CIR Hearing and ALAN GREENSPAN Testifying.

[gc_on_demand]

Alan Greenspan is talking about Highly skilled Immigrants.

Its live webcast

[Caliber]

Alan Greenspan is talking about Highly skilled Immigrants.

Its live webcast

Please give the link. Thanks

[gc_on_demand]

Please give the link. Thanks

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/

[BadApple]

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3793&wit_id=7848


Testimony of
Alan Greenspan


April 30, 2009


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testimony of Dr. Alan Greenspan Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security


Embargoed until: April 30, 2009, 2:00pm EDT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you this afternoon.

Immigration to the U.S. slowed markedly with the onset of the current economic crisis. But as this crisis fades, there is little doubt that the attraction of the United States to foreign workers and their families will revive. I hope by then a badly needed set of reforms to our nation's immigration laws will have been put in place.

There are two distinctly different policy issues that confront the Congress. The first is illegal immigration. The notion of rewarding with permanent resident status those who have broken our immigration laws does not sit well with the American people. In a recent poll, two-thirds would like to see the number of illegals decreased.

But there is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy. Between 2000 and 2007, for example, it accounted for more than a sixth of the increase in our total civilian labor force. The illegal part of the civilian labor force diminished last year as the economy slowed, though illegals still comprised an estimated 5% of our total civilian labor force. Unauthorized immigrants serve as a flexible component of our workforce, often a safety valve when demand is pressing and among the first to be discharged when the economy falters.

Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.

However the estimated wage suppression and fiscal costs are relatively small, and
economists generally view the overall economic benefits of this workforce as significantly outweighing the costs. Accordingly, I hope some temporary worker program can be crafted.
The second policy issue that must be addressed by Congress is the even more compelling need to facilitate the inflow of skilled foreign workers. Our primary and secondary school systems are increasingly failing to produce the skilled workers needed to utilize fully our ever more sophisticated and complex stock of intellectual and physical capital. This capital stock has been the critical input for our rising productivity and standards of living and can be expected to continue to be essential for our future prosperity. The consequence of our educational shortfall is that a highly disproportionate number of our exceptionally skilled workers are foreign-born—two-fifths of the science PhDs in our workforce, for example, are foreign-born. Silicon Valley has a remarkably large number of foreign-born workers.

The quantity of temporary H-1B visas issued each year is far too small to meet the need, especially in the near future as the economy copes with the forthcoming retirement wave of skilled baby boomers. As Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, succinctly testified before Congress in March 2007, "America will find it infinitely more difficult to maintain its technological leadership if it shuts out the very people who are most able to help us compete." He added that we are "driving away the world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most."

Our skill shortage, I trust, will ultimately be resolved through reform of our primary and secondary education systems. But, at best, that will take many years. An accelerated influx of highly skilled immigrants would bridge that gap and, moreover,
carry with it two significant bonuses.

First, skilled workers and their families form new households. They will, of necessity, move into vacant housing units, the current glut of which is depressing prices of American homes. And, of course, house price declines are a major factor in mortgage foreclosures and the plunge in value of the vast quantity of U.S. mortgage-backed securities that has contributed substantially to the disabling of our banking system. The second bonus would address the increasing concentration of income in this country. Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism. In the process, we have created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating such restrictions would reduce at least some of our income inequality.

If we are to continue to engage the world and enhance our standards of living, we will have to either markedly improve our elementary and secondary education or lower our barriers to skilled immigrants. In fact, progress on both fronts would confer important economic benefits.

Immigration policy, of course, is influenced by far more than economics. Policy must confront the very difficult issue of the desire of a population to maintain the cultural roots that help tie a society together. Clearly a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, allowing the nation to be flooded with immigrants that could destabilize the necessary comity of a society and, on the other hand, allowing the nation to become static and bereft of competition, and as a consequence to lose its economic vitality. The United States has always been able eventually to absorb waves of immigration and maintain its fundamental character as a nation, particularly the individual rights and freedoms bestowed by our Founding Fathers. But it must be conceded that the transitions were always more difficult than hindsight might now make them appear.

In closing, I would like to concur with President Bill Clinton's view of our immigration history as expressed in remarks of more than a decade ago: "America has constantly drawn strength and spirit from wave after wave of immigrants. . . They have proved to be the most restless, the most adventurous, the most innovative, the most industrious of people."

We, as a nation, must continue to draw on this source of strength and spirit. To do so, in the context of a rapidly changing global economy, our immigration laws must be reformed and brought up to date.

[gauravster]

I think have Alan Greenspan has very succinctly put forward not only the need for skilled immigration reform but also the politics behind the change. He has also rightly pointed out that the system is in a dire need of change for these people.

Greenspan is very high up there among the economist regarded highly and very few people could argue with what he has to say.

We should definitely publicize this message. Add links to his statement on all blogs/comments etc. If possible we should also create a page on IV somewhere with links/quotes like these from important people.

[starscream]

did the committee question Greenspan about any issues related to us EB GC issues?

Please update anyone

[ak_2006]

Statement of Chairman Schumer
Comprehensive Immigration Reform In 2009 Can We Do It and How
Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security April 30, 2009

Before we begin today's business, I'd like to take the opportunity to recognize the remarkable leadership that my predecessor—Senator Kennedy—has provided to this subcommittee.

For the last 46 years, Senator Kennedy has been at the forefront of every major immigration debate in this country as a member, chairman, or ranking member of this subcommittee.

I'm sure I speak for my colleagues when I say that no senator has worked harder and contributed more to the immigration conversation than Senator Kennedy, and we all sincerely thank him for his leadership.

Since I became Chairman of this Subcommittee in February, I am often asked the very questions that we hope to begin to answer today: "Can we achieve significant immigration reform in this session of Congress and, if so, what would this reform look like?"

People only need to pick up a newspaper or turn on their televisions to see many stories quoting Washington insiders and political pundits who say it is bad politics to even discuss immigration reform at a time when America is facing such serious economic challenges.

But these articles do not report what I am hearing in my conversations with the American people. No one is happy with our current system, whether they are left, right, or center. There is recognition in America that the status quo is not working. Indeed, recent polls show that 57% of Americans believe that immigration reform should be a high priority for this Congress. The politics may be hard, but reality is obvious: it is everyone's best interests to change and fix our current immigration system.

And it is therefore my belief that we can and must try to find a way to enact significant improvements to our immigration system now.

So, how do we get from here to there?

From my perspective, it is time to tone down the rhetoric, focus on the facts, and carefully weigh what it in the best interests of our taxpayers, our economy, our security, and our future.

That is the spirit in which we have called today's hearings, and the spirit in which we can conduct our considerations moving forward.

It is my belief that the American people are pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. It is my belief that the American people are not afraid of an immigration system that is both tough and fair. They want an immigration system that both faces up to reality and respects the rule of law. They want an immigration system that will stop the flow of illegal immigrants and respect legal immigrants who want to work, pay taxes, remain in this country and become citizens.

That is what I want too, and I believe that is what the majority of my colleagues here in the Senate want.

But make no mistake: we cannot restore confidence in our immigration system until and unless we face up to reality, put ideology aside, and find solutions that will work to address the situation in which we find ourselves today.

I am hopeful that we can find solutions, because a well-functioning immigration system is not only a part of America's legacy – it is also critical to our country's future.

The founding fathers never intended for America to close the door to new Americans, and in each generation since the birth of our country we have accepted the most determined and idealistic people from everywhere in the world.

And we have always been stronger for it.

Because of immigration, Google, Yahoo, Intel, and Ebay are American success stories. In New York, one-quarter of all businesses are immigrant-owned. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, these immigrant-owned New York businesses have combined sales of $42.7 billion, and employ over 230,000 workers.

Nationally, 40% of patents in the U.S. are awarded to immigrants. And a recent study found that immigrants are 50% likelier to start businesses than native-born citizens. New inventions and start-up businesses are critical to improving our economy and, as the numbers tell us, immigrants play a vital role in both of these areas.

Given the very high stakes in whether and how we move forward on the issue of immigration, we have invited a broad spectrum of our country's finest and most distinguished leaders to share their wisdom and experience.

These individuals come from a broad array of disciplines, and offer vastly diverse perspectives regarding immigration based upon their training and their area of expertise.

These distinguished witnesses will tell us whether they agree that comprehensive immigration reform is necessary and should be enacted in 2009. They will also help us determine what a reformed system might look like.

As we go forward with this hearing today and with this debate throughout the year, I hope that my colleagues will agree to work together to capitalize on areas of consensus rather than exploit areas of disagreement.
For instance, although my colleague, the distinguished ranking member from Texas, and I, may have some ideological differences, we both approach the immigration conversation from a common starting point: we are both senators from border-states with long and rich histories of welcoming immigrants from all over the world.

In fact, the Texas Seaport at Galveston became known as "the Second Ellis Island."

For Statement of The Honorable Patrick Leahy see the link:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3793&wit_id=2629

Both statements sounds very good,

[Humhongekamyab]

It's on CNN website too http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3

[bajrangbali]

Both Sen. Schumer and Greenspan have put forth the practical and realistic view of the current immigration situation. Politics aside, both have voiced the need for the reform before the economic crisis ends. I like the part where they agree and acknowledge there are differences of opinion and those differences shouldnt collapse the entire reform like it did last time.

[WaitingUnlimited]

It's on CNN website too http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3

This link is showing something else...

[gauravster]

Wall Street Journal has a article about the Greenspan's testimony. The comments seem to be taken over by the anti's. Please comment if you can.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124112017018574119.html

[determined_indian]

Greenspan had a very "realistic" view on "regulating" the banks that he was overseeing which was fixed with a puny sum of $13trillion!!

I didn't realize "chance the gardener" got out of the asylum and started dispensing his wisdom again:D

Completly agree with your Greenspan's comments.

Write to your senator so US government can hire "top class talent" through H1B program so future policies are well thought out and analyzed before they are implemented...Just kidding, but back to the point..

Look at Fortune 500 companies..They go after "top class talent" and it is one of main reasons why even their marketing policies are more efficient than some big government initiatives.

Have you looked at Goldman Sachs comments about H1B ("we go after talent and nationality doesn't matter)? Their stock price is above $100 and they had the potential to raise >$10Billion in private capital even during financial crisis..

[determined_indian]

http://f1toh1.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/top-50-companies-requesting-most-h1b-visas/

Take a look at the financial sector..

At the end of the day, CEOs make strategic call / bets. So, credit goes to CEO and his management team. I am not by any means saying H1B's are the reason for profit. But, a company that goes after talent do hire more H1Bs than average and the results are there for everyone to see.

If AIG was so over leveraged, I blame the management of AIG and not Goldman

[add78]

I think have Alan Greenspan has very succinctly put forward not only the need for skilled immigration reform but also the politics behind the change. He has also rightly pointed out that the system is in a dire need of change for these people.

Greenspan is very high up there among the economist regarded highly and very few people could argue with what he has to say.

We should definitely publicize this message. Add links to his statement on all blogs/comments etc. If possible we should also create a page on IV somewhere with links/quotes like these from important people.

The problem is, Greenspan has lost his credibility and reputation when it turned out he was wrong about the housing bubble and false economic growth under his watch.

[hiralal]

The problem is, Greenspan has lost his credibility and reputation when it turned out he was wrong about the housing bubble and false economic growth under his watch.
That is true but US congress is to be blamed too ..that's why Bush said that his greatest failure was that CIR was not passed ..economy would have been much better if immi quota had been increased (legal) ..all this surplus housing ..you need new families to clear the excess inventory ..

[SanjayP]

Agreed it is like employing a Barney Madoff to pitch your products. Greenspan is liked less than gum you may step on and drag through the carpet. So it can only have negative effect on the objectives. This promotion was a bad call by the lobby.

[arnab221]

I have lost count of the number if people who have "testified" before the congress since 2005 when the immigration issue began . From Bill Gates to Bernie Madoff , they have got everybody's advice but acted upon none of them . They do not have work and waste the time of these busy executives .

[alterego]

The US has long struggled to balance the interests of Capital vs the interests of Labor. There have at various times been exploitation of either side by the other. Let me quote a couple of examples that come to mind.
1) The Bracero program in the 40s-60s, where workers were exploited and violated. Clearly the capitalists were in the wrong.
2) GM. Yeah that's right, the GM that is in impending bankruptcy. The shareholders of GM have been abused by the organised labour unions. Everyone and their mother knew that they are uncompetitive, that union contracts were bleeding the company dry, and that the owners of the company(shareholders were being abused), yet this was allowed to flourish until they are wiped out.

So you see, things go both ways in the good old USA. It just depends on which side of the time horizon and which industry you are discussing.
Innovation and competitiveness in the cutting edge areas of economic growth have been the hallmark of US leadership in the global economy. The current concern surrounds whether that is being lost, and there is a legitimate argument that it is being lost due to stupid protectionist immigration policies in the Skilled workforce areas. Despite all the hoopla about outsourcing, there are at most about 5 million outsourced US jobs in India. IF those jobs were created here even at relatively lower wages (say 50-60K annually) than currently prevail for IT professionals in the US, that would still be a net benefit to the US economy(since the US average wage for a college graduate is even below that). Now the IT professionals here who make 80-100K may not like it, but it is a fact that the overall economy will benefit. The irony is that high skilled people benefit from more low skilled immigrant labor due to lower costs of goods and services for them but the vice versa is true too.
This is the precise reason that these decisions have to be made in the broader national interest rather than in the interests of one particularly noisy special interest group.
At this time, it is in the US interest that the bulk of the IT industry be based here, it will redound to a net US benefit, even if that means more skilled immigration and lower net wages to US IT professionals. I believe that is the point Mr. Greenspan is making.

[kshitijnt]

The US has long struggled to balance the interests of Capital vs the interests of Labor. There have at various times been exploitation of either side by the other. Let me quote a couple of examples that come to mind.
1) The Bracero program in the 40s-60s, where workers were exploited and violated. Clearly the capitalists were in the wrong.
2) GM. Yeah that's right, the GM that is in impending bankruptcy. The shareholders of GM have been abused by the organised labour unions. Everyone and their mother knew that they are uncompetitive, that union contracts were bleeding the company dry, and that the owners of the company(shareholders were being abused), yet this was allowed to flourish until they are wiped out.

So you see, things go both ways in the good old USA. It just depends on which side of the time horizon and which industry you are discussing.
Innovation and competitiveness in the cutting edge areas of economic growth have been the hallmark of US leadership in the global economy. The current concern surrounds whether that is being lost, and there is a legitimate argument that it is being lost due to stupid protectionist immigration policies in the Skilled workforce areas. Despite all the hoopla about outsourcing, there are at most about 5 million outsourced US jobs in India. IF those jobs were created here even at relatively lower wages (say 50-60K annually) than currently prevail for IT professionals in the US, that would still be a net benefit to the US economy(since the US average wage for a college graduate is even below that). Now the IT professionals here who make 80-100K may not like it, but it is a fact that the overall economy will benefit. The irony is that high skilled people benefit from more low skilled immigrant labor due to lower costs of goods and services for them but the vice versa is true too.
This is the precise reason that these decisions have to be made in the broader national interest rather than in the interests of one particularly noisy special interest group.
At this time, it is in the US interest that the bulk of the IT industry be based here, it will redound to a net US benefit, even if that means more skilled immigration and lower net wages to US IT professionals. I believe that is the point Mr. Greenspan is making.

Let me get this right. On the one hand you are supporting free markets and capitalism by saying that "owners" of the companies should be able to make decisions as to who works for them and cite what happened to GM. The GM story is as much to blame for inept management who never understood that Toyota & Honda were getting at them and their products were not as much competitive. Simply put they failed to understand the consumer needs rather than workers bleeding the company.

When the war is lost you blame the king or commander for war strategy, not the foot soldiers.

On the other hand you are arguing that jobs be forced to be brought back to US. Now if it is shareholders' money, then I dont understand why the job has to be brought back to US? Shouldent shareholders decide where they want to spend and how to get maximum profits?

My take on this whole thing is that corruption in capitalist markets spoiled US economy. The greedy AIG executives and inept management of GM and so on... etc. However the immigrants and the outsourcing industry is being blamed, specifically immigrants from India as being problem for woos of the American citizens. This is a soft and easy target as we do not have voting base or power in US.

That is the game thats going on. Everything else is BS.

[alterego]

Let me get this right. On the one hand you are supporting free markets and capitalism by saying that "owners" of the companies should be able to make decisions as to who works for them and cite what happened to GM. The GM story is as much to blame for inept management who never understood that Toyota & Honda were getting at them and their products were not as much competitive. Simply put they failed to understand the consumer needs rather than workers bleeding the company.

When the war is lost you blame the king or commander for war strategy, not the foot soldiers.

On the other hand you are arguing that jobs be forced to be brought back to US. Now if it is shareholders' money, then I don't understand why the job has to be brought back to US? Shouldn't shareholders decide where they want to spend and how to get maximum profits?

My take on this whole thing is that corruption in capitalist markets spoiled US economy. The greedy AIG executives and inept management of GM and so on... etc. However the immigrants and the outsourcing industry is being blamed, specifically immigrants from India as being problem for woos of the American citizens. This is a soft and easy target as we do not have voting base or power in US.

That is the game thats going on. Everything else is BS.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but if you feel that the CEO of GM has the freedom to make business decisions the way the managers of non unionized plants in the South belonging to Toyota/Honda/Nissan etc have, then you are sadly mistaken.
If you ever lived/worked in the Detroit area, you will understand the extent to which blue collar GM employees were pampered by the bully dog presence of the Unions. I mean give me a break, a high school dropout making over 100K a year with all sorts of perks and time off? That's what happened. I am not kidding you. You need to explore this a bit more. The average hourly cost of a worker to GM(including benefits) is in the $60 plus range. I don't care what you do after that, unless your product is a Maserati or Lamborghini, you will have a tough time making ends meet.
I am no fan of the Wall street crooks, I understand their greed was the main issue behind the Credit crisis. However, in the case of the big 3, the Unions have had a major hand and probably the main hand in their demise, even faced with the globalization reality, they refused to budge and that, along with other management mistakes ended up wiping out the shareholders. The writing however was on the wall with their business model for a long time. If it wasn't now it would have been in a few years time. That is why GM which was till recently largest than Toyota traded at a few billion market cap. and Toyota at 150 billion, the market understood completely who was really in charge at GM.
The CEOs has less say in the running of those companies than they have in other industries. The end result was that the shareholders were taken to the cleaners.

[determined_indian]

I don't know what you are trying to say here, sounds gibberish to me.

Goldman's leadership was saved because Goldman got almost $15-$20 bn through the money govt provided to AIG because Goldman was a counterparty of AIG (i.e. Goldman took insurance for their leveraged bets through AIG). If the govt. let AIG go down, Goldman would have gone down too, irrespective of the "vision" of Blankfein. The Treasury that screwed teh counterparties of Lehman decided to save AIG's counterparties, which helped not only Goldman, but other banks like Deutche Bank, Societe Generale etc. (a lot of European banks which were as much or more leveraged than Lehman or Bear ever was).

Are you saying Govt didn't let AIG go down because Goldman was involved?

If Government hadn't lent money to AIG, the whole global economy (leave alone financials) might have collapsed. They learnt their lesson from Lehman's collapse and that was why AIG was saved. If you think Goldman survived because its former CEO was the treasury sec, then I recommend you take Global economy 101.

Also, stop complaining about H1B / L1..You guys were happy preaching "free trade" to the whole world in 1990s, and now you are complaning that jobs are taken offshore. Stop dreaming...Can't have the best of both worlds

[kshitijnt]

Could you please give answers to the following

a) What % of unionized GM labor today makes over $60/hr? Does this rate include retiree health benefits? Are you saying that if an auto worker works more than 40 hours, he shouldn't be paid for his work? Do you know that overtime laws in US (most states) mandate 150% of your hourly salary irrespective of whether you are an autoworker or nurse or pharmacist or any of the professions where they are eligible for overtime?

b) What is the role played by union in setting GM on a course to sell gas-guzzlers like SUVs since late 90s? Who should be blamed for the lack of innovation at GM, management or union?

c) I can give two examples of US banks with no unions and outsource more than any other bank in US - Citibank and Bank Of America. Citibank's market cap today is lower than that of an average regional bank called US bancorp and another super regional called WellsFargo, though US bank and Wells Fargo offshore/outsource a lot less than Citi or Bank Of America. Based on what I know, average employees at those regional banks are paid better than their peers at the large banks like Citi. If your IDIOTIC explanation above holds good, Sh1tty bank should be at the top of the world for effectively controlling the costs and Wells Fargo/US bank should be really lousy since they don't offshore anywhere near Citi or BofA.

Another example, CEO of Wachovia, Ken Thompson was very impressed with the outsourcing capabilities of Indian IT industry, he came back from a visit to India and proceeded to outsource a lot of IT work. But today his bank is no more and he doesn't have a job.

Hey hunter so are you saying that Citibank and BOAs problems are because they outsourced their work to India and Indian IT messed it up? Or is it due to poor decisions such as giving loans to people who can not repay them back? I am an Indian and presently working in US Bancorp as a contractor, so suck it up,

Isnt it similar to one priest who says "Americans soldiers are paying for the sin of supporting gays." Is there much difference to what you say?

[Roger Binny]

I have lost count of the number if people who have "testified" before the congress since 2005 when the immigration issue began . From Bill Gates to Bernie Madoff , they have got everybody's advice but acted upon none of them . They do not have work and waste the time of these busy executives .

One word, Awesome.

[Roger Binny]

I wouldn't say that was not the only reason, but that was one of the main reason as saving Goldman and its stock was important to the financial well being of the treasury secretary (we recently saw NY Fed chairman and his connection with Goldman), just like Cheney's connection with Halliburton. No, I don't need any courses from Global economy from people who get their economic wisdom from CNBC and Wallstreet Journal.

Global economy wouldn't have collapsed as the scare-mongers would like you to believe, CDO/CDS contracts should have been ripped off and the investment banking as it existed in US (aka Wallstreet) would have died along with Goldman and Morgan. It wouldn't be a great loss. Most of the commercial banks would have survived.

Wonder why Eliot Spitzer is suddenly the popular choice for 51% of new yorkers after the banker shenanigans!!

Ok we agreeed, whom you want to be the next Tre secretary, we will accept your choice.

Ok...we agreed indian outsourcing is not that great,where you want to outsource your fortune 500 work CEO Hunter and tell me whose outsourcing is god created or not made by man atleast, let us out source there.

Buddy, world doesn't lives by our wish it works on its own dynamics, one thing is true when you start to say some thing as a whole is bad, then you are bound to lose your argument. period.

People outside US always thinks that all americans live like Britney spears which is pretty laughable, they think they are right, which is not true and they are ignorant, so friend don't align with them by commenting on whole.

Coming to tr sec part, do you think people in both parties are not smart enough to choose a perfect secretary and you are more qualified for it.

There were always limited options available, they cannot bring a fresh grad from one of the univ and offer them Tr sec post, they have to choose some one very knowledgable enough of the whole process, most of the times who are nothing but people already hired by top 10 firms on earth,so they are, be fortunate that US has all top firms in their backyard and US is not living on any other's terms, where atleast some part of world lacks in it.

[kshitijnt]

You are missing the whole point. My response was to counter your FOOLISH argument about how the unionized labor caused the decline of GM, while absolving the incompetent management that was in place at Chrysler and GM. As was the case with GM, who made the decision to make the loans that may never be repaid at Citi /BOfA/Wachovia or venture into risky securitization schemes? Wasn't it done by the upper management (just like GM management decided to make strategic blunders)

I didn't say US Bancorp doesn't have any indian contractors, but not at the scale of the banks that caused the financial meltdown.

I am still waiting for solid statstics on the breakdown of unionized worker pay

Hey I never called you a fool. Why do you think my argument was foolish and yours had sense? Some american superiority complex I guess?

But you still didnt answer my question, did Indians cause meltdown at BOFA & Citi & Wachovia? It seems you tend to think that Indians are responsible for non payment on mortgages by people who bought homes here? Correct , you think since they outsourced work to India, none of their computers are now working and hence they can not generate any more mortgage or CC statements and hence americans dont bother to pay whats due, and thus outsourcing work caused meltdown, right?

And let me get this straight, unions have a small share for GMs demise because of their unwillingness to be flexible in times of difficuilty and simply put they were part of the company so they have to bear responsibility for failures. But majority of the blame rests with management as they didnt see it coming. Now you know why jobs are being outsourced, you want 150% rate at overtime when you get nothing done in regular time. Be creative, productive and do more for companies , add value and show how your job is very profitable to the company , you will have a job and it wont be outsourced. Companies are not running any social service. They are profit oriented businesses. You help them make more profit, they will help you in your life.

[kshitijnt]

If you think that the Paulson/Geithner/bernanke/Summers/greenspan/rubin is the best out there, all I can do is to quote Einstein

"The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them."

If Rick Wagoner need to move on to save GM, the same can be said about the above combination from the perspective of saving the financial system.

And same applies to Barack Obama as well. Cause the buck stops at the top.

[Roger Binny]

If you think that the Paulson/Geithner/bernanke/Summers/greenspan/rubin is the best out there, all I can do is to quote Einstein

"The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them."

If Rick Wagoner need to move on to save GM, the same can be said about the above combination from the perspective of saving the financial system.

Ok, tell me who is best and lets see how he or she compares against them?

By the way i'm curious how you are going to pick some one qualified for the post who never worked in any of the related sectors or he or she wasn't hired before by any one of the top firms.

[Roger Binny]

The stumbling block was retiree healthcare and retirement benefits which GM had promised and those retired workers didn't have any options like 401(k) to fall back on. If US had a national healthcare system, at least a a lot of those medical costs could have been eliminated for GM.

I agree 100%, but coming back to the point same green span been there for decades and we have never seen this now seeing it.

Yes, all humans make mistakes, GSpan not alone but i also has courage enough to remind you that US's strong capacity is turning it,which is majorly because of their stature and other privileges, can print as much as they can. :)

Just because of today's unemployment is this high we cannot blame the legal immigrants and other policies,those are there for long time and now we are seeing 26yr high unemployment is not in tech sector, for that matter i'm seeing thousands of jobs in dice and monster just for citizens and GC card holders in tech sector.

Manf is broken and service sector is broken plus other sectors where majority of the jobs numbers are.

It is BS that some are pointing tech sector and making it as a big cause, tell me some big company names which were created outside of US and still in number 1 except SAP which is not number one of course.

Even after the dot com boom big companies born, twitter, youtube,
face book... so many...how it is become possible in that quick span, because of talent pool again i'm saying talent pool doesn't mean h1 program but it helps, we need to focus what we need to focus on H1 program is so small leave it but stream line it.

Now come to the point how US companies made into number one? i'm not saying "just" because of H1 or any other program but this surely helped them.....yes there are lapses in this program as like most programs has, this is not a show stopper and no govt program on earth is perfect, plenty of billions were lost in all govt programs.

US leads technology world, and i like it to lead than any other rogue nation, to lead you need people so decisions depends on it.

[alterego]

If you agree with that, we are on the same page. I mistook your response for "alterego" since he was implying the demise of chrysler/problems at GM are somehow due to unions. My apologies for that.

I brought up the example of Citi /BofA/Wachovia in similar vein. Unlike GM, they cut costs wherever they could(tactical), but never got the strategy right(of staying away from risky lending in an overheated bubble economy which their counterparts among regional banks did - like US Bank or Wells).

I believe with GM, unions were flexible. New workers at GM started at $14/hr and most of the existing workers were earning more or less at par with their counterparts. The stumbling block was retiree healthcare and retirement benefits which GM had promised and those retired workers didn't have any options like 401(k) to fall back on. If US had a national healthcare system, at least a a lot of those medical costs could have been eliminated for GM.

So defending bloated retiree benefits of people that worked in an era of largesse isn't the fault of the unions? The Unions took their stand and defended retirees to the detriment of everyone else. Management went along for the ride, and collected their millions from a sinking ship. The bottom line is the industry was not competitive, and the main cost structure of producing an automobile was the Unionised wages/benefits. IT matters little whether these were legacy costs or current costs, the union was responsible for negotiating/defending both. The US already has a social safety net for retirees, it is called Social Security and Medicare, I suppose those would be inadequate for the unions.
Look, If the US auto industry goes under in this recession, it is a virtual certainty that Toyota and Honda etc will be hiring, and they will be hiring in the south and the wages/benefits will be more in tune with competitive cost pressures.
This was always about the uncompetitiveness of the US auto industry and every objective observer acknowledges that the Unions and their past/current demands are a huge part of this.