Posted on 05/16/2003 4:49:38 AM PDT by harpseal
The job market for tech graduates is tight and getting tighter. People with years of technical experience are working at flipping burgers and saying “Welcome to Wal-Mart.” Outsourcing every corporate function except senior management to low wage nations such as India and China has become the latest fashion in the executive suites. There are many reasons why this has become the fad du jour but if the USA is to remain a livable nation it is time for Government policy to change in order to maintain the American economy. Those technical jobs that remain inside the USA are being given to low cost “Guest Workers” under the H1B program or if companies have gotten squeezed by the minor contraction of the H1B program they bring in people under the L1 visa program. In the interim totally qualified Americans are pounding the pavement looking for these same jobs. The means to maintain the American economy as the engine that drives the world are there but there are some government policies that must be changed. I am proposing a ten point program that will put the American economy in the front again.
First, and foremost the H1B visa program should be eliminated today. ALL H1B VISA SHOULD BE ENDED TODAY AND THOSE PEOPLE IN THIS NATION ON THAT PROGRAM SHOULD BE ON THE NEXT FLIGHT OUT OF THE USA. If this causes a hardship for some companies, oh well, the H1B program was based on the supposition there were NO Americans who could do the job. So they lied and they should pay a price for their misrepresentation.
Second, the cost of outsourcing should reflect its true cost to these companies. Revise the tax code so that the investment tax credit does not cover any development done outside the USA unless such development can not be done inside the USA. Fraud in such certification should be considered a felony and prosecuted.
Third, get rid of section 1706 of the IRS code that made it almost impossible for the independent IT consultants to do business directly with companies.
Fourth, the temporary visas for engineers coming into the USA to learn what the jobs of current IT workers are should not be granted.
Fifth, simplify the tax and regulatory environment so that contractors can be employed more readily. (See comments on section 1706).
Sixth, tighten the L1 visa program so that it is not used as way around the H1B program. In short no L1 visas will be issued to facilitate moving American jobs offshore.
Seventh, prosecute anyone who has certified falsely that they were unable to find American workers for a job when all they were doing was trying to save money by bringing in H1B low wage guest workers. A few felony convictions in this realm will do wonders for stopping future false certifications.
Eighth, repeal all government subsidies for foreign investment, and institute tariffs against those nations which only will purchase American products if we build facilities in their nations. Such restrictions by foreign nations are an infringement on the free market and must be fought. More factories in China will do nothing to improve the American economic condition. Now even Mexico is feeling the pinch the investment by American firms in the People’s Republic of China. In short access to the American Market should be dependant upon free access of American firms to the market in other nations. If guest workers from a nation are to be allowed in the USA then Americans must be allowed to work in that nation.
Ninth, the American system of higher education should be focused on Americans first and foremost. If foreign students wish to come to the USA to study that is fine if there is space available, but only on a space available basis. Priority must go to those students who will be graduating as American citizens and the public funding of higher education should not be expended on students from other nations who seek to come here study and take the knowledge back to another nation to compete with the USA.
Tenth, we as a nation must revise our overall tax and regulatory environment. We must get away from the soak the rich formulas. We must no longer have the legal system seek to micro manage every action of every person. Rule of law is important but the law should not concern itself with trivialities. We need to restore balance in our tax laws and regulatory system.
These ten points are based on come very sound principles and are a natural conservative agenda in my opinion. They are based on controlling our borders. They are based on not subsidizing foreign nationals at the expense of the basics of American citizens. They are based on demanding free markets from our competitors. They are based on returning sanity to our tax and regulatory systems. They are based on demanding responsibility and truth from our nation’s companies in their dealings with our immigration policies. They are based on holding companies accountable for their actions.
No, none of this is a giveaway program. They are not based upon taking away a free market but rather on expanding a free market. India and China in fact the entire world has a sound basis to become sound stable and prosperous economies at present. The USA should not experience deflation and depression to subsidize these nations.
The political implications of the above proposals should be clear to everyone. Advocacy of these proposals would appeal to a broad cross section of the American electorate. They could be enough to insure a long term governing plurality for the political party that adopted them. It is my hope that the Republican Party will take them to heart.
You were not born a seniort engineer. you had to study and work hard to get there. You had to do the scut work of verification and that was where I am sure you started out. By farming out this scut work of verification to the Chinese your company is depriving itself of the future engineers it needs. It can then eventually farm out the senior engineering work to China but then the Chinese will be in the drivers seat but you will be retired so you will not care but your children will be serving the visiting masters.
We live in a nation where CEO's who run companies into the ground work in the easiest working conditions are compensated in the millions for what can only be described a gross incompetence. this is the same nation where those who are willing to deliver honest value for the dollar are unpaid and not able to meet their obligations due to government policy that is against our nation's priciples.
You clearly have a limited comprehension of how the health care industry is financed. Rather than suckling at the government teat, health care providers must acquiesce to government price controls, regardless of who is paying the bill. Federal and state laws also limit institutional recourse when a "customer" lacks the funds to pay. In other words, we are probably the only industry that is required by law to give our services away. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursment schedules are lower than any free-market could possibly allow, so the teat you speak of often leaves us hungrier than we were before meal time.
Yes, if we decided to pay nurses a million dollars a year, yippee, no more shortage. But where in the hell do you think the money to pay them that would come from? Believe me, my organization would love to compete head to head with other providers out there, no-holds-barred. But because so much of the electorate believes quality health care is a "right" and not something that should be compensated for based on value, we have the system we do. That's why the next time you have to go the emergency room (heaven forbid), you'll likely be in line behind some destitute child with a hangnail, who will use $1000 in time and resources for free.
You were not born a seniort engineer. you had to study and work hard to get there. You had to do the scut work of verification and that was where I am sure you started out. By farming out this scut work of verification to the Chinese your company is depriving itself of the future engineers it needs. It can then eventually farm out the senior engineering work to China but then the Chinese will be in the drivers seat but you will be retired so you will not care but your children will be serving the visiting masters
I find no more fault with my company than with you or I choosing to buy a Tool Shop tool from Menards rather than a Snap On tool. Obviously labor is part of the free market too. My company management realizes it needs a percentage of inhouse machining and engineering and that it can also farm out a percentage to cheaper job houses. I guess none of these things register as unfair short sighted to me.
In Boeings competition with Airbus we have an American company totally home grown and a free enterprise driven by the Market. Airbus is the product of Euro governments that saw they were missing out on a market and wanted it. They built the industry, not free enterprise. They forked over billions and like the Japanese steel industry after WW2, they learned from our mistakes and do the same job more efficiently. Obviously our government would be foolish to let Boeing go out and work in such an obviously unfree market environment and they don't. The overriding point to this is that in both cases, governments are trying to do what is best for it's people's financially. "Money takes care of itself" in the long run it but it is such a complex system only God understands it.
I did not say the government was generous or even fair but due to that regulation you speak of and the fact that medicare, medicaid and private insurance covers most of the health care costs in the USA I stand by my staement taht it is a government financed and controlled industry.
Yes, if we decided to pay nurses a million dollars a year, yippee, no more shortage. But where in the hell do you think the money to pay them that would come from? Believe me, my organization would love to compete head to head with other providers out there, no-holds-barred. But because so much of the electorate believes quality health care is a "right" and not something that should be compensated for based on value, we have the system we do. That's why the next time you have to go the emergency room (heaven forbid), you'll likely be in line behind some destitute child with a hangnail, who will use $1000 in time and resources for free.
Actually you are a victim of socialism and I will conceed that as long as we have government price controlls on medical care we will have problems providing adequate care. Such has long been recognized as a problemand should be addressed seprately. So perhaps we should only have H1B visas for the health care industry. The problem is that will suprress the long term supply of labor in that field. You state dyou would love to compete head to head in a free market envirornment. I most certainly would love for you to be able to do so. The simple fact is your pricing should reflect your costs including your reasonable labor cvosts for nursing staff without having to recruit outside the USA. You will note that i have no qualms about legal immigrants working in the field. One of the problems facing you and others in the field of Medical administration is that the reguilation is so extreme. I have already had that emergency room wait you talk about. I personally really wish I cvould be treated at a vetrinary hospital. I think my dog gets better medical care than I do but that is just my personal view. I realize taht it is the government regulations that cause this. I suggest you re-read my points with particular emphasis on the changes to the regulatory envirornment.
Frankly, I don't believe we have the right to "demand" free markets in any sovereign foreign nation. They have sovereign jurisdiction over their domestic market the same as we have sovereign jurisdiction over ours. They have the right to establish a set of rules and regulations that they deem beneficial to their own citizenry just as we have the right to establish our own set of rules and regulations. Where do we get the "right" to "demand" that they change THEIR rules? That sounds just as obnoxious as giving some door-to-door salesman the right to bust down your front door to force you to endure his vacuum cleaner demonstration. Dang intrusive peddlers should be locked in jail instead.
So why do object for governments doing what is best for its people financially in other envirornments most especially when it helps promote an actual free market. I guess it is becuase you think it might cost you something that you feel entitled to by what I wonder?
Would you try rereading this question.
I guess it is becuase you think it might cost you something that you feel entitled to. By what right do you feel this entitlement I wonder?
Policy based on "reciprocity" is a bureaucratic nightmare.
There are 191 nations who are members of the UN.
It's simply a pain in the butt keeping tabs on each and every one, even if they organize themselves into a variety of different trade groups. That just shifts diputes into those groups for resolution and judgement in a manner that violates our nation's sovereignty.
It's much simpler and more efficient to dispense with such nonsense and retain our own, one-size-fits-all trade policy with respect to other nations.
"We are infinitely better off without treaties of commerce with any nation."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1815.
Protectionist tariffs or tariff exemptions that target or favor the special interests of different countries or industries should be banned.
However, as our Founding Fathers preferred, a relatively low, flat-rate "revenue tariff" of 10~15% should be levied on ALL imported goods, regardless of nation of origin. Revenues derived from such a tariff could be used to offset reductions in other forms of domestic taxation.
No we simply implement the policy and when and if they come to our terms they gain free acess to our markets. they can engage in bilateral negotions with the soverign USA and deal with the results. This should lead to a straight revenue type tarriff you favor.
Provided the question they are asked has an objective answer that can be determined empirically with little cost. I'm confident the actual effect, once prosecution were vigorously pursued, would be to end all employment based on H1-B -- not because everyone employing someone via H1-B is guilty, but because the standard of culpability will in practice be arbitrary, as well as difficult and costly to defend against. That is almost always the case when government back-seat drives employment decisions.
Affirmative action demonstrates the same mechanism, with the opposite effect. The supporters of the 1964 Civil Rights act assured all that quotas would not result, but those turned out to be the only practical means of enforcement and defense.
"Regarding point 8 it is in order to open up markets for US goods and service that tarriffs have their most effect."
The key modifier there is "in order to". The main effects of laws quite frequently have nothing to do with their stated purpose. It is very difficult, in practice, to remain true to the original purpose once any departure from uniformity has been granted.
I'm not at all concerned whether some country grants us free access or not; they are sovereigns, and it is their business. We are not entitled to reciprocity, and in the aggregate free trade is in the economic interest of the nation, regardless of whether it is reciprocal. However, I am concerned about the distribution of the effects of free trade within our nation. The individual costs attending a free trade policy are not uniformly distributed, but poltical power is, through the franchise. Free trade is therefore politically destablizing and dangerous.
Like the country-specific tariff, the uniform tariff distributes the individual costs of trade policy in a more egalitarian fashion. But the uniform tariff has four great virtues that the country-specific tariff does not.
1) It does not require a mechanism for determining country-of-origin. In the case of raw materials it is typically easy to determine that, but in the case of finished products it frequently is not. If a finished good has parts produced in countries A and B, is assembled in C and passes through country D as its last stop before reaching the USA, what is its country of origin? Any formula to resolve that is going to be arbitrary, arcane, and subject to endless revision -- and revised also for reasons having nothing to do with the original purpose. This fails several tests of good law.
2) By being uniform, there is no hierarchy of angels and devils in trade policy; our trade policy can only serve trade, and not other ends (but exceptions for war are likely prudent.) In peace, our trade policy could only elicit the general, rather than the specific discontent of other nations, and is therefore more conducive to peace than the current arrangement.
3) By being uniform, it can be lower.
4) By being lower and uniform it will be cheaper to enforce. It will be cheaper because the cost attending the discovery and documentation of country origin simply does not exist; voluntary compliance will be much higher; attempts at circumvention or outright smuggling much lower.
IMO, these four advantages are overwhelming.
Our policies should strictly be based on what is best for our own citizenry. They shoud NOT be subject to negotiation with foreign governments. The revenue tariff should be imposed unilaterally. Foreign nations are free to deal with that, or not, as they choose.
Frankly, a unilateral, nondiscriminatory flat-rate revenue tariff is more in line with the principles of true "free trade" than anything that is micromanaged by negotiated trade agreements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.