Within the Margin of Error - Exporting America
Within the Margin of Error:
Exporting America
Today the Bush administration announced plans to revive their
recently deceased immigration reform bill.� The bill, if passed, would
provide virtual amnesty for illegal immigrants.� Together with Senator John
McCain of Arizona they hope to reform the foreign workers program to allow
companies to offer legal immigration to workers to fill jobs Americans are
unwilling to perform.
Capitalism
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of
capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by
prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by
competition in a free market
"Determined by competition in a free market," that's what
capitalism is all about.� But is it a free market when companies are
allowed to import labor to the U.S. to fill jobs "Americans don't want"?�
Do we really not want to work these jobs or is it that companies aren't willing
to pay high enough wages for Americans to fill that job?� Free market,
supply and demand, the defining principles of the American economy.� If a
company, lets say a restaurant, needs to fill a low level dish washing or cook
position and only wants to pay $5.15 an hour for it, is it the American worker
who should suffer by the company giving that job to an illegal immigrant who
will do it for that price or should the company recognize that the supply and
demands of workers in the U.S. free market requires they raise the pay of such
position in order to fill it?� How much would that cut into profits?�
How much would that increase costs on the meals they server, 1%, 5%, more
perhaps?
Our economy is driven by the free market supply and demand
model.� We, as American consumers, are required to bow to it when
purchasing gasoline, jewelry, clothing, food, and every other product or
service.� But why is it that we do not expect our companies to follow the
same free market supply and demand of the labor force?� If I want a DVD for
$5, I won't be able to find it at Wal-Mart or Best Buy, but I could in Hong
Kong, yet it is illegal for me to import a bootleg DVD to take advantage of such
cost savings.� Yet, if that same Wal-mart or Best Buy wants to higher a
cashier for $5.15 an hour, under the Bush immigration reform plan, they can
import an immigrant that will do the job for that price.
Japanese auto manufacturers like Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have
built plants here in the U.S. to build cars less expensively than it would be to
import them from Japan.� Yet, Ford, GM, and Chrysler argue that they can't
compete with these Japanese auto manufacturers and that they need to build
plants in Mexico in order to save labor costs when serving the U.S. market.�
NAFTA was then passed by the Clinton administration and the Republican congress
to allow such a practice.� Why is it that foreign companies can use
American labor to manufacture cost effective cars, but our own American
companies need to outsource the production to foreign laborers when serving the
U.S. market?
SBC, formerly Southwestern Bell, is one of the 10 most
profitable companies in the world, netting over $3 billion dollars annually, and
they serve only the U.S. market.� They have laid off 10's of thousands of
jobs over the last 2 to 3 years and replaced them with cheap overseas labor in
India.� They argue they need to do such things to stay competitive.�
Forgetting that they have an enormous profit umbrella to work under, they foster
the idea that American companies employing foreign labor opens those markets to
American products and services.� Then why again is it that SBC does not and
has no intention of offering products or services to these foreign markets?�
Back to the free trade and supply and demand principles, is the U.S. labor
market free for the worker when he has a standard of living that needs to be
maintained and the market demands his employer provide benefits like health
insurance and retirement programs while his foreign counterpart is willing to
work for vastly less money and has no expectations of health insurance or
retirement benefits?
The American worker is being squeezed from both sides.� Our
high paying jobs in the technology and medical fields are being offshored to
India and China, our lower paying, but sustainable living jobs are being
eliminated and replaced by illegal, soon to be legal if the administration and
John McCain have their ways, immigrants.�
So-called "Free Traders" would label someone like me, who points
out the obvious flaws in the sham of Free Trade, as a "protectionist."�
They can call me that, I see nothing wrong with wanting to protect the American
way of life.� That way of life is what immigrants through out the world
desire when they come here, its that way of life that has fostered rags to
riches stories like Bill Gates and countless others.� So they can go ahead
and label me as a protectionist, I will where it like a badge of honor, but I
and others like me call ourselves "Fair Traders."� We seek to maintain a
system that operates within the confines of a free market and where supply and
demand are two way streets, both for the products and services we consume and
for the laborers that produce them.� Fair traders seek corporate
responsibility in that the goals of making decisions to benefit the greater good
of the U.S. and its citizens and increasing shareholder values are balanced,
where profits are increased without harming the American way of life.
Have fun,
j
0 people think they have something witty to say about this entry.
