Crazy. Crazy. Crazy. Obvious.
That's Harvard Professor Lant Pritchett in the Atlantic describing the process it takes to get new game-changing ideas adopted by the mainstream. In this case, he's talking about the adoption of a global guest-worker program that would increase the labor supply in rich countries by three percent by handing out temporary visas to workers from poor countries.
I think it's a great idea, but the important question is which stage of "Crazy" we are at. Before the financial crisis, I might have said we're at the middle "Crazy", but unfortunately these things don't work in a linear fashion. We just might be back to "Crazy" number one.
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Actually...
Actually, I think we may already be pre-crazy. With our own unemployment rates so high, we don't need the labor of poor countries. Why not just do temporary contracts instead of visas and help ourselves?
An interesting point Audit Lawyer...
An interesting point Audit Lawyer, but I think you may be restating a common misunderstanding about unemployment.
The unemployment figures are presented in such a way to make it look like labor is a commodity. In many ways, perhaps it is when we are talking about factory jobs or agriculture, but in many developed nations - particularly service based economies such as the United States - we have a different problem.
While our general unemployment rate has indeed suffered, our skilled labor market has many job vacancies that are actually hurting growth. Were these jobs able to be filled with foreign workers, the resulting increase in growth of these higher paying skilled worker positions might potentially help revive the economy as a whole, thus lowering general unemployment.
A service based economy needs consumers. We don't care if they are foreign or domestic. In some cases, the flow of capital into under developed nations may increase their demand for US based services. In a global economy, a protectionist philosophy will only hurt our economic well-being.
Post new comment