H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads • Hacker News Board

Re: H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads

#361

Post by geofft » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 11:47 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #331

fzeroracer wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a thread and topic about America and immigration in America. To suddenly shift and say that you're somehow not talking about American culture seems rather incredibly disingenuous. And that said, a culture does not deserve to live by virtue of existing. It's protectionism and xenophobia, founded purely because of fears that immigrants will somehow replace your culture with something you view as being lesser. T…

Well I certainly object to the destruction of America’s culture too, but the construction of geofft’s argument is that categorically he could only think of one possible objection to immigration. And it’s not an irrational fear. It’s a very obvious fact that America with wide open borders would be a worse place for existing Americans to live, just look at the average country and ask if Americans would like to live the…

> the construction of geofft’s argument is that categorically he could only think of one possible objection to immigration.

This is untrue. I said the primary objection. Of course there will be a lot of other objections.

Re: H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads

#362

Post by geofft » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 11:54 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #328

geofft wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was gonna ask - are you also in favor of putting restrictions on Californians moving to Idaho?

I haven’t actually told you my immigration policy, and it’s clear you’ve incorrectly decided you know what it is. My immigration policy would be to let in the set and sequence of immigrants that makes this country as nice a place to live as possible. Approximated with a greedy algorithm, that means picking the individual that makes this country the most nicer place, letting them in, and then repeating the calculation…

That's not a coherent policy - that basically describes everyone's policy. That describes the current US policy. That describes my policy. It's just that you've shifted it to a discussion of what makes the country a "nice place to live," which obviously lots of people disagree on. In particular you haven't answered what to do when there are conflicting arguments over whether bringing in a particular person would make the country a nicer place to live or not, or for whom it's nicer.

Specifically, I think that this country would be a nicer place to live for myself if I can hire whomever I want for my team regardless of citizenship and without big government second-guessing my decision, and if they can feel confident about their long-term future once they move, therefore making them a) more likely to accept and b) happier and more productive when they're here.

I also think that the number of people who have moved into the SFBA (myself included, I'll be honest—feeling uncomfortable with that is part of why I left) have made it a worse place to live. I think there are ways to solve that other than internal migration restrictions, and I have other philosophical objections to internal migration restrictions, but I do see their appeal. You, for some reason that I don't totally follow, either don't think that SFBA has become a worse place to live or that this isn't an important criterion in deciding internal policy; I'm curious which it is (or whether I've misinterpreted).

Re: H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads

#363

Post by geofft » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 11:57 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #335

fzeroracer wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it's a very obvious fact at all, considering America has had very lax borders in the past and I would not describe it as being a far worse place to live. If you're going to describe something as an obvious fact, how about you back up your obvious fact with citations or data? Otherwise then yes, it would be an irrational fear. And I would imagine the converse is true: If you asked anyone in another fir…

Simply by increasing population, traffic, and pollution it would make the country worse off. You don’t need studies and citations to figure this out, you need to hold in your head a model of reality. You need above average people, who give more than they take, in order to drive the quality of the country upward.

> Simply by increasing population, traffic, and pollution it would make the country worse off.

This doesn't at all seem obviously true to me. It rather seems obviously false: I find big cities more pleasant to live in than small towns, even though they have more of all three. More population seems like an inherent virtue to me. More traffic gets turned into more efficient traffic via public transit, or building denser and more walkable cities, or whatever, which I find more enjoyable than cars. More pollution is a side effect but a solvable one.

If your argument is the model of reality in your head, then you need to admit that the model of reality in lots of other peoples' heads is very different, and there's no reason that your model should win (unless you're claiming that your political opinions matter more than others'?).

Re: H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads

#364

Post by geofft » Sun, Jan 27, 2019, 11:58 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #168

geofft wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, protectionism. If a billion people in India and a billion people in China are competing in global markets, my country's culture isn't going to survive anyway. How is Ottoman culture doing these days? Honestly, how is the British culture of even a century ago doing these days? How long did the Japanese culture so carefully preserved survive Matthew Perry's arrival? (Also as it happens I'm an American-born child…

You're a carrier of American culture (at least in some superficial way) because you grew up surrounded by Americans. If 500 million people moved here, they would not grow up surrounded by Americans.

Well, okay, but there are multiple times 500 million people living in other countries growing up extremely not surrounding by Americans, and they are preparing to quash America's culture entirely in 100-200 years through economic dominance. Do you prefer that outcome?

Re: H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads

#365

Post by SamReidHughes » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 12:57 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #361

SamReidHughes wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I certainly object to the destruction of America’s culture too, but the construction of geofft’s argument is that categorically he could only think of one possible objection to immigration. And it’s not an irrational fear. It’s a very obvious fact that America with wide open borders would be a worse place for existing Americans to live, just look at the average country and ask if Americans would like to live the…

> the construction of geofft’s argument is that categorically he could only think of one possible objection to immigration. This is untrue. I said the primary objection. Of course there will be a lot of other objections.

Okay, that's correct. And I disagree(d) with what the primary objection is and would be. Maybe not your objection, but most people's, in every country.

Re: H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads

#366

Post by SamReidHughes » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 1:30 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #362

SamReidHughes wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t actually told you my immigration policy, and it’s clear you’ve incorrectly decided you know what it is. My immigration policy would be to let in the set and sequence of immigrants that makes this country as nice a place to live as possible. Approximated with a greedy algorithm, that means picking the individual that makes this country the most nicer place, letting them in, and then repeating the calculation…

That's not a coherent policy - that basically describes everyone's policy. That describes the current US policy. That describes my policy. It's just that you've shifted it to a discussion of what makes the country a "nice place to live," which obviously lots of people disagree on. In particular you haven't answered what to do when there are conflicting arguments over whether bringing in a particular person would make…

That doesn't describe current US policy, which prevents people from coming that would make the country a nicer place to live, and lets many people in that wouldn't. By design, it even brings in random people.

I'm not describing a policy, I'm describing an ideal. (A simple concrete policy proposal is below.)

You said:

> Here's a simpler proposal: anyone from anywhere can come here and take any job.

So that doesn't describe your policy proposal either. Plenty of people can hold down a job and make the country a worse place for others, or a subset of others, simply by competing for resources, driving down wages in the sector they work in, by being a criminal, or by voting immorally.

I want to let everybody you'd let in, except for people whose immigration would make the country a worse place. Define that ideal as you will.

As a pretty good approximation, we could limit immigrants to those that could qualify for military service.

> myself included, I'll be honest—feeling uncomfortable with that is part of why I left

That's also a reason why I left. My policy as a national policy, is to make the country a nice place for all of its citizens (except criminals and slovenly degenerates) to live in. So that includes people that might like to move from Arizona to California. They're making their own lives better, which counts for something.

> I think that this country would be a nicer place to live for myself if I can hire whomever I want for my team regardless of citizenship and without big government second-guessing my decision

If you're like most employers, that means you're happier if you get to drive down working class wages, while you get to reap greater profits from your pre-established position in the market. That's good for you, but not good for the average American.

To make my goals a little more nuanced: Economically, I want only the smartest immigrants, which do advanced stuff like start companies, work for them, or work in healthcare, which drive up the demand for working-class labor, letting average Americans negotiate a better piece of the pie, while driving down the cost of their healthcare. Culturally, I want supply limited so that immigrants assimilate, and I want all the immigrants and their children to be crime-free pro-life Republican voters. :-)

Re: H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads

#367

Post by SamReidHughes » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 1:41 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #363

SamReidHughes wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply by increasing population, traffic, and pollution it would make the country worse off. You don’t need studies and citations to figure this out, you need to hold in your head a model of reality. You need above average people, who give more than they take, in order to drive the quality of the country upward.

> Simply by increasing population, traffic, and pollution it would make the country worse off. This doesn't at all seem obviously true to me. It rather seems obviously false: I find big cities more pleasant to live in than small towns, even though they have more of all three. More population seems like an inherent virtue to me. More traffic gets turned into more efficient traffic via public transit, or building dense…

I think waiting in traffic and being forced to use alternate means of transportation is a net negative. There are already Big Cities in this country for anybody that enjoys the city-slicker lifestyle, and increasing total population won't make the world better for those people.

Re: H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads

#368

Post by SamReidHughes » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 1:43 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #342

SamReidHughes wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're welcome to post a citation showing that increased immigration would reduce traffic and pollution. Otherwise I'm not gonna bother.

It's obvious now that you're not actually willing to properly argue on your side of the debate. The argumentative burden of proof is on the person making the claims, not the one disputing it. The fact that you're being so flippant about your claims does not do your argument justice. Not only that, but now you're attempting to twist the argument into something that it wasn't in the first place. Even if we did decrease…

More people = more traffic is not a bold claim. That's traffic engineering 101.

Re: H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads

#369

Post by my_username_is_ » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 2:27 AM UTC

Jare wrote: post #218

my_username_is_ wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there should be a monthly allocation of visas that can be issued, and companies are allowed to bid on the salary that they would pay the worker. Each month, the highest salaries get visas issued. If they don't bid enough, their candidate doesn't get in. If companies really need these specialists, they should pay them enough to secure a visa in a market-based system. I suspect this would create upward pressure…

So pretty much only companies in Bay Area or a couple similarly high $ hubs, and candidates wanting to go there specifically. That intuitively feels like promoting an unhealthy environment (not because of Bay Area in particular, but because of promoting concentration).

Yes, that is probably how it will play out. At least at first.

But I think the side-effect of this is that other industries & locales would not get as many workers as they currently do, which would put upward pressure on wages in those areas. Compare this to the current system, where wages for lower paying jobs and areas are kept lower than they would otherwise be by adding worker supply through this visa program.

Re: H-1B: Oracle favored hiring foreign graduates of US colleges over American grads

#370

Post by hrktb » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 9:03 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #349

hrktb wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking around I only found this, which seems to go more in the “open citizenship to everyone” direction: https://worldinterfaithharmonyweek.com/equal-citizenship-rig... Or this kind of thinkpiece going basically in the same direction. https://forestshakespeare.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/citizensh... I’d be really interested if you could point me to what you were refering to.

I'm not sure what you searched for but you shouldn't need obscure sources like that for this... a bit of quick searching re: citizenship rights found [1] for me from the UN. Whereas for migration there's [2] which makes it clear there is no universal agreement on migration rights. [3] seems to make it even more clear that it's up to countries to decide migration policy. I'm sure more can be found via some more search…

Thanks, this was in a very good read. I didn’t look it ip from the right angle I think.

It is very interesting that it’s a right to have _a_ nationality, with nothing more really.

It makes sense for all the issues described in the doc , and it also anchors the notion that except some specific cases that can trigger violations of human rights, a state basically does what it wants regarding who get nationality and who doesn’t, or how it deals with migration.

It reminds me a lot about rules in EU countries forbiding from evicting people from their home during the winter, or more broadly rules requiring to provide help to someone in situation of danger.