Good works

The ruckus over immigration by Hispanics into the United States not only reveals the racism of American culture, but more fundamental economic and political problems. According to employers that defend hiring illegal immigrants, very low wage workers are needed to make products at saleable prices. Fierce price competition is happening everywhere because the products of Third World serfdom are now dumped on world markets (due to globalization and outsourcing).

The jobs that once supported America's working class are disappearing by the thousands every day. Decades ago, we were shocked when we heard of companies that shut down, laying off hundreds of workers. Then those numbers rose to thousands of workers, and lately tens of thousands of workers at a time. In a thousand days, thousands at a time, millions are left to sink or swim. Once upon a time, when the country was mainly farms and farmers, losing an urban, industrial job might mean the humiliation of going back to the farm in order to eat. Today, it means moving to a city street, or under a river's bridge, and begging to avoid starvation.

There can be no doubt that average wages are depressed by the onslaught of low wage immigrants. That is simply a mathemetical necessity: a quantity of money divided by more people means less for each person than the same quantity divided by a lesser number. The average worker will also get less if the money is divided up unequally, as is incredibly so in the United States. The top executives are paid 400-600 times the average worker, so that the wealthiest 10% of all Americans collect at least 50% of all the income. The 50% of the population receiving the least income gets some 10% of the total. The lowering of wages earned by illegal immigration goes a long way to helping the richest among us stay that way.

So, there is a relationship between the destruction of the Middle Class, the resurrection of Robber Barons and their lackys, the low paid immigrants (braceros) and outsourcing (overseas serfs). They are all part of the same economic system in which we are now uncomfortably emmeshed.

It should not go unnoticed that a driving force behind the North American immigration and almost willing servitude in Asia is the not unnatural desire of the billions to improve their lives. Unlike past centuries, there is clear path to a far better, modern life. There are vastly improved (satellite) communications which instantly, globally advertise what is available. Knowing that one does not have to live in destitution and filth, who would not seek the better life? I know I would.

Unlike the Middle Ages, the simple fact that a decent life is not only possible, but shared by the richest billions of people, urges on the deprived billions. The millions who have found their way to North America and Europe are only one tip of the iceberg. There are also the millions who have (illegally) moved from the countryside to Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong, despite the best efforts of the Beijing authorities to keep them "down of the farm." The shanty towns of Mexcio City, Rio di Janeiro, Jakarta, New Delhi, Mumbai and Calcutta plague authorities everywhere, because they are out of control and ungovernable. The urge for food and water, clean housing and clothing is unstoppable. It is built into the human beast.

If America's troubles are only a tiny part of an enormous world-wide immigration from poverty to wealth, does it matter? Is there any solution?

I think so, if we are willing to approach the problem rationally. All of us have to recognize the demand for more by all means that those who have the most are going to get less. The wealthiest can resist losses for a time, but, in the end, the longer they resist, the more they will be overwhelmed. The French, Russian and various Chinese Revolutions should be instructive as to what happens to rigid upper classes. The reason for such bloody ends is obvious: the longer the haves refuse to share with the have-nots, the greater the resentment against them and the easier to justify torturous punishments. As the Los Angelinos would have it, "Don't get Mad, Get Even!" So, the very first step to a solution is acceptance of the inevitable: the richest will have to share with the poorest.

The Chinese are trying to cope with around 100 million illegal settlers: people who have left the land without official permission or papers. The Chinese have the additional problem that their illegals are mostly Chinese, people like themselves, so the usual dodges - race, religion, etc - don't work to justify inhumane policies. Since the Chinese government still controls the press, we seldom hear of the riots and other uprisings that happen regularly, and are just as often brutally suppressed. Homeless Chinese are well aware of the Shanghai millionaires created by the new "Socialism through Capitalism" (simply, "get rich") policy. They want their share and will not be refused, even if they have to die fighting for it.

In this essay, I won't attempt to sugar coat the pill. For Americans especially, this means a reduction in the so-called "standard of living" in order to accomodate Hispanics. For Europeans, this means finding some way to accomodate the Islamic masses who are seeking jobs and a better life by leaving the war-torn Middle East and Africa, which also means a reduction in the "standard of living." The Chinese and Indians are "lucky:" they avoid the overall reduction because they are recipients of the redistribution of wealth and income (because there are 250 milllion desperately poor Chinese, and even more poor Hindus).
 

Accepting that First World incomes and wealth will be taxed in favor of the poor (otherwise the guillotine), how should this redistribution be accomplished? What is the fairest and most effective way to alleviate the lot of the poor? Keep in mind that "fair" includes not destroying the contributing rich and wealthy entirely. The bargain should be a reasonable life and lifestyle in return for one's money; restated, it is silly to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
 

I have long advocated, and I think it is obvious, that enough investment on easy terms in poor regions that makes jobs, income and wealth would go a long way to solving the problem. This has not been the  First World's policy: instead, investors have tried to exploit the Third World for every last penny  Those policies haven't worked, as First World taxpayers have repeatedly had to foot the interest bill sent by wealthy investors, lest Third World countries go broke. Traditional Wall St. and Washington foreign investment policies have amounted to a back door way to transfer money from the First World working class to the Plutocrats, because loans and investments were knowlingly made in the Third World without reasonable prospect of repayment. What needs to happen, pure and simple, is a transfer of wealth from those same wealthy investors and Plutocrats to the Third World. Those who have benefitted mightily at the public trough need to cough up their gains in favor of the poor. This is what the Venezuelan Chavez government is trying to do. Instead of trying to overthrow Chavez, and complaining loudly and threateningly about giving to the poor, the American government should support that effort.

Why should we support the expropriation of the haves? Because when the poor are given jobs and opportunity to better themselves at home, they will stay where they are. Of course, if our hearts are even more frozen than Scrooge's, there is another motive: the desire to keep one's head attached. Taxing the First World rich and giving to the Third World poor (by way of investments in Third World Countries) has a double advantage. To the extent that it is less possible to get rich quick in the First World, there will be less reason for immigration. To the extent that there are more opportunities at home, there is less reason to emigrate.
 

While I don't have hard numbers, it should be recognized that people are disinclined to move. The hordes of Europeans who came to the United States after the Civil War were attracted by the economic boom of a United States in the making. That's the same sort of boom that is going on in China and India today, which is being fulfilled by internal resettlement of peasants in cities rather than immigration. My grandparents came here from Italy to escape poverty and social immobility. My step-grandfather was one of the few who came here "for the hell of it." Very few Europeans immigrate to the United States these days; after all, why should they? From a European point of view, the halcyon days of America are over; life is far more comfortable in the Old World. Far fewer than 5% of First World populations  emigrate anywhere else. Such movements are usually job related and not permanent. Probably fewer than 1-2% of the population actually goes elsewhere permanently. When emigration happens, it is usually for deeply personal reasons. For example, I left my childhood home in New England for California permanently for cultural, political and environmental reasons, not just to get a better job (although I got that, too). Very few New Englanders of my acquaintance have followed my example, and almost all of them return "home." The difference for me is that California is my home. Thus, I believe there would actually be very little immigration to the First World, if there were economic reasons to stay home.
 

Assuming I am right about the disinclination to emigrate, or even move to another part of a country, the solution to the problem of population movement follows. What needs to be done is find jobs and promote better social arrangements in the home countries of would-be immigrants (to repeat the point). Take Mexico, for example. Instead of building Maquiladoras on the border, the United States should be making outright grants to the Mexican government to promote development in other areas of Mexico. The United States should make every effort to resolve the social and political problems of Mayan peasants, some of whom are waging guerilla war against the Federal government. Mayan agriculture could become competitive with U.S. farmers, if things were adjusted in their favor. There is a potentially huge Mexican tourist industry, if there were less corruption and crime in Mexico. The attitude that Gringos are targets is promoted by the vast disparity in incomes and wealth between village Mexicans and even their American relatives. There are lots of things the United States could do, starting with cultural respect and appropriate investment, that would replace the preesent bracero system. The payoff for everyone in North America - please recall that Mexico is part of North America - is a higher standard of living for everyone.
 

The problem is the same as the Prisoner's Dilemma and The Tragedy of the Commons that I wrote about (again) a few days ago. The solution is good relations and good faith, and willingness to help evidenced by giving the assistance people need. That is how we solve the problem.

 

Oh, by the way, Third World people who become wealthy soon learn the advantages of keeping the population under control. Appropriate development solves the population problem as well.