Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
"Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
It is truly shameful.... The Kushner family is pushing the EB-5 visa to allows wealthy Chinese immigrants a path to a green card if they invest more than $500,000 in a project that creates jobs in the United States.
@Hank: "Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."and "Air Force One May Be Boeing Jets Abandoned by Russian Airline." Let me remind you that this is a mutual fund and investing discussion board. These are two of your latest links that have nothing to do with the purpose of the board, and are best suited to a social website. Many of use are working very hard to draw new members to MFO and repeated post like your last two do nothing but drive viewers away. Regards, Ted
Trump is clearly promoting this Senate proposal for his own political benefit (as the next shiny object for distraction and/or to appeal to his base). Putting that aside, this does have economic implications and if taken objectively does have merits worth discussion.
This proposal addresses both the rate of growth of the labor pool and the mix of labor assets. Imposing or strengthening regulations (including immigration regulations) that impede the growth of labor would seem to conflict with the administration's stated objective of lessening regulations that affect the cost of doing business. According to the administration, this would slow economic growth. Thus @Ted this is something to keep in mind when choosing to invest now or later, here or abroad.
In addition, specifically targeting low skilled labor would disproportionately harm some sectors of the economy (again affecting your choice of investment), such as agribusiness, as Lindsay Graham (and David M) have noted. Another sector that would be significantly affected is the hospitality industry. This one is particularly curious, as Trump has just launched a cheaper brand of domestic hotels, American Idea
The history of US immigration policy abounds in racism, xenophobia, and unintended consequences. Start with the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, nearly concurrent with Lazarus's penning of "The New Colossus" (to help fund the base of the Statue of Liberty). Move on to the Johnson-Reed Act (1924) that excluded immigrants from the rest of Asia and added nationality quotas, to the McCarran-Walter Act (1952) that technically removed the ban on Asian immigration but barred them from becoming naturalized citizens, added racial quotas, and continued national quotas.
So while Hank's ancestors may have benefited from these discriminatory laws, many, many others were kept out by the same laws.
Even though the current law with its focus on family ties may appear to be less discriminatory, that's merely how it played out. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was originally drafted to favor skilled immigrants. It was changed to emphasize family relationships as that was expected to preserve national quotas. According to the "American Legion magazine [this would give rise to] 'a naturally operating national-origins system,' because it would favor immigration from the northern and western European countries that at the time dominated the US population." The Atlantic, Oct. 2, 2015.
It's fair to ask what would be a good rate of immigration, and what would be a good (and just) mix of immigrants. If you don't get distracted by the political motivations, the proposal does raise some good questions (as well as some really bad ones). In a more civil environment, it could serve as a starting point for discussion.
I'm not even sure nation states really exist anymore--certainly not in the way they did back in the last bout of anti-immigrant hysteria. Borders don't exist for most corporations. Why should they for labor? More than half of Coca-Cola's business is outside the U.S. Is it really a U.S. company then? Capital is global and has been for some time.
The problem is labor remains local and labor rights are local. But by asserting that nationalist ideology--only non-Muslim English speakers can come and work here and not too many even of those--we lose sight of our common humanity and revert to a more primitive tribalist mentality. This is an understandable phenomenon as labor is being assaulted on every side in developed nations--from technology, globalization and the elimination of the social welfare state. It's understandable but it's harmful nonetheless, and could potentially lead to the same ugly tribalist wars--actually uglier wars given advances in weaponry--as we saw earlier in the twentieth century.
There's a mismatch in power that occurred via globalization that needs to be corrected. If capital is global and property rights are global--with some admittedly interesting totalitarian exceptions--labor and human rights should be global too, including the right for labor to organize globally, and a global minimum wage or standard of living. The playing field between capital and labor must be leveled somehow, but simply saying you can come to this country for a job but not that one isn't going to work when massive sums of money can move from one nation state to the next with a click of a button.
The idea that one should be able to travel freely, e.g. for work, is hardly a new pie in the sky concept. Here are a few quotes courtesy of the ABA, dating as far back as the Articles of Confederation in the 18th century.
The fourth quote is from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Lewis cited. It includes: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
The fifth and final quote is over a half century old, from a SC ruling that I believe is still good law. It's worth reproducing here:
… The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. … Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. …
It's an interesting issue as the notion of free labor in economics as opposed to slave labor requires at least some freedom of mobility from employer to employer at will. That mobility could and one might argue should not be geographically bound to one nation state. I believe mobility is fundamental to the concept of "at-will" employment, that while the employer can fire an employee for pretty much any reason, the employee is free to leave the employer for any reason to go work somewhere else.
There is some logic to this. If the employer is free to do what he wants with his financial capital and spend it hiring some other employee or on a labor saving machine, the employee should be free to do what he wants with his human capital, to, in effect, sell his human capital to the highest bidder. Since financial capital is global and can hire employees anywhere in the world, why shouldn't we be able to sell our human capital anywhere in the world?
Regarding slave labor, I'm sure if we went back in time far enough there would be a majority of people who thought such servitude was "natural" and that labor could be free to govern itself was also "pie in the sky" thinking and "utopian." From 1619 to 1863 slavery was legal in the U.S. Many Americans thought that was normal and just the way of the world until they didn't anymore. Now it is rightly seen as an abomination in most, although surprisingly not all, nations: https://theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/13/modern-slavery-african-migrants-libya If humanity doesn't destroy itself via tribalism--which is itself an open question--I wonder what behaviors and attitudes of 2017 America future generations will see as abominable.
Interestingly enough, one of the arguments the South made for maintaining slavery was that free at-will workers in the North were treated worse by their employers than Southern slaves, the idea being that people treat things they own--in this case human beings--better than things they just rent--at will employees. Today this philosophy towards people as opposed to, say, real estate, sounds horribly absurd, but back then it was considered a legitimate argument.
The point is attitudes about labor and the rights of humanity change over time. Not always for the better and one must always be vigilant, but to wake up in the morning I have to believe what MLK said: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
These days, businesses try hard to impede mobility of workers (unless it's a worker whom a business wants to snatch from another company). The use of non-compete clauses has been expanding.
Even where non-compete clauses are illegal (notably California), they are commonly found in employment agreements. The only reason for this would seem to be, as above, to intimidate workers into staying.
Once reserved for a corporation’s most treasured rainmakers, noncompetes are now routinely applied to low-wage workers like warehouse employees, fast-food workers and even dog sitters. One out of every six workers without a college degree have signed one. ...
The evidence shows wages in states that enforce noncompetes are 10 percent lower than in states that restrict their use. ...
Massachusetts, like most other states, enforces noncompetes.
However, it seems that the Mass. legislature is working on lessening the reach of non-compete agreements.
Concurrently, Mass. courts have held that if a Mass. business has an employee sign a non-compete clause, and that employee works for the company in California (where these clauses are void), the Mass. court will honor Calif's law against enforcing these clauses.
The reasoning is that the non-compete clause is a contract of adhesion (i.e. void) since the employee wasn't able to bargain on this clause. Also, that Calif. has the stronger interest in the Calif. employee's rights, so Calif. laws apply to the employment agreement.
All in all, though, Massachusetts seems to just be tinkering around the edges.
I've spoken to a few lawyers about non-competes before and it's true state laws vary considerably about their enforcement and scope. More often than not it is a scare tactic to intimidate workers as you said, MSF. California, North Dakota and Oklahoma bar them. If you're interested in the state nuances, here's a link: https://faircompetitionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Noncompetes-50-State-Survey-Chart-20170711.pdf
There is an interesting question regarding at-will employment about freedom in general. While better than old-fashioned slavery, it can still engender a slave like environment if workers are desperate enough, i.e, completely disenfranchised. Here are two quotes regarding that I found I thought worth sharing:
The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another’s labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live. – Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “’Necessitous men are not free men.’” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. – Franklin D. Roosevelt (Second Bill of Rights).
This is why I say that labor rights--and really human rights--must evolve to match the globalized high tech world we now live in.
Ah unions, the old conservative bugaboo. The only problem is they're dying and now have very little power. Only one in ten Americans is unionized and it's one in fifteen in the private sector: https://fastcompany.com/3005101/unions-are-dying-what-comes-next Who will you blame for America's problems when the last one has disappeared?
Comments
http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/rob_eshman/214361/stephen-miller-meet-immigrant-great-grandfather/
Regards,
Ted
This proposal addresses both the rate of growth of the labor pool and the mix of labor assets. Imposing or strengthening regulations (including immigration regulations) that impede the growth of labor would seem to conflict with the administration's stated objective of lessening regulations that affect the cost of doing business. According to the administration, this would slow economic growth. Thus @Ted this is something to keep in mind when choosing to invest now or later, here or abroad.
In addition, specifically targeting low skilled labor would disproportionately harm some sectors of the economy (again affecting your choice of investment), such as agribusiness, as Lindsay Graham (and David M) have noted. Another sector that would be significantly affected is the hospitality industry. This one is particularly curious, as Trump has just launched a cheaper brand of domestic hotels, American Idea
The history of US immigration policy abounds in racism, xenophobia, and unintended consequences. Start with the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, nearly concurrent with Lazarus's penning of "The New Colossus" (to help fund the base of the Statue of Liberty). Move on to the Johnson-Reed Act (1924) that excluded immigrants from the rest of Asia and added nationality quotas, to the McCarran-Walter Act (1952) that technically removed the ban on Asian immigration but barred them from becoming naturalized citizens, added racial quotas, and continued national quotas.
So while Hank's ancestors may have benefited from these discriminatory laws, many, many others were kept out by the same laws.
Even though the current law with its focus on family ties may appear to be less discriminatory, that's merely how it played out. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was originally drafted to favor skilled immigrants. It was changed to emphasize family relationships as that was expected to preserve national quotas. According to the "American Legion magazine [this would give rise to] 'a naturally operating national-origins system,' because it would favor immigration from the northern and western European countries that at the time dominated the US population." The Atlantic, Oct. 2, 2015.
It's fair to ask what would be a good rate of immigration, and what would be a good (and just) mix of immigrants. If you don't get distracted by the political motivations, the proposal does raise some good questions (as well as some really bad ones). In a more civil environment, it could serve as a starting point for discussion.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/02/immigration-miller-acosta-emma-lazarus-215452
The problem is labor remains local and labor rights are local. But by asserting that nationalist ideology--only non-Muslim English speakers can come and work here and not too many even of those--we lose sight of our common humanity and revert to a more primitive tribalist mentality. This is an understandable phenomenon as labor is being assaulted on every side in developed nations--from technology, globalization and the elimination of the social welfare state. It's understandable but it's harmful nonetheless, and could potentially lead to the same ugly tribalist wars--actually uglier wars given advances in weaponry--as we saw earlier in the twentieth century.
There's a mismatch in power that occurred via globalization that needs to be corrected. If capital is global and property rights are global--with some admittedly interesting totalitarian exceptions--labor and human rights should be global too, including the right for labor to organize globally, and a global minimum wage or standard of living. The playing field between capital and labor must be leveled somehow, but simply saying you can come to this country for a job but not that one isn't going to work when massive sums of money can move from one nation state to the next with a click of a button.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Adoption
In Europe one of those basic human rights--to healthcare--became a reality after this declaration. In the U.S. it didn't happen, but Roosevelt tried and partially succeeded with some rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_an_adequate_standard_of_living
Progress is possible, so long as cynics don't prevent it.
The fourth quote is from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Lewis cited. It includes: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
The fifth and final quote is over a half century old, from a SC ruling that I believe is still good law. It's worth reproducing here:
There is some logic to this. If the employer is free to do what he wants with his financial capital and spend it hiring some other employee or on a labor saving machine, the employee should be free to do what he wants with his human capital, to, in effect, sell his human capital to the highest bidder. Since financial capital is global and can hire employees anywhere in the world, why shouldn't we be able to sell our human capital anywhere in the world?
Regarding slave labor, I'm sure if we went back in time far enough there would be a majority of people who thought such servitude was "natural" and that labor could be free to govern itself was also "pie in the sky" thinking and "utopian." From 1619 to 1863 slavery was legal in the U.S. Many Americans thought that was normal and just the way of the world until they didn't anymore. Now it is rightly seen as an abomination in most, although surprisingly not all, nations: https://theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/13/modern-slavery-african-migrants-libya If humanity doesn't destroy itself via tribalism--which is itself an open question--I wonder what behaviors and attitudes of 2017 America future generations will see as abominable.
Interestingly enough, one of the arguments the South made for maintaining slavery was that free at-will workers in the North were treated worse by their employers than Southern slaves, the idea being that people treat things they own--in this case human beings--better than things they just rent--at will employees. Today this philosophy towards people as opposed to, say, real estate, sounds horribly absurd, but back then it was considered a legitimate argument.
The point is attitudes about labor and the rights of humanity change over time. Not always for the better and one must always be vigilant, but to wake up in the morning I have to believe what MLK said: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/13/did-the-clinton-foundation-raise-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-for-a-hospital-in-haiti-that-was-never-built
Count those pinocchios, dude. This is from over a year ago.
Are you roomies w Maurice? I thought you said you didn't drink.
Not only are they used to protect trade secrets, client lists, etc. but simply to drive wages down. Why else require "sandwich makers, yoga instructors and summer camp counselors" to agree not to compete?
http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/gov-noncompete-clauses-agreements.html
"'Non-compete agreements for low-wage workers are unconscionable,' New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman said ...'They limit mobility and opportunity for vulnerable workers and bully them into staying with the threat of being sued.'”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-noncompete-low-wage-20170705-story.html
Even where non-compete clauses are illegal (notably California), they are commonly found in employment agreements. The only reason for this would seem to be, as above, to intimidate workers into staying.
Hard to imagine that low-wage workers abide by them conscientiously.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/opinion/noncompete-agreements-workers.html However, it seems that the Mass. legislature is working on lessening the reach of non-compete agreements.
Concurrently, Mass. courts have held that if a Mass. business has an employee sign a non-compete clause, and that employee works for the company in California (where these clauses are void), the Mass. court will honor Calif's law against enforcing these clauses.
The reasoning is that the non-compete clause is a contract of adhesion (i.e. void) since the employee wasn't able to bargain on this clause. Also, that Calif. has the stronger interest in the Calif. employee's rights, so Calif. laws apply to the employment agreement.
All in all, though, Massachusetts seems to just be tinkering around the edges.
https://faircompetitionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Noncompetes-50-State-Survey-Chart-20170711.pdf
There is an interesting question regarding at-will employment about freedom in general. While better than old-fashioned slavery, it can still engender a slave like environment if workers are desperate enough, i.e, completely disenfranchised. Here are two quotes regarding that I found I thought worth sharing: This is why I say that labor rights--and really human rights--must evolve to match the globalized high tech world we now live in.
Who will you blame for America's problems when the last one has disappeared?