H-1B Caps and Baseball

Here we are in the last days of May 2009, California has run out of money, the Governator threatens to release inmates, police, firemen, and teachers because there's no more paycheck funds. Will the last one out please turn off the lights?

Today I would like to comment on an 11 May 09 (information week) article entitled "What if Major League Baseball Had H-1B Caps?" In this article credited to "Rob Preston, editor in chief of information week, suggests that if Major League Baseball had (American only) restrictions on recruitment then the quality of the baseball game would "become second-rate league in no time". Guess he has a point ... at least if we're talking about baseball, an entertainment gig. If someone from Cuba, Russia, or whatever is a better sports talent then any one we can find here, then why not hire that player? But wait.... again, we are talking about entertainment here not about people who live normal lives seeking a regular paycheck and paying bills. The way I look at this logic is ... if we just focus on sports there's a big difference between hiring someone for a baseball team and providing American job opportunities.

In alignment with my premise that the "greed factor" ( manifesting as a focus on cheaper labor and favorable tax advantages) originally drove corporate America to outsource jobs and manufacturing to other countries. The result of that action, as I have supported in this blog, is that, compared to the American workforce, H1-B resources have had GREATER opportunity for education, training, and job security resulting in a more QUALIFIED H1-B force ! See what I mean? This is not about "talent" ... this is about developing a long range plan to provide an American work force the opportunity to develop skills through education and actual job experience. This is about undermining the greed factor presented in these writings and changing the tax laws and profit incentive that encourage the outsourcing of jobs. This is about having a long range program for encouraging more young Americans to get into math and science at an early stage. This is about motivating and preparing an American workforce that will be competitive and supportive of a vibrant American economy. If this country does not promote this positive environment for education, training and job security for an American work force, where do these "qualified" people come from?

Concluding his article, Mr Preston says " So let's have a sensible H-1B visa process that brings in what we need and gives them a chance for citizenship. It enriches our country and economy". In this dark economic time inviting more H-1B sources to become citizens? Huh ? I have a contrasting opinion. Why not provide an American culture that is "employee friendly" and give American citizens a better chance to enrich their country and economy? Regarding Mr Preston's conclusion, I invite any of my readers to ask the following question:

What defines a "sensible" H-1B visa process?

Play ball !

Is offshoring to blame for the slow job growth in the U.S. economy?

And the beat goes on.... In the process of defining the lessons of history here are a couple of views supporting history and lesson's learned:

1. First quote is credited to the American philosopher, poet, literary and cultural critic, George Santayana who said :

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

2. Second quote is from Ambrose Bierce, a colorful American writer saying:

HISTORY, An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves".

As you all know by now, this blog supports the concept that America is now experiencing an economic shakeup, not experienced since the Great Depression. The perfect storm of corporate greed, a rather static tax system that has "encouraged" American companies to search for offshore tax breaks, and the resultant outsourcing of American jobs, has created a toxic economic effect on this country. The loss of these American jobs, an anemic economic system, the additional loss of incentive for corporations to invest in training their employees, and an education system that is giving pink slips to educators just starting their careers, is cause for concern about the state of our nation.

For today's discussion, I refer to an article written in 2004 by a Sharon Otterman and found at http://www.cfr.org/publication/7749/trade.html . In this article just four years ago she writes:

===================================

Why do economists say outsourcing is good for the economy?

Many economists argue that outsourcing is just another form of free trade, which increases wealth in the economy. They say that employing workers at lower cost allows U.S. companies to be more efficient and productive, permitting them to create the same amount of goods with fewer resources. In turn, this lowers the price of the goods in the United States, strengthening U.S. companies and freeing workers for other tasks. The savings allows U.S. companies to stay afloat and expand in a highly competitive global market, says Jagdish N. Bhagwati, the André Meyer senior fellow in international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of the recently published "In Defense of Globalization." "Outsourcing is not destroying American jobs. These jobs are going anyway, because otherwise the goods would be too expensive to produce" and the companies that make them would no longer be competitive".

==========================

For today's relevant question, I would like to get your thoughts on the previously mentioned quote:

"Outsourcing is not destroying American jobs. These jobs are going anyway, because otherwise the goods would be too expensive to produce" and the companies that make them would no longer be competitive".

1. Is outsourcing really making American companies more competitive? Did you notice that the quote was presented as the view of "economists" ? The very ones that ended up feeding, like vampires, on the shady economics that brought America to it's knees in the last few years.

2. Any thoughts on the fact that if a person does NOT have a paycheck coming in, does a lower purchase cost have any relevance?

* Of course, the credit card companies would have a predictable answer to this question. Meantime share your thoughts on this subject ? Regards