Profit over People

Hey Folks,

On April 7 Douglas Southgate, a professor in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at Ohio State University wrote a column, "Demographics eventually will stem flow of illegal aliens" in the Columbus Dispatch. (for the entire column see: http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/03/friday-april-07-2006-douglas-southgate.html ).

In my opinion, he basically was arguing for the "illegal immigrant" status quo. It's been wisely said that every system is designed to give the exact results it gives - regardless of official claims to the contrary. We have an "illegal alien problem" because those pulling the levers of power WANT one.

Illegal Mexican workers are here, and in great numbers, because people with money personally benefit from their presence. The recent dust-up causes the favored class a problem. Their most helpful servants, the Republicans, have a split constituency: xenophobic conservatives who want every Mexican deported and profit-loving country-clubbers who drool over the thought of twice as many illegals to exploit.

Southgate's column seemed aimed at calming both sides' fears without really changing much about what he called "a bilateral relationship that is important to us in a myriad of ways."

Not much in that to rile the Uke Man. I expect the Dispatch to put out that line, and most economists measure everything from the viewpoint of the wealthy exploiters.

However, one comment he made regarding young Mexican workers, led me to write him:

"Better mannered than young Frenchmen, they do not respond to economic adversity by rioting. Instead, they decamp for the United States, where the work that awaits them offers wages that are attractive by Mexican standards."

He responded to my letter, and I wrote again. Here is the correspondence.

- Uke Man




Dear Professor Southgate,

Your gratuitous comment about Mexican youth being more mannerly in the face of economic exploitation (you called it "economic adversity") than the French youth who rioted against it, brought to mind several quotations from Oscar Wilde:

"We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so."

"As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them."

Well, I don't expect you will agree with Wilde's view. Moreover, I wonder whether you can truly understand it.

Yours - Tom Harker



Sir,

Why is it that some people suppose that folks with different views are intellectual [sic] wanting? This [sic] the clear implication of the last sentence in your note.

But let's stick to facts. Young Frenchmen are protesting against a measure that would obviously create employment opportunities for them. [The unemployment rate for their age cohort is 25 percent (and about 50 percent for young immigrants); this is mainly because employers are unable to run the risk of hiring people without experience, given the various and costly indemnifications that existing French laws mandate for discharged workers.] They are not poor, but instead are middle-class students, who have imbibed deeply of globophobism.

As my column indicates, young people who look hard for work are more deserving of respect than their privileged counterparts in a much wealthier country who riot.It is nice to be able to quote someone like Oscar Wilde, but best to do so when and where the situation fits.

Respectfully,
Douglas Southgate



Dear Professor Southgate,

I am in complete agreement as to adhering to facts, and thank you for appreciating my familiarity with Wilde.

I do believe it a fact that you and I have different views on a number of things, but it is not true that in my earlier letter I found you to be intellectually wanting. Rather, I intended to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The notion that the poor are not the cause of their own dilemma is so foreign to our capitalistic mindset that I, perhaps naively, thought you might find Wilde's comments to be gibberish. It seemed to me that anyone who could understand them would hold a position different from yours. I guess you understand Wilde's intent but disagree. Unlike Wilde you are able to admire the "virtuous poor."

You have every right to this position, but historically it has been consistently used as the justification for exploitation. Those who make the argument are those who benefit from it. I find it difficult to understand why those who are called upon to accept the degradation this argument imposes should be admired for embracing it.

In regard to the French youth and the relevance of Wilde's comments, let me say that I was, in general, aware of the "facts" you shared pertinent to the recent protests. Yes, French youth do suffer some because of unemployment; that is a fact. Most likely, the proposed scheme would lead - at least for a while - to less unemployment (i.e. more youth would have some sort of job); I believe that is a fact.

I do not agree, however, that this increased employment is in fact an "opportunity." The real opportunity this measure provides is to further reduce the influence and living standards of working people. This is an opportunity, not for the workers, but for the businesses you mention.

Neither is it a fact that "employers are unable to run the risk of hiring people without experience, given the various and costly indemnifications that existing French laws mandate for discharged workers" (emphasis added).

Saying employers "can't" is an opinion; employers "won't" is a fact. It's a nice racket too.

It's always the same: Capital says to Labor, "We'll let you work if you let us degrade you; we must maintain our status, and you must concede some of yours for that to happen. The Mexicans, degraded in their own country as a result of the economic system, are granted the "opportunity" to work here illegally for slave wages while subject to unbelievable exploitation - but unlike the French, they show good manners and say "Thank you."

I understand that the similarity of middle class French protesters and poor Mexicans working here illegally might not be obvious to most economists, but they are just two sides of the same coin. The Mexicans are "allowed" their economic "opportunity" because it serves the elite and undercuts the indigenous working class. Moreover, the Mexicans come into this "opportunity" at such a low level that they feel lucky to be abused.

Likewise, the French middle class are "allowed" their economic "opportunity" because it serves the elite and undercuts the working class. Unlike the Mexicans, however, the French have had a taste of human dignity and respect; historically, people have been less dominated by profit there. They are not saying "thank you" for their "opportunity" to start the race to the bottom.

This was written in the Saturday business section of the Dispatch:

"Average weekly earnings of non supervisory workers increased by an unimpressive 0.2 percent, which might be bad for workers, but which stock and bond markets interpreted as good news because it suggests wage inflation is restrained."

There you go; another "opportunity." If American workers - unlike those spoiled, ungrateful French kids - say "thank you," one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them.

Yours - Tom Harker