 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Is the fact that the medical guild is working to keep the supply of doctors low debatable? The article suggests that it is. A guild is a guild is a guild. We have a shortage of doctors in America which drives prices up and care quality down.
Please sign all comments, thank you! When entering the "discussion pages" of articles, please sign all your comments. All comments are welcome--just please sign them. Thank you. ProfessorPaul 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- The medical profession (not even the AMA is a "guild") argues that the only way to create larger numbers of doctors in the United States would be to lower standards to unacceptable levels. -- Orange Mike 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Many American politicians, including President Bush (for example here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060424-2.html) as a justification for increasing immigration, or legalizing the residence of non-citizens already in America, or other immigration policies, use the argument that immigrants "do jobs Americans won't do." Because this argument implies a labor shortage, the article seems incomplete without addressing the "jobs Americans won't do" argument. I'm not qualified, especially considering how controversial this issue has become. Maybe someone else is? Awesomebillfromdawsonville 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Listing the ten fastest growing job markets doesn't seem particularly relevant to US labor shortage in relation to immigration. The phrase "obviously labor shortages can be expected in some parts of the U.S. in these occupations" should be sourced. It's not obvious, and seems like a POV. The placement of the list, along with that statement seems to imply that the only reasonable way to fill those jobs would be to offer them to immigrants. Others might think that it would be obvious to recruit and/or train unemployed Americans, students, or those with minimum wage "McJobs." Awesomebillfromdawsonville 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- It also makes this article too U.S.-centric. -- Orange Mike 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
| The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Is the fact that the medical guild is working to keep the supply of doctors low debatable? The article suggests that it is. A guild is a guild is a guild. We have a shortage of doctors in America which drives prices up and care quality down.
Please sign all comments, thank you! When entering the "discussion pages" of articles, please sign all your comments. All comments are welcome--just please sign them. Thank you. ProfessorPaul 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- The medical profession (not even the AMA is a "guild") argues that the only way to create larger numbers of doctors in the United States would be to lower standards to unacceptable levels. -- Orange Mike 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Many American politicians, including President Bush (for example here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060424-2.html) as a justification for increasing immigration, or legalizing the residence of non-citizens already in America, or other immigration policies, use the argument that immigrants "do jobs Americans won't do." Because this argument implies a labor shortage, the article seems incomplete without addressing the "jobs Americans won't do" argument. I'm not qualified, especially considering how controversial this issue has become. Maybe someone else is? Awesomebillfromdawsonville 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Listing the ten fastest growing job markets doesn't seem particularly relevant to US labor shortage in relation to immigration. The phrase "obviously labor shortages can be expected in some parts of the U.S. in these occupations" should be sourced. It's not obvious, and seems like a POV. The placement of the list, along with that statement seems to imply that the only reasonable way to fill those jobs would be to offer them to immigrants. Others might think that it would be obvious to recruit and/or train unemployed Americans, students, or those with minimum wage "McJobs." Awesomebillfromdawsonville 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- It also makes this article too U.S.-centric. -- Orange Mike 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)