The American Nightmare: No Exit, No Entry

Re: # 115

I had to put a cap on the number of words and so deleted a couple of pages. Even then many people have found the article long. The topic is huge and this was an intro type column.

Re: # 80

Yeah for them Samina. It is interesting to see the trajectory of performance and goals of second generation immigrants.

rgds

S

Re: # 93

#93 by freesoul on November 19, 2005 2:02pm PT Score=1 [plus | minus | remove]
Re: #89 by SamiaShah

Freesoul, I did not see a reply # 95 addressed to me. I am however posting a detailed reply since you asked me to do so on this response--I had thought that I had answered it in my previous post--that it was self-evident, but apparently not.

[Freesoul you seem to be a corporate type with the same hang-up that most immigrants from South Asia display. `That people from my country just don`t know how to interact with the American system and I do.`]

(It is ur understanding of American Corp culture, that I am criticizing, not everyone else`s. I have 6 years Pak`s software house company experience, and nearly 6 years here in USA. Worked for the biggest software company in the world in USA. So I think i know what the psyche of Pak worker and a pakistani worker in USA. I have worked in 2 very different companies in Karachi, one run by an ex army colonel, and one run by an atheist and drinker. Needless to say, creativity is crushed under army discipline, and more encouraged in an environment, where nothing is beyond question , not even God. )

I feel I am repeating myself here—the point I am making in the article is about dissent on ethics, not creative brainstorming that is usually encouraged in Corporations especially software companies.

[Also, I have throughout the article acknowledged the incredible open generosity of the Americans and the openness of hiring practices--literally any one from the world can get a job here.]

(Again, a misconception. It is not generosity, it is simply 101 economics. Diversity helps. When u dont care about color of skin, and sexuality of person, u get the best ppl in the genes pool. Microsoft stood for its gay and lesbian employees ever since mid 80s. Not a single opportunity goes by when the company does not make sure that its gay emplyees r not discriminated against, not just inside the company, but even in social life outside the company premises. Again, economics 101. )

I made the exact same point in the article—that a lot of actions are motivated by economics. Whatever the motivation, American companies do not discriminate which is a plus for them since they appear to be open and generous which in turn motivates people to work in America.

[However, corporate types agree on some funadmental ideas otherwise they wouldn`t be in the Corporation. Dissent is encouraged within these boundaries.]

(What r these boundaries? There is a book on Fiefdome Syndrome by Robert Herbold, a seasoned COO. It discusses how creativity can be encouraged within boundaries, so that business discipline can also be ensured. It is tough compromise, but it has to be made. Successfull companies cannot remain on the top if a cabal (like in Enron) is running the the corp. Dissent is always encouraged by decentralizing the corp.

Every US company is not Enron. Rigth now, there might be worst cases than Enron, that r still covered up. But such companies will eventually pay the price for the shortcuts they took, in terms of their employees` morale and productivity. Also, Whistleblowers have state and deferal protected rights, outside the company. And u can not generalize the whole issue by Enron brush. )

I quote, “such companies will eventually pay the price for the shortcuts they took”. Article mentions market corrections.

I quote, “And u can not generalize the whole issue by Enron brush.” Neither can you generalize that the corporation is a/ democratic or even b/anarchist.

(My point is not that all corps r inherently honest. Off course, they will exploit the workforce if they could monoploize the market. Shell could skin ppl in Africa, if it could bribe their govt into silence. I have read in detail about Walmart stories, and if u dig deeper, it is more a case of bunch of greedy employees suing their company. Walmart`s recent leaked memo was another example of propaganda. I read it completely, and i could not undertsand anything wrong in it. If u don;t like Walmart`s medical covergae or promotion grades, just leave the company. BTW, never did any MBA. Now I feel good about it :) )

Any one knows exactly what the corporation excels in doing, producing in bulk and erecting barriers to entry. So, you feel that employees of a corporation that is bigger than some governments should just leave the corporation simply because the employee can find another job? In other words, people should not try to improve the ethics of a system, just simply leave when it starts stinking. And that the politics of self-interest are completely justifiable and even, `natural.`

I quote, “if ur happy with urself and ur article, fine. But ur article lacks supporting facts. It is a bunch of Marxisim-inspired rhetorics, nothing more. “

Your reply is weak. You are saying exactly the same things that I stated in the article. Except that you are content with them and I am critical. We are using different measuring sticks. And you are using capitalist propaganda, little else to refute my arguments.

Regards.

ps; more next article

Re: # 115

Tahmed32 Sahib, because it was a vent coming out of an underachieving chimney. Very dark and very carbonmonooxidic. Global warming, I say. More aptly, global jealousy.


# 114
Romair Sahib, Couldn’t you find a bigger insult to us New Yorkers by comparing our city to the shythole called Toronto? For crying out loud, the Brooklyn Museum has more culture than all the 52 provinces of Canadia combined. I know that the US Dollar is not doing very well these days, but it is still stronger than Canadian Peso.

This article on the US economic system that makes no reference to incentives for creativity, entrepreneurship, makes no mention of incentives to invest in technological and scientific progress, makes no mention of the rapidly increasing share of knowledge to the value-added of goods generated by this system and the resulting change that is bringing about a fundamental changes in human society (and indeed, in the very evolution of humanity itself, as per the recent book by Kerweil e.g.), makes no mention of globalization and of related developments outside the US including the emergence of the third world, makes no mention of experience with alternative economic systems tried in the 20th century, makes no mention of employment generation aspects of this economy vs alternative models in developed nations today, makes no mention of incentives for environmental impact and sustainability of the economy, makes no mention of the role of special economic interests in political decision making (and the section in the article saying media misrepresents the economy is not even close to the heart of the issue), makes no mention of how the system deals with the tectonic demographic shifts now underway and their economic implications, makes no mention of the structural changes impacting on inflation.

Otherwise all is fine.

Dost-mittar #104: ``As far as your comparison of Canada and the US is concerned, it is a case of ``Bud achhaa, budnaam bura``. The US may not tout its multiculturalism, but cultural diversity is as much a fact of life in the US as in Canada. You see hijabi employees both in Canadian and American malls. New York is every bit as muticultural as is Toronto, if not more. Every dance or music or bollywood group that comes to Canada visits more cities in the U.S than it does in Canada. The Americans have accomodated their hispanics by providing them ESL instructions in schools and providing them services in their language in many cases.``

I don`t think I can agree with this.........USA is better than most countries at integrating different cultures, but I have found Canada to be far better. No contest......

First of all, New York is not everybit as multi-cultural as Toronto. Toronto is the most multicultural city in North America. And with the large increases in Canadian immigration, it is getting to a point, where it will not even be a contest. 52% of Toronto`s citizens are immigrants. And in around 10 years to 15 years, 1 out of every 8 residents of GTA will be a South Asian............

Canada is adding 1% of its total population, per year through immigration. Most of which are coming from two areas which culturally totally different from Canada - China and South Asia. Canadian govt. is now thinking of increasing this number to higher than 1%. There is no country in the world that adds 1% of its population, per year, through legal immigration.

Any immigrant who comes to Canada, straightaway, becomes a resident and a part of the system. Unlike USA where they have to go through a six year long H-1 visa process. So many Indians have had to go back to India, since they could not get their green cards in time.

There are various other ways to look at it. There are four major political parties in Canada -Conservative, Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and NDP - every single one of them supports immigration. I don`t know of any country, like that.............

Most importantly, literally anyone can become an Member Parliament in Canada. I can become one. I had no chance in hell of becoming one in USA (or in any other country, unless I was from a Pakistani or Muslim ghetto). Canada has 11 or 12 South Asian members. A Pakistani is a member from the sixth richest constituency in Canada. All three poeple opposing him were, from other parties, were South Asian also! Mississauga - the center of Pakistani immigrants - is the safest city in North America and one of the wealthiest. There are nine (?) Punjabi speakers in the Federal Parliament. The senior most minister - the Health Minister - is a Sardarji (?). He was the governor of the fourth most important province in Canada. His wife is a member parliament also. An unknown sardarji candidate beat out the second most powerful Conservative candidate in an election.

Within ten years, I think there will be two to three more Pakistanis getting elected. Amongst other things, Miss Canada last year was an Indian American. Miss Canada, for the year before that, was an Irani Muslim!!

I think a lot of this has to do with with handling Quebec. For all the trouble it has caused Canada, it has adjusted it to a form of society, which can handle a lot of multi-culturism........

This is not to take anything away from America. For a long time, it was (and perhaps still is) a lot better than other Western countries (like France etc.). My own experience was quite positive in USA. But my personal experience, through recent immigration and an interest in statistics, indicates that Canada is way ahead in adjusting to multi-culturism...........

#111

Zahra G,

As you said, the focus here is on making the pie bigger rather than killing each other upfront about distribution equity. Of course, there will be some inequities, but that’s why we have congress and political structure to sort those things out.

As a friend pointed out long time back to me, the whole system has evolved over 200+ years to make it work like a well balanced ecological system which gets rid of old and inefficient and constantly encourages birth and development of new ideas. Political processes, popular culture and financial markets are all geared towards making this ideal system work.

Other countries may have raw materials or talented people or open minded cultures or competitive zeal, but rarely do they have all of the remaining elements needed to have a self-correcting progressive machine on auto-pilot attracting achievers from all over the world.

Regards.

Re: #105 by Saminasha

[These notions are out of ``The Myth of the Welfare Queen 101`` and are not worth responding to. Stop talking out of your ass and dont post to me in the future. Thank you.
]

You have finally demonstrated the remaining depth of ur intellect. Thanks.

Pardesi:

[My point is that Americans are bold and take chances with life rather than cowards in stagnant societies who live either on other people’s innovations or if they have beneficial position, will suppress innovation so that their relative advantage is preserved for ever. This culture thrives on change. Will it cause turmoil and force people to upgrade their skill set continuously? Yes.]

Excellent point. That is why the term ``change`` is not an alien term to the locals. It’s also part of the growth and development that many of us crave for. Initially, there was all the concern on outsourcing and other countries taking over the jobs of the locals. The locals had to accept the change and move on. Many started their own businesses. Many went back to school to acquire additional skills. Even in Professional Services, many have adjusted their rates according to the market. The adjustment has not caused anyone to die so far. Yes, certain compromises needed to be made. Still people have not stopped taking risks and moving ahead. On the one end, globalization is a subject covered in all business publications. Most of the competitive business schools have included work-abroad courses to expose their students to foreign economies and cultures. Whereas locally, some of the governmental organizations won’t give a contract to any firm outside of the home state. These organizations have clauses in their contract that only companies in NY State or NJ State should respond to the RFP. It is their way of promoting local firms.

On a general note:

[This is quite a broad sweep. It would have been easier to comment on if you had presented it in installments]

I agree with Dost Mittar`s point that this article has encompassed million items under one umbrella. It’s very vague in its scope. In fact, it’s a hodge podge. Who is the audience? Which sector? Which industry? Which immigrants? The core focus seems to revolve around the life of a South Asian immigrant and his/her challenges. That is a completely different subject area. Just because some South Asian immigrants decided not to accept change and went back to their havens (wherever) does not imply that the rest of the immigrant population is ready to stagnate in this country. On certain ends, this article depicts a very close-minded approach. I have personally known of people who have taken on prestigious roles despite the changing economy. Some have opened their own businesses. Some have decided to go back to school taking huge loans and have already lucrative positions lined up. The trend of single women professionals buying homes is on the rise in recent years. Some professionals (immigrants) have been getting double digit salary raises whereas WSJ is quoting 3 %– 4 % average increment. Indeed, that’s not a case with all. Obviously, every one is not at the same level (experience, age group, and approach). Still, I won’t take the example of those who did not make it as a representative criterion. You need to compare apples with apples.

On a different note, I also strongly believe that diversity should not be misread for people bringing their cultures to work. It’s bringing their strengths and perspectives and not necessarily their shalwar qameez and duppattas. This article has a very strong Canadian streak in it. One of my close Canadian-Pakistani friends would always find an occasion to wear shalwar qameez at work. I never understood her rationale behind that move. Later on, when she came to the US for her post-grad, she was quite critical of the restrictions and heavy focus on professional attire.

When we say immigrants, we should not forget that South Asians are not the only immigrants blooming and residing on the US soil. There are many Europeans who have been here for over a century or so. They must have had their challenges and lessons learned. Rather than drawing a bleak picture, why not learn from their challenges and approach. South Asian approach has different kind of hindrances attached. Probably, your next column should be on overcoming hindrances and accepting change by taking risks. In order to undertake that initiative, you will have to view the world around you in a different way. That includes embracing technology as part and parcel of running an effective business.

The notion that ``corporations generate competition`` is widely accepted and touted around. But one needs to be a wee bit careful in doing so. Of course corporations vigorously compete against each other. But from a purely profit maximizing viewpoint they would surely like to act as monopolists. Thus they are not always pro-market! They are pro market when it suits them (i.e when they are entrants) and not necessarily pro-market when it does not suit them (i.e. when they are incumbants). I believe Raghu Rajan has a good book on this: ``Saving capitalism from the capitalists``. I believe that ultimately the Free market system has to be defended by individuals (say through democracy). I may very well be wrong. But if I am right, then you may not want too many people to be against it, be they 18 year old mothers or drug addicts. Thus ``equity`` could be an important consideration, more so because at times it conflicts with ``efficiency``.

Chowk Staff,
Although the following vulgar post is addressed to ``freesoul,`` I find it in poor taste, a bit too profane, and very snobbish. Is this the manner in which we expect semi-literate imposters of acedemic accomplishment to interact? Please do something to correct this terrible display of hooliganism. Thanks,

#105 by Saminasha on November 20, 2005 7:01am PT
Re: # 95

These notions are out of ``The Myth of the Welfare Queen 101`` and are not worth responding to. Stop talking out of your ass and dont post to me in the future. Thank you.

Re: # 104

DM,

Yes, the market generates signals. At present economists are grapling with the following problem: how are these signals generated and what is the quality of these generated signals (Of course Walras also dealt with the problem, what I am saying is that this has become a dominant theme once again in contemporary economics). We do not have elegant theories on these issues, a la Arrow-Debreu, but there is a growing consensus that people (players) generate these signals and their ability to produce good signals depend on the rules (mechanisms, institutions or game) governing their actions. But how are these rules created? There is less of a consensus on this issue. But a sizeable minority, me included, believe that rules are set co-operatively. For example, designing a ``good`` constitution requires a great deal of cooperation in defining the term ``good``. (In other words the definition of ``good`` has to be taken as an axiom). Thus Saima, in stating that people like you and me working co-operatively form the market, may not be very far off the mark. In fact, it could be a cutting edge definition.

GT

China thought this important enough for drastic action. No one here even wants to comment. I wonder why?

Consumption Levels:
Well, if you think ``outside the box`` consumption levels can remain high in the U.S. even as other countries approach those same levels. It`s a matter of population control, world-wide. My rude friends put it nicely: ``You`ve fucked yourself out of a place at the dinner table.`` I don`t mean by this to indorse the U.S. level of consumption, I simply state the obvious - the difference between fewer people sharing limited resources and...but then, didn`t Malthus talk about this?

#100

Saima,

Thanks for writing on this excellent topic. However, freesoul is making some very valid points. My two cents:

1. Creative brainstorming IS allowed in corporate life otherwise they will become dinosaurs and would disappear. Look at GM, almost dead. IBM has essentially reinvented itself. If Microsoft had not moved aggressively, it was going to be clobbered by Netscape.

Besides if one is too creative and original and no one cares about your ideas, be entrepreneur. More jobs are created every year by small companies than large corporations.

2. American capitalism cares about competition and global expansion as its moral responsibility. Yes, there will be temporary dislocations and job loses, but then the system works itself out like it did in mid-west in 70s. There was an interesting comment by one of my fund managers’ report recently: in 1867, 67% of American work force was in farming and now it’s 3%. He said that if some politicians had known at the time the impact of mechanization, they would have passed legislation to bar development of farm machinery.

My point is that Americans are bold and take chances with life rather than cowards in stagnant societies who live either on other people’s innovations or if they have beneficial position, will suppress innovation so that their relative advantage is preserved for ever. This culture thrives on change. Will it cause turmoil and force people to upgrade their skillset continuously? Yes. Will it let you rest so that you can enjoy shairo-shairi by the time you are 40 in a “stable” job? No, they will kick your behind to premature retirement or starvation. Do you need to save while you are at peak of your career at 35-40 rather than get carried? Absolutely, otherwise you might have to move to Arizona to retire sooner than later.

This constant drive to open the new markets, moral obligation to provide benefits of all innovations (e.g., medical, technological) to all those people from third world who are coming late to the party, constantly risking its own competitive position by moving production and even best jobs to developing countries is one of the most daring (some may call it greedy) approach taken by any civilization anytime in human history.

The challenge for us in this generation is to adjust to it by being innovative in terms of how we can still add value to the system. It’s not an easy task. Focus should be on our education system and finding other ways to add value rather than questioning wisdom of global competition.

Re: # 95

These notions are out of ``The Myth of the Welfare Queen 101`` and are not worth responding to. Stop talking out of your ass and dont post to me in the future. Thank you.

Saima:

I finally got to your essay. This is quite a broad sweep. It would have been easier to comment on if you had presented it in instalments, like ferozk`s war dispatches.

I haven`t read earlier interacts and the points I want to make may already have been made. It is quite clear that this is an essay by an anti-globalisation activist and by not an economist. Let me take your statement about the market:
``The market is, in its ideal form, you and I. Simple people at the grassroots can solve problems if they co-operate.``
This is certainly a new definition for me. I was told that market is merely a clearing mechanism for goods and services produced and demanded; it just provides a signal to both producers and consumers to adjust their behaviour in view of the current and expected change in price. In that sense, it is still working. Look at what`s happening to the oil market - as the price of oil jumped and people believed that this rise is not a temporary phenomenon, they have started to adjust their behaviours. Oil and gas producers are going to the end of the world, oil sands, deep ocean, alaska and wherever the prospects have become more commercially viable because of higher prices. You also see people spending more on reasearch and search for alternatives to oil. People are willing to swap their oil-guzzling SUVs for smaller cars and have better insulation in their homes. This is how the market always worked and is still working.

``The corporation has no allegiance to people. Those who own a corporation, are only interested in the profits that it creates. Therefore the Corporation is inherently disloyal.``

This is true and perhaps more so now than it was before. But corporations are also less powerful today than they were before in many areas. Companies which were once impervious to market forces - Telecoms, National Airlines, Buses, Big car makers, etc. - can no longer take their survival for granted and have become more ruthless than before. But this is not a one-way street. Employees, too, have become less loyal than before and both workers and managers are ready to go to their arch competitor for a small consideration. In many fields, there is a more level playing field than before as information, a big factor in the success of big corporations, is now easily accessible to anyone with a PC. In many service industries, the Internet has made it possible for a newcomer to set up a business in his basement and compete with big corporations. Companies like Yahoo, Google, Amazon, Microsoft have been created this way and were able to compete and beat the more established players in their fields.

``Like the East India Company which acted as the arms of the British Empire, the modern day Corporation will go to any country and in its wake lay to waste the natural ecology, culture, businesses and way of life of that country.``

This has nothing to do with globalisation. Are local companies less rapacious than multinationals? How much of the thick forest cover in India has been destroyed by multinationals and how much by local companies and even small time thugs? The problem of destruction of ecology and environmental pollution is real but the solution is not to ban multinationals but to have stringent laws and their implementation by both local and multinational companies.

As far as your comparison of Canada and the US is concerned, it is a case of ``Bud achhaa, budnaam bura``. The US may not tout its multiculturalism, but cultural diversity is as much a fact of life in the US as in Canada. You see hijabi employees both in Canadian and American malls. New York is every bit as muticultural as is Toronto, if not more. Every dance or music or bollywood group that comes to Canada visits more cities in the U.S than it does in Canada. The Americans have accomodated their hispanics by providing them ESL instructions in schools and providing them services in their language in many cases. Earlier this year, I conducted several focus groups of people on racism in workplace in Canada. Again and again, black participants wanted Canada to adopt the American approach of Affirmative Action Program, which they were convinced, is more business-like and effective than the soft, wooly approach adopted by Canada.

I agree however that the US economy is facing a serious long-term malaise. It is ill-equipped to compete with the newly energised giants like China and, to a lesser extent, India. Its consumption is financed by foreigners who may at some point refuse to do so. When that happens, the US dollar may face a precipitous drop, there may be a spurt of inflation and Federal Reserve may have to substantially jack up interest rates for foreigners to buy its Treasury Bonds in declining dollars. This would have already happened but for the fact that it is in nobody`s interest to cause a deep recession in the US, which is still the major driving engine for the rest of the world. But as Europe, China and the rest of Asia`s markets grow, this may not be the case always.