41–50 of 95 posts
There is no need for tech companies to mine youthful, foreign, easily exploited labor pools ("pipelines") when plenty of well trained, well qualified, and seasoned professionals exist that they refuse to hire.
So who exactly is this helping? Ok, I know it helps out foreign students, but I am asking strictly from an American perspective. First and foremost, the governments job is to serve the American people. How does this specific action of Obama's immigration proposal help the American people as a whole? It's a 100% possibility that I have this wrong but I see two groups who this helps. The first group is foreigners who l…
It helps the universities too.
If Obama's drive for immigration reform uses the logic of "STEM SHORTAGE!!!" as a basis for expanding OPT, it means that hyperbole has won, and we here at HN will suffer lower wages and a more competitive job market as a result. I'm not actually sure that this is what the rhetoric is going to look like, but the rest of my comment assumes that it will look that way as it pertains to the expansion of OPT. There is no S…
US domiciles' desire for protectionism is understandable. But it cannot be couched in language of fairness and equity.
In a truly meritocratic society, one cannot claim competitive advantage based on where they were born. The objective of legal immigration is to help companies hire the best talent, irrespective of nationality. OPT folks must have an American education. So, part of your tax payer money has gone to subsidize their education, either through NIH/NSF/DoD grants or, via the X % of a State University's total grant outlay that comes from the state. It is truly a win-win situation. Regarding 'lower pressure for wages to rise': you are not competing with people of your own country, but in reality with the world. So if someone from China or India can earn 10x more, even if it depresses wages when they immigrate to a richer society, it is still fair. The companies are looking for good talent + low costs, so instead of moving the division to India or China, they hire top Chinese / Indian talent educated in the US.
So who exactly is this helping? Ok, I know it helps out foreign students, but I am asking strictly from an American perspective. First and foremost, the governments job is to serve the American people. How does this specific action of Obama's immigration proposal help the American people as a whole? It's a 100% possibility that I have this wrong but I see two groups who this helps. The first group is foreigners who l…
So who exactly is this helping? Ok, I know it helps out foreign students, but I am asking strictly from an American perspective. First and foremost, the governments job is to serve the American people. How does this specific action of Obama's immigration proposal help the American people as a whole? It's a 100% possibility that I have this wrong but I see two groups who this helps. The first group is foreigners who l…
Without foreign born workers, half of Silicon Valley wouldn't have existed. Is that a good enough reason?
So who exactly is this helping? Ok, I know it helps out foreign students, but I am asking strictly from an American perspective. First and foremost, the governments job is to serve the American people. How does this specific action of Obama's immigration proposal help the American people as a whole? It's a 100% possibility that I have this wrong but I see two groups who this helps. The first group is foreigners who l…
A vast majority of these foreign workers become huge net positives for the US economy. The economy doesn't work like you seem to think it does; there aren't some set number of jobs that need to be divided up amongst all the people. These imported workers take a job, yes, but they also a new consumer of goods and services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bit sad that you see competition on a global scale as "being fucked over". If someone else can do the same job just as well as you, you think employers should be forced to hire you instead just because you happened to be born in the right country? That's just selfishness that harms everyone else.
People are entitled to their self-interest, and it is in peoples' self-interest to avoid the race to the bottom that results from globalization. Furthermore, governments exist to serve their specific constituents, not to hew to abstract humanist principles. Also, even within the context of abstract humanist principles, immigration isn't wholly positive. My family and I are immigrants to the U.S. It's been great for u…
Governments exist because having them tends to lead to better decision-making than the alternative. That's all it requires. Nobody is proposing that anarchy would better serve anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
("It's a bit sad..." seems passive-aggressive to me, but I give you the benefit of the doubt here) No one wants their advantages whittled away, regardless of whether it helps other people or not. This is simple self-preservation. It is a type of selfishness, yes, but I personally don't consider it a dishonorable type of selfishness.
> I personally don't consider it a dishonorable type of selfishness. I think the idea is that there are some advantages that aren't considered good for society. For some historical examples: "regardless of your potential or the quality of your work, you were born to a nobleman/peasant so you'll be a nobleman/peasant". For a more modern example: "regardless of your potential or the quality of your work, you were born…
True, but we are often driven by biological influences that cannot altogether be considered "reason".
>> it's not "dishonorable" to fight for segregation or for limiting opportunity based on race
Fighting for advantages, being the disadvantaged, is simply the other side of the coin, behaviorally, from the advantaged holding on to their advantages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The free market favors the wealth of corporations at the detriment of individual people. The tech companies would absolutely love it if they could get away with paying their workers as little as the developing countries do; decreasing wages results in increased profits, which are the only thing that matter to them. I don't see a reason why we have to abide by their greed when we have so much to lose and nothing to ga…
nothing to gain. Except for those foreigners who get much higher salaries than at home, plus their whole families and communities thanks to remittances.