will never happen, strongly opposed by both Left (depresses wages) and Right (culturally disastrous)

but it remains true that remittances are huge sources of income for poor world

[ 11 June 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

or go straight to Times site and Sunday magazine:
www.nytimes.com

[ 11 June 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

To the list of recent woes add regicide - 10 royals slaughtered in 2001 by a suicidal prince - and a Maoist insurgency.

---

My bullshit detector goes immediately onto high alert when I read something like this. I suspect that the article is calculated to mislead.

The author uses examples such as the Irish Fammine (1840-1844) during which time around a million Irish died and another million emigrated, as an example of migration "working" successfully. He does not, however, acknowledge that during the famine, English capitalist farmers exported huge quantities of food at very profitable prices. Capitalism, even at its early stage, was quite compatible with a million people starving to death while food is shipped elsewhere.

quote:

---

Following the potato blight, the Irish population fell by 53 percent, at least as much because of migration as the deaths caused by famine.

---

Notice how the author ignores the economic aspects of the famine. Monoculture in farming is typical of capitalist agricultural practices which focuses not on the well being of the people but on the profitability of the export.

quote:

---

Pritchett argues that hundreds of millions of people are stuck in places with little chance for development.

---

Some call such places the fourth world. No chance of development under the current world capitalist system. Again, the author has nothing to say about a system that leaves millions of people to such a fate. His final solution is migration.

The idea that there might be ways to improve people's lives outside the neoliberal prescriptions of Bretton Woods institutions (like the World Bank) that perpetuate the "development of underdevelopment" or the depopulation of entire regions of this planet by mass migration seems to have eluded this author and Lant Pritchett (the Mormon free trade fundamentalist that the author is so gung-ho about).

quote:

---

Pritchett is proposing a Saudi Arabian plan in which an affluent society creates a labor subcaste that is permanently excluded from its ranks. His does so knowing full well that his agenda coincides with that of unscrupulous employers looking to exploit cheap workers.

---

Yea. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Equal rights are for losers anyway, right?

quote:

---

Pritchett attacks the primacy of nationality itself, treating it as an atavistic prejudice...

---

Right wingers love to weaken the only institutions capable of resisting the complete corporate dominance of the planet. They don't like a fair fight at all. One of the lies associated with "globalization" ideology is drivel like this about the "declining" role of the nation-state when, in fact, imperialist states are very active in creating a world in their own image and using international institutions as a battering ram to further their rapacious looting of the planet.

quote:

---

But the greatest risk posed by the Pritchett plan is cultural conflict, or even conflagration, which Pritchett greets with a shrug.

"I don't think about it a lot because I'm an economist." he said.

---

Healing the Rift: Metabolic Restoration in Cuban Agriculture.

Since I re-read Ellen M. Wood's The Origin of Capitalism: a longer view and have been convinced about the agrarian origins of capitalism, I've begun to think that perhaps it is in agriculture that the denouement of capitalism should also be looked for. It is easily understood by ordinary people, after all; the food that keeps us alive us must be produced, transported and distributed in a sustainable way that restores the social metabolic rift which a few centuries of capitalism has unbalanced.

They have a beautiful slogan in regards to thsi new approach - La tierra es un tesora y el trabajo es su llave. An idea whose time has come?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Yeah, there is always someone willing to expound another theory arguing the poor can be freed through slavery.

Poverty will be eliminated when civilization finally collapses. Of course, for the first few decades the rich will be needed to provide the poor with sustenance.

---

Like I said in another thread, get dirty or die city slickers.

I find it preposterous that agriculture is going to significantly change towards sustainability. That would require more workers, a lot more, simply to supply enough calories to keep the workers capable of working. Who wants to do this type of work?

I've worked with migrant labourers for almost two decades now. Mexicans. Great people. They're here for the money, clearly. They think Canada is the land of of No Fun. Typically what happens is they save all their money, usually scrimping on food, and send it back to Mexico for their families to use. Most save up their money and re-invest in land, businesses. I've had workers run their business while working for me. I always find it funny that they claim to make their employees work like dogs but occasionally complain about the tasks I assign them.

I've always been torn about the migrant worker situation. But it's not as if labour intensive farm operations have much choice right now. No one wants to do this work. The incentive for Mexicans\Trinidadians\Jamacians is the exchange on the dollar. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
I find it preposterous that agriculture is going to significantly change towards sustainability. That would require more workers, a lot more, simply to supply enough calories to keep the workers capable of working. Who wants to do this type of work?

---

In the former Soviet Union, workers at the high end of production would spend so many weeks/months a year sowing/harvesting crops. After two world wars and a civil war, Russia experienced a serious manpower shortage. Workers said they enjoyed job rotations. A change of pace took the drudgery out of it, and physical work tends to be good for overall health.

[ 11 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
I've always been torn about the migrant worker situation. But it's not as if labour intensive farm operations have much choice right now. No one wants to do this work. The incentive for Mexicans\Trinidadians\Jamacians is the exchange on the dollar. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here.

Ontario employment policy has been designed to bring these people in. I'm still trying to muddle through the ramifications and reasons.

---

Seems clear enough to me; you and the migrant workers have a mutually-beneficial agreement.

Of course, the migrants would be even better off if they could simply immigrate here. But if there's political opposition to increased immigration, then a variant of the guest worker/migrant labourer model is something worth exploring.

[ 11 June 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

The New York Times gets it wrong on immigration

The NYT declares that the temporary worker program contained in the immigration deal reached in the U.S. Senate is nothing less than "awful."

The agreement fails most dismally in its temporary worker program. “Temporary means temporary” has been a Republican mantra, motivated by the thinly disguised impulse to limit the number of workers, Latinos mostly, doing the jobs Americans find most distasteful. The deal calls for the creation of a new underclass that could work for two years at a time, six at the most, but never put down roots. Immigrants who come here under that system — who play by its rules, work hard and gain promotions, respect and job skills — should be allowed to stay if they wish. But this deal closes the door. It offers a way in but no way up, a shameful repudiation of American tradition that will encourage exploitation — and more illegal immigration.

I think the paper's editorialists have let their liberal impulses take command over the thinking part of their brains. I actually think (as I have written before) that a real temporary guest worker would be terrific. And the harder the temporariness constraint the better. I don't mind a wee bit if this makes me a Republican for a day. I have calculated that even a minor temporary guest worker program would generate greater benefits to the developing nations than all of the Doha trade agenda taken in its entirety.

The underclass that the NYT talks about are millions of workers from developing nations who would love to have the opportunity to work in the U.S., even if for a temporary program. And the temporariness is a good thing, not a bad thing: it allows others to take advantage of the same opportunity, and it enables home countries to benefit from the newly acquired skills and resources of the returnees. It also alleviates some of the social problems caused by long absences of parents from home.

The NYT says nothing about a real cause for concern, which is the potentially adverse effect on wages in the United States. But since trade barriers for labor services are so much steeper in today's world economy than barriers in goods, even a small amount of liberalization in this area promises huge income gains in aggregate. This is one important difference, which accounts for why I am lukewarm about trade liberalization, but enthusiastic about enhanced labor mobility. If you like free trade, you have got to love this one. Which is why the NYT stance is hard to understand.

---

And who wants to go back to third world capitalism in Honduras, El Salvador or Mexico ?: the temp workers who couldn't smuggle the rest of the family into America, that's who. Canada pulled the similar things with Chinese labourers supposedly under protection of the Crown.

[ 11 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

How much of a jerk do you have to be to oppose immigration?

Both Alex Tabarrok and Dani Rodrik have come out in favor of immigration into US on the basis that the relevant "moral community" one should consider is the world and not just the US natives. It might be the case that immigration from Mexico into US lowers the wages of the unskilled workers here (the extent of this effect is subject to some controversy, see the previous post on Ottaviano and Peri). However, the increase in the migrants' wages is so large that support for immigration is still justified.

This kind of argument provokes the expected response from the expected folks, roughly along the lines that we should care more about native workers - the citizens - then the migrants - the non-citizens. Ok. But how much more? Let's put on our annoying-economist hat and consider the question; if you consider a foreign national to be only 1/2 a human being (alright, alright, only 1/2 as "important") as a native citizen, are you justified in opposing immigration? After all, it takes a real jerk to argue that foreign people's welfare should not count at all. Suppose the foreigners are only 1/10th as important? Surely, if natives' welfare counts for ten times as much as that of foreigners, we would be justified in banning immigration since it may adversely affect the wages of the unskilled in US? Well, let's see...

Suppose we transfer one person from Mexico to United States (illegally or otherwise). As a result his wages increase compared to what he was making in Mexico. Let us also suppose that as a result of this transfer the wages of some unskilled worker in US fall. Furthermore we will ignore the aggregate gains from immigration that occur and which all economists, including Borjas admit exist. We do this to make our job harder, not easier.

How much do you have to weight the native's welfare relative to that of the Mexican immigrant in order to oppose moving this migrant into US?

---

A certain amount of back-of-the-envelope calculations follow, culminating in this graph.

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce_the_vii:
Mass immigration, for masses of jobs to be created in the future? The subsidy per Tim Hortons job is already pretty stiff and to expand that would bankrupt the aleady shakey financing of the nanny programs.

---

Also, the other issues people look at in terms of illegal immigration is that they're not in the system. Some say it increases crime (one starts off as a criminal when they don't fill the damn forms). Others say it raises taxes as they get services but don't pay into it since they're under the table. Others still want the US to remain anglophone. It's not purely about money, social issues matter as well. These problems may just go away if the immigration is done legally. And that's a large part of what the immigration issue is about. The debate in the USA is over illegal immigration.

Personally, one concern I have over immigration in Canada is the incredibly rapid population growth. We have a huge carbon footprint due to huge consumption habits per person multiplied by population. We should reduce both those factors.

I disagree with the point you posted on temp workers and agree with the new york times. Temp programs are inhumane. If someone is in the USA for six years, they have made a life here. It is unlikely they'll just pack up and leave, and quite frankly, it's wrong to boot them.

[ 11 June 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Personally, one concern I have over immigration in Canada is the incredibly rapid population growth. We have a huge carbon footprint due to huge consumption habits per person multiplied by population. We should reduce both those factors.

---

I think Canada's is a colder climate on average than the U.S. A significant part of our economy is old world energy intensive industries across the north, like mining, saw mills, paper mills, logging etc. And a lot of our raw materials and fossil fuels aren't even consumed here. Canada is the number one exporter of total energy to the most wasteful and most oil-dependent economy in the world, the U.S.

Some of our provinces are burning coal to generate power so that the U.S. can be greener.

And Long Island buses are burning Canadian natural gas. John Manley said that's a good thing if we can help the U.S. be greener. He didn't say what Canadians will do when this country runs short of natural gas in future though.

[ 11 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I think Canada's is a colder climate on average than the U.S. A significant part of our economy is old world energy intensive industries across the north, like mining, saw mills, paper mills, logging etc. And a lot of our raw materials and fossil fuels aren't even consumed here. Canada is the number one exporter of total energy to the most wasteful and most oil-dependent economy in the world, the U.S.

---

While treaties like Kyoto and most discussions place the blame on producers, I personally think environmentalism is much more a consumer-side issue. For example, I blame drivers more than I blame oil companies for auto emmissions.

And I get the feeling from your post, and perhaps I'm wrong, that you're saying our environmental destructiveness is due to the USA wanting our exports, it's not. We're a very wasteful country just on our own. We concentrate ouor population growth in just about three cities, and we probably have negative growth outside the top six.

The Americans are not forcing us to tear down our forests. In fact they worked hard to refuse our wood but we kept begging for them to buy it that in the end we offered to give them a billion dollars for it.

We could make the tar sands cleaner and they'd still be the number one source of American oil. Same if we stopped charging the lowest oil royalties in the world. We make our choices.

[ 11 June 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
For example, I blame drivers more than I blame oil companies for auto emmissions.

---

Or we could blame car companies for resisting calls for tougher auto emissions. Even China has stricter emissions standards for cars than in most U.S. states. Or we could blame our governments for the lack of decent rail service across the country. But we don't actually control a lot of our own rail service anymore. For example, Bill Gates is the largest shareholder in Canadian Pacific Railway. With the amount of profits ,raw materials and massive amounts of energy leaving Canada every day, you'd think Canada might be able to afford high speed rail service, like European countries and Japan have.

quote:

---

And I get the feeling from your post, and perhaps I'm wrong, that you're saying our environmental destructiveness is due to the USA wanting our exports, it's not.

---

No country produces as much pollution and greenhouse gases that I'm aware of. Canada is well-known to be "America's gas tank."

quote:

---

The Americans are not forcing us to tear down our forests. In fact they worked hard to refuse our wood but we kept begging for them to buy it that in the end we offered to give them a billion dollars for it.

---

The softwood lumber disputes are so one-sided it's not funny anymore. Our weak governments effectively hold a knife to their own throats instead of bargaining hard with the big bad Americanos. The truth is, Washington has protected less efficient and less productive wood mills in the states from their Canadian competition. Jack Layton says the situation is really sad the way Ottawa cow-tows to the American lumber industry. Ottawa could in turn slap taxes and export tarrifs on the massive amounts of energy and other raw materials being siphoned off to the U.S. everyday. And it's not like the Yanks could find a replacement for Canadain exports of electrical power, oil and gas. Ottawa and provinces should have the gringos over a barrel for our valuable oil and second to none exports of total energy to the U.S.

The per barrel oil royalties and the paltry $16 billion in Alberta's Heritage Fund are a sad joke. Big energy companies are getting away with murder in Canada. And that's what's wrong with believing that private enterprise and "the market" can allocate resources efficiently and practice conservation at the same time. Big business has no interest in selling less of our valuable fossil fuels or raw materials. Big business cannot profit from clean air or a sustainable future economy. Big business operates on quarterly projections and month-to-month balance sheets and grandiose promises to stockholders. Big business answers to the bottom line not the public at large.

And Canada's two oldest political parties have no interest in making business contribute a share of the profits toward a petroleum fund for Canadians future benefit when the oil and natural gas run out. Socialist Norway's Petroleum Fund is worth over $292 billion USD right now. Norwegians enjoy well-funded socialized medicine, a national daycare program, and freely accessable post-secondary for Norwegians. And Norwegians are proud of their country. The Petroleum Fund is so successful and popular among economists and Norwegians alike that Russia has studied it for implemenation in that country.

Russia's oil stabilization fund was only created in 2004, and that fund is expected to be worth over $141 billion USD by 2008. Even that's worth more than Alberta's Heritage Fund and CPP combined. Big energy companies have had a good thing going with Canadian governments for decades, and I think there is an obvious conflict of interest happening between Kyoto obligations and excessive corporate profiteering with our valuable fossil fuels. Canada needs a sustainable energy plan and real leadership.

[ 11 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

We started using migrants on our farm not necessarily because of a lack of local labour (a lack of good local workers, yes), but because the Ontario government changed the rules for unemployment insurance. Locals here used to work for various farmers, then go on the dole through the winter while working some cash jobs. Believe it or not, but a decent segment of the population enjoyed this lifestyle. Then changes came in and we couldn't fix the books enough, and the government demanded that hoops be jumped through before IE benefits were extended. It was a fairly revolting scene, and our labour pool disappeared, more people went on disability and welfare, and we turned to this great new program and brought in Mexicans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
Doc Gordon, very few of the workers I've chatted with want to move to Canada, or the US. They almost uniformly think Canada sucks, other than money and shit to buy. Too many laws, women seem like no fun, opinionated, no decent tortillas... And most of them are Mexican patriots of a sort. They're nationalists, prideful. I really do think they're using the Canadian money to build their lives and possibily their communities at home.

---

All the more reason to think that more people might want to benefit from an expanded guest worker program.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
what is theta on the graph?

---

The rate at which marginal utility declines with income. As theta increases, the gains associated with a $1 increase in income are accentuated for poor people, and are attenuated for those with higher income. In order to remain indifferent about more immigration, you need to reduce the weight you put on the welfare of non-natives.

quote:

---

If civilization collapses, the poor will suffer worse than others.

---

Oh, well, yes. Civilization has been so good to poor people so far. Why the servitude that follows the massacres and the evictions from ancestral homelands is so much better than the unrestrained and impoverished freedom they once enjoyed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Oh, well, yes. Civilization has been so good to poor people so far. Why the servitude that follows the massacres and the evictions from ancestral homelands is so much better than the unrestrained and impoverished freedom they once enjoyed.

I know the First Nations in Canada had never had it as good as when civilization first arrived with muskets and diseased blankets. Sure, some of them disappeared from the face of the earth, but that is the ultimate in freedom isn't it?

---

The poor within civilizations are certainly much better than before civilization, when life expectancy was around 35, most women died during childbirth, illiteracy was the norm, and around 40% died from homicide rather than natural causes. I can't excuse the actions of your ancestors, but on a worldwide level the average person is better off than during the paleolithic age.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
The poor within civilizations are certainly much better than before civilization, when life expectancy was around 35, most women died during childbirth, illiteracy was the norm, and around 40% died from homicide rather than natural causes. I can't excuse the actions of your ancestors, but on a worldwide level the average person is better off than during the paleolithic age.

You let your ideology carry your anger a bit too far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
There was no lack of civilization in the Americas prior to its infestation by Europeans.

I'd have to say you let your clearly neo-con ideology carry your racism a bit too far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
'Xenophobe' is too hard to spell...

---

Mark my words, people: The Gordon Curve, as first seen here, will no doubt go down in the annals of economic history, right beside the Laffer Curve....

edited to remove graph

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

I know about the aztecs, thank you.

---

No Gordon Curve, and no best sellers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
But do you know about the Spanish?

---

It doesn't reflect well on you when you ask questions suited for the 12 year old version's of Brain Quest.

Are you also going to ask me who cortez was? What the years were? Why the horses helped?

Changes in poverty in Venezuela under Chavez

This has not required masses of migrant labour to El Norte. It is also noteworthy that there have been disinformation campaigns, including articles in Foreign Affairs, etc. which have been debunked, alleging that poverty has increased under the Chavez government.

quote:

---

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) this week released a new report on Venezuela's poverty rates. The research team found a marked decrease in poverty over the course of President Chavez' term. While in 1998, the year Chavez was first elected, more than 55% of the Venezuelan public lived below the poverty line, today less than 44% do. And that's just an analysis of cash income. When you take into account that the poorest Venezuelans spend far less money on health care, nutrition and education today because of the social missions, the number drops to 35%. In all, a 20% drop in poverty can be calculated in recent years.

Yet many newspaper accounts still claim the opposite. As CEPR discovered, reporters continue to use figures from the first half of 2004, when Venezuela's economy was reeling from the petroleum industry shutdown, led by oil executives in a failed attempt to drive Chavez from office. In other words, reporters are using two year old data from the worst economic period of Chavez' term in order to make the case that the economy remains in bad shape.

---

There's more:

quote:

---

The reduction in poverty noted above, since 1999, measures only cash income. This, however, does not really capture the changes in the living standards of the poor in Venezuela, since there have been major changes in non-cash benefits and services in the last few years - for example health care is now provided to an estimated 54 percent of the population. The paper looks briefly at the impact of these changes.

---

Chavez hasn't really touched the capitalist property relations that still exist in Venezuela. It's probably fair to say that he's made more humane use of the wealth generated from oil and gas sales, and he's increased participation of ordinary people in Venezuelan social life. But that is a long way from socialism. A genuine socialist transformation would be more of the same and devoutly to be wished.

The alternatives to neoliberal prescriptions are there for all to see. But you have to be willing to look other than in the pages of the New York Times for such alternatives.

Note to moderators: I'm sure it's an accident but Professor Gordon's graphs have ruined enjoyment of this thread by causing annoying sidescroll. Can something be done about that?

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Note to moderators: I'm sure it's an accident but Professor Gordon's graphs have ruined enjoyment of this thread by causing annoying sidescroll. Can something be done about that?

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

quote:

---

Stephen Gordon: how does it look now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
It really doesn't matter what screen resolution people use. The fact is, not everyone has large enough screens to handle such large images.

Stephen, would you be a dear and link to the image instead of posting it, since it's so big? Thanks!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
It really doesn't matter what screen resolution people use. The fact is, not everyone has large enough screens to handle such large images.

Stephen, would you be a dear and link to the image instead of posting it, since it's so big? Thanks!

---

The size depends on the resolution.

If you make a photobucket account (it's free), they have a tool to automatiucally shrink images. One of the options is "bulletin board".

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
LTJ, could you also please remove the image from your post? That should end the sidescroll. Thanks!

---

quote:

---

The poor within civilizations are certainly much better than before civilization, when life expectancy was around 35, most women died during childbirth, illiteracy was the norm, and around 40% died from homicide rather than natural causes. I can't excuse the actions of your ancestors, but on a worldwide level the average person is better off than during the paleolithic age.

You let your ideology carry your anger a bit too far.

---

What ideology? I appreciate for some simple-minded folk there is no ability to think beyond the confines of a left-right paradigm or develop thoughts not found with the pages of the National Post.

It is your argument that Africans were better off being captured, forced marched, with many murdered along the way, exported, auctioned, beaten mercilessly, repeatedly raped, worked to death, all under the auspices of slavery, than being free in the jungle? That is your argument?

You would argue the Huron Indians are better of extinct than hunter gatherers? You argue Canada's First Nations are better off today in reserves, beset with abuse, alcoholism, poverty, and suicide than they were 500 years ago in their own villages?

You would argue indigenous Columbians are better off mnassacred, forced off their lands and forced to sell their children for sex or to waste their lives in poverty and in factories than to hunt and gather in the rain forests?

I hope you and yours find the happiness afforded the Africans and very soon, too.

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

What ideology? I appreciate for some simple-minded folk there is no ability to think beyond the confines of a left-right paradigm or develop thoughts not found with the pages of the National Post.

It is your argument that Africans were better off being captured, forced marched, with many murdered along the way, exported, auctioned, beaten mercilessly, repeatedly raped, worked to death, all under the auspices of slavery, than being free in the jungle? That is your argument?

You would argue the Huron Indians are better of extinct than hunter gatherers? You argue Canada's First Nations are better off today in reserves, beset with abuse, alcoholism, poverty, and suicide than they were 500 years ago in their own villages?

You would argue indigenous Columbians are better off mnassacred, forced off their lands and forced to sell their children for sex or to waste their lives in poverty and in factories than to hunt and gather in the rain forests?

I hope you and yours find the happiness afforded the Africans and very soon, too.

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

---

I argued the median human being is better off than during the paleolithic age, when 40% died of homicide, life expectancy was 40, women routinely died during childbirth and there was no literacy. Slavery as it has taken place represents a failure of civilization. It is a natural state worthy of the paleolithic age and ancient times and societies not far socially removed. Right now global life expectancy is at 67, most women live past childbirth, and most people are literate. I don't subscribe to the ridiculous noble savage theory, as far as I'm concerned it is as disproven as Lanarckian evolution or epicycles.

The simple-minded is he who argues generalities by pointing to extreme anecdotes. This is a failing proposition in a vast world with vast deviations and thousands of cultures, geographies and ethnic groups. Yes, there are extremes, but these may be due to rather specific and fine factors, and not back of the cereal box ideology.

I wonder, are you a supporter of the voluntary human extinction movement?

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

I argued the median human being is better off than during the paleolithic age, when 40% died of homicide, life expectancy was 40, women routinely died during childbirth and there was no literacy. Slavery as it has taken place represents a failure of civilization. It is a natural state worthy of the paleolithic age and ancient times and societies not far socially removed.

---

I think the world was significantly better off since the world revolutions. As you've said, Apples, we're not that far removed from societies based on imperialism, feudalism, colonialism, and slavery. China's last imperial eunuch died in 1996, and Chinese are living twice as long on average as they did just 45 years ago. If the revolutions could have happened centuries sooner, we probably wouldn't be faced with so many people given that women's rights, social security, health care and family planning were achieved in more countries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
There has been a measureable and substantial reduction of poverty in Venezuela under President Chavez:

Changes in poverty in Venezuela under Chavez

This has not required masses of migrant labour to El Norte. It is also noteworthy that there have been disinformation campaigns, including articles in Foreign Affairs, etc. which have been debunked, alleging that poverty has increased under the Chavez government.

Chavez hasn't really touched the capitalist property relations that still exist in Venezuela. It's probably fair to say that he's made more humane use of the wealth generated from oil and gas sales, and he's increased participation of ordinary people in Venezuelan social life. But that is a long way from socialism. A genuine socialist transformation would be more of the same and devoutly to be wished.

The alternatives to neoliberal prescriptions are there for all to see. But you have to be willing to look other than in the pages of the New York Times for such alternatives.

---

Venezuela happens to be blessed with huge reserves of a commodity for which rich countries are willing to pay handsomely. Venezuelans don't have to move in order to get access to the wealth of rich countries; they can trade oil for money. Lots of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I argued the median human being is better off than during the paleolithic age

---

quote:

---

I argued the median human being is better off than during the paleolithic age, when 40% died of homicide, life expectancy was 40, women routinely died during childbirth and there was no literacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
None of these social ills have been demonstrated in general by any anthropology that I am aware of. Mind you, the paleolithic does cover some 2.5 million years, and at least ten varieties of human kind, from Australopithicus to Homo Sapiens. Perhaps you are thinking of merely the Homo Sapiens group, which are generally considered to be quite long-lived, especially the North American Aboriginal types. Perhaps you have some sources? Or perhaps you prefer the comforting western stereotype of the traditional lifestyle of First Nations peoples as 'nasty brutish and short'. Mind you, you havn't met my uncle. (ba-dum)

---

The statistic on homicide was from Steven Pinker's blank slate. He had an anthropological graph on the proportion of people dying from homicide throughout historical periods. It was part of the efforts he made in that book to deconstruct and devastate the myth of the noble savage. As for women often dying durin childbirth throughout most oh uman history, that much is common knowledge. Life expectancy in ancient greece was under 20, in ancient egypt it was under 40. There are expected extrapolations that can be made.

I did confuse terminology. I meant the neolithic when I said paleolithic.

And at no point did I speak of the specificities of north american aborigines.

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Sounds like certain areas of Afganistan, circa 2007.

---

...

Arguing by extremes is

quote:

---

a failing proposition in a vast world with vast deviations and thousands of cultures, geographies and ethnic groups. Yes, there are extremes, but these may be due to rather specific and fine factors...

---

quote:

---

Life expectancy in ancient greece was under 20...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

And at no point did I speak of the specificities of north american aborigines.

---

Wait a second, I'd forgotten about this post amidst the usual drift.

quote:

---

S. Gordon: Venezuela happens to be blessed with huge reserves of a commodity for which rich countries are willing to pay handsomely.
Venezuelans don't have to move in order to get access to the wealth of rich countries; they can trade oil for money. Lots of it.

But that's not a general model for development.

---

The current situation isn't a general model of development either - although it is noisily advertised as such. There is a net transfer of wealth from the poor countries to the rich countries, it's increasing, or showing no signs of letting up, and ending poverty and fostering development is a mirage that disappears the closer poor countries get to it. It is alternatives to the status quo, and not band-aids like two-tiered work forces in El Norte that will foster real development and move towards ending poverty.

Most thoughtful people on the left support more immigration, generally. But very few support these two-tiered, anti-equality set-ups. That's what bosses do to break unions in the workplace - they set up lower wages for new workers. It may be great for the boss but that's not whose interests I care about anyway.

quote:

---

S. Gordon: The point was that for many countries, there isn't such an obvious and convenient product that they can sell to rich countries at extremely advantageous terms. For workers in those countries, selling their labour in rich country markets is one of the best ways to increase their incomes. It seems churlish to refuse them that opportunity.

---

The economist who is the subject of the article admitted that he was indifferent to any resulting social explosion. But all we have to do is to look to the USA and see the outrage among millions of people in that country over the barbarous treatment of migrant labour there - and the carefully cultivated racism that they already have too much of. Two-tiered workforces are unjust and barbaric. It may be great capitalism but that is just proof to me how harmful the current global economic system is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Nice skating, but you can't avoid the call. You directly quoted FM about First Nations in your absurd post about pre-civilization and the lives of 'paleolithic' people. It was clearly in reply to his point, and clearly dismissed FN cultures as uncivilized.

So would you care to apologize, or to shut the fuck up, or are you going to persist with this nonsense?

---

You need to relax on the halucinogens. You eem excited about the prospect of accusing someone of racism, good for you then. Might I suggest you wait until someone actually is so? I'm not going to play your ridiculous game. I have not dismissed FN culture as uncivilized, I made no comment to its status at all. My only direct response about FNs was when I wrote about the bad epsitemology of using individual extremes to argue generalities. That much is obvious to anyone with a cool head.

quote:

---

The simple-minded is he who argues generalities by pointing to extreme anecdotes.

---

To argue that slavery is a failure of civilization is to argue that civilization is a failure as slavery has always, and remains, an integral part of civilization. What is slavery if not the theft of body, and energy?

Clearly, the US was able to rise to a world economy through the cheap energy provided by black slaves during the 1800s. That energy was replaced by cheap fossil fuels in the 1900s, but still, there was a need to extract resources from some nations and move them to other nations. In that sense, slavery was off shored to where the resources were extracted. Indigenous peoples were forced off their lands and into servitude on a massive scale. Sitting comfortably in a land stolen from one group of people and enriched by resources taken from yet another, it is easy to see blue skies without noticing the blood stained ground. But indeed, poverty, servitude, exploitation, sexual and otherwise, and war, is still rampant from where ever we extract resources.

Iraq is a wonderful modern example of slavery where hundreds of thousands of lives can be taken, and society demolished, all with a shrug and many rationalizations, in order to steal cheap energy.

But, of course, I am sure you will argue that Iraqis are better off dead or mired in violence.

The dispossession of peoples, slavery, exploitation, and murder, is part and parcel of what civilization delivers.

quote:

---

I wonder, are you a supporter of the voluntary human extinction movement?

---

The whole new excitement in the corporate media and business pages about using migrant workers to fill labour shortages is basically a cheap labour strategy designed to pull desperate poor people by the nose from country to country with no rights or guarantees or protections—let alone the right to ask to immigrate to a particular place.

N. Beltov wrote:

quote:

---

Some call such places the fourth world. No chance of development under the current world capitalist system. Again, the author has nothing to say about a system that leaves millions of people to such a fate. His final solution is migration.

The idea that there might be ways to improve people's lives outside the neoliberal prescriptions of Bretton Woods institutions (like the World Bank) that perpetuate the "development of underdevelopment" or the depopulation of entire regions of this planet by mass migration seems to have eluded this author and Lant Pritchett (the Mormon free trade fundamentalist that the author is so gung-ho about).

---

This is exactly their point, though. Third/Fourth World development (as progressives understand it) isn’t what’s on these institutions’ minds (other than some tertiary resource extraction development or sweatshop havens, where deemed appropriate).

The fact is, as capitalism goes more and more “global,” we are seeing the rise of migrant labour, as more impoverished people are forced to look for work outside their local communities devastated first by colonialism, then by tin pot dictatorships and now by crushing debts and austerity measures.

It’s no coincidence that with this, comes a huge rise in slavery in the form of indentured servitude and bonded labour—a major feature in migrant labour.

quote:

---

I've worked with migrant labourers for almost two decades now. Mexicans. Great people. They're here for the money, clearly. They think Canada is the land of of No Fun. Typically what happens is they save all their money, usually scrimping on food, and send it back to Mexico for their families to use.

---

Fine. But then let’s ensure they get something worthwhile for their efforts and are not used as fodder to undermine working and living standards and freedoms of other people here.

These people should be guaranteed a livable wage—by OUR standards, since they are working here, including benefits. In fact, I would support a requirement for migrant workers to join a union with voice and vote in negotiating their working conditions.

quote:

---

Most save up their money and re-invest in land, businesses.

---

Fine. Paying them a livable wage here would greater enable them to do this back there and maybe even help elevate the impoverished conditions they have to live with at home.

quote:

---

I always find it funny that they claim to make their employees work like dogs but occasionally complain about the tasks I assign them.

---

That’s a standards reflection of the dictatorial and exploitative class relation of boss over employee. When you’re the former, you’re the tyrant. When you’re the latter, you’re opposed to tyranny.

quote:

---

I find it preposterous that agriculture is going to significantly change towards sustainability.

---

God forbid! Let's keep it unsustainable. That way we'll poison ourselves with hormones and pesticides, reduce the productive capacity of the soil over time, create food scarcity (oh, ya, we do that already when it's time to jack the price of something), etc. After all this worked so well with colonialism in Africa--and they're a-starvin, I guess so should we.

quote:

---

That would require more workers, a lot more, simply to supply enough calories to keep the workers capable of working.

---

Is there something with more jobs and more workers getting paid a better to produce more and healthier food? There isn’t. The fact that the number don’t add up on this now is because of our rotten corporate capitalist economic order that forces farmers and farm workers to practically work for nothing and rely on unsafe processing, while millions of tons of food is wasted, throw away or stored and million of people die of starvation and malnutrition every year.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:

Are you suggesting a possible similar program for Canada? Am I allowed to laugh, comrade?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
But then let’s ensure they get something worthwhile for their efforts and are not used as fodder to undermine working and living standards and freedoms of other people here.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't take sophisticated economics to understand how some professionals have fared well in recent decades, even as most workers have done poorly; it is a simple story of supply and demand. The rules of the nanny state are structured to increase the supply of less-skilled labor, while restricting the supply of some types of highly skilled professionals. With more supply, wages fall — the situation of less-skilled workers. With less supply, wages rise — the situation of highly skilled professionals.

---

I think the general situation in Canada is that we've tended to rob other countries of trades people as well as educated professionals while under-funding PSE and job training programs.

I have been playing a little devil's advocate here, because of the on the ground issues involved.

I can't find workers. These people want to work, for Canadian money. As much of it as they can get, doing whatever. Work like manual labour, outside, dirty, subject to the weather.

They get paid decently. Housing is covered. Flight here and back is paid for. I'd have to check, because it changes from year to year, but their min wage is set a hair below Ontario standard. Could be more this year. Suspect not. In ag, at least on this farm, we tailor their work to productivity. If they finish a certain quota of work every day, they get paid for eight hours but work only five. Then we let them work on a per hour basis, if they want. They know the rules.

I'm am positive there are exploitations taking place. And when migrant labour moves into the city, I start to wonder where it will stop. There are effectively work gangs throughout Canada, much like in the States. But it's all legal.

S-A, your "liveable wage" is hard to determine. What is it? I will need a number. Business runs on numbers.

I'm into sustainable farming, and know it has to be the way of the future. Realistically, will Canadian ag change before I go broke trying to be sustainable? Who'll buy this land? Do you know what land prices are doing in Southern Ontario? I want more farmers, too. Ask the unionized and massive departments of Agriculture if what is needed is more farmers? Ask them if their policies, over time, have created more farmers. The Ministry of Ag, in a sense is a farmer's union. But I don't see too many benefits. Guess who pays my dental bill?

Which links nicely to Fidel's absurd notion that the people of Canada are going to work on farms, deplacing the migrant labourers most don't think exist in the first place, and if they know of the situation, most people consider it a form of economic slavery. Doesn't bode well for my potential labour pool.

Besides which, Fidel, you're talking about higher end job sharing, which I agree with. I thought we were chatting about using Canadians to work in ag labour.

Question, S-A, if the Mexicans don't want to immigrate, and are making money they can't make at home, how is this a bad thing on the ground?

I don't like the situation, personally. I have to recognize it's benefits, though.

I'd prefer to see an immigration policy of moving poor farmers from overpopulated countries and re-settling them in the countryside, learning the trades that will be needed in the sustainable future.

[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: Farmpunk ]

Not necessarily. Workers should always have the option of volunteering for the type of job sharing I presume we're talking about. It's all about choices, and the more the better where deemed appropriate and acceptable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FarmPunk:
Which links nicely to Fidel's absurd notion that the people of Canada are going to work on farms, deplacing the migrant labourers most don't think exist in the first place, and if they know of the situation, most people consider it a form of economic slavery. Doesn't bode well for my potential labour pool.

---

And what percentage of the workforce do migrant workers represent ?. If they come to Canada or the U.S., they should be extended full citizenship and associated rights if they've been here so many years, is also what people on the left are saying. How would you like to leave your wife and kids for months on end to work for kulakee gringos?. If the right-wing business lobby and our Republican wannabes want to appear to be good doobies on migrant labour, then our 24 percent guvmint in Ottawa should do it right. We need a NAFTA-level deal for workers.

[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
You're suggesting, I think, that CAW members for instance, given the option of volunteering to pick asparagus will take up that task? Perhaps on extension of their summer layoffs? Give me a percentage. Would I have to pay CAW rates?

---

It wouldn't make a lot of sense to take large numbers of workers away from capital-generating sectors of manufacturing and put them to work in the fields. It takes a couple of years before assembly line workers are producing at full steam. And it wouldn't make sense to put a great many medical doctors in asparagus fields when there is a shortage of family physicians across Canada. Job sharing could be voluntary in a list of pre-determined work settings. But there couldn't be so many workers removed from specific work settings that it causes an industry or public service to collapse. It's all about choices.

ETA: Union leaders were the ones who showed Big Three car management how to do shift work scheduling. Management guys with big degrees were so impressed that shiftwork is now comonplace. Where there's a will, there's a way. If productivity or even overall job satisfaction is increased, workers should be given more choices than Charlie Chaplin had in Modern Times. Workers doing especially monotonous work should be given high priority.

[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

And a reality check in lane four, while you're at it. Let's see, working inside, controlled environment vs outside, sun (skin cancer risk pay hike; compensation for popsicle breaks), cold (ever picked cabbage in December?)...

Guess I'm a little confused as to what you're suggesting for a practical application of this for the ag industry. Ontario needs over twenty thousand workers per year. Where they going to come from? The cities?

"If they come to Canada or the U.S., they should be extended full citizenship and associated rights if they've been here so many years, is also what people on the left are saying. How would you like to leave your wife and kids for months on end to work for kulakee gringos?"

When they're here, they have their health care covered. And, again, they don't want to move to Canada. In 17 years we've only had one Mexican even bring it up.

Would I leave my family to work for three months in a foreign country, for the pay rate these men are making? Exchange on the peso was something like 9:1 last year. Our workers regularly make a hundred dollars a day, clear. Simple math.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
Yep, we're gringos. That's why these people want to stay in their own country. I wouldn't mind living in Chiapas if I had a decent flow of pesos. Wouldn't you? Imagine the fun you could have wearing a banana over your face while enlightening the masses. Maybe S-A could hold your AK.

---

No I wouldn't want to live in Chiapas or even Guatemala. I've been to state-capitalist Guatemala and seen the way it is, thanks.

Chiapas for Gringos I don't think those will be AK's the soldiers are toting. And, you can leave your OHIP card at the border before leaving. See ya!

[ 14 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

The gains that poor-country migrants receive vastly outweigh the losses incurred by rich-country natives.

---

Three little words. The Class War. Lots of comfortable Canadians would gladdly immigrate foreigners into the proletariat as long as it doesn't affect them. That happens to be what the class war is about. Has nothing to do with socialism though.

[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]

eta: One I can't spell on the first try, either. Maybe I should have stuck to YouNotSneaky's taxonomy...

[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]

quote:

---

The $10,000 Chinese workers allegedly paid to get their jobs at Maple Leaf Foods might after all be fair market price for the Chinese applicants.

Immigration lawyer Lawrence Wong said collecting "service fees" from workers seeking to work abroad "is something normal" in China. Even governmental departments collect fees from these workers, Wong adds.

In Canada, recruitment consultants can only collect fees from the employers. They are prohibited from charging the employees. However, Wong said, if a consultant is also providing a range of services such as helping the applicants to do the paper works necessary to get work permits or make immigration applications, then the consultant is not illegal to charge the applicants for the extra services it provides.

---

I've just found another related story that notes that Maple Leaf Foods has "discontinued" their imported worker program:

quote:

---

WINNIPEG -- Maple Leaf Foods has shut down its program to import workers from China after discovering that 61 employees at its Brandon pork plant paid $10,000 each to come to Canada under a deal arranged by the partner of a Maple Leaf executive.

Maple Leaf said it had no knowledge of the payments, and although no criminal wrongdoing is alleged, they launched an investigation immediately after learning that many workers are struggling to pay debts related to the fee, which is equivalent to about four times the average annual salary in China.

The company said it hired a Canadian immigration consultant to find workers on its behalf. Although the company refused to identify the consultant, The Globe and Mail has learned that it is Sophia Cummings Enterprises, based in Vancouver.

---

Let's be clear. This has nothing to do with alleviating poverty. It has everything to do with enriching "consultants" and providing Maple Leaf Foods with subservient, obedient workers.

quote:

---

The company planned to bring in several hundred workers from China on temporary visas to staff its Brandon plant. The workers arrived in Brandon, a city of 40,000 250 kilometres west of Winnipeg, last spring. They were adjusting well to the community and earning good reviews at work, the company said. But in October, some of the workers asked to be moved out of the apartments arranged for them by Maple Leaf because they were too costly.

That is when it emerged that many of them were struggling under a weight of debt.

---

Wait. There's more.

quote:

---

Officials with the United Food and Commercial Workers union said the Chinese employees are reluctant to speak publicly for fear of repercussions against them and their families in China. But the union said it is concerned about the situation. The workers are paid a starting salary of about $15 an hour for various kinds of work in the plant. Although they are in Canada on temporary visas, some may eventually be able to stay in Manitoba through the provincial nominee program.

---

Alleviating poverty my ass. It's all about making the rich richer. Which is what capitalism, the "free" (i.e., compulsory) market, and far too much of hiring migrant labour is all about.

"Sold like pigs" ... and that job will cost you $10,000.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

1) The gains to poor-country workers are significant: The only reason why people would pay those fees would be if they thought that the gains outweighed the costs.

2) There should be fewer barriers: The 'consultants' seem to have been put in the position of auctioning off winning lottery tickets, where the prize was a job in Canada. This looks a lot like the Ultimatum Game, where the consultants were in the position of being able to offer a prize worth (say) $11,000, and demanding an up-front price of $10k for the privilege.

Oh, and we should really dump the 'two-tier' theme: all-too-many Chinese, Mexican and Colombian workers already work in appalling conditions for bad pay. If they can get better conditions and better pay here, and are willing to pay $10k for the privilege, then I don't see the point in stomping on their fingers as they try to climb up the ladder.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

S Gordon: The only reason why people would pay those fees would be if they thought that the gains outweighed the costs.

---

What they "thought" the gains would be and what the gains "actually are" are two different things. And since, as UFCW has pointed out, many of the Chinese workers are too terrified of retribution against their families back home to even speak about such things, let's leave the psychological reductionism out, shall we?

quote:

---

Oh, and we should really dump the 'two-tier' theme

---

And what difference does it make if workers in the 'second tier' are working inside or outside Canada?

eta: These workers are 'too easily super-exploited and silenced if they dare speak up' because their legal status is precarious. The solution is to solidify their status, not send them home.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

The only time I've ever had trouble with a worker being denied work was a Mexican vs Mexican issue, and they were both punished by not being able to re-enter Canada, we were told.

I guess maybe it's government programs like the one we use that helps to submarine what would turn into a black market of labour. Perhaps this siutuation, Beltov, is why the government is expanding migrant worker programs.

The FARMS program works. I'd argue it's helped change the cultural fabric of rural Ontario for the better while providing people who want to work where I can find none.

These workers know their rights, or have access to their rights. They fear the Mexican end of the process most of all. Even "redneck" rural Canada is a joke to these men. They live in a country with no stability other than money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

And what difference does it make if workers in the 'second tier' are working inside or outside Canada?
[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

---

Well it does make a diffence to the workers themselves. If they are here they consider such conditions unfair and exploitive. If they are treated that way because they are Chinese they consider it racism. Generally society would side with them too.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
You're missing the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Migrants from desperately poor countries would be better off under this arrangement. Unless someone can come up with an even better arrangement (free immigration would be one), I don't see why anyone would oppose it. There's no shame in accepting half a loaf for now, and then starting work on the other half.

---

Firstly, while Mexican farm workers do have a culture of itinerant labour to advance their economic prosperity at home,most migrant workers will utilise the opportunity to immigrate.

Secondly,the predators will use the demand for migrant workers to prey on applicants. The is a CBC story on Bangladeshi applicants who were refused visas to Canada and then,within the hour,called on their cellphones and offered a "review" for $10,000.

Thirdly, while many employers are legitimately seeking employees for unfilled positions,it is obvious that there are others attempting to subvert Canadian wages and benefits by making an end run around both collective agreements and the free market supply of labour.

Fourthly, there is a potential for slave labourers to be provided by organised crime through a legal mechanism that is a bigger goldmine than human smuggling.

Recently,a Chinese company wanted to import Chinese coal miners to northern BC because there were no Canadian miners available. The facts are that Chinese coal miners die in the hundreds due to working conditions that are subhuman.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]

quote:

---

It's on video, believe it or not, and even presented as a selling point to peddle their services by Cohen & Grigsby Law Firm. That's right, this group of attorneys put an entire seminar on how to screw over the American worker on YouTube. Imagine that, a seminar from lawyers on how to make sure one doesn't have to hire an American worker!

---

"Our goal is not to find a qualified and interested US worker."

The Video