671–679 of 679 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If enough people pretend the meaning of “authoritarian” is sufficiently narrow that every use of the term is hyperbole, then it no longer matters what it means. The semantic nihilists win again.
True! That’s just the way language works though. It’s semantic nihilism in the same sense sense as saying “perpetual motion machines are impossible” is physical nihilism .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you mean "punishing 100 innocents to full extent of the law and then justify the action if 1 criminal is presented?"
I meant what I wrote. There is no denying H1B has issues and people are angry. But it has its uses like the doctors or specific skillsets. It is like punishing 100 guilty while persecuting 1 innocent. That is not what a proper law is supposed to do but this administration and its supporters lack empathy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you mean "punishing 100 innocents to full extent of the law and then justify the action if 1 criminal is presented?"
I meant what I wrote. There is no denying H1B has issues and people are angry. But it has its uses like the doctors or specific skillsets. It is like punishing 100 guilty while persecuting 1 innocent. That is not what a proper law is supposed to do but this administration and its supporters lack empathy.
The punishment of 100 criminals is cited as a justification for wrongfully prosecuting an innocent individual.
ChatGpt can help with the language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slavery is a spectrum. H1B are more enslaved than natives, because they have less freedom to quit, change jobs, argue with their superiors etc.
Nope, sorry but words have actual meanings and definitions. Slavery is when a person is owned as property. Slavery still exists in the U.S. for prisoners, for example, where the U.S. Constitution explicitly carves out an exception. Now, I don't disagree with your assessment that people on H1Bs have less agency, autonomy, and rights than natives. But you dilute the meaning of the term 'slavery' when you apply it to so…
Dead wrong. Pay many years of one's and one's family life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, sorry but words have actual meanings and definitions. Slavery is when a person is owned as property. Slavery still exists in the U.S. for prisoners, for example, where the U.S. Constitution explicitly carves out an exception. Now, I don't disagree with your assessment that people on H1Bs have less agency, autonomy, and rights than natives. But you dilute the meaning of the term 'slavery' when you apply it to so…
"pay anything but the cost of a ticket" Dead wrong. Pay many years of one's and one's family life.
What is your point? Do you want to continue to debate the wisdom of diluting the meaning of the word 'slavery'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>anyone who has their I-140 That’s doing a lot of heavy lifting, which is what I meant by depending on where they are in the process. You have 2 employees at the same company in a bad job market. If employee A gets laid off or fired, he has enough savings for a 2 year job search and can pay for COBRA for 18 months. If employee B gets fired or laid off, he has 60 days to find a job and make it through the hiring proce…
In a bad job market, a person with a mortgage and 4 people on their health insurance will work the same amount as someone who has 60 days to look for a different job. Paying COBRA for 18 months is wildly expensive and 2 years of job search is not an easy option as you’re making it out to be. It’s a hypothetical and most people won’t willingly put themselves in that situation. And FYI, you have 60 days to search for j…
A large percentage of American workers have a spouse who also works full time whose health insurance they can switch too. If a company fires an H-1B employee they can also withdraw their I-40, which means their spouse will lose their work authorization.
>Paying COBRA for 18 months is wildly expensive
It's $400-$700 a month on average for an individual. More expensive for people with families, but as I discussed above in the majority of families, both parents work.
Someone here on a visitor visa also doesn't qualify for any ACA subsidies that an American scraping by on contract work while job searching would qualify for.
At a population level, if you divide people into 2 groups. And you add significant extra consequences to being fired to group B, group B will work harder to avoid being fired all else being equal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quick googling (could be wrong), thousands bought freedom, approx 4 million were enslaved. It would have been uncommon, ballpark 0.1% (which still seems high to me. The issue is a very large denominator)
Slavery was around long before the US existed. In Ancient Rome it was much more common for slaves to buy their way out of slavery..
Again, the resources I found in a quick search state about 5M slaves in Rome, and buying freedom was uncommon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please explain the senate > No, democracy is supposed to be two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. The senate is exactly the sheep. That the senate is now controlled by the sheep is also wild. The senate is what gives a person in Wyoming has 4x the voting power of someone in California. The senate was designed so that the less populous states (the sheep) don't get rolled. That the senate is majority…
> Please explain the senate The Senate is orthogonal to our discussion. It implements the federalist structure of our government, representing the states themselves. That’s why the state legislatures originally appointed Senators. We have muddled up the system through direct election of senators and should probably repeal the 17th amendment.
The senate is explicitly created to give more power to minorities.
It is not orthogonal. The senate is EXACTLY the mechanism to ensure majoritarian rule is not at the expense of the minority.
The direct election vs not is not consequential. The consequential part is that states get two senators regardless of population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t give voters that much benefit of the doubt. They saw a man (and party) make baseless accusations to overturn an election, openly support a terrorist attack on the government, and campaign on freeing those terrorists and punishing those who went after the terrorists. And they decided this man was better than a woman, especially a black woman. Because he was a man. I’ve been told this even by a few older women,…
All of that could potentially been avoided had Joe Biden decided to pick a popular and well qualified running mate rather than a diversity hire that checked certain boxes. Go read opinions on Reddit and they seem to think Biden was right and blame the American bigots. Like them or not, Republicans have done an excellent job of nominating and running an electable candidate even if he was not embraced by the establishm…