Elizabeth Warren proves to be just another special interest hack - comes out against free trade agreement

[ksen]

And you got that right because you were lucky enough to born on the right side of imaginary lines, which should it matter which place on earth that you are born?

I think he is claiming that immigrants are accepting jobs that they wouldn't otherwise accept without the possibility of obtaining a green card (or are willing to accept such jobs at substantially lower pay than they would otherwise agree to without the green card benefit). However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim.

I've read that about 3% of H-1B holders actually try to get a green card while the rest do their time here and then go back home with their new skills.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think he is claiming that immigrants are accepting jobs that they wouldn't otherwise accept without the possibility of obtaining a green card (or are willing to accept such jobs at substantially lower pay than they would otherwise agree to without the green card benefit). However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim.

I've read that about 3% of H-1B holders actually try to get a green card while the rest do their time here and then go back home with their new skills.

[Citation needed]

Note, also, that the % that actually get a green card isn't evidence of the percent that do it in the hopes of getting a green card. You don't put in your 6 years (say, the employer decides to hire someone else instead), you don't get the green card.

 

[Jayjay]

I've read that about 3% of H-1B holders actually try to get a green card while the rest do their time here and then go back home with their new skills.

[Citation needed]

Note, also, that the % that actually get a green card isn't evidence of the percent that do it in the hopes of getting a green card. You don't put in your 6 years (say, the employer decides to hire someone else instead), you don't get the green card.

Irrelevant. Would you change your citizenship, for a chance to have a green card? The people who you seem to be envious of are in every way worse situation than you. You could do the same job for the same pay, and still be better off because you already have everything that the H1-B visa or Green Card holders are only aspiring for.

Why are you against fair competition?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

[Citation needed]

Note, also, that the % that actually get a green card isn't evidence of the percent that do it in the hopes of getting a green card. You don't put in your 6 years (say, the employer decides to hire someone else instead), you don't get the green card.

Irrelevant. Would you change your citizenship, for a chance to have a green card? The people who you seem to be envious of are in every way worse situation than you. You could do the same job for the same pay, and still be better off because you already have everything that the H1-B visa or Green Card holders are only aspiring for.

Why are you against fair competition?

It's not irrelevant. They're taking the job to get the shot at the green card. It's in effect part of their salary.

There's also the issue that it's a very different issue when you are competing against foreigners over there vs having them here.

 

[Axulus]

I think he is claiming that immigrants are accepting jobs that they wouldn't otherwise accept without the possibility of obtaining a green card (or are willing to accept such jobs at substantially lower pay than they would otherwise agree to without the green card benefit). However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim.

We start off with Axulus calling Elizabeth Warren a special interest hack because she does not want our country's soverignty to be compromised in such a manner we can no longer protect the environment or consumers from would be importers of harmful imports without paying them for their lost expected profits. I am on board with that special interest.
I think Axulus owes us an explanation of just what he considers a "special interest."

I already answered this one. The special interests are primarily unions and some non-union workers who fear foreign competition, as well as domestic businesses who fear foreign competition. This ignores all the businesses who will have expanded access to foreign markets and all the consumers (everyone) who benefit from more variety at more competitive prices, as well as the efficiency and quality improvements that will result in our own companies as they adapt to the competition, making our economy overall stronger and more innovative.

 

[ksen]

If American CEOs had to compete with much lower paid foreign CEOs for their jobs you'd all of a sudden see a lot less enthusiasm for these "free trade" agreements.

 

[ZiprHead]

If this was really free trade, why are such extensive parameters of what can or cannot be done required?

Governments guaranteeing the profits of companies deemed to have been wronged in some way. Yup, free trade all the way.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

We start off with Axulus calling Elizabeth Warren a special interest hack because she does not want our country's soverignty to be compromised in such a manner we can no longer protect the environment or consumers from would be importers of harmful imports without paying them for their lost expected profits. I am on board with that special interest.
I think Axulus owes us an explanation of just what he considers a "special interest."

I already answered this one. The special interests are primarily unions and some non-union workers who fear foreign competition, as well as domestic businesses who fear foreign competition. This ignores all the businesses who will have expanded access to foreign markets and all the consumers (everyone) who benefit from more variety at more competitive prices, as well as the efficiency and quality improvements that will result in our own companies as they adapt to the competition, making our economy overall stronger and more innovative.

I'm not sure my union fears foreign competition. It never comes up, except in a broader worker's rights mode (generally cases of exploration and human trafficking). Most industries that could be outsourced have been outsourced. Like most unions, we are concerned about our member's well being.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If this was really free trade, why are such extensive parameters of what can or cannot be done required?

Governments guaranteeing the profits of companies deemed to have been wronged in some way. Yup, free trade all the way.

I've been reading a bit more about this, and it appears that ISDSs were developed for dealing with countries with a weak judiciary. IIRC the first was between Germany and Pakistan.

Since this agreement involves 40% of the worlds economy, why not resolve these disputes in court? It seems to be setting a poor precedent for a more integrated global economy.

Also, not many believe that the ISDSs will overturn many local laws. However, the threat of expensive litigation will be effective enough.

 

[Canard DuJour]

When someone says that a policy is good for the economy we should ask, "Whose economy?"

Which, of course, people do.

Except economists.

Which is hardly surprising given a social science that has, since the 1840s, been trying to expunge all reference to class.

 

[SimpleDon]

The judgements from ISDS case are monetary, not punitive. The law wouldn't be changed, the offended party would be paid a monetary award paid by the tax payers to compensate for damages. It is turning the relationship between the government and the commercial entities a little more on its ear. Government in the past as a neutral set the ground rules for businesses to compete with in and enforced those rules to assure some degree of fairness and to introduce factors that the commercial transaction wouldn't otherwise take into account, what economists call externalities, worker safety, not polluting, etc. It is now moving further toward the government being responsible for reducing the risk of business and guaranteeing profits. If the government and the people want a clean environment they should pay businesses directly to provide it, for example. Business shouldn't have to pay to now have to clean up their processes because they didn't have to in the past when they went into business. In other words by squatter's rights they have the right to pollute and by taking that right away the government should liable because they changed the rules.

Exactly. There are times that regulations are rigged to favor supporters and I'm all for overturning such laws. However, simply having more strict laws doesn't inherently mean they're wrong.

Note that this problem exists domestically as well as between nations. Look at the battles Uber and Tesla have fought to overturn protectionism codified into law.

A method for overturning such bad laws should exist but it should have a reasonably high burden of proof.

It does exist. The laws are written by the mechanisms put into place by representative democracy. It is not a perfect system by any means, but it is the best that we have come up with.

Yes, the law, regulation and treaty writing system is subject to capture by the very entities that the regulations et al are suppose to regulate. They have a much greater incentive to be involved in the process of writing the regulations. And it is true that most often the entities that are subject to the regulations are the only ones with enough knowledge to be able to write the regulations. This too is unavoidable.

What we have to try to do is to make sure that all interested parties are involved in writing the laws, regulations and treaties and that these things are done in the open. And I know a very good place to start.

When the Republicans first took over the long term control of Congress with the sole aim of converting the government into one that only serve the corporate interests, the very first think that they did was to cripple the committee system in the Congress. They concentrated power that the committees had into the leadership, the speaker in the house and the majority leader in the senate. More importantly they got rid of the committees' permanent staffs, who over many years of dealing with all of the sides about the issues that came before the committees had gained considerable knowledge about those issues. And they got use to negotiating out the compromises that got legislation written.

By getting rid of these people the Republican leadership made the entire process of writing laws more dependent on the lobbyists and tilted the process toward those who could afford the lobbyists, the wealthy and the corporations. And this is a durable change to the process, one that carries over into the times that the Democrats have control of the Congress. It was easy for the Republicans to destroy the knowledgeable permanent committee permanent staffs. It will be a very hard thing to replace them, requiring many years.

Conservatives can gain their desired results, no change, by obstruction, destruction and no compromise. The only way to avoid them is to go back to ignoring them, to keeping them as far away from control of the government as possible. That to declare oneself as a conservative is the same as saying that one is congenitally unfit to hold a public office.

 

[SimpleDon]

And you got that right because you were lucky enough to born on the right side of imaginary lines, which should it matter which place on earth that you are born?

I think he is claiming that immigrants are accepting jobs that they wouldn't otherwise accept without the possibility of obtaining a green card (or are willing to accept such jobs at substantially lower pay than they would otherwise agree to without the green card benefit). However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim.

My company employed a large number of people with H1B1 visas. They were usually people from other parts of our company around the world, from the PRC, India, Germany, Canada or the Ukraine. They come here on temporary assignments for say six months and the very best of them we want them to stay permanently so that they can bring their families with them. We would apply for H1B1 visas for most of them. (Germans and Canadians could usually apply for green cards directly.)

But we certainly didn't pay the H1B1 visa holders any less than we did citizens. In fact, we had a company wide policy that even the temporary workers have to be paid the same as the permanent employees doing the same work were paid. A designer or an engineer from India or the PRC could earn three or four times more on temporary assignment in the US, Germany or Canada as they earned in India. And of course, we paid for his housing and a per diem for meals etc. And we have to cover the cost of temporary health care coverage for some of them too, I know for the Chinese for certain

I didn't see that these policies, which are regulations in Germany, are unusual in the US. We surveyed other companies through McKinsey to establish our policies in the US.

 

[SimpleDon]

Bottom line I have mixed feelings about these treaties. Globalization and off shoring do benefit developing countries and does reduce their poverty.

But it comes at a price, it is just one more thing that suppresses wages in the US and increases profits. And these seem to me to be the reasons behind the push for these treaties and not the desire to help the developing countries and the poor in those countries.

To pretend that something like free trade is possible or even desirable if it was possible is ridiculous. It is no more possible than it is that the free market that regulates itself preventing all possible misbehavior is possible.

Controlling the economy is one of the two major reasons that forced and that shaped the development of governments, the other being security. There is no way that government and the market or government and trade can be separated. To believe otherwise is to engage in fantasies, dangerous fantasies.

There is nothing wrong with a certain degree of protectionism in our country. First and foremost our first obligation should be to our people, those who live here. We should be eliminating poverty in this country. It is certainly possible, this is the richest country in the world. We only have an income distribution problem, a problem that we intentionally caused. There is no question that we know how to reverse our terrible income inequality. Just start slowly reversing those policies that we instituted thirty five years ago that caused it.

Simple.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If this was really free trade, why are such extensive parameters of what can or cannot be done required?

Governments guaranteeing the profits of companies deemed to have been wronged in some way. Yup, free trade all the way.

Actually, there is a reason for rules along these lines. The problem is that sometimes laws are rigged for protectionism rather than the public welfare.

- - - Updated - - -

I think he is claiming that immigrants are accepting jobs that they wouldn't otherwise accept without the possibility of obtaining a green card (or are willing to accept such jobs at substantially lower pay than they would otherwise agree to without the green card benefit). However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim.

My company employed a large number of people with H1B1 visas. They were usually people from other parts of our company around the world, from the PRC, India, Germany, Canada or the Ukraine. They come here on temporary assignments for say six months and the very best of them we want them to stay permanently so that they can bring their families with them. We would apply for H1B1 visas for most of them. (Germans and Canadians could usually apply for green cards directly.)

But we certainly didn't pay the H1B1 visa holders any less than we did citizens. In fact, we had a company wide policy that even the temporary workers have to be paid the same as the permanent employees doing the same work were paid. A designer or an engineer from India or the PRC could earn three or four times more on temporary assignment in the US, Germany or Canada as they earned in India. And of course, we paid for his housing and a per diem for meals etc. And we have to cover the cost of temporary health care coverage for some of them too, I know for the Chinese for certain

I didn't see that these policies, which are regulations in Germany, are unusual in the US. We surveyed other companies through McKinsey to establish our policies in the US.

H1-B visas?? You're describing situations that normally are covered by L-1 visas.

 

[SimpleDon]

I think he is claiming that immigrants are accepting jobs that they wouldn't otherwise accept without the possibility of obtaining a green card (or are willing to accept such jobs at substantially lower pay than they would otherwise agree to without the green card benefit). However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim.

I've read that about 3% of H-1B holders actually try to get a green card while the rest do their time here and then go back home with their new skills.

But they did productive work while they were here.

Our experience is a little better than that but certainly the majority of the H1B1 visa holders don't get a green card and don't move here permanently.

I would say that about 20% do stay, but these by and large are Germans, who are more senior or Canadians for whom the US isn't all different than Canada, just warmer all year around.

We have only had one Chinese stay permanently, he and his wife, who is also an engineer now are US citizens and they have one child who only dimly remembers the China he left as a five year old. He is now as American as my son is and will graduate from Medical school this year. He got his citizenship the very earliest that he could. When he turned 18 I think.

We have one Brazilian here who was on a H1B1 visa. She speaks five languages really well and can muddle around in three more. She came to work for us because we could get her a visa, her previous employer CNN, couldn't get her one, they had all of them that they could get. An extremely intelligent woman she learned the business from translating and she is now handling much of our business in South America. She is now married to a Georgia good old boy and has a three year old daughter who currently speaks three different languages.

Since she married an American citizen she no longer needed the visa to stay and work in the US. After nearly two years she has finally gotten her application for full citizenship approved. The INS (or so ever it is called this week,) suspected that hers was a marriage of convenience to get her citizenship, which it wasn't. Admittedly they didn't help their case since in six years they got divorced twice and remarried twice in addition to the original marriage. It is a thing that they do. They kept living together even when they were divorced, in fact, that is when she got pregnant.

We have three Indians here on the H1B1 visas with their families. I don't think that any of the three will make it here. All three for the same reason, their wives are unhappy here. The wives of H1B1 visa holders can't work. Most of them did work in India.

We have a Venezuelan here with a Columbian wife who has two small children. They probably will make it to getting their green card because the wife is concentrating on her children, she speaks excellent English, has a large number of American friends and won't want to work until her children are in school. By then they will have their green cards and she will be able to work.

We have an Argentinian who worked for me eight years ago on site in LaSalle, Illinois. He was single then, working for a consulting engineer who did our structural design out of St. Louis. After my project was finished he went back to Argentina. He had been here on a regular business visa that had expired. He worked in Argentina for a company there for two years. He got married to an Argentinian woman during this time and they had a daughter. He decided that he wanted to come back to the US and called me. We hired him in Argentina and put him to work on a site in Brazil and started applying for a H1B1 visa for him. It was really hard to get one for him because he had been in the US on a regular business visa working for another company. It appeared that we had hired him just to get him the visa. After more than six months of trying we finally got the visa.

It is really touch and go if they will stay. Left up to him and they would. But his wife was a clinical physiologist in Argentina. And as I said she can't work in the US. Even if she gets a green card I would imagine that she would have an extreme number of hoops to jump through before she could practice in the US. Besides she is not working very hard hard to learn English.

It is a hard thing to move to a different country. I have lived for extended times in other countries, three to four years each but I never moved my family and the moves always were temporary. My son and my daughter did at different times stay with me in Germany and China, going to school. My young family with no one of the children in school lived with me for a time in Montreal, but they couldn't handle the winters.

 

[ZiprHead]

But we certainly didn't pay the H1B1 visa holders any less than we did citizens. In fact, we had a company wide policy that even the temporary workers have to be paid the same as the permanent employees doing the same work were paid. A designer or an engineer from India or the PRC could earn three or four times more on temporary assignment in the US, Germany or Canada as they earned in India. And of course, we paid for his housing and a per diem for meals etc. And we have to cover the cost of temporary health care coverage for some of them too, I know for the Chinese for certain

[dismal]Why was your company providing these people this charity. It could lead to the end of capitalism as we know it.[/dismal]

 

[Trodon]

When someone says that a policy is good for the economy we should ask, "Whose economy?"

Which, of course, people do.

Except economists.

Which is hardly surprising given a social science that has, since the 1840s, been trying to expunge all reference to class.

A problem with all social sciences is that there is not a commonly agreed upon method of distinguishing between truth and falsehood. In chemistry and physics hypotheses can be tested with repeatable experiments. In economics we cannot go back in time, choose a different policy, and measure different results. Instead, economists collect various facts in order to maintain whatever they want to believe.

Economists still disagree about what caused the Great Depression, and what ended it.

No economic policy benefits everyone. Every policy, and every change in policy, benefits some people at the expense of other people. Moreover, every economic policy and every change in policy benefits some kind of people at the expense of other kind of people.

During the New Deal wealth, power, and prestige shifted from the business community to the government. The heroes of the New Deal were not businessmen, but civil servants, labor leaders, and intellectuals. Indeed, businessmen were widely blamed for the Great Depression.

During most of American history businessmen have had more respect than other demographics. How one feels about businessmen and the government largely influences how one thinks about the Depression and the New Deal, which facts one emphasizes, and which facts one disregards.

 

[Trodon]

The H1-B Visas Don’t Help American STEM Graduates

My company employed a large number of people with H1B1 visas. They were usually people from other parts of our company around the world, from the PRC, India, Germany, Canada or the Ukraine. They come here on temporary assignments for say six months and the very best of them we want them to stay permanently so that they can bring their families with them. We would apply for H1B1 visas for most of them. (Germans and Canadians could usually apply for green cards directly.)

But we certainly didn't pay the H1B1 visa holders any less than we did citizens. In fact, we had a company wide policy that even the temporary workers have to be paid the same as the permanent employees doing the same work were paid. A designer or an engineer from India or the PRC could earn three or four times more on temporary assignment in the US, Germany or Canada as they earned in India. And of course, we paid for his housing and a per diem for meals etc. And we have to cover the cost of temporary health care coverage for some of them too, I know for the Chinese for certain

I didn't see that these policies, which are regulations in Germany, are unusual in the US. We surveyed other companies through McKinsey to establish our policies in the US.

Claiming that H1B visa holders earn less than American citizens doing the same work is somewhat of a red herring. It is not always true, as SimpleDon points out. It remains the case that H1B visas depress wages for American citizens, including those with good educations and backgrounds.

In a letter to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal that appeared in the May 2 - 3 issue Sen. Jeff Sessions (R. Ala.) wrote, "Each year, the U.S. graduates twice as many students with STEM degrees as are hired in STEM occupations. Contrary to the suggestion that these students are finding better, higher-paying jobs, the opposite is true. About 35% of science students, 55% of technology students, 20% of engineering students and 30% of math students who recently graduated are now working in jobs that don’t require any four-year college degree. As further proof of no shortage, wages in the profitable IT industry have been largely flat for more than a decade."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-h1-...em-graduates-letters-to-the-editor-1430507004

For the employer - investor class the H1B visa program is ideal. Those who get the visas are not allowed to vote. Thus they cannot vote Democrat, as most of them would. Nevertheless, they depress wages for American employees. Consequently they raise profits.

 

[fromderinside]

....
For the employer - investor class the H1B visa program is ideal. Those who get the visas are not allowed to vote. Thus they cannot vote Democrat, as most of them would. Nevertheless, they depress wages for American employees. Consequently they raise profits.

Most of those who get HiB visas go on to become US citizens rather than return to India, Chian, Indonesia, Iran, South Africa, whatever.

So they do tend to vote democratic ...... in the long term.

Improve the law. Impose restrictions that delay citizenship eligibility to age 55 or later .....

 

[Axulus]

My company employed a large number of people with H1B1 visas. They were usually people from other parts of our company around the world, from the PRC, India, Germany, Canada or the Ukraine. They come here on temporary assignments for say six months and the very best of them we want them to stay permanently so that they can bring their families with them. We would apply for H1B1 visas for most of them. (Germans and Canadians could usually apply for green cards directly.)

But we certainly didn't pay the H1B1 visa holders any less than we did citizens. In fact, we had a company wide policy that even the temporary workers have to be paid the same as the permanent employees doing the same work were paid. A designer or an engineer from India or the PRC could earn three or four times more on temporary assignment in the US, Germany or Canada as they earned in India. And of course, we paid for his housing and a per diem for meals etc. And we have to cover the cost of temporary health care coverage for some of them too, I know for the Chinese for certain

I didn't see that these policies, which are regulations in Germany, are unusual in the US. We surveyed other companies through McKinsey to establish our policies in the US.

Claiming that H1B visa holders earn less than American citizens doing the same work is somewhat of a red herring. It is not always true, as SimpleDon points out. It remains the case that H1B visas depress wages for American citizens, including those with good educations and backgrounds.

In a letter to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal that appeared in the May 2 - 3 issue Sen. Jeff Sessions (R. Ala.) wrote, "Each year, the U.S. graduates twice as many students with STEM degrees as are hired in STEM occupations. Contrary to the suggestion that these students are finding better, higher-paying jobs, the opposite is true. About 35% of science students, 55% of technology students, 20% of engineering students and 30% of math students who recently graduated are now working in jobs that don’t require any four-year college degree. As further proof of no shortage, wages in the profitable IT industry have been largely flat for more than a decade."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-h1-...em-graduates-letters-to-the-editor-1430507004

For the employer - investor class the H1B visa program is ideal. Those who get the visas are not allowed to vote. Thus they cannot vote Democrat, as most of them would. Nevertheless, they depress wages for American employees. Consequently they raise profits.

How do you explain the extremely low unemployment rates as seen here?