Greenspan favours easier immigration

W

wingman

New member
Greenspan favours easier immigration

Anindita Dey in Mumbai | September 02, 2004 10:11 IST


US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan believes that America should allow the creation and adoption of labour-saving technologies (outsourcing?) and easier immigration to offset a presaged decline in the growth rate of US working-age population over the next two decades.

In his opening remarks made in a recent symposium at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas city, Wyoming, Greenspan also said that the US capital markets should be more receptive towards immigrants.

The Fed chairman added that that outsourcing will help offset the rising pressure of retirement incomes and growing scarcity of experienced labour, while higher immigration would offset the decline in fertility seen in the country.

Statements like these will be more than welcome for the Indian information technology industry that's facing outsourcing heat in the run-up to the Us presidential election.

The growth rate of the working population in the US is expected to decline substantially over the next two decades and is expected to remain low thereafter, Greenspan said in his speech.

He pointed out that despite improving the feasibility of work at older ages, Americans have been retiring at younger ages.

However, he cautioned that rising pressures on retirement incomes and a growing scarcity of experienced labour could eventually reverse the trend. Greenspan added that the productivity gains in the US have been exceptional in recent years.

But for a country already on the cutting edge of technology, to maintain the pace will not be easy unless it engages in the long overdue upgrading of primary and secondary school education system.

Maintaining even a lower rate of capital investment growth will require an increased rate of domestic saving. This, he said, is because it is difficult to imagine borrowing savings from abroad indefinitely at a rate equivalent to 5 per cent of the US GDP.

A key component of domestic savings in the US in future decades will be path of the personal saving rate, which in turn, will depend especially on the behaviour of the members of the baby boom cohort during their retirement years.
 
Wingman,

Yep, this looks like a variation of the article I posted on the other immigration thread. The theory makes sense: Americans are getting older, living longer, and not having as many kids. Unless we're all going to be working at 80, seems to me like someone has to come in to pick up the labor-slack.
 
Let me get this straight: America is going to retain its competitive edge by shipping the good jobs abroad and importing unskilled, uneducated workers who tend to have large families (with high social welfare costs). This is his "answer?"

Why not create tax breaks to encourage larger families among those who are already here, already citizens, already taxpayers? Why not crack down on the education mafia and start insisting on realism about the need for higher standards and the encouragement of our best scientific and engineering talents, instead of focusing our system on self-esteem and low-ball consumer service jobs? Why not make clear to the American voter that the futures of their children depend on bringing consumption in line with production, imports in line with exports? China and Japan now sit on $1.5 trillion of our treasure, thanks to our trade deficit. Maybe Americans need to tighten their belts if they want their kids to have the same kind of prosperity they now enjoy.

If globalism means an inevitable shifting of jobs to lower cost markets, why can't the government invest assets in Third World economies, then return the market gains to workers here who are suffering through the transition? Emerging markets are up sharply over the last two years--those gains could have produced a hell of a lot of money for re-training, re-location, and severance payments.

Why is it that we underprice the technology that we develop here, seeing all but the earliest phase exploited by other societies?

Why, last, do we de facto give away the vast sums we spend on defending the free world? Sure, we gain from the technology we develop, but shouldn't we be exacting a "tax" on other nations for defending them?
 
Admit Greenspan to a nursing home. Find a displaced financial industry consultant who had their job outsourced to replace Greenspan. Younger would be nice. Suze Orman is a bright and younger candidate.
 
Let me get this straight: America is going to retain its competitive edge by shipping the good jobs abroad and importing unskilled, uneducated workers who tend to have large families (with high social welfare costs). This is his "answer?"
Click to expand...

No, that's not quite straight. "Increasing productivity" means making machines and factories that, per worker hour, turn out more goods. That usually means better jobs for the worker.

On the second part, yes. That's exactly right. What good are jobs if everyone is too old to work them? The American population is aging. People aren't having lots of kids. So unless you want to do all those labor jobs when you're 80, the labor to do them has to come from somewhere.

Or the job could be outsourced to another country. What do you prefer?
 
Or the job could be outsourced to another country. What do you prefer?
Click to expand...

Turn off the lights have a going out of business sale and close the doors. :rolleyes:

What Greenspan said is party line spin believe it if you wish.
 
What Greenspan said is party line spin believe it if you wish.
Click to expand...

Why would you suspect it's party line spin? I'm not saying it's necessarily correct, but what incentive does greenspan have to spin things for immigration???


To me, it makes sense. If you have a large proportion of older folks in your population, and they aren't working, then the things they consume have got to come from somewhere. So, either the workers you have start making a lot more things, or you import more workers, or you start buying things from other places where there are lots of younger workers.

How else do you keep providing the retired population with what it needs?
 
For some reason encouraging more progeny among our own citizens and taxpayers is a no-no? If so, that's a cultural problem that needs to be addressed. I guess it interferes with the feminist project, is that it?

And whatever happened to the robotics revolution?

There's a lot more to all this than is being discussed.
 
For some reason encouraging more progeny among our own citizens and taxpayers is a no-no? If so, that's a cultural problem that needs to be addressed. I guess it interferes with the feminist project, is that it?
Click to expand...

The feminist project? I think Americans choose not to have as many kids because they cost a lot of money, and significantly change a person's lifestyle. (Among many other possible reasons.) I don't see a gigantic increase in child rearing, unless the taxpayers are willing to pay exorbitant fees to get most people having lots of kids. I'm not sure how you would get a "culture of child bearing" going without that, and I'm not sure it would be enough, given that the population is already aging as it is.

But sure, all options are on the table. I just seriously doubt that any of the options you mentioned will turn out to be cheaper in the long run than just importing immigrants. Immigration is a historically proven method of supplying labor during times of shortage.
 
I think Americans choose not to have as many kids because they cost a lot of money, and significantly change a person's lifestyle.
Click to expand...

"As for living our servants will do that for us."
~Villiers de l'Isle Adam
 
It helps the rich and takes from the working poor, for sure we need more of that
Click to expand...

Cheaper goods help everybody. And the point of Greenspan's comment is that there won't be enough working youth to satisfy the needs of a society with lots of retirees. How's anybody going to be helped by shortage?
 
Greenscam and his cronies can not wait until the new Pan America needs a common currency, and it is in their private corporate interests to see it rolling.

Go home scumbag Comrade Greenscam.
 
Somehow, "private corporate interests" just doesn't fit in the same attack with the word, "Comrade".

But then, I forget: In LAK's world, there is no difference between Capitalism and Communism.....it's all a charade to keep us occupied while our Handlers party in Cabo, divvy up our savings accounts and fantasizing about the near future, when our girl children will become their personal sex poodles.

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?......"
Rich
 
To me, it makes sense. If you have a large proportion of older folks in your population, and they aren't working, then the things they consume have got to come from somewhere. So, either the workers you have start making a lot more things, or you import more workers, or you start buying things from other places where there are lots of younger workers.

How else do you keep providing the retired population with what it needs?
Click to expand...
Cheaper goods help everybody. And the point of Greenspan's comment is that there won't be enough working youth to satisfy the needs of a society with lots of retirees. How's anybody going to be helped by shortage?
Click to expand...
Cheaper goods help everybody who already has money. Outsourcing jobs to countries that have cheaper labor decreases income for laborers. The question is, do those (younger) workers have equal or greater spending power (less wages but cheaper goods produced abroad) compared with their spending power under the status quo? If not, they will have less money saved by middle age and by retirement, which will hurt the economy significantly in the longer-term.

There're also the civil rights and environmental concerns. India may have civil rights protection, but their environmental protection laws are less strict than those in the U.S. China and Mexico are jokes WRT both issues. Outsourcing to any country with fewer rights for its citizens or weaker environmental protection brings up serious moral issues.

I am wholely unswayed by the argument that citizens' rights and environmental quality in other countries is not "our problem" as Americans. By exporting work to those countries in an effort to generate more profits from end purchasers in our country, we make it our problem. Maintaining an isolationist viewpoint on the environment and human rights while embracing economic globalism is just silly.

Rich, when are you going to outsource S.W.A.T. publication to Bolivia? :)
 
Greenspan is tying the immigration issue to the social security issue for the
administration which wants both, more immigration and reforming social security, neither will help Joe average in America.

A point to remember is that spin by our government is never for the overall
good of you the taxpayer normally it provides more power or money for those
at the top. If we are lucky a few "crumbs" may fall down the hill. :(
 
India may have civil rights protection, but their environmental protection laws are less strict than those in the U.S. China and Mexico are jokes WRT both issues. Outsourcing to any country with fewer rights for its citizens or weaker environmental protection brings up serious moral issues.
Click to expand...

Tyme, I agree with you 100 percent there. I do not favor extensive outsourcing. That's why I'm in favor of more liberal immigration policy, like Greenspan seems to advocate, to satisfy the need for labor in the United States, rather than watching all of those jobs move to places like China or India.


there is no difference between Capitalism and Communism.....it's all a charade to keep us occupied while our Handlers party in Cabo, divvy up our savings accounts and fantasizing about the near future, when our girl children will become their personal sex poodles.
Click to expand...

:). Rich, I'm laughing in the library.

Edited to add:

Maintaining an isolationist viewpoint on the environment and human rights while embracing economic globalism is just silly.
Click to expand...

I accidentally cut that off in my first quote. I think you have hit the nail on the head precisely with that comment.
 
Ok folks, lets do a math exercise.

Currently the US population hovers between 280 - 300 MILLION people.

Of that number, 35 million of the Greatest Generation (my parents) are retired. In the coming twenty years, the Boomers, ALL 70 million of us will retire. That means that our population will drop by about one quarter to one third of the overall population when we finally die off.

Now, as to why we will have a shrinking population. Perhaps it isn't being taught ANYMORE, but when I was going to school, it was said over and over and over again. THE US NEEDS TO REACH ZERO POPULATION GROWTH (no more than two kids per family, preferably one male, one female to replace the parents). That was because we only needed 'large families' when we were an agraian society. Now that we are a Technological society, we need to have less kids. THAT'S WHAT WAS TAUGHT TO ALL US BOOMER VIA PUBLIC EDUCATION. They were successful.

FORGET ABOUT giving us boomers what we want to consume at a low cost.

Let's just focus on what it's going to cost to support those 70 million people in their retirement. We will live longer in better health for the majority of our lives. But the largest portion of boomers will be living on "The Poor Man's Trust Fund" aka Social Security. And THAT'S NOT THE REAL PROBLEM!

The real problem will be medical health care costs, including medications for FREE, that will break our country. How much of our economy will go towards keeping those of us boomers who live into old age? Probably more than half of our GDP will go towards health care costs.

Social Security will be a fixed cost per person, regardless of how long we live. It will be a simple thing to just print a shade more money to cover that cost. On the other hand, the MEDICAL costs will skyrocket. I will NOT be surprised to see a movement occur sometime in the next twenty years by the X Genners that says basically "We don't WANT to pay for their health care any more" because THAT will be the costs that break this country. NOT SSI!

Also, our countries biggest asset are the immigrants that we take in. Whether you know it or not, within THREE generations, the 'old country' ways are seen as 'behind the times' by the children they raise. SO, within three generations, most immigrant families are assimilated into the US way of life, regardless of what everyone thinks.

If you disagree, I would like you to give me an example of an immigrant family of whose grandparents only speak their native language, the parents who were born here ONLY speak their grandparents language AND their children, also born here, ONLY SPEAK the old country language. By the time the grandkids are born here they want "Sex Drugs and Rock and Roll". Ok, Ok, I'm showing my age.

For those complaining about us 'giving away' our technology. We give countries free hardware. We sell them the software at a discount. AND THEN we STICK THEM with support costs, including replacement parts and software upgrades. THAT'S how we get countries to enter the 21st century and THAT'S how we will continue to sell our products to the rest of the world. If any given country does not toe OUR LINE, they cease getting our technology upgrades and advances and slide back into a third world nation.

SO don't complain too much. Consider our technology like drugs. The US is the drug dealer giving out free samples until we get the 'customer' (other countries) hooked on our technological advances. THEN they are OURS for life.
 
greenspan is a moron. in todays houston chronicle was an article about how the hospital district is in dire financial trouble. wonder why?

"over the past 10 years, the district has provided $510 million in UNREIMBURSED care to illegal immigrants"

in the same article is this... "its going to break all of us. theres no way we can provide health care for illegal aliens" that quote didnt come from a white man, or a black man, it came from J.C. Hernandez, founder and president of houston based Americans for Zero Immigration.

so even hispanic people realize the damage thats being done by all of the illegals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top