[subego]

I'm reading an interesting article on the immigration situation. The thesis of the article is that immigrants (even illegal ones) are ultimately a benefit to this country.

One of the points he made (and I'll admit, to my sensitive liberal disposition, it's a dark point) is that immigrants who don't speak the language are "complementary" to the native-born work force. Whether someone is "complementary" or not is determined by how interchangeable they are with a native-born worker.

In other words, someone who doesn't speak the language is helping the economy by virtue of the fact many of them cannot be interchanged with a native-born worker.

Discuss.

[Edit: changed "can't be replaced" with "many of them cannot be interchanged"]

[Edit 2: As per usual I make my point better a few posts downthread, so I'm pasting it up here]

The author claimed that having a class of people who don't speak english is good for the economy, not the least reason being that someone who can't speak english can't take a job where you need to speak english.

I don't think I've heard many people say that having a class of people in the U.S. who don't speak english is a good thing, and even those that do, I don't remember them saying that it's good because it helps the economy.

[probablecause]

Maybe, but they can still draw from public assistance programs. Masses of cheap labor also tend to drive down wages for everyone. For example, illegal immigrant labor is putting legal, higher paid construction workers out of work in my area. You can't tell me that all of those construction workers should then just go back to school and become engineers.

[subego]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

Maybe, but they can still draw from public assistance programs. Masses of cheap labor also tend to drive down wages for everyone. For example, illegal immigrant labor is putting legal, higher paid construction workers out of work in my area. You can't tell me that all of those construction workers should then just go back to school and become engineers.

I'll relate what the article said about these issues in a bit.

Don't want to encourage such a quick topic drift.

[probablecause]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll relate what the article said about these issues in a bit.

Don't want to encourage such a quick topic drift.

Not to worry, I was only addressing illegal immigration by the way. I would agree legal immigration is a benefit.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by subego 

In other words, someone who doesn't speak the language is helping the economy by virtue of the fact they can't replace a native-born worker.

Discuss.

Not true. All they do is hire bilingual supervisors. Problem solved.

[Kerrigan]

I think French should be the only secondary language of the US, like Canada. Except nobody will be allowed to speak it unless it sounds as sexy as Metropolitan French.

[subego]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

You can't tell me that all of those construction workers should then just go back to school and become engineers.

This part I would say is directly relevant.

Though I'm trying to make someone else's argument here, I'm guessing the author would say they only have to move up the ladder far enough to where a mastery of the language was a requirement. The specific examples he used were foremen, and other skilled trades (plumbing frex).

Though I don't recall him saying there would be exact parity here, but cheaper labor spurs more construction, which spurs the need for more foremen and plumbers.

To briefly address your other point, the author claims the illegal immigrant draw on public services is close to a wash.

Illegals pay property and sales taxes (therefore they support schools), a majority pay witholding, which then goes unclaimed later down the line (the 7 billion/year in unclaimed Social Security is largely attributed to illegals).

What the hit is varies by state. In states where there are lots of illegals (California) he presents a study that says the hit is about $1,500 per taxpayer. The countrywide average is more like $300 or $400.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar� 

Not true. All they do is hire bilingual supervisors. Problem solved.

Can you expand a little here?

To me, this statement could be used to a half-dozen similar yet discrete points. I'm not sure exactly which one you're trying to make. Exactly which problem are you solving for instance?

Edit: Sorry I'm dense. I figured it would be better to ask you to go through the effort of holding my hand here rather than having to go through the effort of wading through six different responses to what I thought you were arguing.

[Dakar²]

Not being able to replace english speaking workers with non-english speaking ones.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Not being able to replace english speaking workers with non-english speaking ones.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about that.

Okay. I got you.

I think I overstated things in my summation. He isn't saying they can't be interchanged (I'll go edit that) but that they are less interchangeable.

Obviously, except for the most menial jobs, someone along the line is going to have to be bilingual. Likewise, for anything that requires teamwork, a multilingual group will have to broken up by language.

A mess of documentaries I've seen on big European multi-national construction projects seem to bear this out. People who speak different languages aren't on the same team (except on an ad-hoc basis). People who speak a different language may be your boss, but the people you directly work with are all from the same country.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by subego 

Though I'm trying to make someone else's argument here, I'm guessing the author would say they only have to move up the ladder far enough to where a mastery of the language was a requirement. The specific examples he used were foremen, and other skilled trades (plumbing frex).

Let's say there are 10 construction workers and one foreman. Then come 10 illegal Mexicans who do the construction workers' work. Those move up the ladder to the position of a foreman, which is already held by the existing foreman. So now we have 11 foremen supervising 10 illegal Mexicans. Is that really going to work out?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Let's say there are 10 construction workers and one foreman. Then come 10 illegal Mexicans who do the construction workers' work. Those move up the ladder to the position of a foreman, which is already held by the existing foreman. So now we have 11 foremen supervising 10 illegal Mexicans. Is that really going to work out?

If you are in a field that's so small with so little potential for growth that nobody can move upwards, you've got bigger problems than immigration.

[subego]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Let's say there are 10 construction workers and one foreman. Then come 10 illegal Mexicans who do the construction workers' work. Those move up the ladder to the position of a foreman, which is already held by the existing foreman. So now we have 11 foremen supervising 10 illegal Mexicans. Is that really going to work out?

A few things.

Cover my ass first. I did say that there isn't parity from this. Though I think it's fair to say the growth it encourages will squeeze out at least a few more higher level jobs (not necessarily just foremen either, there are the dozen or so other skilled trades involved with construction).

Second, to be honest, I don't know too much about the finer details of construction. How workable is it to have a multilingual team? You here Spliffdaddy? You know construction, talk to us.

Most of the construction where I live is done by (presumably legal) Eastern European immigrants. Though they speak languages other than English to each other all day long, most of them have a fair command of English as well, and are thus (at least in accordance with the author's thesis) more interchangeable with a native.

[subego]

Let me restate specifically what I found interesting about the article, though I genuinely don't mind people addressing other issues.

The author claimed that having a class of people who don't speak english is good for the economy, not the least reason being that someone who can't speak english can't take a job where you need to speak english.

I don't think I've heard many people say that having a class of people in the U.S. who don't speak english is a good thing, and even those that do, I don't remember them saying that it's good because it helps the economy.

[Chuckit]

I'm really curious to see how he arrives at the conclusion that it is actively good for the economy. Saying "Well, they can only take a subset of jobs English-speakers can do!" doesn't really seem to establish that fact in my mind.

[Spliffdaddy]

"The growing gap between rich and poor" is often cited by liberals as a big problem.

The lack of well-paying low-skilled jobs is a direct result of illegal immigration.

But, strangely, liberals seem to support the root cause of the "growing gap" in income levels.

They aren't "doing the jobs Americans won't do" - they're doing the jobs Americans used to do.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm really curious to see how he arrives at the conclusion that it is actively good for the economy. Saying "Well, they can only take a subset of jobs English-speakers can do!" doesn't really seem to establish that fact in my mind.

I'll elaborate a bit here. Though I'll admit, he makes the point in a way only an economist would love.

First, you have to buy into the basic assumption that the jobs we are talking about are "low-level" jobs.

Secondly, he states that for this purpose, the important metric for determining whether growth is a good or bad thing is whether it allows the individual worker to be more productive and make more money.

Using the example where workers are all the same, he states that once you've reached the maximum economies of scale further growth doesn't help the individual worker be more productive or make more income.

Now in the situation where all workers aren't the same, if you reach maximum economies of scale and then grow by adding more "low-level" workers, you do improve the productivity and income of the individual worker.

Previous to this example, where he states that most economists agree with him (for all that's worth), he makes the statement that most turned my head. He said that studies indicate that the less interchangeable the worker the more they add to the overall productivity and income.

Though this is something he doesn't provide explicit proof for (as I said, only claiming that most economists agree with him), it makes perfect sense to me. The more stuff you can push off to someone else, the better it is for you. If it's menial, that makes it even better.

I think one of the reasons this makes sense to me is that it feels like just the sort of cold, dark conclusion that reflects the reality of the situation.

Economics is a harsh mistress.

[Edit: that last sentence was lamenting the dark nature of reality. I'm worried it's come of as if I'm trying to say that you had claimed otherwise]

[subego]

Hey Spliffdaddy,

The notion of people who didn't speak english working construction has come up.

Can you provide any insight as to the issues of managing a multilingual team? I know this is your area of expertise.



(The construction part )

[Spliffdaddy]

I don't hire non-English speaking people. But I've hired subcontractors that showed up with an illegal immigrant crew. I never use those subcontractors a second time. There are too many good hard working Americans that make their living in the building trade industry. I'd rather pay them what they need rather than make some crooked subcontractor rich. I know they hire illegal workers for 7 or 8 dollars an hour, which is roughly half what a legal worker would expect - while quoting me a price for the job that is only maybe 15% less.

Lately I just do the job myself. I can roof a house in 3 days. Saves me $3,000. I can hang my own drywall. Saves me $5,000. Vinyl siding? I save about $4,000 for 3 days of work.

Yeah, I'm doing the jobs Americans won't do. And making about a thousand dollars a day doing it.

Amish labor is the best value. They show up early, work late, and need no supervision.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

The more stuff you can push off to someone else, the better it is for you. If it's menial, that makes it even better.

This is true only in certain circumstances. If indeed you can shove menial jobs off onto somebody else so you can do better work, good for you!

But in reality, if you were the sort of person who was going to be doing a menial job, you're not going to be suddenly qualified for better work just because somebody else is doing the job you were going to do. Even if that is the case, it'll only devalue your new job (since there is suddenly a glut of unskilled workers whose only skill is speaking English passably), meaning that you haven't actually increased anything — you've only lowered the bottom bar further.

Maybe it is good for the economy for the workforce to be obscenely bottom-heavy. I'm hardly an economics major. But I strongly doubt that's actually good for the average folk.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

This is true only in certain circumstances. If indeed you can shove menial jobs off onto somebody else so you can do better work, good for you!

But in reality, if you were the sort of person who was going to be doing a menial job, you're not going to be suddenly qualified for better work just because somebody else is doing the job you were going to do. Even if that is the case, it'll only devalue your new job (since there is suddenly a glut of unskilled workers whose only skill is speaking English passably), meaning that you haven't actually increased anything — you've only lowered the bottom bar further.

Maybe it is good for the economy for the workforce to be obscenely bottom-heavy. I'm hardly an economics major. But I strongly doubt that's actually good for the average folk.

I'm certainly not an economics major either. From my layman's perspective, I would imagine that an obscenely bottom-heavy workforce doesn't indicate a healthy economy. I can also see that the more bottom-heavy your workforce is, the lower the average must be. Even more obvious is that if you're in a job where you are interchangeable with someone who doesn't speak English, getting "interchanged" sure doesn't help you any.

Unless your workforce is obscenely bottom-heavy however, the "average" isn't going to be someone who would be interchangeable with a non-English speaker. The average is higher up the chain, and is benefiting from (or one could even say exploiting) those below them. If you're so bottom-heavy that the average worker's only skill is to speak their native tongue passably, I'd imagine your economy is irreparably screwed.

Of course, the need for "low-level" jobs doesn't just spring out of nowhere. They happen because there is a demand to fulfill. A demand from higher up on the chain.

Take Spliffdaddy for example.

[pause for someone to jump in and say "No. You take him!"]

He's decided to mix the menial with the skilled and do everything himself. Lets say he can finish a rehab in 6 days. He's that ****in' good. There are plenty of good reasons to do things this way, but, assuming I understand things right, this route doesn't maximize either profit or economic growth. If Spliffdaddy decided instead to leverage his skills and subcontract out the menial part he could finish the rehab even faster, or finish more rehabs over the same 6 day span. If he played his cards right, even though he had to pay the subcontractors, he could still increase his profits based on the increased production. Even if he didn't, he'd still be employing someone. I completely learned all this wrong if not employing anyone is the best thing for the economy.

I want to make it clear (especially to you Spliffdaddy, since I just used you as an example), I am absolutely positively looking at all of this through as non-judgemental of a lens as possible. "Does something help the economy?" needs to be looked at as a yes/no proposition. Once that's determined, then you can decide whether helping or not helping the economy is the right thing to do. I mean, ****. Tempering the inequalities of pure capitalism is one of the main purposes of a good government.

Likewise, by virtue of existing, these "non-interchangeable" immigrants are going to put someone out of a job. Even considering the impact this has had on the economy and composition of the workforce, it seems plausible that the "average individual worker" is high enough on the chain to have reaped rewards from having "low-level" jobs beneath them. If this is true, then that's important information for when you evaluate the moral and other implications of this (i.e. the judgmental stuff). If we decide to fix the problem of the screwed English-speaking workers we need to know if our fix is going to run afoul of the Darwinian principles that put them out of a job in the first place.

If only so we can keep one step ahead and make sure we've thought out a fix for what our first fix breaks.

Blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I don't hire non-English speaking people. But I've hired subcontractors that showed up with an illegal immigrant crew. I never use those subcontractors a second time. There are too many good hard working Americans that make their living in the building trade industry. I'd rather pay them what they need rather than make some crooked subcontractor rich. I know they hire illegal workers for 7 or 8 dollars an hour, which is roughly half what a legal worker would expect - while quoting me a price for the job that is only maybe 15% less.

Lately I just do the job myself. I can roof a house in 3 days. Saves me $3,000. I can hang my own drywall. Saves me $5,000. Vinyl siding? I save about $4,000 for 3 days of work.

Yeah, I'm doing the jobs Americans won't do. And making about a thousand dollars a day doing it.

Amish labor is the best value. They show up early, work late, and need no supervision.

You make $1000 a day? $5000 a week? $20,000 a month? $240,000 a year?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You make $1000 a day? $5000 a week? $20,000 a month? $240,000 a year?

What? You don't?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What? You don't?

No,

But it occurred to me that perhaps his work is freelance, and that he doesn't have work lined up for every day of the year. Still, even if he worked half the year and did literally nothing for the other half, he'd still be pulling in $120,000. That doesn't seem right to me


Maybe it's my liberal thinking?

Was any of this the real Spliffdaddy or the Spliffdaddy character? This guy is so damn slick that I often can't tell the difference!

[Spliffdaddy]

I haven't figured out how to make every day productive. So, you're right, I don't make $1,000 every day of the year. But I'm learning. And much to besson3c's bewilderment, I have managed to average $140,000 annually over the last 2 years. Yes, me. The hillbilly with a highschool education. The guy that wasted half his freakin life working for the man.

From my perspective, I'm stupid. I listened to a bunch of broke people my entire life - telling me what a great job I had. Those people made me feel fortunate, made me feel overpaid. They scared me into believing that I had accomplished more than was ever expected of me. They took away my motivation to achieve.

I don't do what I do for the money. I do it to prove everybody wrong, and I do it because it gives me a sense of accomplishment. These aren't homes I'm building, they're places of shelter and comfort for families. I imagine myself living in every one of them. I love them like they were my children.

Somebody said a long time ago that "a person should do what they love doing, and the money will follow". Well, I must not have been listening way back then. You know, even if the money never follows you're still gonna be happy. And that's the only reason to do anything. So don't listen to people when they tell you how good you're doing. They're lying. You can do better.

[besson3c]

I appreciate your attitude Spliffdaddy, I share many of these beliefs. I suppose this is why you don't seem to be too bothered by people criticizing American politicians...


In regards to you making $1,000 a day, I guess this sort of spin/half truth thing sort of comes with the territory of being a Republican?


Just trying on your little cheap shot partisan remark thing on for size. Doesn't fit me terribly well...


Do your homes love you back? Do they ever wreck your car? Ask to borrow $10? Place teeth under their pillows? Sounds like maybe you should adopt?

Just being a jerk...

[Spliffdaddy]

While I'm lecturing...

You know what really burns my ass? When I see people spend $50,000 on tuition so they can "get a good paying job". wtf? A JOB?? No, no, nooooo. Do not trivialize your possibilities by believing you need to work for somebody. That's like saying "I suck, so I'll place myself at the mercy of an employer...gonna pimp myself out."

Let me tell you something about employees. The first rule is they're all underpaid. If you were paid what you were worth, by golly, then you wouldn't be worth hiring. Your duty as an employee is to make wealth for 'the man'. You will never, ever be paid as much as you're making for 'the man'. What does this tell you? Well, it tells me that folks who aren't of the opinion that they need to pimp themselves out should be working for themselves.

How many wealthy employees have you met? Like none, right? What does that tell you? It tells you I'm right. Folks, $100,000 a year ain't wealthy. My girlfriend could blow that much on beer and caramel frappacinos. So you need to make a decision about your worth. Do you think so little of yourself that you're sure you can't succeed on your own merits? Or do you flip everyone the bird and convince yourself that you *can* succeed on your own merits. Don't listen to all those broke idiots. They don't believe you can make it on your own. Hell, just ask 'em. They'll tell you. Because if you *do* make it, that makes them something less than you. Will you fail if you try to make it on your own? um, yeah, there's that chance. But the chance of failure for working for 'the man' is 100%. It is the definition of failure by virtue of participating in it.

Look, I don't have all the answers. All I know is what not to do. You'll have to fill in the blanks. The biggest lesson you can learn from me is to not do what I did. That is, don't spend 20 years doing a job you hate in order to make somebody else wealthy.

"But Spliff, the insurance they provide is great...and I get vacations and stuff"

Yeah, you're a prostitute. You think your employer is giving you more than you're giving him. bzzt. wrong answer. Seems to me your're worth whatever your salary is, plus whatever your insurance costs, plus the value of your paid vacation, plus *more*. Currently, your employer is pocketing the *more* portion of your worth. But hey, what do I know. I've only got a pocket full of *more*s that I took from employees. Lately, like I told you, I simply keep it all - and do the job myself.

Don't be my biznitch. Don't let me pimp you out. I've got the pimp hat, ya know. Figure out what you enjoy doing and then figure out a way to do it. Don't wait for the day to come when you feel comfortable about quitting 'the man' because that day will never come. You'll be old like me before you grow some nuts and do what you should have done decades earlier. I should be rich, relaxing, and retired right now....but no, I'm a dumbass. Instead I'll be working for, oh, another 10 years before I can say that.

Don't let me be better than you. I think that's the best motivation I can provide.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I appreciate your attitude Spliffdaddy, I share many of these beliefs. I suppose this is why you don't seem to be too bothered by people criticizing American politicians...

It pisses me off when liberals whine about Republicans. The whole 'culture of corruption' thing is so ironic it makes me wanna puke. Of course it bothers me. That's why I know you're being sarcastic.

In regards to you making $1,000 a day, I guess this sort of spin/half truth thing sort of comes with the territory of being a Republican?

Indeed. We're telling the truth. It's you liberals that hear things we never said.

Just trying on your little cheap shot partisan remark thing on for size. Doesn't fit me terribly well...

dude. It fits you like professionally tailored white dinner tuxedo.

Do your homes love you back? Do they ever wreck your car? Ask to borrow $10? Place teeth under their pillows? Sounds like maybe you should adopt?

My homes do love me back. Some of them pretend to be unattractive to potential buyers - just so I can own them longer. Sometimes, just for kicks, one of them will rupture a water line under the sink and flood 800 square feet of 3 day old hardwood flooring. Swelling it to twice its original dimension. They're so cute when they're young.

Just being a jerk...

watch and learn. the master will teach you well, grasshopper.

[Chuckit]

Working for the man provides security. And while you will usually be making less than you're worth, that security is worth something in people's minds. If you go into business for yourself, the odds are overwhelmingly against you. It's prostitution, but many people would rather do that than take a risk.

[Spliffdaddy]

But, honestly, is there really such a thing as job security? Is your employer going to be in business until you're able to retire? The company I worked for was 120 years old. All my ex-coworkers are currently unemployed. AT&T was bought by SBC.
If you have a retirement plan at your company, are you sure the funds will be there to pay your retirement? Bankruptcy changes things, you know.

Sure, I could fail at the real estate game. But I doubt it. I feel far more secure about my future now than I ever did when I was employed. There are dozens of things I could do to earn a living. The same is true for everybody. That's why I don't see such a big risk in trying to create your own business. If it fails, you learn from it. If it keeps failing you can always pimp yourself out later.

Don't misunderstand me...I'm not condemning anyone for being an employee. I was an employee for a long time. I completely sympathize with the plight of employees. But I'd rather see somebody fail at trying to not be one - than to never try.

[besson3c]

Running your own business is not for everybody. I do it, and plan to do more of it, it is for me. However, many people I know simply work to get to the end of their day when their real life starts. I'm one of those "live to work" guys, I guess, and therefore what Spliffdaddy says rings loud and clear.

However, I've also learn to accept the fact that many people do not think like I do, and that's cool.

Spliffdaddy: anybody who says that they are getting a certain kind of degree to get a better job (at a University) is missing the whole point of a liberal arts education. Universities aren't setup to crank out workers, that's the job of the trade schools. Universities are setup to equip students to be become critical thinkers so that they have the tools to do whatever they want in their lives.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Maybe it is good for the economy for the workforce to be obscenely bottom-heavy. I'm hardly an economics major. But I strongly doubt that's actually good for the average folk.

I feel like a moron. The author addresses this directly in a much less long winded way. I'll let him say it:

Originally Posted by Tamar Jacoby

Immigrants do compete with one category of American workers: native-born high school dropouts. But not even the most pessimistic economists think that the resulting downward pressure on wage affects more than ten percent of the U.S. labor force or that the drop in those worker's earnings has been more than five percent over the last 20 years. Moreover, these unskilled native workers benefit in other ways from immigrant complementarity, because they pay less for goods such as food and housing

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Spliffdaddy: anybody who says that they are getting a certain kind of degree to get a better job (at a University) is missing the whole point of a liberal arts education.

People who go to college to get an engineering or physics degree because it's a job requirement are missing the point?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

People who go to college to get an engineering or physics degree because it's a job requirement are missing the point?

He said Liberal Arts.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by subego 

He said Liberal Arts.

What he said.

Also, T-Minus 100 for ol' Chuckit.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

He said Liberal Arts.

He actually said "anyone who gets a degree." I was pointing out that not everybody who gets a degree cares about a Liberal Arts education.

Edit: Whoa. I am close to being Clinically Insane. And so is Spliffdaddy. And he signed up in Oct. 2001 too. Could it be…we're actually the same person?

[Spliffdaddy]

shhh.

[Dakar²]

October 2001? After the WTC?

You guy(s) are foreign agents guaranteed.

Over 10 posts a day of propaganda from the both of you for 5 years.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

He actually said "anyone who gets a degree." I was pointing out that not everybody who gets a degree cares about a Liberal Arts education.

So people who aren't getting a Liberal Arts education aren't interested in getting a Liberal Arts education.

Do you normally go this far out on a limb?

[Edit: I'm just messin' with you Chuckit, congrats on your near insanity! ]

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

So people who aren't getting a Liberal Arts education aren't interested in getting a Liberal Arts education.

Do you normally go this far out on a limb?

What are you talking about? Besson was criticizing people who get degrees in hopes of landing a job because that's not what a Liberal Arts education is about. I was saying that people who have a particular job in mind when they get their degrees usually aren't getting a Liberal Arts degree. How is that out on a limb?

[besson3c]

rephrase:

anybody who says that they are getting a certain kind of degree to get a better job at a liberal arts University (which, AFAIK, more are) is missing the whole point of a liberal arts education.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How is that out on a limb?

Sorry. I didn't see your post before I made my edit. I'm just messin' with you here. The "out on a limb" part was sarcastic.

[besson3c]

I like limbs.

[DBursey]

Spliffydaddy! We're not worthy!

But seriously, he'd be lecturing at Harvard school of business, if that weren't all part of the evil liberal conspiracy to stick it to the common folk.

To the point: I think the ability to communicate in one of the host country's official languages should be a prerequisite for unsponsored admission in any case.

[subego]

Originally Posted by DBursey 

To the point: I think the ability to communicate in one of the host country's official languages should be a prerequisite for unsponsored admission in any case.

Why?

Expand please.

[puppetswhokill]

Non habla anglaizy. Whatever.

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why?

Expand please.

Sure! For one, all services to be availed of would likely be offered only in an official language. Services aren't readily available in translated form.

In order to be acclimatized and assimilated socially and economically, a reasonable degree of efficiency in communication skills should be required of new immigrants. Barriers to communication are ill-serving to both the applicant and to the society which accepts him.

[subego]

Originally Posted by DBursey 

Sure! For one, all services to be availed of would likely be offered only in an official language. Services aren't readily available in translated form.

If there's a demand for a service in a different language, someone will supply it.

Originally Posted by DBursey 

In order to be acclimatized and assimilated socially and economically, a reasonable degree of efficiency in communication skills should be required of new immigrants.

I'm not saying that acclimatizing and assimilating immigrants isn't something that should be strongly encouraged, but making it a requirement is an entirely different proposition.

For instance, requiring it beforehand would deny them the possibility of using the very successful immersion technique to learn the language. This is just the first issue off the top of my head. Without even really trying I feel like I have the kernels of at least a half-dozen other problems.

Originally Posted by DBursey 

Barriers to communication are ill-serving to both the applicant and to the society which accepts him.

That's why I found this article so interesting. The author is stating that this is not the case, at least in terms of that society's economy. He puts forth that non-English speakers' lack of interchangeability with a native worker adds (as a lowball estimate) $10 Billion to the economy.

So I would say Ill serving to society is debatable. Ill serving to the applicant? If they're strongly encouraged to learn the language and then don't? My knee jerk reaction is to let them go **** themselves.

The economics of being a menial worker are ridiculously nasty. I agonize over the people trapped there by circumstances beyond their control. I don't see why we should lift a finger to help the people who 'effing put themselves there intentionally.

[DBursey]

I'll amend to my previous post that good language skills should be ( and are) given a strongly weighted preference as part of any potential immigrant's overall evaluation, as opposed to being held as an outright requirement.

There's a demand for skilled workers in my country. Those are the kind that lead to value-added economic growth that adds far more dollars into the system per capita than lower value labour does.

That's not an argument against the economic value and necessity of what we've chosen to refer to as 'menial' labour; thousands of seasonal labourers migrate to Canada from Mexico each year under work permits to harvest vegetable and fruit crops in various provinces. The vast majority won't ever get to become Canadian citizens, however.

[subego]

Originally Posted by DBursey 

There's a demand for skilled workers in my country. Those are the kind that lead to value-added economic growth that adds far more dollars into the system per capita than lower value labour does.

You're missing the point. Low value labor doesn't really add to the system per capita, it adds to the system by making value-added economic growth possible.

In other words, your skilled labor can't do jack without an unskilled infrastructure.

Without someone else to do "menial" labor, it's your skilled workers who are doing it. Forcing your skilled labor to do menial labor is going to negatively impact your economic growth.