In the global economy, the hardest thing for individuals to market is themselves. There are countries that have policies that gladly welcome foreign workers into the work force, and there are countries that do not. Individuals look for jobs in countries that would allow them to grow, but they find themselves blocked from entrance and restricted by policies. In “Let Anyone Take a Job Anywhere,” a debate on Intelligence2 Debates, the pros and cons of an open labor market crashed in a head-on-collision. In the argument in support of an open labor market, many great supporting points were brought forth. Bryan Caplan, a professor of Economics at George Mason University, argued that such an action would reduce discrimination, it would increase the
…show more content…
Ron Unz, a successful publisher, presented that opening the labor market would cause a surplus of labor, it would only benefit the wealthiest in society, it would cause suffering to other social classes competing for jobs and higher wages, and would cause “severe political backlash” from the people of the U.S. Kathleen Newland, co-founder of the Migration Policy Institute, argued that an open labor market would not work because it would cause low productivity and lower wages, and that the social costs would be too great, such as establishing infrastructure for new …show more content…
Unz presented that the incomes of average Americans has stagnated and declined over the last forty years and that further competition in the labor market will only cause further decline. This is most surprising, for if we would like to increase living standards for Americans, why would we open a labor market to immigrants willing to take jobs at lower wages? Incomes would further decline for most Americans because they would be forced into working for lower wages.
Before the debate, my position on the topic was neutral, and it has remained neutral. Both sides presented valid arguments leaving me unable to decide which side would be best. Although, I would hope that the supporting side would be right in their arguments, for if their statements were true it would cause greater prosperity for the entire global population.
After evaluating the sides in the debate, I found the result of the audiences vote to be surprising. I found, upon watching the debate, that the supporting side had greater credibility. From my viewpoint, the supporting side’s arguments were clear and easily understood compared to the arguments from the opposing side. If anything, I would have anticipated that the majority of the vote would have been
Ron Unz, a successful publisher, presented that opening the labor market would cause a surplus of labor, it would only benefit the wealthiest in society, it would cause suffering to other social classes competing for jobs and higher wages, and would cause “severe political backlash” from the people of the U.S. Kathleen Newland, co-founder of the Migration Policy Institute, argued that an open labor market would not work because it would cause low productivity and lower wages, and that the social costs would be too great, such as establishing infrastructure for new …show more content…
Unz presented that the incomes of average Americans has stagnated and declined over the last forty years and that further competition in the labor market will only cause further decline. This is most surprising, for if we would like to increase living standards for Americans, why would we open a labor market to immigrants willing to take jobs at lower wages? Incomes would further decline for most Americans because they would be forced into working for lower wages.
Before the debate, my position on the topic was neutral, and it has remained neutral. Both sides presented valid arguments leaving me unable to decide which side would be best. Although, I would hope that the supporting side would be right in their arguments, for if their statements were true it would cause greater prosperity for the entire global population.
After evaluating the sides in the debate, I found the result of the audiences vote to be surprising. I found, upon watching the debate, that the supporting side had greater credibility. From my viewpoint, the supporting side’s arguments were clear and easily understood compared to the arguments from the opposing side. If anything, I would have anticipated that the majority of the vote would have been