Guest Workers in Canada

[Renegade]

First of all, the fact that only a foreigner would accept the offer you made (and not someone resident in Canada) implies that you are paying below the (Canadian) market wage.

True. I don't think the Canadian minimum wage standard should apply. In the context of free trade, we don't have an expectation that foreign made goods shoudl be priced at the same level as Canadian made goods do we?

You have touched on the biggest irony in the free trade debate. I believe almost no one is a true free trader - everyone has line where they feel the gov't should restrict trade. Many people that claim to believe in free trade draw the line at free trade in labour.

Second, don't confuse free trade in goods and free mobility in labour. The two ideas are distinct. I can see several legitimate reasons to restrict the free mobility of labour, but almost none for limitations on free trade.

I disagree. Labour is simply the raw material resource to produce a good or service. The same reasons we think that there shoudl be the free flow of resources apply to labour and I don't see a need to distinguish. Since we have put artificial barriers preventing the free flow of labour, organizations are now working around that barrier by offshoring.

Think of it this way, if in a capitialist society we believe that an enterprise (or individual) should be entitled to hire the best skilled worker at the most optimal price, why should that stop at our borders? To be honest, I think that despite what we try to do, our increased globalized world will force change. Increasingly call-centers, tax-returns, and IT development is done in India. As infrastructure develops, you will see a continued trend of the use of foreign labour applied to positions which were previously held domesticly. To summarize, if you won't let the labour in, the work will go out.

[Renegade]

I dont think we should have such a program.

These people will think they can just come to Canada, work for less than minimum (read poverty) wage, have no rights, and just drive any taxi, work at any 7-11, McDonalds or temporary agency that they please. Its everybodys dream, so why should they take it from our own citizens.

And with our thousands upon thousands of unspoiled young people dying to have these professions as their chosen occupation, and what with unemployment at the rate that it is, this would be highly unacceptable.

If "thousands upon thousands of unspoiled young people" are thinking they can live the dream working McDonalds or picking fruit they truly are living in a dream world, and its time to burst their bubble. Unless people get the education and skills to differentiate themselves from an uneducated, unskilled worker, they will deserve the wage rates of the uneducated and unskilled (read poverty rates). The days of being able to get a great job, afford a house and one spouse at home, all with barely a high-school education are long gone. Everyone needs to get used to it.

[Michael Hardner]

Unless people get the education and skills to differentiate themselves from an uneducated, unskilled worker, they will deserve the wage rates of the uneducated and unskilled (read poverty rates).

Education and skills don't mean much anymore. White collar jobs are being outsourced more and more. If you want to earn a good wage, get in a union or a job protected by a professional association.

[Minimus Maximus]

Thats a good point. So here is the question (s). If Alberta is the Mecca of Happiness in Canada (and as some have alluded to, the world), and if hard work is rewarded with proper financial compensation in Ralphtown, why are employers needing to look overseas?

With 25-35 dollar an hour jobs (roughly 60k per year-above national average-about an autoworker in Ontario equivalent-wages), why are people not snapping these jobs up? Is McDonalds so appealing?

Immigrants are win win in this kind of situation (as they are in the low wage industries). Employers get the workers they need. Immigrants have an opportunity (in most cases) to have a better employment situation than in their native countries. And we all get to whine about how they are "stealing" our jobs (we all remember, the jobs employers cant find enough workers to fill-including the high paying ones).

Sideshow (can I call you Bob?), while I don't think that Alberta is the "Mecca of Happiness" it is a place where hard work and desire for a better life pay off in the long run. I started in the oil and gas industry on the end of a broom and now own a profitable small business, and I'm not alone.

Many of the young people that I worked along side of during the initial years of my apprenticeship in this industry are also very successful today.

To answer your question about why Canadian's are not snapping up these jobs I would reply that some are, and some are not. Some work a few weeks out of the year and spend the rest of time on unemployment, its a sense of entitlement which keeps them from actively searching for a way to support themselves without government hand outs. Too many Canadian's feel that they have no obligation to go to the work, but that the work should come to them, their entitled to stay right where they are regardless of the economic climate of that given region.

[sideshow]

I dont think we should have such a program.

These people will think they can just come to Canada, work for less than minimum (read poverty) wage, have no rights, and just drive any taxi, work at any 7-11, McDonalds or temporary agency that they please. Its everybodys dream, so why should they take it from our own citizens.

And with our thousands upon thousands of unspoiled young people dying to have these professions as their chosen occupation, and what with unemployment at the rate that it is, this would be highly unacceptable.

If "thousands upon thousands of unspoiled young people" are thinking they can live the dream working McDonalds or picking fruit they truly are living in a dream world, and its time to burst their bubble. Unless people get the education and skills to differentiate themselves from an uneducated, unskilled worker, they will deserve the wage rates of the uneducated and unskilled (read poverty rates). The days of being able to get a great job, afford a house and one spouse at home, all with barely a high-school education are long gone. Everyone needs to get used to it.

I was speaking tongue in cheek of course. But we must ask ourselves, WHY are the days of one income, moderate education, and well paying jobs gone?

The power of unions has diminished. This has directly affected the standard of living of the "average" worker in Canada.

Free Trade has increased. With the change from GATTS to FTA, NAFTA, FTAA, etc. the flow of work without respect to national boundries and citizens of individual countries has increased. This system is fantastically successfull-for corporations. They can farm the work to the cheapest labour, countries with the least environmental restrictions, and lowest taxes. This has cost us jobs. Well paying jobs. Unemployment may be lower, but mcjobs just dont buy new ford explorers.

The list goes on and on, but you get the point.

[August1991]

Labour is simply the raw material resource to produce a good or service.

Oh really? That's how you define "labour"?

I think of "labour" as people - with hopes, desires, wishes, family, friends, language, habits and so on. An imported cellphone is just, well, an imported cellphone.

I can see why we should allow cellphones to move freely across borders. I'm not so certain I would want to allow people to move freely across borders.

Since we have put artificial barriers preventing the free flow of labour, organizations are now working around that barrier by offshoring.

I think you've got the chain of reasoning backwards. Because we have allowed free trade in goods and services, people don't have to migrate anymore.

[Michael Hardner]

I was speaking tongue in cheek of course. But we must ask ourselves, WHY are the days of one income, moderate education, and well paying jobs gone?

The power of unions has diminished. This has directly affected the standard of living of the "average" worker in Canada.

Free Trade has increased. With the change from GATTS to FTA, NAFTA, FTAA, etc. the flow of work without respect to national boundries and citizens of individual countries has increased. This system is fantastically successfull-for corporations. They can farm the work to the cheapest labour, countries with the least environmental restrictions, and lowest taxes. This has cost us jobs. Well paying jobs. Unemployment may be lower, but mcjobs just dont buy new ford explorers.

The list goes on and on, but you get the point. ohmy.gif

But the net economic benefit to the country is greater.

Here's a good column to read:

Paul Krugman

To summarize, college earners have been gaining 1% per year more from 1972 to 2001.

income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent.

[August1991]

Free Trade has increased. With the change from GATTS to FTA, NAFTA, FTAA, etc. the flow of work without respect to national boundries and citizens of individual countries has increased. This system is fantastically successfull-for corporations. They can farm the work to the cheapest labour, countries with the least environmental restrictions, and lowest taxes. This has cost us jobs. Well paying jobs. Unemployment may be lower, but mcjobs just dont buy new ford explorers.

Canada's median income is rising.

The common fallacy that capitalism leads to a greater divide between the rich and the poor is Marxist claptrap. Karl Marx made the argument about 150 years ago and we're still waiting for the revolution.

[Leafless]

The problem with guest workers' is where does it end.

Certain industries might cry the blues that they can't get help to fill a certain job.

But the main reason is they are not paying realistic wages.

So how are guest workers going to alleviate that situation and will more and more industries take advantage of that same line of thought.

To hire illegals or guest workers is actually subsidizing the labour rate of that particular industry.

Sometimes this is done by government offering incentives to that industry to help reduce it's cost to provide employment for existing Canadians.

But guest workers or illegals is pure exploitation --that is that industry is making use of a resource (labour) to line it's own pockets.

In addition to that the practice of hiring illegals or guest workers obviously keeps home grown Canadians out of the job market ( for many reasons) who could be forced to rely on welfare, living with their parents etc. for their entire life.

This is fact for many Canadians who cannot afford to support themselves yet anyone else is because of unrealistic wages in this country.

More schooling is not the answer as there are only so many better paying jobs in this country.

Ans as a matter of fact the onus is on employers presently to accept people with high school or less is that a college or university education is NOT REQUIRED to do many of the jobs that presently require a college or university degree.

Guest and illegal workers are good for buisness and to a point government but only sinks the Canadian worker and this countries future and is responsible for higher welfare rolls and associated subsidies of one sort or another.

[sideshow]

That may be true-as is the fact that the per capita income has risen, per capita wealth has risen, etc.

But what the statistics dont lay out is that these are not REAL terms. There is more wealth-pooled at the top of the economic food chain. In terms of REAL figures, the average Canadian is not making gains that they could/should what with the increases in technology (read greater efficiency to manufacture, transport, etc).

Technological increases should mean that society works LESS, and receives MORE. Yet we seem to be travelling back to the future. As people slowly made gains in Canada, they worked less and less for more and more-until the elite pushed back, the people became complacent with their new found wealth, and now the trend is to work more for less.

I do agree that education is important-be it formal, on the job, or personal. No argument there whatsoever. In fact in real terms, EVERYONE should be educating themselves in some form or another. And people should be compensated for the relative educational status of their employment (or for that matter the danger, or whatever). But education should not be the end all be all. And there are a lot of highly educated people in low paid jobs. And the 25-35 buck an hour jobs remain unfilled.

So i say bring in the people that want them.

[August1991]

Paul Krugman is a partisan Democrat. He writes now because he thinks it will help the Democrats.

His article must be seen in that context.

[sideshow]

Free Trade has increased. With the change from GATTS to FTA, NAFTA, FTAA, etc. the flow of work without respect to national boundries and citizens of individual countries has increased. This system is fantastically successfull-for corporations. They can farm the work to the cheapest labour, countries with the least environmental restrictions, and lowest taxes. This has cost us jobs. Well paying jobs. Unemployment may be lower, but mcjobs just dont buy new ford explorers.

Canada's median income is rising.

The common fallacy that capitalism leads to a greater divide between the rich and the poor is Marxist claptrap. Karl Marx made the argument about 150 years ago and we're still waiting for the revolution.

I dont believe that is so. First off, capitalism DOES work. And has worked well. It has made many people rich, and brought up the standard of living of many others. Capitalism is basically a system whereas people attempt to amass wealth in their direction. Not really so broad, but you get the point.

What is missing from the thoughts of so many capitalist proponents is the rest of the picture.

Many hate unions. But unions are capitalist instruments. The people pool their resources to amass the wealth in their direction. Henry Ford did not like unions. But he saw the wisdom in paying his workers an above average wage as they then could afford to purchase his product. This made him richer, and his workers as well. Very symbiotic.

As for FREE TRADE? Well free trade is based on the premise of removing restrictions to the flow of goods between countries. What restrictions? Welllllll, labour costs, national protectionism, environmental concerns, etc. So these agreements remove the host countries abilities to restrict the corporations from willy nilly putting goods into and out of them.

example. the auto pact. worked well for decades. created jobs in canada. made northamerican corporations wealthy. workers made a bundle. symbiotic. now with the loss of the auto pact, the big three are going to the toilet, the workers are becoming unemployed (which is affecting their ability to "donate" their taxes and wages back into the communities ) and the asian auto makers are making a bundle-for the workers in THEIR countries. free trade has hurt our economy in this way. is it all bad? well, no. it works both ways in many instances. but i believe the hurt is worse than the healing.

as for Marx, labelling anyone with a social conscience a marxist, is small minded. I am not a communist, socialist, etc. Not a member of a political party either. I can simply see the trees and the forest.

And they come in all shapes and sizes.

[Michael Hardner]

Canada's median income is rising.

The common fallacy that capitalism leads to a greater divide between the rich and the poor is Marxist claptrap. Karl Marx made the argument about 150 years ago and we're still waiting for the revolution.

Paul Krugman is a partisan Democrat. He writes now because he thinks it will help the Democrats.

His article must be seen in that context.

The median income is rising in real terms or with inflation ? What about the mean ?

Whether or not Krugman or Marx say something doesn't make it true - the facts do. The facts Krugman quotes show that economic policy is doing a great job for the top .01 %.

Get an education, and you can increase your income almost 1% a year. Inherit a few billion and you can increase it 500%.

[sideshow]

Canada's median income is rising.

The common fallacy that capitalism leads to a greater divide between the rich and the poor is Marxist claptrap. Karl Marx made the argument about 150 years ago and we're still waiting for the revolution.

Paul Krugman is a partisan Democrat. He writes now because he thinks it will help the Democrats.

His article must be seen in that context.

The median income is rising in real terms or with inflation ? What about the mean ?

Whether or not Krugman or Marx say something doesn't make it true - the facts do. The facts Krugman quotes show that economic policy is doing a great job for the top .01 %.

Get an education, and you can increase your income almost 1% a year. Inherit a few billion and you can increase it 500%.

I couldnt have said it better.

[August1991]

The median income is rising in real terms or with inflation ? What about the mean ?

Whether or not Krugman or Marx say something doesn't make it true - the facts do. The facts Krugman quotes show that economic policy is doing a great job for the top .01 %.

Get an education, and you can increase your income almost 1% a year. Inherit a few billion and you can increase it 500%.

Median income is rising in real terms.

I fear this topic because it invariably means statistics. For long periods of data (say, going back about 60 years, both US and Canada), the distribution of income hasn't changed dramatically. The poorest fifth of the population receive about 5% of all income and the richest fifth receive about 40%.

Krugman, for some reason, focussed on the extreme cases. I would be doubtful of that data. But as I say, Krugman has an agenda: get rid of Bush and the Republicans.

There is a problem with income distribution stats because we are not looking at the same people. IOW, young people and retired people tend to have low incomes, while people in their 50s have high incomes. This skews the measures in a variety of ways.

In the US, someone with a university degree earns on average about 50% more than someone without.

-----

Karl Marx argued that capitalism makes for richer rich and poorer poor and this will lead to the collapse of capitalism. The idea is false and it should, by now, be considered a myth but it crops up constantly despite all evidence to the contrary.

I dislike the term "capitalism" because it is so imprecise. I'll refer to free markets instead. Free markets have numerous flaws, they don't always work and can be criticized in many ways. But it is wrong to criticise free markets on the basis that they only benefit a small group.

There is ample reason to have a government involved in society. There are very solid reasons (that don't rely on simple morality) to justify taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

I suspect one reason the Left is doing so poorly (except in South America, hardly a precursor) is because it is still stuck in a Marxist mindset of rich richer, poor poorer, exploitation, oppression and Capitalist collapse - or variants on this theme. When it used the term "trickle down" to criticise Reagan, the Left was implicitly accepting that markets are not unjust.

[Renegade]

Labour is simply the raw material resource to produce a good or service.

Oh really? That's how you define "labour"?

I think of "labour" as people - with hopes, desires, wishes, family, friends, language, habits and so on. An imported cellphone is just, well, an imported cellphone.

I can see why we should allow cellphones to move freely across borders. I'm not so certain I would want to allow people to move freely across borders.

I was speaking of labour in reference to free trade, however to your point that labour is people with hopes, desires, wishes, etc, is not the foreign labour people too? Do they not also have hopes, desires, wishes, etc?

In people terms, what makes their hopes, desires, and wishes less important than those of the domestic population?

Since we have put artificial barriers preventing the free flow of labour, organizations are now working around that barrier by offshoring.

I think you've got the chain of reasoning backwards. Because we have allowed free trade in goods and services, people don't have to migrate anymore.

True for some products and services but not for others. Maybe you can tell me how I can offshore fruit picking, or landscaping and I'll agree that that free trade makes it irrevelant that we can put up barriers to labour.

[Renegade]

Unless people get the education and skills to differentiate themselves from an uneducated, unskilled worker, they will deserve the wage rates of the uneducated and unskilled (read poverty rates).

Education and skills don't mean much anymore. White collar jobs are being outsourced more and more. If you want to earn a good wage, get in a union or a job protected by a professional association.

Really? How do you explain that our standard of living has been going up, despite the fact that union membership has been going down?

True, that still unions provide job protection to the unskilled and uneducated, but as you can see by many examples where unions once dominated, union protection is disappearing as it is forced to deal with globalization.

[August1991]

In people terms, what makes their hopes, desires, and wishes less important than those of the domestic population?

What makes ours less important?

Maybe you can tell me how I can offshore fruit picking, or landscaping and I'll agree that that free trade makes it irrevelant that we can put up barriers to labour.

We can import the fruit. But I'll take a pass on the landscaping.

[Renegade]

Certain industries might cry the blues that they can't get help to fill a certain job.

But the main reason is they are not paying realistic wages.

One example is the construction industry in Alberta and Ontario. These are highly paid positons, yet the number of new construction is limited by the number of skilled workers. How is it these industries are not offering a "realistic" wage?

There may be other positions which are the economic value of the work is less than minimium wage. If the home grown workforce is not willing to take these positions, why should I not be able to use foreign labour. As an example let's consider a domestic cleaning service. Currently only a small minority of households use such a service because the economic value is not worth the cost (ie they clean their houses themselves). If such positions were staffed with low wage workers, there would be a much higher uptake of such services, providing both opportunities to the foreign workers and making life more enjoyable to the employer.

But guest workers or illegals is pure exploitation --that is that industry is making use of a resource (labour) to line it's own pockets.

There's that word again that everyone likes to use without clarification. In the free and willing exchange of labour for wages, no one is exploited. Is the worker exploiting the employer by using the wages he is paid to "line his pockets".

In addition to that the practice of hiring illegals or guest workers obviously keeps home grown Canadians out of the job market ( for many reasons) who could be forced to rely on welfare, living with their parents etc. for their entire life.

If what your referring to is that guest workers can threaten the entitlement of unskilled, unedcuated, and those unwilling to work hard, then I have no sympathy for the domestic segment that falls into that category, and in my view the guest worker who is much more deserving of that job.

This is fact for many Canadians who cannot afford to support themselves yet anyone else is because of unrealistic wages in this country.

More schooling is not the answer as there are only so many better paying jobs in this country.

Do you have any evidence that there are a finite number of well paying jobs in the country? In fact the shortage of skills and the high labour rates in many professions show that the are many professions begging for canidates.

Ans as a matter of fact the onus is on employers presently to accept people with high school or less is that a college or university education is NOT REQUIRED to do many of the jobs that presently require a college or university degree.

This is nonsense. It may sometimes be in the best interest of the employer, but certainly there is no onus on the employer to do so. The onus is on individuals to find a profession which suits their skills and knowledge, and has suffient employment prospects, then they must undertake the training or education required to make themselves employable.

[Michael Hardner]

I fear this topic because it invariably means statistics. For long periods of data (say, going back about 60 years, both US and Canada), the distribution of income hasn't changed dramatically. The poorest fifth of the population receive about 5% of all income and the richest fifth receive about 40%.

The top .01 %....

Krugman, for some reason, focussed on the extreme cases. I would be doubtful of that data. But as I say, Krugman has an agenda: get rid of Bush and the Republicans.

Check the source if you don't believe it.

The point of the article is that the extreme cases are doing much better by way of economic legislation.

There is a problem with income distribution stats because we are not looking at the same people. IOW, young people and retired people tend to have low incomes, while people in their 50s have high incomes. This skews the measures in a variety of ways.

In the US, someone with a university degree earns on average about 50% more than someone without.

-----

Karl Marx argued that capitalism makes for richer rich and poorer poor and this will lead to the collapse of capitalism. The idea is false and it should, by now, be considered a myth but it crops up constantly despite all evidence to the contrary.

I dislike the term "capitalism" because it is so imprecise. I'll refer to free markets instead. Free markets have numerous flaws, they don't always work and can be criticized in many ways. But it is wrong to criticise free markets on the basis that they only benefit a small group.

There is ample reason to have a government involved in society. There are very solid reasons (that don't rely on simple morality) to justify taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

I suspect one reason the Left is doing so poorly (except in South America, hardly a precursor) is because it is still stuck in a Marxist mindset of rich richer, poor poorer, exploitation, oppression and Capitalist collapse - or variants on this theme. When it used the term "trickle down" to criticise Reagan, the Left was implicitly accepting that markets are not unjust.

Free Trade is sold as being beneficial to society as a whole. As time goes on, technology and better business practices such as Free Trade improve productivity so that real gains are made in the economy. Isn't it reasonable to expect that benefits should generally accrue in ways other than cheaper goods ?

[Renegade]

In people terms, what makes their hopes, desires, and wishes less important than those of the domestic population?

What makes ours less important?

I didn't say they were less important. I view both as equally important, but if they are both equally important it is a not a reason to restrict the flow of labour.

Maybe you can tell me how I can offshore fruit picking, or landscaping and I'll agree that that free trade makes it irrevelant that we can put up barriers to labour.

We can import the fruit. But I'll take a pass on the landscaping.

Not all fruit is grown where the labour is. How many vineyards do you know in Mexico? And if we use grapes as an example, you sometimes need your domestic crop picked (eg for icewine).

[sideshow]

Unless people get the education and skills to differentiate themselves from an uneducated, unskilled worker, they will deserve the wage rates of the uneducated and unskilled (read poverty rates).

Education and skills don't mean much anymore. White collar jobs are being outsourced more and more. If you want to earn a good wage, get in a union or a job protected by a professional association.

Really? How do you explain that our standard of living has been going up, despite the fact that union membership has been going down?

True, that still unions provide job protection to the unskilled and uneducated, but as you can see by many examples where unions once dominated, union protection is disappearing as it is forced to deal with globalization.

Examples of "unskilled and uneducated" employment that is union (or association, which has the same objective-setting wages and working conditions):

Doctors

Nurses

Police Officers

Fire personel

Paramedics

Teachers

University Profs

Engineers

Trades people

and the list goes on and on and on.

[Michael Hardner]

Really? How do you explain that our standard of living has been going up, despite the fact that union membership has been going down?

Can we see a report on that statistic first ?

[Riverwind]

I was speaking of labour in reference to free trade, however to your point that labour is people with hopes, desires, wishes, etc, is not the foreign labour people too? Do they not also have hopes, desires, wishes, etc?

In people terms, what makes their hopes, desires, and wishes less important than those of the domestic population?

The economic system we have today is a pyramid where the standard on living of the people at the top depends on masses of poor people providing cheap labour. Those of us living in rich countries are near the top of that pyramid and depend on the poor from the coffee pickers in Columbia to factory workers in China to provide us with cheap goods. If someone could wave a magic wand and eliminate global poverty then we would all find our standard of living would drop to a fraction of what it is today as the cost of goods sky rockets to pay the higher wages.

This does not mean the system is inherently bad since the coffee picker in Columbia would be even worse off if he did not have a market for his product in rich countries. However, I think we have to be honest about what the system is.

Free trade in good and labour are simply way to geographically redistribute the pyramid so the masses of poor will no longer be found exclusively in poor countries nor will the minority of rich be confined to rich countries.

I think we have no choice but to allow an underclass to be created in Canada - China and India have a huge pool of cheap labour that provide services that must be done locally. This, in turn, makes their professional workers much more competitive because they can afford to work for less than someone with the same skills living in a rich country. This means that Canada is at risk of losing both the low skilling and the high skilled jobs to these countries unless we reduce the cost of living in Canada. The only way to do that is allow guest workers which work for third world wages and are not entitled to the benefits of our social system.

I beleive that the massive tide of illegal immigration from Mexico in the US has helped the US economy deal with the threat from China and India even though law makers in the US would never admit this publically.

[Renegade]

But we must ask ourselves, WHY are the days of one income, moderate education, and well paying jobs gone?

Those jobs which once existed were well paid at the expense of the consumer. The consumer paid for relatively overpriced goods to subsidize high wage rates. As consumers were freed of this constraint, the well-paid low-skill jobs disappared. It is as it should be.

The power of unions has diminished. This has directly affected the standard of living of the "average" worker in Canada.

Yes it has affected the "average" worker. In general the "average" worker's standard of living is better. In general the "average" unionized worker is no doubt worse off.

Free Trade has increased. With the change from GATTS to FTA, NAFTA, FTAA, etc. the flow of work without respect to national boundries and citizens of individual countries has increased. This system is fantastically successfull-for corporations. They can farm the work to the cheapest labour, countries with the least environmental restrictions, and lowest taxes. This has cost us jobs. Well paying jobs. Unemployment may be lower, but mcjobs just dont buy new ford explorers.

The point is, if the domestic population expects to be buying ford explorers, they better be preparing themselves to do more than mcjobs. It is completely unrealistic to expect that mcjobs should geared to being able to afford the employee an explorer.