> > Graham, thanks for posting this paper. It is, indeed, exactly what I > was trying to say. I can't quite understand what the taxation of land > at the end was supposed to do to try to help the falling standards of > workers in the richer countries, however... > >
I'd like to float an idea that is consistent with everything I've read from the Austrian school of economics. Grant more, not less H1B visas to Indian programmers. The inflow of skilled IT workers will enable the IT sector to grow (production is not a static but dynamic quantity); and the increased activity results in more work, more demand for workers, and higher pay. Conversely the number of IT workers in India shrinks. There is already a squeeze on the number of skilled IT workers due to the vast amount of outsourced work being taken on and the limits of India's education system. They really have very few good schools and a woeful education system overall in India (and China). With less workers in India for outsourced work, wages there would rise, hopefully rapidly. Globalization is not new and there was actually more of it before World War I than there is today; but the free movement of labour has largely been left out of the equation this time round and is really necessary in order for all the benefits of globalization to be reaped by the largest number of people. No matter how you slice it though, the unskilled workers of the west are clearly the losers in this globalization game so far, and what to do about them is a question of utmost political and social importance. I think Pete's recollection of Milton Friedman's negative tax idea is a good one and an income supplement is due to the unskilled western workers who have not shared in all the "lovely lolly" that globalization has created. But movement to either cheaper areas, or areas where there is more work, and getting more education, and working harder, are all things people have to be willing to do, if they can. Certainly we have to aim at raising the poor up, but not at the massive economic cost of flattening the rich down; believe me this is not what has made the US economic engine the mighty motor for wealth that it has been for more than 150 years. Russia had more land, people, agricultural and mineral wealth, indeed more economic potential, than the USA did at the turn of the 20th century, and look at how it all turned out. This was not a matter of luck. And the open market economic principals that served the USA so well then, are still the principles that should serve us all well now. Graham. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
