…down and out and over there.
I’ve worked for two American companies that you would recognize as household names. Everyone has heard of them. Both of them are shadows of their former selves. Both of them have followed the same pattern.
They started in Chicago back when it was the toolbox of America. I was in China a year ago and I imagined that Chicago was like that less than a hundred years ago. I spent a week at a factory that supplies my current company with product. (Believe me, it is NOT a household name.)
This factory is a sprawling campus with dozens of buildings. One building is devoted to making hardware. They can make bolts and nuts and metal shafts out of raw material. The entrance to that building is a reddish-brown color from the small amounts of molten slag tossed out the door day-after-day for years. Surely that can-do capability and attitude was the soul of Chicago when these two famous companies were born.
Over the years these American companies built additional plants and office buildings that housed engineers, sales executives, and researchers. At some point in the 1960s there was a crossroads of sorts. The cost of union labor met competition, not from other brands but from buyers at major catalog houses and discount stores. By the early 1970s 80% of the business hinged on four or five major accounts; and those accounts dictated the pricing.
The buyer would meet with us and say, “We need a $14.95 widget. If you can build one, we’ll sign. If not, we have other suppliers.”
So we went down, first down to Southern Illinois and Missouri. Then to Tennessee and Mississippi. And that wasn’t enough to make a competitive product because the buyer now wanted a $12.95 widget.
So we went out, out of the country to the maquiladoras of Northern Mexico. I had the privilege of managing a department in Reynosa, a town across the border from McAllen, Texas. I spent a few days there every month for six months. The company picked up the workers in a bus every morning, fed them breakfast and lunch, and took them home at night. They took day trips to Monterrey every three months as a reward. And they paid the empoyees $50 to $150 a month.
Then along came Asia. Things were different. These companies would design and build the product and put our name on it. Name your features. Name your price. The widgets were well-made. And they came at throw-away prices.
They eliminated the need for R & D, engineering, replacement parts, service technicians…As the CEO told us, “We have become a sales and marketing company.”
Mexico could not compete. They lacked the skills in English, engineering, and management. And frankly, they lacked the eye for detail required to build a reliable product. They were congenial and they worked hard, but they were unable to compete with Asia.
We still buy the products with those familiar names. Many still think they are buying American. But they are made over there at far lower prices than Chicago’s union labor would have allowed. Indeed, our core manufacturing business has gone down and out, and over there. It is a blessing and a curse and it has left us without lucrative job opportunities.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Ethnicity matters
I know we don't like to say it but the data exists to show that it is more than an anecdotal racist remark.
Ethnicity matters in the area of domestic abuse:
Dr. Craig Field and The University of Texas Houston School of Public Health did a study of couples in 1995 and again in 2000. His results indicate that eight percent of white couples experience some type of male-on-female partner violence. Hispanic couples show a 21% rate of male-on-female violence.
The study statistically controlled socio-demographic and psychosocial variables.
To read more, here's a link:
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/abuse/a/blacer030917.htm
I lay this problem at the feet of Salad Bowl Assimilation. We have told everyone to come here just as they are and don't change a thing. We even go to great lengths to preserve their culture through bilingual education and the sharing of national anthems. (Now that was a hit.)
The problem is further complicated by ethnic enclaves (we live in one) where a predominant minority group can do everything in Spanish; radio, TV, newspapers, church, school, shopping. They even celebrate the holidays and festivals from the old country.
But sociologist George Borjas explains that such ethnic enclaves delay true assimilation by three generations or more.
Under that colorful surface of our Salad Bowl of peppers, tomatoes, carrots, and cucumbers is a putrid mess of rotting culture.
Ethnicity matters in the area of drunk driving:
MADD did a study about self-perception of drunkenness. Whites feel that they are too impaired to drive after two to four drinks. Hispanics, when asked the same questions will say six to eight drinks. And the fatalities by nationality prove the point.
Ethnicity matters in the number of high school drop-outs:
In 1960 53% of adult men born in the US were high school dropouts. By 1998, that number was down to 9%. For immigrant men today, that number is 33.6%. One only needs to look at virtually any school district in America to see that Hispanic males have the highest dropout rate of any students. And it hasn't been any different for 35 years.
We can look at other topics as well, like date rape, littering, and driving without insurance. My point is that ethnicity matters. Our society has worked hard to get the message out that it is unacceptable to beat your spouse. And we have been largely successful at being less violent than the previous generation. Additionally, reporting and counseling have become acceptable in our society.
But when we overlay another culture and fail to insist on true assimilation, our culture is cheapened. And the immigration rate and high birth rate among Hispanics means a constant flow of newcomers and less urgency to adopt the ways of their new land. Why change your ways when you can remain the same?
True assimilation begins when our society, including our media, is honest with itself. Only then can we begin to teach and lift our visitors and newcomers. Instead, those who cry out for the preservation of our culture are labeled as racists. I think they are buying in to the wrongheaded idea that American culture is not worth preserving. By the time enough of us figure out that we should protect it, I fear it will be too late.
Ethnicity matters in the area of domestic abuse:
Dr. Craig Field and The University of Texas Houston School of Public Health did a study of couples in 1995 and again in 2000. His results indicate that eight percent of white couples experience some type of male-on-female partner violence. Hispanic couples show a 21% rate of male-on-female violence.
The study statistically controlled socio-demographic and psychosocial variables.
To read more, here's a link:
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/abuse/a/blacer030917.htm
I lay this problem at the feet of Salad Bowl Assimilation. We have told everyone to come here just as they are and don't change a thing. We even go to great lengths to preserve their culture through bilingual education and the sharing of national anthems. (Now that was a hit.)
The problem is further complicated by ethnic enclaves (we live in one) where a predominant minority group can do everything in Spanish; radio, TV, newspapers, church, school, shopping. They even celebrate the holidays and festivals from the old country.
But sociologist George Borjas explains that such ethnic enclaves delay true assimilation by three generations or more.
Under that colorful surface of our Salad Bowl of peppers, tomatoes, carrots, and cucumbers is a putrid mess of rotting culture.
Ethnicity matters in the area of drunk driving:
MADD did a study about self-perception of drunkenness. Whites feel that they are too impaired to drive after two to four drinks. Hispanics, when asked the same questions will say six to eight drinks. And the fatalities by nationality prove the point.
Ethnicity matters in the number of high school drop-outs:
In 1960 53% of adult men born in the US were high school dropouts. By 1998, that number was down to 9%. For immigrant men today, that number is 33.6%. One only needs to look at virtually any school district in America to see that Hispanic males have the highest dropout rate of any students. And it hasn't been any different for 35 years.
We can look at other topics as well, like date rape, littering, and driving without insurance. My point is that ethnicity matters. Our society has worked hard to get the message out that it is unacceptable to beat your spouse. And we have been largely successful at being less violent than the previous generation. Additionally, reporting and counseling have become acceptable in our society.
But when we overlay another culture and fail to insist on true assimilation, our culture is cheapened. And the immigration rate and high birth rate among Hispanics means a constant flow of newcomers and less urgency to adopt the ways of their new land. Why change your ways when you can remain the same?
True assimilation begins when our society, including our media, is honest with itself. Only then can we begin to teach and lift our visitors and newcomers. Instead, those who cry out for the preservation of our culture are labeled as racists. I think they are buying in to the wrongheaded idea that American culture is not worth preserving. By the time enough of us figure out that we should protect it, I fear it will be too late.
Data, data, everywhere...
...and not a thought to think!
I got a PM from one of our readers concerning the contributions of illegal aliens to tax revenue. Some folks say they pay billions in taxes without collecting benefits, leaving a net gain to the IRS. Others say they are a net drain on social services because they receive more than they pay in.
I’ve got some thoughts on the matter:
1) Good numbers are hard to come by
2) It helps to consider the source
Number one: By its very nature, the illegal alien problem is difficult to measure. They don’t exactly register at the border, you know. As a result you get various estimates as to how many are here. The feds say 11 million, Pew Hispanic Center says 12, Bear Stearns Asset Management says 20. I’ve heard other groups say the number is as high as 100 million. Census data is unreliable because they have multiple families in one house, have a language barrier, and fear being discovered by authorities.
So any estimates about taxes and benefits are also going to be distorted as well. Which leads me to item number two: There are all sorts of groups out there with official sounding names that give out data. You have to figure out where they are coming from as a group, then see what they did to the numbers. For example, Numbers USA and the Center for Immigration Studies are both anti-illegal immigration groups. They will always report from a point-of-view that will make illegals look bad.
Other groups like La Raza and MALDEF will present data to defend the cause of the illegal aliens. You can come up with different numbers by using different source data or interpreting it in a different way.
Actually, Snopes has a pretty good examination of one set of data compared to another view of the same question.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp
George Borjas, a Cuban refugee, wrote a book called Heaven’s Door back in 1999 I think. It was a demographic study of immigration in general. He believes that illegal immigrants benefit the federal coffers and are a drain on state and local budgets. It makes sense. The IRS almost always gets their money but it is the school system, the police department, and the local hospital that provide most of the services. Municipalities base their services on the size of the family in each home. Obviously, overcrowding distorts the equation and puts a greater strain on services. No wonder Washington is happy to have them while cities get all the burden!
Also for your consideration is the large population of illegals who are paid under the table. I’ve seen estimates that 40% are paid that way, but how can anyone really know that Napoleon? Suffice it to say that it is a significant amount. And you double the loss there because the employer is skipping out on his matching payments, too.
A police chief in New Hampshire by the name of Garrett Chamberlain reminds us that when a roofer hires illegals, he isn’t passing the savings on to the homeowner. He’ll bid the job a couple hundred bucks lower than the competition and pocket the rest of the savings as profit. Their presence isn’t benefiting the economy; it’s making sleazy businessmen rich.
And I read an essay from a conservative citizens group in St. Louis where he made the point that no matter what the illegals contribute to the tax revenue, it would be more if the person were legal.
The short answer is that people can find data to support their beliefs; it is always wise to think it out for yourself.
I got a PM from one of our readers concerning the contributions of illegal aliens to tax revenue. Some folks say they pay billions in taxes without collecting benefits, leaving a net gain to the IRS. Others say they are a net drain on social services because they receive more than they pay in.
I’ve got some thoughts on the matter:
1) Good numbers are hard to come by
2) It helps to consider the source
Number one: By its very nature, the illegal alien problem is difficult to measure. They don’t exactly register at the border, you know. As a result you get various estimates as to how many are here. The feds say 11 million, Pew Hispanic Center says 12, Bear Stearns Asset Management says 20. I’ve heard other groups say the number is as high as 100 million. Census data is unreliable because they have multiple families in one house, have a language barrier, and fear being discovered by authorities.
So any estimates about taxes and benefits are also going to be distorted as well. Which leads me to item number two: There are all sorts of groups out there with official sounding names that give out data. You have to figure out where they are coming from as a group, then see what they did to the numbers. For example, Numbers USA and the Center for Immigration Studies are both anti-illegal immigration groups. They will always report from a point-of-view that will make illegals look bad.
Other groups like La Raza and MALDEF will present data to defend the cause of the illegal aliens. You can come up with different numbers by using different source data or interpreting it in a different way.
Actually, Snopes has a pretty good examination of one set of data compared to another view of the same question.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp
George Borjas, a Cuban refugee, wrote a book called Heaven’s Door back in 1999 I think. It was a demographic study of immigration in general. He believes that illegal immigrants benefit the federal coffers and are a drain on state and local budgets. It makes sense. The IRS almost always gets their money but it is the school system, the police department, and the local hospital that provide most of the services. Municipalities base their services on the size of the family in each home. Obviously, overcrowding distorts the equation and puts a greater strain on services. No wonder Washington is happy to have them while cities get all the burden!
Also for your consideration is the large population of illegals who are paid under the table. I’ve seen estimates that 40% are paid that way, but how can anyone really know that Napoleon? Suffice it to say that it is a significant amount. And you double the loss there because the employer is skipping out on his matching payments, too.
A police chief in New Hampshire by the name of Garrett Chamberlain reminds us that when a roofer hires illegals, he isn’t passing the savings on to the homeowner. He’ll bid the job a couple hundred bucks lower than the competition and pocket the rest of the savings as profit. Their presence isn’t benefiting the economy; it’s making sleazy businessmen rich.
And I read an essay from a conservative citizens group in St. Louis where he made the point that no matter what the illegals contribute to the tax revenue, it would be more if the person were legal.
The short answer is that people can find data to support their beliefs; it is always wise to think it out for yourself.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Who is Selwyn Duke?
I don’t know who Selwyn Duke is, but he’s a fine essayist.
Google him and look for these two articles:
Why they won’t assimilate
The real immigration threat
I hope you enjoy them. I did.
Google him and look for these two articles:
Why they won’t assimilate
The real immigration threat
I hope you enjoy them. I did.
How reform helps communities
A year ago President Bush appeared on prime time television (May 15, 2006) and addressed the immigration reform issue. At that time he said: “Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities.” See, he knows the impact of illegal immigration on local government.
So how will this immigration reform package CHANGE the local situation? Public schools: No change. Hospitals: They will still be eligible for free emergency and labor/delivery care. Local budgets: I can find nothing in the legislation that will prohibit them from putting four families in a single family home. Crime: Same old, same old…
They will still be here, living in poverty, with a birth rate twice that of citizens, taking entry level jobs away from youth and the unemployed, and receiving social services. What will change is that de facto authorization to live here will become official authorization.
Big business will still have a source of cheap labor, with the taxpayers providing the benefits package. And all of Washington will be able to stand up and say, “I helped bring about reform. Vote for me, por favor!”
The whole deal stinks for local government, schools, and taxpayers.
So how will this immigration reform package CHANGE the local situation? Public schools: No change. Hospitals: They will still be eligible for free emergency and labor/delivery care. Local budgets: I can find nothing in the legislation that will prohibit them from putting four families in a single family home. Crime: Same old, same old…
They will still be here, living in poverty, with a birth rate twice that of citizens, taking entry level jobs away from youth and the unemployed, and receiving social services. What will change is that de facto authorization to live here will become official authorization.
Big business will still have a source of cheap labor, with the taxpayers providing the benefits package. And all of Washington will be able to stand up and say, “I helped bring about reform. Vote for me, por favor!”
The whole deal stinks for local government, schools, and taxpayers.
Thoughts from the Ivory Tower
I’ve been reading two very different views about immigration from the university crowd.
The first is from a Harvard Professor named Samuel P. Huntington. The article is from Foreign Policy, March/April 2004 issue entitled The Hispanic Challenge. Here’s the link:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/culturalagency1/SamuelHuntingtonTheHispanicC.pdf
Huntington presents data and argues that continued Mexican immigration will negatively impact our language and culture. He pulls no punches. My guess is that he seldom gets invited to dinner by his colleagues on the faculty.
The second is an overview of the immigration problem done as a project by the University of Utah Honors Think Tank on Immigration. The link is:
http://continue.utah.edu/outreach/immigration_resource_guide.pdf
I warn you that it contains some naïve concepts typical of university undergraduates. But they present a sincere view that we ought to share America with the needy from the third world, particularly Mexico. And they publish 11 pages of community resources to aid these “victims” of the immigration problem, namely the illegals themselves.
I like to read it all. It helps me explore my own feelings. It also helps me spot the fallacies.
The first is from a Harvard Professor named Samuel P. Huntington. The article is from Foreign Policy, March/April 2004 issue entitled The Hispanic Challenge. Here’s the link:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/culturalagency1/SamuelHuntingtonTheHispanicC.pdf
Huntington presents data and argues that continued Mexican immigration will negatively impact our language and culture. He pulls no punches. My guess is that he seldom gets invited to dinner by his colleagues on the faculty.
The second is an overview of the immigration problem done as a project by the University of Utah Honors Think Tank on Immigration. The link is:
http://continue.utah.edu/outreach/immigration_resource_guide.pdf
I warn you that it contains some naïve concepts typical of university undergraduates. But they present a sincere view that we ought to share America with the needy from the third world, particularly Mexico. And they publish 11 pages of community resources to aid these “victims” of the immigration problem, namely the illegals themselves.
I like to read it all. It helps me explore my own feelings. It also helps me spot the fallacies.
Friday, June 1, 2007
The world was different in 1986
I submit to you that if Washington moves ahead with this amnesty program, it will be very different that it was in 1986. And I don’t mean the structure of the program. Rather, I mean that world situation surrounding the “reform”.
First, a primer on 1986. In recognition of the fact that we had lost control of our borders and had several million illegal aliens, it was determined that something needed to be done. The government debated for five years and finally agreed to legalize (grant amnesty) to illegal aliens who had been here for four years or more.
Social agencies and churches worked hard to document how long people had been here and at the end of the day 2.7 million people were granted some type of legal residency status. The plan was to also shore up the enforcement programs to deter future would-be illegal aliens. (We saw how well that worked. We’re good at giving things away; not so good at getting tough with people.)
Now, how is the world different today than it was in 1986? Here are some thoughts:
1) Technology. With cell phones, DVDs, satellite TV, the Internet, and e-mail it is easy for people in the third world to see just how wonderful life is here in the USA. Behavioral scientists will tell you that people can live in poverty. The problem comes when they see what others have and want it. When that happens, they will do desperate things in order to obtain that standard of living. People all over the world can see what they are missing, in real time, in color, with stereo sound.
We all know that Hollywood is not real, but they don’t. Their distorted image of what life is like here is what they yearn for. Although they are disappointed when they arrive, it is still a better life than they left behind.
2) Travel. Air travel has become more affordable than ever. A plane ticket from the Philippines or Africa is within reach for an ever-growing percentage of the local population.
3) Political oppression. Our free society has even greater appeal to more people now than it did in 1986 because there are so many unstable countries around the globe.
4) Poverty. The gap between rich and poor widens around the world, except in socialist Europe where they are trying to squeeze everyone to the middle. Corrupt leaders seem to stand out but the rest are either given subsidies or paying for them. (By the way, the rich-poor gap is growing in the USA, too. See the Wall Street Journal article 24 May 2007, page 1)
5) Opportunism. Due to our own deteriorating society and global terror, many will feel that it is now or never to get a piece of the American Dream.
I could go on, but my point is that we must have very strong enforcement if we are going to counter the intense attraction our nation generates in the hearts of billions of people around the world.
It will take more than a border fence, more than employer sanctions, more than biometric ID cards, more than deportation programs. It will take all of these together, well executed, to keep out future illegal aliens. A poor immigration reform policy will yield an even bigger mess than we have now, in a much shorter time span. We need to get this one right, folks!
Personally, I am not amused with the enforcement plan before the Senate now.
First, a primer on 1986. In recognition of the fact that we had lost control of our borders and had several million illegal aliens, it was determined that something needed to be done. The government debated for five years and finally agreed to legalize (grant amnesty) to illegal aliens who had been here for four years or more.
Social agencies and churches worked hard to document how long people had been here and at the end of the day 2.7 million people were granted some type of legal residency status. The plan was to also shore up the enforcement programs to deter future would-be illegal aliens. (We saw how well that worked. We’re good at giving things away; not so good at getting tough with people.)
Now, how is the world different today than it was in 1986? Here are some thoughts:
1) Technology. With cell phones, DVDs, satellite TV, the Internet, and e-mail it is easy for people in the third world to see just how wonderful life is here in the USA. Behavioral scientists will tell you that people can live in poverty. The problem comes when they see what others have and want it. When that happens, they will do desperate things in order to obtain that standard of living. People all over the world can see what they are missing, in real time, in color, with stereo sound.
We all know that Hollywood is not real, but they don’t. Their distorted image of what life is like here is what they yearn for. Although they are disappointed when they arrive, it is still a better life than they left behind.
2) Travel. Air travel has become more affordable than ever. A plane ticket from the Philippines or Africa is within reach for an ever-growing percentage of the local population.
3) Political oppression. Our free society has even greater appeal to more people now than it did in 1986 because there are so many unstable countries around the globe.
4) Poverty. The gap between rich and poor widens around the world, except in socialist Europe where they are trying to squeeze everyone to the middle. Corrupt leaders seem to stand out but the rest are either given subsidies or paying for them. (By the way, the rich-poor gap is growing in the USA, too. See the Wall Street Journal article 24 May 2007, page 1)
5) Opportunism. Due to our own deteriorating society and global terror, many will feel that it is now or never to get a piece of the American Dream.
I could go on, but my point is that we must have very strong enforcement if we are going to counter the intense attraction our nation generates in the hearts of billions of people around the world.
It will take more than a border fence, more than employer sanctions, more than biometric ID cards, more than deportation programs. It will take all of these together, well executed, to keep out future illegal aliens. A poor immigration reform policy will yield an even bigger mess than we have now, in a much shorter time span. We need to get this one right, folks!
Personally, I am not amused with the enforcement plan before the Senate now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)