it more difficult and less rewarding than is currently the case.

Ask folks THAT question and let's see what they say. IMO, there's not much to dispute when it comes to whether or not we can do better. I think we can, but we need the will, the focus, and yup, the resources.

I couldn't agree more that immigration has had and will continue to have beneficial effects on our nation. Continually importing eager workers hungry to earn is a good idea. What troubles me about immigration as an issue is the way it continually gets framed. Various special interests tend to funnel our perspectives so that we are required to be either FER or AGIN. No wonder so little progress is being made and so much demagogging (sp?) is going on.

IMO, it's a question of rightsizing and tracking our immigration. This is what it boils down to for me:

• the number of immigrants admitted should be based on the benefit we think they can bring (and you could argue that the fact that so many folks immigrate illegally suggests that current policies for docmented immigration are probably somewhat too restrictive and onerous)

•admissions should be targeted to support our economy and our foreign policy goals

• as much of our immigration as possible should be tracked and documented for various reasons, including security

• if we aren't serious about actually implementing policies that truly discourage illegal immigration and encourage legal documented immigration, we're just wasting everyone's time even talking about the issue

•the policies we decide to foster should be reflected across across all federal, state, and local agencies. No one should qualify for or receive assistance, benefits, etc, without a citizenship status check as a gatekeeper.

Seems to me that we have a lot of inflamed opinions on the issue, and not that much consensus. So I don't know how much we can blame the politicians for using it to rhetorical advantage instead of trying to craft a policy that we can't get a majority of everyday folks to rally round. Criticize the policies that President Bush's has suggested if you want, but at least he has tried to lead. And gotten roundly booed on both sides of the aisle. I don't see anyone out there among the current crop of prospective presidents who has done much besides vaguely pander.

So my expectation is that the status quo's hodgepodge of policies is going to endure. People will continue to largely immigrate illegally because:

•we're not really committed to stemming the flow

•for the majority of folks its easier than asking for and getting permission

•people who migrate find jobs and opportunity substantially superior to what was available at home

Posted by: bk at May 7, 2007 12:47 PM

Well put Brian. Though I'd argue with one point (and not because I'm from AZ):

I don't see anyone out there among the current crop of prospective presidents who has done much besides vaguely pander.

I'd say proposing legislation in the Senate (and with a liberal democrat no less) is a bit more than "vaguely pandering"

Posted by: c3 at May 7, 2007 02:22 PM

Who dat? McCain?

Does it have any shot?

Posted by: bk at May 7, 2007 02:59 PM

They've been vague?

Posted by: Tully at May 7, 2007 03:27 PM

C3
Silicon valley …India…
Look at a picture of a typical office of the 1950s, hordes of typists, file clerks, and mailroom people, all replaced buy automation from Silicon Valley. Would that have happened if the people coming across the border wrote and spoke fluent English? Why try a computer [esp. in the early days when you had to write your own software] when you have such an abundant supply of cheap office help? Microsoft and IBM would never have gone anywhere.
In India only the top 7% of the people receive a college education, and for a while it was a national scandal that as soon as India paid for their education many were off to the US. The low wage nation of India did not have as much need for software programming when you have millions people who can type or file.
By the way, the college educated in Latin America are leaving 50% to 80% of them in some countries.
“fear the foreigner”
Nope, I object to what is in effect a special subsidy for some businesses, you have to address the total costs of immigration.

Bk, “immigrants admitted should be based on benefit”. College educated or skilled immigrants don’t use near as many governmental services and have a far more immediate impact on the economy, that is exactly the type of people we need. But that is not what we are getting, most have little education and are crossing illegally. If people want cheap labor I have no problem with that even, just pay the real cost of that labor including education and healthcare, don‘t expect a subsidy.

Posted by: grognard at May 7, 2007 11:16 PM

Grog;

If people want cheap labor I have no problem with that even, just pay the real cost of that labor including education and healthcare, don‘t expect a subsidy.

Would that also be true for the Indian physicians and the Chinese engineers?

Posted by: c3 at May 8, 2007 09:37 AM

If people want cheap labor I have no problem with that even, just pay the real cost of that labor including education and healthcare, don‘t expect a subsidy.

Just keep in mind that this will only save each of us money if we're willing to do things like eating less produce, unless, of course my economics are incorrect, which is a distinct possibility.

Posted by: WHQ at May 8, 2007 09:52 AM

Okay, who took my comma?

Posted by: WHQ at May 8, 2007 09:53 AM

grog,
the reason that we are getting mostly low-skilled illegal immigrants is that technical people have less incentive to take the risk of coming illegally. (Not to mention that most of their job opportunities are in more regular employment, where someone without an SSN and other documentation stands out much more readily.) The moment we take out the artificial constraints on how many can come, we can look for a burst -- followed by a jump in the economy as a whole.

And there will certainly be a burst. Just consider that this spring we stopped taking applications for H1-B visas for next year after ONE (1) day. And even those folks are subject to a lottery because there were too many for the quota. Talk about latent demand!

Posted by: wj at May 8, 2007 10:39 AM

Grog, what do you mean by "real cost?" It's not at all clear to me.

Do you object to to notion that ideally the US would allow immigration for "cheap labor" purposes only on a temporary basis and only as needed?

IOW, are you saying that the US ought to have some sort of moral responsibility where we permanently assume all the responsibilities for the folks who come here as cheap? Or is it OK that we simply offer a deal that's advantageous to us as a nation on a "take it or leave it" basis?

My sense is that our policy ought to be driven by national self-interest just as every other nation's policies are so driven. Perhaps we can afford higherr standards in some instances, but ther has to be a line. So, for example, if other nations are losing their educated folks to us, that's not really OUR problem. And if we accept cheap labor immigrants legally for a certain amount of time to do a certain job that needs doing and then send them back home, well then anyone who doesn't want that deal is free not to take it?

Are you implying that we have to take more responsibility than what the market demands? Not saying either way is necessarily right or wrong here, just trying to understand what you are saying we OUGHT to be doing. Obviously, the nicer we are to immigrants the nicer the world. But still, I don't object to the idea that we can make legal immigration offers based on what's good for us, and if such offers are accepted in large numbers, then that's proof that we are offering something of superior desirability to the takers of the offers. Good for the US, good for the immigrants.

Also obviously, this view is one that suggests that at least in an economic sense we have some right to to view other nations as competitors. Do you challenge that notion?

Posted by: bk at May 8, 2007 11:22 AM

WHQ,

I stole your comma. If I get fifty I can send them in for a free t-shirt!

Posted by: Tully at May 8, 2007 11:41 AM

Just an observation: cheap labor is a strategic asset. If we pay more and send these jobs south as a warning shot to China, we also win hearts in a region growing increasingly opposed to the US. I am in favor of allowing qualified illegals to enlist in the military in exchange for citizenship. I am in favor of allowing qualified illegals work in border security in exchange for citizenship. I would extend this to more than people who actually enter illegally.

The history of temporary work programs indicate abuse. We can set standards, foster love in the Americas while building the foundation for future competitiveness. Deportation or allowing 15 million illegals to live here in the shadows is unacceptable. Let’s get real and compromise. You can't just build walls alone and reasonably think the problem is solved.

If the Democrats can’t do this now, they are truly ineffectual.

Posted by: Maxtrue at May 8, 2007 11:47 AM

Ah, the cheap labor theory of non-innovation - if we all had cheap labor, we'd all sit around drinking pina coladas and not even think about innovating. If it was true, Austin and San Diego would be failing as centers of innovation, and all the action would be up north.

BUT, at this moment, even the good jobs are generally moving toward the southern border. There are still interesting, well-paying jobs in Rochester, NY, but very few new ones. Seattle and Portland are doing very well, but are hardly the only places innovation are happening.
Would that have happened if the people coming across the border wrote and spoke fluent English

You might've heard of things called "English classes." Very few immigrants don't take them, because they help alot with the job situation.

I object to what is in effect a special subsidy for some businesses,

It's pretty unclear that that's really true. A large fraction of illegals DO pay taxes to maximize their chances of eventually going legal. It's hard to get a percentage, of course. The fractions may not be so high for construction or agriculture, but we seem to like subdizing those industries anyway. Most high-tech-employed illegals probably pay taxes.

But I guess you'll keep on coming up with stupid excuses to explain why we immigration will make us worse off.

Posted by: Jon Kay at May 8, 2007 01:37 PM

But I guess you'll keep on coming up with stupid excuses to explain why we immigration will make us worse off.

Jon, there you go again, reinforcing the bipolar perspectives. Isn't it obvious to you that both too much and not enough have negative side affects?

I'm not pro-immigration or anti-immigration. I'm pro-[immigration reform]. I would like to see reform, and what I'd like to see is an organized and expedited official process that manages legal immigration and discourages illegal immigration.

Max,

The history of temporary work programs indicate abuse.

Is your point in saying this to suggest that therefore we ought not to have temporary guest workers? If so, I'd like to see you muster a much better argument.

[Why? To illustrate, let's use your favorite obsession. Notice that in August 2001, anyone could have said that the history of islamic fundamentalist terrorism indicates that such terrorists are insufficiently organized and equipped to commit a showy large scale attack within the boundaries of the US. So past results are not a guarantee of future performance.]

I'm not at all opposed to mechanisms which allow immigrants to come here legally and earn the right to become citizens, especially if we need the labor and benefit from the addition of hard working and or talented people who want to be Americans.

IMO, temporary worker status could easily become a very good probationary vehicle for becoming a citizen. Folks who abide by the rules we have set forth by say, returning home when we say their stay is up would be showing respect for our rule of law and for the wishes of the people who are already Americans.

And folks who do not abide by the rules we have set forth would be showing their LACK of respect.

There are lots of different ways we could go about deciding who to grant citizenship to. IMO, proof of a good faith effort to learn english, passing a civics test, and demonstration of a clean record as a guest worker for say 2 or 3 visits would be a pretty good start. On the other hand, a lack of respect for our laws, government and language would look like a bad start.

I'm all for letting in the huddles masses who truly do yearn to be free. That doesn't mean we can or ought to take everyone.

Posted by: bk at May 8, 2007 02:31 PM

"Notice that in August 2001, anyone could have said that the history of islamic fundamentalist terrorism indicates that such terrorists are insufficiently organized and equipped to commit a showy large scale attack within the boundaries of the US. So past results are not a guarantee of future performance."

Many people did think the way you describe, but they would have been wrong. Clarke certainly didn't think so. I don't know what your point is exactly. Temporary work programs in the past did not include pathways to citizenship and MY point is that without them, there is documented abuse. I will not support institutionalized abuse. We would have to show a pathway and allow the worker to seek the highest bidder.

I said qualified illegals and did not state my requirements. Learning English would be one. No serious criminal record would be another. Never said let everyone in. Relocating to native country after years of bring up a family is a strange test of allegiance. Not breaking the law and perhaps an extended probationary period while possessing a green card would be better.

I did suggest that without a "fair" resolution of the immigration "question", our neighbors to the South will continue to go their own DAMN YANKEE way. I would rather see Latinos making consumer products for KMART than the leveraging Chinese who arm genocide in the Sudan.

As per my favorite obsession, it is racist to think that with all the Muslim scientists, research facilities and vast sums of money, terrorists can't become more organized and proficient in the use of advanced WMC. Today's polls indicate 25% of Americans (much greater among Democrats) think BUSH KNEW OBL was going to attack the WTC and did nothing. If Bush knew, then how reasonable is your example? BK the Left isn’t moderating with power, its increasing the extremism. We cannot effectively close the border without Mexican help and resolving the immigration problem. I say hire illegals to help police the borders. Hire illgeals to penetrate the organized crime networks and criminal gangs. Chavez just called the DEA the “world’s biggest drug cartel”. Terrorism and immigration are connected.

While other European countries (including Russia) are showing negative population growth, America does not. The infusion of genes, if we can provide the right education and direction, will be our salvation (as opoosed to unbridled population growth). When we answer this immigration question correctly, our hand is stronger in dealing with security, global competition, Chavez and the new ideology of totalitarianism taking root in our southern hemisphere.

Posted by: Maxtrue at May 8, 2007 05:58 PM

A large fraction of illegals DO pay taxes to maximize their chances of eventually going legal

And a bunch pay at least SS taxes because they simply can't avoid it.

Posted by: Tully at May 8, 2007 07:38 PM

Bk, good points. The ‘real’ cost is the amount of money paid in taxes minus the cost of governmental sevices. For illegals [at the Federal level] 16 billion is paid in taxes, but 26 billion is consumed in the form of Medicaid, education, food stamps, and a variety of other services. It is this 10 billion subsidy that benefits certain industries that I am talking about. If these illegals are made permanent residents than the dollar amount of services goes up, to about 29 billion, now that there would no longer be any reason to live in the shadows. When it comes to immigration the value to the country is in people with skills, college in particular. We are in a competitive environment and if we can attract [with high pay] top talent then why not? For obvious reasons highly educated people consume less government services, they get jobs with healthcare, make way too much for food stamps, and pay a higher dollar amount in taxes both as a total and as a percentage.
C3, India…. Technology
India has college education for about 7% of their people, needless to say competition for the slot is intense and the people who get in are the cream of the cream of the crop. Considering the population of India at 1 billion 95 million, that is still a considerable number of people. I have worked with a number of engineers and scientists from India, these are the people we want here. Note that the consumers of Indian technology are primarily outside the country, most of the people can’t afford the consumer goods requiring software. That’s the idea I am trying to get across, a street sweeper in a third world country makes barely enough for food and clothing, he is supplied with a low tech broom and might have enough disposable income to by a transistor radio. A street sweeper in the US makes about say $18 an hour, in order to get the most out of his wage he is equipped with an $80,000 piece of equipment and has enough disposable income to buy all sorts of consumer goods. The building of street sweeping equipment and the demand for consumer goods is what drives technology, not cheap burgers in San Diego.

Posted by: grognard at May 8, 2007 11:42 PM

Sorry, grog. BK's right, as usual. My comment didn't advance the debate.

Posted by: Jon Kay at May 9, 2007 01:13 AM

The building of street sweeping equipment and the demand for consumer goods is what drives technology, not cheap burgers in San Diego.

Pretty interesting point, and I'm not saying you are wrong. But does this mean that building one technology (street sweeper) drives the creation of ever more technology? I think tge answer is yes, but if so, that's a little bit mindless unless there are also higher motivations. Technology is better tools, and tools are means. What's the goal that these means are driving us towards?

I'm not a technophobe, by the way. If better technology gives me (and others, too) more leisure time and a better lifestyle, I'm all for that. But my experience is that quite a few folks don't know what to do with leisure time, they want to keep working, they need "something to do."

Personally, I don't quite get why someone would get bored playing more golf, more guitar, more piano, playing more cards, drinking more scotch, smoking more cigars. doing more traveling, listening to more jazz and blues, and taking more pictures, just to name a few pleasant pastimes. I guess the folks who get bored with this stuff we can let keep working to improve the technology.

Max, my point was as you stated, that those folks would have been proven wrong. I thought you were implying that the history of guest worker programs implied they were necessarily not a sensible approach. I wasn't aware that you were trying to say that you supported a guest worker program that included a path to citizenship. if you mentioned that prior to my comment, I missed it. including a path makes sense to me. It would be very tricky, but I think it would be better than the rooooooo-lette we've got now.

Posted by: bk at May 9, 2007 09:16 AM

I my effort to shorten my posts, I have left out qualifiers. Then my posts are misinterpreted. So please forgive their length and I will try to be more specific. I think some the Republicans are giving lip service to old guest worker programs that didn't work very well. We can improve them and open them up to the world, not just Mexico. Many people want our jobs but do not want to live here forever. For those that do, America can grow without increasing the world's population. That is a huge advantage, automation or not. I haven't seen a cigar that a machine can roll better than a Cuban.

Posted by: Maxtrue at May 9, 2007 09:36 AM

In my effort to shorten.....I leave out letters...LOL

I need a robo-post-checker that also does housecleaning and shopping.

Posted by: Maxtrue at May 9, 2007 09:41 AM

Thanks for clearing that up Max. IMO, a guest worker program needs a citizenship path as part of incentivizing legal immigration over illegal immigration.

Most of the devil will surely be in the details of the path, right? For starters, I hope folks can agree that the path ought to be somewhere between "rubber stamp" and "straight up that sheer cliff" if its going to function as an incentive and yet not simply let in everyone who wants to come.

Posted by: bk at May 9, 2007 10:55 AM

Bk, “what’s the goal”, very good question. Lets say the one of the Indian software folks come to the US and develops an AI system that works miracles as far as self programming robotics. All of the drudge work jobs go away, robots can do them better and never take a break. Is this good? Hard to say,. Lets say a toaster might cost $1 and you can feed yourself for a month for $10 while at the same time jobs without a degree pay $30 an hour. That means a lot of leisure time. Some people might do the things you suggest, others might turn to drugs or drinking out of boredom, [think the vacuous lifestyle of Paris Hilton]. I think in fact you could go too far the other way. On the other hand a 30 hour work week means people can pursue all sorts of fun and creative projects, no longer limited by working hours. There is a balance but higher pay and possibly more important, less hours at work, is something that is a worthy goal.
Ron, no problem here, I have a great deal of respect for you.
Max, yes any program would have to address the issue of permanent status, but as you pointed out where we should be investing in manufacturing is not China. We would benefit tremendously from an industrialized Latin America, on both the immigration front and not supporting a potential rival.

Posted by: grognard at May 9, 2007 12:23 PM

We would benefit tremendously from an industrialized Latin America, on both the immigration front and not supporting a potential rival.

I could not agree more that we ought to look to strengthening the governments and economies in our own geographic sphere of influence. I am even optimistic that we might be better off if the 2100 US flag had another 5 or 10 stars on it.

Posted by: bk at May 9, 2007 01:33 PM

What many seem to be suggesting is that America is doing a poor job taking advantage of both local labor and regional influence. It is beyond logic that Russia, Iran and China work inroads in South America while we do little to reverse negative images. Chavez is trying to convince his neighbors that the DEA is the biggest drug cartel in the world. We have much more potential to incorporate our neighbors into a benign prosperity than China and Russia can with its angry neighbors. Just one example of failed US PR. Right after 9/11 we had NATO and Europe offering real help in Afghanistan. Now most Americans don't even support our troops there. Right after 9/11 we had the world united in an effort to confront terrorist groups like AQ. We failed to move decisively to exploit the sympathy. As Simon has called Clinton, the greatest orator of our time, I believe Bill would have done a far better job talking the world into action. Now many Americans believe we are the problem. If America can regain the initiative and promote a real effort to win people's minds, then our strategic situation can be improved. You need a reasonable guest worker program to get Mexico and others on board. Today workers do pointing on my 18 story building. Want to bet its cheaper for this construction company to have illegals doing it? I have a suspicion that money saved is money in some boss’s pocket and society is not being served. How can I compete if I refuse to hire illegals? I have to pay more and provide insurance.

On the issue of automation: in the future cheap labor will be servicing robots, waiting on tables and working as bar tenders, doormen and painters. At some point, robots cost more to operate than cheap labor. The thirty-hour workweek will take some time and as people live longer, a person's total hours worked might actually increase. More people will chase the reamining jobs and the rates for doctors, lawyers and nurses could go down, but as we lower energy costs, automate and create synthetic resources, our cost of living should decline too. I do see robots adding to the ranks of our military. They can serve endless rotations, require zero life insurance and kill without sleep. I’m not sure how good they’ll be at counterterrorism. If we don't control population however, we'll end up having a lot of poor competing with machines and resources. At the rate we're going, we'll be long gone before robots becomes a real issue.

Posted by: Maxtrue at May 9, 2007 03:07 PM

I want my robot maid.

Posted by: Tully at May 9, 2007 04:46 PM

The 30 hour workweek sounds good to me, but my guts says it may be aq pipedream. First, eager people want to be able to get ahead by working harder, which very often manifests as working longer hours. Since the general assumpotion is that capitalism works in large part becuase it harnesses and reinforces personal motivation, it makes sense to me to assume that motivation is going to put a bound on the shorter work week. In other words, the length of the average work week is going to be at least in part a function the fact that some people want to be able to work harder to get ahead.

The other issue that makes me wonder whether this is a pipe dream is th possibility that technology may erode the muich higher standard of living America now enjoys. What guarantee do we have that these hypothetical American street sweepers will continue to be able to live as comfortably as we're surmising they do now?

Posted by: bk at May 10, 2007 09:27 AM

I want my Robot Berzerker

Posted by: Maxtrue at May 10, 2007 02:11 PM

If it won't clean up after itself (and the rest of the family) you can keep it. I want my robot maid!

Posted by: Tully at May 10, 2007 05:23 PM