From Truthout.org:The New York Times had an article [Wednesday] that inadvertently revealed a huge amount about how wages are set in the US economy ("US Plan to Lure Nurses May Hurt Poor Nations," 5-24-06; A1).
We all know the official story - wages are supposed to be set by the market, our old friends supply and demand. When certain skills are in short supply, the wages for workers with these skills are bid up. This leads more people to acquire the skills and may also reduce the demand. Eventually, supply increases and demand falls by enough to establish a balance in the market.
In this wonderful market world, the people who end up with high wages (e.g. doctors, lawyers, accountants, economists) have skills that are in high demand and difficult to master. The people with low pay (e.g. custodians, retail clerks, child care workers, dishwashers, etc.) are ones who have skills that are relatively plentiful.
That is a nice fairy tale. It has about as much relationship to the real world as the tooth fairy, as the Times article showed.
The key to the story is that our political leaders think that free trade and competition are good only for manufacturing workers, nurses, and other workers lower down the social ladder. They want the nanny state to protect the highest-paid workers from international competition. The huge gap in wages between those at the top and those at the bottom is not because of the market, itís because those at the top got Congress to rig the game.
7 comments:
Nadir: Please help me understand the problem here. Are you and the author claiming that US officials should shut-out African nurses from immigration so that US nursing salaries and health care will increase enough to seduce US residents to throw down their burger-flippers and earn a nursing certificate?
The author and I are saying that hospital administrators are artificially keeping nursing wages down. And though demand for nurses is high, funding for starting new nursing schools isn't coming. So there are fewer new American nurses even though waiting lists are long.
Therefore, the net result is the US medical industrial complex is hoping to outsource more of its nurse's training to third world countries who are more in need of good nurses than we are. This is a double whammy for lower income people because wages are held down and health care prices continue to rise, but we don't have enough nurses to fill the demand.
A free market economy is only beneficial when it is actually free. To quote the author again, "The huge gap in wages between those at the top and those at the bottom is not because of the market, it ís because those at the top got Congress to rig the game."
OK, now I understand your complaint. You want protectionist, anti-immigration, Pat Buchannon economic policies. Barring foriegn nurses from immigrating would constitute "artificially elevating" nurse salaries, which would result in higher healthcare costs, which would of course disproportinately affect people with less money to spend.
Lefties are very naive and immature: they want both low healthcare costs and high salaries for nurses. Also, they want both "guranteed" healthcare as a "universal right."
According to this site, nursing salaries increased 14% from 2003-4:
http://www.studentdoc.com/nursing-jobs-salaries.html
During that same year, the number of nurses earning more than $75k/year more than doubled, from 5% to 11%.
Here's some info from UCLA's hospital, announcing nursing "salary increases ranging from 16% to 22%, along with enhanced per diem rates."
How remarkable is this given the high fraction of socialization already manifest in our system?
Meanwhile in the UK, which has the "universal" healtcare that the lefties want, nursing salaries have increased annually just 2.5%:
http://www.rcn.org.uk/news/display.php?ID=1943
So, Nadir, what do you want: an optimal health care cost that includes the current nursing salary increases plus lots of non-white nursing immigrants joining the US population, or hold-back those non-white potential immigrants and continue the current process which your article says doesn't exist, and which will place upward pressure on healthcare costs?
Or do you want to totally socialize US healthcare, ala the UK? That's sure one way to keep those non-white immigrant nurses out! Take away their pay incentive!
What'll be hurting the poor countries is not the evil (and I thought racist?) US corporations stealing non-white nurses (but that would upset the US white population overrun by vehement racists, according to Crash!), but rather the poor economic policies of these nations.
Good research.
What about the New York Times' article's contention that nursing schools are turning away students. Those qualified nurses are practicing because their wages have increased, sure. However, there aren't enough nurses to teach new nurses and there isn't enough funding for new schools of nursing.
How do we increase opportunity for US nationals who want to pursue a career in nursing instead of importing nurses from overseas?
I'm not being protectionist. I just believe that US students should have a right to learn nursing too.
By the way, we would have millions of dollars to spend opening new nursing schools if it weren't for YOUR WAR in Iraq, where money is being WASTED by Haliburton and other companies.
Nadir: You may be pursuading me that Haliburton is wasting US money in Iraq. I share your disdain for the laws of congress, which currupt the entire US economy (though not yet so badly that it creates the most-prefered residency on earth!). Do you join me, then, in calling for a flat tax with no tax exemptions and no subsidies for anybody? Permitting any exemptions and subsidies opens the door for a million.
Post a Comment