Problems with MIgrant Temp Workers.....

wyly · July 20, 2012

The policies at that time seemed to work well and north America became the richest area in the world. Why not do things that have worked in the past?

that had everything to do with vast unexploited resources in a very underpopulated continent, free land, free resources how could it not become wealthy ...it was all dumb luck not economic policy...

Michael Hardner · July 20, 2012

Strange, we have all sorts of labor law that's based on the idea of fairness.

The laws are based on what's basically fair, but the economics isn't.

If you think that the laws are completely fair now then I guess you're ok with the current situation then ? This is all being done legally after all ?

How is it unfair to protect Canadian jobs and wages by not importing so many foreigners, be they temporary or not?

Fair has nothing to do with it.

Yes there has to be a balance to it, sometimes it makes sens to bring in people. But we don't do that, we bring in 500,000 people a year, no matter what's happening in our economy. If low wages is what makes the economy go around, why not get rid of the minimum wage, provisions for paying overtime and holidays, etc etc. Let's get rid of environmental laws, because they are a drag on business. Let's find the lowest level, and we can have growth like China does. Good times. Good times.

I'm just telling you the basic laws of economics here. If you have a new approach, I'd like to hear it.

blueblood · July 20, 2012

Ok...

Child labour, some as young as six working more than 12 hours a day.Six or seven days a week

Families coming into cities realizing all the family has to work, six days a week

Safety conditions were , well , there were none at all.

One could go on,but the point has been made.

And here we are at the other end and industries are saying whoa whoa that's too much I'm leaving.

Lots of entrepreneurs work six or seven days a week, safety conditions? Work for an up and coming fishing boat, logging outfit or farm. Yet people do and it's very risky. You can't mire things in red tape or else the business chokes.

However businesses also have to be realistic in what expectations they have out of their workers and that working them like dogs isn't a good way to get max productivity. The ideal mix is somewhere in between, but when you have unions forcing GM to pay workers Cadillac retirements for them is it any wonder why they pop up factories in Mexico?

blueblood · July 20, 2012

that had everything to do with vast unexploited resources in a very underpopulated continent, free land, free resources how could it not become wealthy ...it was all dumb luck not economic policy...

It wasn't dumb luck, you have to get the resources out of the ground, figure out what to make what people want. Every continent has resources in one form or another, yet some are rich, some are poor, and some had a light bulb go off and are becoming rich. Doesn't sound like dumb luck to me.

Canuckistani · July 20, 2012

The laws are based on what's basically fair, but the economics isn't.

If you think that the laws are completely fair now then I guess you're ok with the current situation then ? This is all being done legally after all ?

Fair has nothing to do with it.

I'm just telling you the basic laws of economics here. If you have a new approach, I'd like to hear it.

Basic laws of economics - what are those? According to some we should have no regulations what so ever, because they go against the basic laws of economics. Certainly no minimum wage, no unemployment insurance, etc. And of course allow labor to flow as easily as capital. Let's just live on one Randian planet.

The laws of economics are not like physical laws. Lots of differences about economics among economists, gravity and physicists, not so much. Many of our laws go against laissez faire capitalism. We institute them because we want a stable society. We already place limits on immigration and temp workers, we could easily change those limits.

blueblood · July 20, 2012

Basic laws of economics - what are those? According to some we should have no regulations what so ever, because they go against the basic laws of economics. Certainly no minimum wage, no unemployment insurance, etc. And of course allow labor to flow as easily as capital. Let's just live on one Randian planet.

The laws of economics are not like physical laws. Lots of differences about economics among economists, gravity and physicists, not so much. Many of our laws go against laissez faire capitalism. We institute them because we want a stable society. We already place limits on immigration and temp workers, we could easily change those limits.

The laws of economics are extremely fair, people get twisted in a knot when a correction comes because they won't have as much as before. The problem is that politicians try to bend the laws and it ends up causing problems in the long run as the economy balances out.

For example you can't build all those houses in the USA and expect them to all ways increase in value when demand runs out for them.

Michael Hardner · July 20, 2012

Basic laws of economics - what are those? According to some we should have no regulations what so ever, because they go against the basic laws of economics.

Yes, but libertarian views such as that aren't mainstream.

The laws of economics are not like physical laws. Lots of differences about economics among economists, gravity and physicists, not so much.

It's not mainstream either to advocate for protectionism...

guyser · July 20, 2012

And here we are at the other end and industries are saying whoa whoa that's too much I'm leaving.

Some do some dont, and some do it just to maximize their profits at the expense fo his workers. Nothing really wrong with that, but not much a corporate citizen

Lots of entrepreneurs work six or seven days a week,

By choice, not necessity

safety conditions? Work for an up and coming fishing boat, logging outfit or farm. Yet people do and it's very risky. You can't mire things in red tape or else the business chokes.

No Coats Guard then, no helicopters then.

Mired in red tape is a misnomer. Everyone who starts a business knows what safety has to be in place.

However businesses also have to be realistic in what expectations they have out of their workers and that working them like dogs isn't a good way to get max productivity. The ideal mix is somewhere in between, but when you have unions forcing GM to pay workers Cadillac retirements for them is it any wonder why they pop up factories in Mexico?

Agreed, except for the union GM thing.

Did they come to an agreement or not? Then GM is to blame.

Besides, GM is paying off retirees with lump sums to get out from under the mess they created.

blueblood · July 20, 2012

Mired in red tape is a misnomer. Everyone who starts a business knows what safety has to be in place.

Agreed, except for the union GM thing.

Did they come to an agreement or not? Then GM is to blame

Besides, GM is paying off retirees with lump sums to get out from under the mess they created.

And unfortunately some people have the choice of either working under x conditions or not work and take their chances. It's cruel however it's a choice, just like the entrepreneur, he can work 6 or 7 days and make more money or he can work less and take his chances.

A company is also taking a risk by offering lower than market value compensation. If the worker sees a better job elsewhere, that first company can either provide better co ditions or go under from work not getting done,

You are right about GMs management, they made a bad business decision by overcompensating their employees what the market would bear and they are in a mess partly because of it.

wyly · July 20, 2012

It wasn't dumb luck, you have to get the resources out of the ground, figure out what to make what people want. Every continent has resources in one form or another, yet some are rich, some are poor, and some had a light bulb go off and are becoming rich. Doesn't sound like dumb luck to me.

nah...europe was highly populated with millions of people every corner of the continent belonged to someone and the natural resources had been thoroughly exploited...in n America land was literally given away or stolen, resources were unclaimed and went to who ever found them first...it doesn't take a financial genius to become rich when land is free and resources are there for the taking, the only financial policy was no policy...way to much is made of entrepreneurial drive leading to inevitable success, it's 99% fantasy...the difference between succeeding and failing comes down to luck, being in the right place at the right time, who you know and not what you know... Edited July 20, 2012 by wyly

bush_cheney2004 · July 20, 2012

Why not? "I want a giant ass house, I want 2 cars, I want a big tv, I want trips everywhere, etc. oh crap I only make 30,000 a year, oh wait I'll just borrow the money even though I can't afford to pay it back"

Because your description of excess does not apply to all Americans. The majority of U.S. homeowners are not under water, did not raid their equity piggy bank, and are current on their mortgage.

When you have a large proportion of people in your country with that attitude all the way from the president to a simple janitor, and the other proportion of the people in the country not telling them to smarten up, what do you expect.

I expect that the fools will pay dearly, while the wise will carry on as before without false wealth.

Unfortunately the same thing is happening in Canada r.e. The housing bubble in Vancouver, Toronto et. Al.

What happens in Canada is your business, but apparently what happens in the U.S. is everybody's business.

blueblood · July 20, 2012

Because your description of excess does not apply to all Americans. The majority of U.S. homeowners are not under water, did not raid their equity piggy bank, and are current on their mortgage.

I expect that the fools will pay dearly, while the wise will carry on as before without false wealth.

What happens in Canada is your business, but apparently what happens in the U.S. is everybody's business.

When your country is "the most popular kid at school" chances are they're going to be talked about whether its anyone's business or not. Cest la vie.

Michael Hardner · July 20, 2012

nah...europe was highly populated with millions of people every corner of the continent belonged to someone and the natural resources had been thoroughly exploited...in n America land was literally given away or stolen, resources were unclaimed and went to who ever found them first...it doesn't take a financial genius to become rich when land is free and resources are there for the taking, the only financial policy was no policy...way to much is made of entrepreneurial drive leading to inevitable success, it's 99% fantasy...the difference between succeeding and failing comes down to luck, being in the right place at the right time, who you know and not what you know...

This isn't true.

The opportunity to create something and to own more of the fruits of one's labour were a great attraction then and strangely enough - still today. This has been the attraction to many waves of immigrants since as well.

wyly · July 20, 2012

This isn't true.

The opportunity to create something and to own more of the fruits of one's labour were a great attraction then and strangely enough - still today. This has been the attraction to many waves of immigrants since as well.

ya it's the uncomfortable truth, people like to believe they too can make those unlimited riches but no they can't...

Millions upon millions work very very hard and never even come close to attaining those fantastic fruits. Being well educated in the select skill sets help you to keep those riches if you attain them but those skill sets alone won't help you very much to acquire them...Who your parents are, who you know, what school you went to and the network you create, your chosen field of study, the colour of your skin, male or female, where you live, all factor in and more than anything else just plain luck ...the truth is very very few make it into the 1%, obviously that's why it's only 1% and most of the 1% were born into it...

all those many waves of immigrants came here because N America was wide open to be exploited where else could one get free farmland? where else could one get unlimited unrestricted access to mineral wealth?

it was because europe was so completely exploited that people left, the americas was open for business but not because of any forward thinking policy but because of a lack of policy...the same holds true today if you want to have similar opportunities you need to move to underexploited south and central america riches await those who have the luck and balls to do it...

bush_cheney2004 · July 21, 2012

where else could one get unlimited unrestricted access to mineral wealth?

Australia

cybercoma · July 21, 2012

Thank god! Because for a time we were right up with the Americans for personal debt. And the Canada bank act is hard on people who default.

Well, you might be thanking God, but this has the potential to be troublesome. If people aren't borrowing even though interest rates are next to nothing, then new money isn't entering the economy. That means the economic recovery is going to drag on and on.

cybercoma · July 21, 2012

How is it unfair to protect Canadian jobs and wages by not importing so many foreigners, be they temporary or not?

Because the number of jobs is not a fixed value and immigration (as well as migrant foreign workers) increase the size of the economy. And besides, the number of foreigners brought in already changes with the economy.

cybercoma · July 21, 2012

already covered

Edited July 21, 2012 by cybercoma

Canuckistani · July 21, 2012

Because the number of jobs is not a fixed value and immigration (as well as migrant foreign workers) increase the size of the economy. And besides, the number of foreigners brought in already changes with the economy.

Does it increase the economy enough to account for all those people? Does it increase the economy enough to make up for the stresses on our infrastructure? Environmental degradation?

The number of immigrants brought in does not change with the economy. Hasn't since Mulroney. Temp workers, that may be partially true, but if we're bringing in 250,000 a year with the unemployment rate where it is, how many more would be be bringing in if we were in boom times? Do you think we're putting in enough effort to train Canadians for the jobs we need filled?

wyly · July 21, 2012

Do you think we're putting in enough effort to train Canadians for the jobs we need filled?

are you prepared for a tax increase to accomplish that?...schools require physical expansion, plus teachers, plus more administration...

then there is the unmentioned issue that regardless of training offered a certain percentage of any population will not or are incapable of being employed...I've seen it suggested that 3% of population are permanently unemployable, I don't know if that's accurate however...

blueblood · July 21, 2012

Well, you might be thanking God, but this has the potential to be troublesome. If people aren't borrowing even though interest rates are next to nothing, then new money isn't entering the economy. That means the economic recovery is going to drag on and on.

No that means debt gets squared away, which results in more valuable capital to be used in future projects. You can't keep printing out money to get people spending otherwise it becomes worthless. That's an even bigger problem. If people hold onto their money then prices come down to an affordable level to start spending again. That's like going out and maxing out your visa card in one day! It still has to be paid. Better to pay a small bill than a large one.

cybercoma · July 21, 2012

The economy must continue expanding. In order to do that, new money needs to be created. The only way money is created is by banks loaning out more money. If banks aren't loaning out money, more money isn't created and the economy doesn't expand. Capitalists and investors don't like that.

blueblood · July 21, 2012

The economy must continue expanding. In order to do that, new money needs to be created. The only way money is created is by banks loaning out more money. If banks aren't loaning out money, more money isn't created and the economy doesn't expand. Capitalists and investors don't like that.

It doesn't work like that. The economy in the USA grew substantially in the 1800s yet they didn't touch the money supply. What happened was prices for goods fell and their dollar got more purchasing power. It all depends on the money supply. The Germans tried creating money after world war one to get their economy going, do you know what happened? We had people pushing wheel barrows full of cash to the store to buy bread!

A contraction isn't a bad thing. It allows for debt to be paid off and allocates resources to projects that are useful. Not only that it brings down prices to attractive levels in order to get consumers buying again. Why do you think the price of oil jumps around constantly. If it kept rising every single day, nobody would buy it. Prices rise and fall to allocate resources in the most efficient manner possible. By printing money it sends a false signal as to what the prices are truly worth, and what's worse is if your borrowing that debt and it has to be paid off, the price falls are more exaggerated.

cybercoma · July 21, 2012

It doesn't work like that. The economy in the USA grew substantially in the 1800s yet they didn't touch the money supply.

They were also tied to gold then.

A contraction isn't a bad thing.

Contraction isn't a bad thing? Where money isn't tied to gold any longer and the way it's created is through bank loans, a contraction is disastrous. The money that's leant out needs to come back with interest. The only way to get the interest into the economy so the money can be paid back is by making more loans.

The supply needs to expand and continue expanding or the entire house of cards collapses.

Edited July 21, 2012 by cybercoma