Control of immigration (was: Multiculturalism)
Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:10:20 -0700
Russell Turpin wrote:
> Paul Prescod writes:
> >Nike is not taking advantage of an impoverished population.
> Really? It sure looks that way to me. And from a
> business viewpoint, I would fault them if they failed
> to do so. There's great opportunity to be had by doing
> this. If they're not taking advantage of it, why not?
The language is loaded. When two people engage in a transaction where
both benefit, is one taking advantage of the other? Does Sun take
advantage of Bill Joy?
> What I'm pointing out is something more basic. Were I
> a worker in Vietnam, earning X/hr there, yet knowing
> that I could earn 100X/hr in Los Angelos, I would want
> to do the rational thing, to wit, save up the cost to
> ride a tramp steamer to Los Angelos, where I could then
> work at a much higher rate.
That's obvious. My only concern is the assertion that Nike's
shareholders *want them to stay where they are* for economic reasons.
Shareholders of large western companies do not benefit from the
immigration status quo because it somehow skews the market for labour in
a way that keeps salaries down. Salaries are low because there are a
hell of a lot of poor people in the world and global mobility is not a
cure for that. There is no more reason to link freedom of capital
mobility and freedom of labour mobility as to link freedom of speech and
freedom of labour mobility. All three are good things, together or as a