Market Friendly Work Visas

[danielpalos]

Market friendly work visas could accomplish, via market principles, what prohibitionist public policy will not: wellness of regulation of matters pertaining to that public sector.

A market friendly work visa, as a form of public policy, could reduce public and private sector costs, and ameliorate frictional unemployment for US labor market participants.

Proposed command economics, as a form of public policy, will always be less market friendly (less economically efficient) than most forms of public policy that are based on market principles.

[aaron]

Okay.... So please describe in excruciating detail what you believe a "market friendly work visa" to be.

[danielpalos]

Market friendly work visas would not be a guarantee of employment, in states that have at-will employment laws; merely, the opportunity (legal right) to work in that nation-state.

Analogies can be compared from the passenger rail sector and the amusement park sector. These private sector business models are already generating revenue for those ventures.

Monies generated from fees and fines from such a program could reduce public sector costs (including frictional unemployment costs).

Forms of insurance products could also reduce costs to both the public and private sectors by capping insurance related costs to both sectors.

[aaron]

Which tells us pretty much nothing about the idea....

[danielpalos]

Which tells us pretty much nothing about the idea....

I would go by the business models. They are already generating profit for those business ventures (i.e. the equivalent of a cost reduction if viewed from a public sector business venture perspective).

[jk]

ameliorate frictional unemployment .

You need to get a new "favorite word of the day" Daniel. You really seem to be stuck on that group of words.

and, if I understand your intent, there are already "market friendly" work visas in use. A visa is not meant to be a come on over and then find work. There are already methods in place to allow an employer to import labor not found within our borders.

Market friendly work visas would not be a guarantee of employment, in states that have at-will employment laws; merely, the opportunity (legal right) to work in that nation-state.

If a foreigner does not have employment already secured, why would we want them to come here? So they can set around in a foreign country and environment doing nothing and utilizing resources that are already limited?

btw; all states have employment-at-will laws, in one way or another.

[danielpalos]

Our current crop of work visas are are more for the purposes of statism and not market friendly, or we would not have issues with black market migrant labor participation.

At-will employment doctrine suggests that there is no guaranteed employment, in states that have at-will employment laws. Guaranteed employment is also not market friendly, since it does not allow for changing market conditions.

Any tourism would be incidental to the legal right to work in our form of statism.

[deadlock]

“We” and “our”? Dan, your German-Austrian Economic policies are obvious. Our economy is too complex to develop a computerized national job bank to balance the fluctuations of structural unemployment. (Review structural unemployment.)

At-will employment is a policy embraced by all states. It implies there is a job to be had by someone.

Frictional unemployment is not a “bad” thing, economically. E up: P up. E down: P down. Therefore, trying to pay people to not work will not be desirable economically.

Nor will it fit into your plan. A computerized national job bank won’t work in the United States of America. We are Capitalists the opposite of Socialist.

No matter how your terminology butchers the Constitution, federal policies, state statutes, etc you are not going to convince anyone that “general Welfare” ,“statism”, “public sector”, (what tourism has to do with anything I can’t decipher) we are anything but close to a socialist nation.

And we like it like that, we like Capitalism.

Cyclical unemployment, gov spending and policies create opportunity.

[jk]

Our current crop of work visas are are more for the purposes of statism and not market friendly, or we would not have issues with black market migrant labor participation.

from what little I know about visas, we have 3 basic flavors;

tourist
work
student

None of those are intended to benefit the government directly. As a matter of fact, the work visa is as market friendly as you can get. Of course there are rules to follow and limitations to who and why a visa is issued but that is part of protecting the citizens of this country.

The reason we have black market illegal labor is the penalties for utilizing this type of labor is not great enough to dissuade those that use it. That is as market friendly as you will ever get.

Again, you need to use the proper definition of statism.

Socialism and Communism are generally considered to be statist governments. Capitolism (US) is quite the opposite.

At-will employment doctrine suggests that there is no guaranteed employment, in states that have at-will employment laws. Guaranteed employment is also not market friendly, since it does not allow for changing market conditions.

of course there is no guaranteed employment. that is what the socialists tried..and failed at doing.

Any tourism would be incidental to the legal right to work in our form of statism.

tourism? where does this come in to the formula?

[danielpalos]

“We” and “our”? Dan, your German-Austrian Economic policies are obvious. Our economy is too complex to develop a computerized national job bank to balance the fluctuations of structural unemployment. (Review structural unemployment.)

At-will employment is a policy embraced by all states. It implies there is a job to be had by someone.

Frictional unemployment is not a “bad” thing, economically. E up: P up. E down: P down. Therefore, trying to pay people to not work will not be desirable economically.

Nor will it fit into your plan. A computerized national job bank won’t work in the United States of America. We are Capitalists the opposite of Socialist.

No matter how your terminology butchers the Constitution, federal policies, state statutes, etc you are not going to convince anyone that “general Welfare” ,“statism”, “public sector”, (what tourism has to do with anything I can’t decipher) we are anything but close to a socialist nation.

And we like it like that, we like Capitalism.

Cyclical unemployment, gov spending and policies create opportunity.

I am not advocating a "socialized" employment scheme. I understand that schemes based on command economics are less efficient than schemes based on market economics.

I also do not advocate policies contradictory to at-will employment doctrine.

A market friendly work visa would be just that; market friendly.

As for the notion on socialism, it is my contention that first world economies would not be first world economies; but for socialism.