Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs

#21

Post by Swizec »

hackerboos wrote: post #18
evanpw wrote: post #15

Let's say for the sake of argument that every Indian immigrant displaces one American from their job. Under what moral calculus is that a bad trade? The per-capita income in India is almost exactly 10 times less than in the US. By American standards, keeping someone from leaving India seems pretty equivalent to condemning them to life-long poverty. Can you imagine someone making (with a straight face) the argument th…

"By American standards, keeping someone from leaving India seems pretty equivalent to condemning them to life-long poverty." That's a bit of a leap. "Can you imagine someone making (with a straight face) the argument that people from Detroit shouldn't be allowed to move to San Francisco to take a better job, because they'll steal jobs from and drive down the wages of SF natives? What's the difference?" Probably the f…

> Probably the fact that Michigan and California are 2 states within the US

And yet, until just 20 years ago, you couldn't move from Germany to France for similar reasons. You had to get a work visa. Just because they weren't part of the same union, even though they are neighbouring countries and you could literally commute from Germany to work in France (or vice-versa) every day if you wanted to.

Re: A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs

#22

Post by A_COMPUTER »

evanpw wrote: post #15

Let's say for the sake of argument that every Indian immigrant displaces one American from their job. Under what moral calculus is that a bad trade? The per-capita income in India is almost exactly 10 times less than in the US. By American standards, keeping someone from leaving India seems pretty equivalent to condemning them to life-long poverty. Can you imagine someone making (with a straight face) the argument th…

Because I am legally and morally compelled to pay taxes to my country, and in exchange my country is legally and morally compelled to look out for my interests and well-being--not to find the fastest and most economical means to replace me. It's called the social contract, that is my moral calculus.

Re: A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs

#23

Post by putlake »

This article is bad journalism. I worked in that industry for about 10 years and the way this operates is the company lays off 100 workers and replaces them with 120 contractors, 90 of which are offshore and only 30 are in the U.S. These 30 get, on average, about 60% of the wages (including benefits) that laid off FTEs used to get. However, the client company (e.g. Edison) pays the contracting company (e.g. Tata) roughly the same hourly rate for the on-shore guys. The major source of savings for Edison is moving the work offshore. The 90 folks in India cost about 20% of US FTE. This Google spreadsheet has the math: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g3upQ7KOlgo8sgKLf4Qd...

Re: A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs

#24

Post by dogma1138 »

evanpw wrote: post #15

Let's say for the sake of argument that every Indian immigrant displaces one American from their job. Under what moral calculus is that a bad trade? The per-capita income in India is almost exactly 10 times less than in the US. By American standards, keeping someone from leaving India seems pretty equivalent to condemning them to life-long poverty. Can you imagine someone making (with a straight face) the argument th…

Are you volunteering to give up your job for some one who will live in the states and make just about above minimum wage (if that even since Google and some others were caught paying less than minimum wage to migrant workers)?

Some how i doubt so, it's not a question of job displacement it's a question of competitiveness. An Indian developer will cost a fraction of what a US born developer costs even if they are working in the states. And why is that? Simply because it cost about a fraction of what it cost to bring you from infancy to your current stats to do the same to him. Cost of living in India is cheaper, education is cheaper, and well life overall is cheaper.

You have debts, whether they are direct debts say for example student loans or indirect debts to say your parents who brought you up and count on your direct and indirect support in the future.

Flooding the market with skilled workers who are willing to get paid much less tends to break it. No company in the world would say no dude keep the 120K a year + equity if you only ask for 35.

Highly skilled worker visas are there for a reason, they allow very specific people to migrate to the country to work.

The UK for example limits even inter-company transfer to salaries above 50K GPB(77K $), and limits open tier 2 general visas to salaries of 153K GBP a year and above.

There are exceptions for other classes of T2 such as elderly care workers etc.

But for the most part if a company wants to bring a highly skilled employee into the UK they have to either pay them a metric ton of money, or they have to be employed by the company and still get paid a fair wage (slightly less fair if you live in London, but even for London 50K isn't that bad for 1-4 years of experience jobs).

Also last time I've checked Detroit was still a part of the US, India currently isn't. Countries still take care firstly of their own citizens, unless you are advocating here for a complete globalization and abolition of all borders this is nothing more than a demagogic straw-man argument.

Re: A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs

#25

Post by [deleted] »

Swizec wrote: post #21
hackerboos wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"By American standards, keeping someone from leaving India seems pretty equivalent to condemning them to life-long poverty." That's a bit of a leap. "Can you imagine someone making (with a straight face) the argument that people from Detroit shouldn't be allowed to move to San Francisco to take a better job, because they'll steal jobs from and drive down the wages of SF natives? What's the difference?" Probably the f…

> Probably the fact that Michigan and California are 2 states within the US And yet, until just 20 years ago, you couldn't move from Germany to France for similar reasons. You had to get a work visa. Just because they weren't part of the same union, even though they are neighbouring countries and you could literally commute from Germany to work in France (or vice-versa) every day if you wanted to.

[deleted]

Re: A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs

#26

Post by mc32 »

A couple of thoughts on this. What's the difference between allowing h1bs and allowing people over the fence along the border? Illegal entry into the country, even if we all for amnesty, puts a dent on the income potential of citizens and immigrants at the lower income levels, who legally enter society... But for the most part, society recognizes the plight of low class immigrants and work to have them legitimized, however, when immigration threatens people in the middle class, they resist.

What I'm pointing out is that middle class American citizens are quite in favor of allowing immigration, doing as it does not affect them negatively, economically speaking, once it does, the middle class retrenches. I think this explains why poor American citizens tend to oppose amnesty programs while the middle class typically support it. Typical, I support causes, so long as it does not affect me negatively.

Re: A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs

#29

Post by evanpw »

hackerboos wrote: post #18
evanpw wrote: post #15

Let's say for the sake of argument that every Indian immigrant displaces one American from their job. Under what moral calculus is that a bad trade? The per-capita income in India is almost exactly 10 times less than in the US. By American standards, keeping someone from leaving India seems pretty equivalent to condemning them to life-long poverty. Can you imagine someone making (with a straight face) the argument th…

"By American standards, keeping someone from leaving India seems pretty equivalent to condemning them to life-long poverty." That's a bit of a leap. "Can you imagine someone making (with a straight face) the argument that people from Detroit shouldn't be allowed to move to San Francisco to take a better job, because they'll steal jobs from and drive down the wages of SF natives? What's the difference?" Probably the f…

> That's a bit of a leap.

If someone lives in India, they are likely to have a standard of living below what would be considered poverty level in the United States. If you actively prevent them from taking a job that would take them out of poverty, how else would you describe that?

> Michigan and California are 2 states within the US

This is my point. Why is it morally okay to exclude people from India, but not people from Detroit?

Re: A loophole in immigration law is costing thousands of American jobs

#30

Post by savanaly »

rayiner wrote: post #20
evanpw wrote: post #15

Let's say for the sake of argument that every Indian immigrant displaces one American from their job. Under what moral calculus is that a bad trade? The per-capita income in India is almost exactly 10 times less than in the US. By American standards, keeping someone from leaving India seems pretty equivalent to condemning them to life-long poverty. Can you imagine someone making (with a straight face) the argument th…

There is nothing morally wrong with people grouping together to ensure their own collective prosperity. It's something humans have been doing ever since people banded together to hunt gazelle on the savannah. People throughout history have fought and died to have their own country where they could look after their own interests. It follows that there is no moral obligation on the part of tribes to take all comers, if…

>Indians are much richer than sub-Saharan Africans. But go over there and tell them that they have a moral obligation to allow African immigration. People will laugh at you, if you're lucky.

That wouldn't make them right. Humans are humans, doesn't matter what country they were born in. Just because people have been doing it since forever doesn't mean it makes any sense.

Post reply on HN