It's about getting needed work done --
--
not about protecting/providing jobs for crybabies who don't want to compete.
Oh dear, another ironic “crybaby economics” OP that presupposes a simple magic wand approach to an economic issue.
What's "magic" about job-seekers at point A being allowed to take jobs at point B? Is it "magic" to combine a job with someone who wants to work?
Was it "magic" more than 100 years ago when America took in millions of immigrants to get needed work done? Was all that benefit to the U.S. economy, like getting the railroads done quicker, a "magic wand" approach to an economic issue?
If so, this is "magic" which has worked well historically. And when the opposite is done and immigrant labor is curtailed, like Trump tried to do, and like what's happening in England right now where there's a labor shortage, and like America did 100 years ago to appease the xenophobes, the net result has been damaging to the economy.
And who are the ones who throw a tantrum when immigrant labor increases? Isn't it the uncompetitive workers who are afraid it threatens their job? or someone pandering to them?
So, what's wrong with calling them crybabies, when their clamor is only to make themselves better off at the expense of everyone else who has to pay for it? when the result is to prevent needed work from getting done which would benefit the entire population? and when the only benefit is to this minority of whining uncompetitive wage-earners who instead of throwing a tantrum could choose to improve themselves and become better producers?
What's wrong with calling someone a "crybaby" when their whining is only to make themselves personally better off at the cost of net damage imposed onto everyone else?
Looks to me that you are having a meltdown about this.
The current situation in the US is a short-run labor shortage at best.
We don't know that. Economists are mostly baffled about the labor shortage and the cause of it. Even if it's true that labor supply will increase within a year or two, that's no reason to exclude needed workers who are available for work needing to be done now.
Why should all this work not get done? Why should shelves remain empty and cargo ships not be unloaded and products not be delivered when there are easily a million immigrant workers who can perform that needed work? Why should needed work not get done based on theoretical speculation that the labor shortage might decrease over 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 years? Why not instead let the current needed work get done?
Why does immigrant-bashing take priority over the welfare of U.S. consumers? i.e., over the whole population?
The non-crybaby market solution is for those labor markets where there is a shortage to raise wages in order to . . .
No, higher labor cost might mean less profit, in which case it won't happen, but instead companies will just let the production remain low until they find the needed labor. How can you expect companies to reduce their profit in order to fill high-cost jobs? You mean they're supposed to hire workers out of pity for them? and pay workers not for the work but only because they feel sorry for the needy workers?
How is it bad for the economy if immigrant workers are allowed in to do those jobs? How is that any different than if the work is automated so that it's done by machines rather than by humans? Isn't it good if lower-cost machines are introduced to do the work instead of high-cost labor? So, if we agree that automation is good for the economy, to get the work done at lower cost, why then isn't it also good to get the work done at lower labor cost, if the workers are available?
. . . raise wages in order to induce more qualified people into the labor market.
Employers already know that and do increase wages in some cases, but in other cases that labor cost increase is so much that the company would lose profit rather than gain at that higher cost level. The company knows best what is the right wage level in order maximize its profit, which every company tries to do.
The company's function is to serve consumers with more and better production, not provide jobs or incomes to needy workers. If it can better serve consumers (and thus increase profit) by increasing the wage level, it's already doing so. But in many cases the company is barely making a profit at the current lower wage level. So increasing the labor supply is also a way to get production back up.
Or also, installing machines to do the work is a solution. Increased immigration is one way historically that companies improved production and served consumers better. When there's a need for the extra labor, increased immigration is one solution. There's no reason why it should not be increased now when it's needed. To arbitrarily rule it out at this time can only be explained as another example of xenophobia.
Your solution is a long-run.
We are better off long-term even if the current labor shortage turns out to be temporary. There is both the short-term benefit of taking in more immigrant workers now, but also the long-term benefit of increased competition. More competition is always good for the economy, never bad. So even if this is short-term, which we don't know, it's still good because there is no long-term harm or cost in having these extra workers or this higher labor supply in the following years. That increased competition in the labor market is good for the economy, as ALL competition is good.
When we know there is a short-term gain, and there is no long-term loss, then how is it not a net gain to do it even if it does turn out to be a short-term problem? Why take the risk of the harm that would happen a year or 2 from now if it turns out later to be a long-term labor shortage rather than only short-term? It's better to fix what we know needs fixing now, and not worry about the longer-term speculation over the future conditions, which you cannot predict.
When did this country ever suffer a labor glut because of too much immigration? No one except an overpaid crybaby uncompetitive wage-earner would ever make that complaint; or maybe also an immigrant-hater.
It is magical thinking to opine that these immigrants will have the necessary language, labor and cultural abilities and skills to seamlessly do the productive work and . . .
So immigrants are too stupid to drive a truck or unload cargo at the docks?
. . . do the productive work and magically get to the areas where there are those shortages.
source: Imperial Grand Dragon David Duke's White Paper on Why Immigrants are a Threat to Red-Blooded American Workers
Moreover, that those communities where they settle will seamlessly welcome and help those immigrants and their children integrate into society.
source: David Duke's White Paper on Why Immigrants are a Threat to our Red-Blooded American Families and Communities
