Why the H-1B Visa Racket Should Be Abolished, Not Reformed

 

Billionaire businessman Marc Cuban insists that the H-1B visa racket is a feature of the vaunted American free market. This is nonsense on stilts. It can’t go unchallenged. Another billionaire, our president, has ordered that the H-1B program be reformed. This, too, is disappointing. You’ll see why.

First, let’s correct Mr. Cuban: America has not a free economy, but a mixed-economy. State and markets are intertwined. Trade, including trade in labor, is not free; it’s regulated to the hilt. If anything, the labyrinth of work visas is an example of a government-business cartel in operation.

The H-1B permit, in particular, is part of that state-sponsored visa system. The primary H-1B hogs—Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian firms), Microsoft, and Intel—import labor with what are grants of government privilege. Duly, the corporations that hog H-1Bs act like incorrigibly corrupt rent seekers. Not only do they get to replace the American worker, but they get to do so at his expense.

Here’s how:

Globally, a series of sordid liaisons ensures that American workers are left high and dry. Through the programs of the International Trade Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the International Monetary Fund, and other oink-operations, the taxpaying American worker is forced to subsidize and underwrite the investment risks of the very corporations that have given him the boot.

Domestically, the partnership with the State amounts to a subsidy to business at the expense of the taxpayer. See, corporations in our democratic welfare state externalize their employment costs onto the taxpayers.

So while public property is property funded by taxpayers through expropriated taxes; belongs to taxpayers; is to be managed for their benefit—at least one million additional immigrants a year, including recipients of the H-1B visa, are allowed the free use of taxpayer-supported infrastructure and amenities. Every new arrival avails himself of public works such as roads, hospitals, parks, libraries, schools, and welfare.

Does this epitomize the classical liberal idea of laissez-faire?

Moreover, chain migration or family unification means every H-1B visa recruit is a ticket for an entire tribe. The initial entrant—the meal ticket—will pay his way. The honor system not being an especially strong value in the Third World, the rest of the clan will be America’s problem. More often than not, chain-migration entrants become wards of the American taxpayer.

Spreading like gravy over a tablecloth, this rapid, inorganic population growth is detrimental to all ecosystems: natural, social and political.

Take Seattle and its surrounding counties. Between April 2015 and 2016, the area was inundated with “86,320 new residents, marking it the region’s biggest population gains this century. Fueled in large part by the technology industry, an average of 236 people is moving to the Seattle area each day,” reported Geekwire.com. (Reporters for our local fish-wrapper—in my case, parrot-cage liner—have discharged their journalistic duties by inviting readers to “share” their traffic-jam stories.)

Never as dumb as the local reporters, the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerberg, and Marc Cuban are certainly as detached.

Barricaded in their obscenely lavish compounds—from the comfort of their monster mansions—these social engineers don’t experience the “environmental impacts of rapid urban expansion”; the destruction of verdant open spaces and farmland; the decrease in the quality of the water we drink and air we breathe; the increase in traffic and traffic accidents; air pollution; the cellblock-like housing erected to accommodate their imported IT workers and extended families; the delicate bouquet of amped-up waste management and associated seepages.

For locals, this lamentable state means an inability to afford homes in a market in which property prices have been artificially inflated. Young couples lineup to view tiny apartments. They dream of that picket fence no more. (And our “stupid leaders,” to quote the president before he joined leadership, wonder why birthrates are so low!)

In a true free market, absent the protectionist state, corporate employers would be accountable to the community, and would be wary of the strife and lowered productivity brought about by a multiethnic and multi-linguistic workforce. All the more so when a foreign workforce moves into residential areas almost overnight as has happened in Seattle and its surrounds.

Alas, since the high-tech titans can externalize their employment costs on to the community; because corporations are subsidized at every turn by their victims—they need not bring in the best.

Cuban thinks they do. High tech needs to be able to “search the world for the best applicants,” he burbled to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Yet more cr-p.

Why doesn’t the president know that the H-1B visa category is not a special visa for highly skilled individuals, but goes mostly to average workers? “Indian business-process outsourcing companies, which predominantly provide technology support to corporate back offices,” by the Economist’s accounting.

Overall, the work done by the H-1B intake does not require independent judgment, critical reasoning, or higher-order thinking. “Average workers; ordinary talent doing ordinary work,” attest the experts who’ve been studying this intake for years. The master’s degree is the exception within the H-1B visa category.

More significant: there is a visa category that is reserved exclusively for individuals with extraordinary abilities and achievement. I know, because the principal sponsor in our family received this visa. I first wrote about the visa that doesn’t displace ordinary Americans in … 2008:

It’s the O-1 visa.

“Extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or athletics,” states the Department of Homeland Security, “means a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.”

Most significant: There is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited.

My point vis-à-vis the O-1 visa is this: The H-1B hogs are forever claiming that they are desperate for talent. In reality, they have unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program.

There is no limit to the number of geniuses American companies can import.

Theoretically, the H-1B program could be completely abolished and all needed Einsteins imported through the O-1 program.  (Why, even future first ladies would stand a chance under the business category of the O-1A visa, as a wealth-generating supermodel could certainly qualify.)

Now you understand my disappointment. In his April 18 Executive Order, President Trump promised to merely reform a program that needs abolishing. That is if “Hire American” means anything to anybody anymore.

Published in Economics
Tags:

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 181 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Wouldn’t the real libertarian response to this be an immigration system unregulated by government and depended on economic necessity?

    I would think it would if there wasn’t a giant welfare state for unskilled laborers to shuck their duties as part of that economic necessity and become wards of the state, which you cannot say does not happen. If having open borders meant that only the best and brightest across the world would come here and work in Silicone Valley for half the wages of naturalized citizens, then I don’t necessarily think I would have a problem with it. However, we all know that is not the case. There may be some of that going on, but is it the vast majority? Is it more like 50/50 moocher to productive member of society? If you ask VD Hanson, he would tell you that California has been sapped by moochers coming in like locusts.

    Sounds like a fantastic argument against the welfare state.

    You and I seem to hitting the Welfare State on different flanks.

    Sure, but I actually think your way might end up being counter productive. Based on the data I’ve seen the actual impact of immigrants abusing the welfare system is relatively small, but the political impact is huge. Solving that small problem from the immigration side would remove an effective cudgel against the entire enterprise.

    • #31
  2. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Wouldn’t the real libertarian response to this be an immigration system unregulated by government and depended on economic necessity?

    I would think it would if there wasn’t a giant welfare state for unskilled laborers to shuck their duties as part of that economic necessity and become wards of the state, which you cannot say does not happen. If having open borders meant that only the best and brightest across the world would come here and work in Silicone Valley for half the wages of naturalized citizens, then I don’t necessarily think I would have a problem with it. However, we all know that is not the case. There may be some of that going on, but is it the vast majority? Is it more like 50/50 moocher to productive member of society? If you ask VD Hanson, he would tell you that California has been sapped by moochers coming in like locusts.

    Sounds like a fantastic argument against the welfare state.

    You and I seem to hitting the Welfare State on different flanks.

    Sure, but I actually think your way might end up being counter productive. Based on the data I’ve seen the actual impact of immigrants abusing the welfare system is relatively small, but the political impact is huge. Solving that small problem from the immigration side would remove an effective cudgel against the entire enterprise.

    Abuse is but one way to measure it. I am talking about using, period. Of course the addiction to the welfare state if ubiquitous, both native born and immigrant use it profligately. However, the reality on the ground is thus: the welfare state on a national scale is here to stay, so why in the world should we open our borders regardless if the immigrants coming only use a little bit of it or make a complete living off of the welfare state? This is probably the biggest area where I diverge from traditional Libertarians. I am absolutely not an open borders guy. In fact, short of shutting out borders completely, I am for making it as hard as legally possible to accept them.

    • #32
  3. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Oh, furthermore, we have no moral obligation to let people who want to come here in. If they can go through the legal system as it is now, or as it might be in the future, then fine, but we are under zero moral obligation to tell the world come on in.

    • #33
  4. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Percival (View Comment):
    There was a conditional in there. It only applies to those whose goals are not to obtain a rational immigration policy.

    That sounds like anybody’s view of immigration policy that fails to get your stamp of approval.

    • #34
  5. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    . I care about people. First my family, then friends, then neighbors, then community, then municipality, then state, then country. You will see that the well being of the well educated, industrious citizen of India is well down on my list.

    This misses part of the bigger picture: I care about the well-being of the people who are invested in my company. Those people (mostly Americans) are not wealthy or insulated from the vicissitudes of economic malaise. On the contrary: they see what I do as their chance to make some serious money.

    For their sake, I would be negligent to not get the job done wherever and however it can be done at the lowest cost.

    • #35
  6. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    But in terms of labor markets, we are certainly at a disadvantage, no?

    Oh, yes. Having a minimum wage is not good for our economy or our citizenry.  Companies cannot have easy handshake (paperless) trials, giving people who might be marginal hires a shot at getting on the ladder.

    • #36
  7. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    iWe (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    . I care about people. First my family, then friends, then neighbors, then community, then municipality, then state, then country. You will see that the well being of the well educated, industrious citizen of India is well down on my list.

    This misses part of the bigger picture: I care about the well-being of the people who are invested in my company. Those people (mostly Americans) are not wealthy or insulated from the vicissitudes of economic malaise. On the contrary: they see what I do as their chance to make some serious money.

    For their sake, I would be negligent to not get the job done wherever and however it can be done at the lowest cost.

    I think it might be the other way around. I understand you have a duty to your shareholders, which compels you to improve your bottom line for the benefit of their return on investment. My only point is that if we can accept, as a society, government induced inflation of domestic labor, then we as a society should be willing to accept government limitations on hiring cheaper labor. Particularly for those firms who bring in the cheaper labor to be trained by the citizen who will be displaced. (Not saying that is your business practice, but you are aware of it happening, no?)

    • #37
  8. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    . I care about people. First my family, then friends, then neighbors, then community, then municipality, then state, then country. You will see that the well being of the well educated, industrious citizen of India is well down on my list.

    This misses part of the bigger picture: I care about the well-being of the people who are invested in my company. Those people (mostly Americans) are not wealthy or insulated from the vicissitudes of economic malaise. On the contrary: they see what I do as their chance to make some serious money.

    For their sake, I would be negligent to not get the job done wherever and however it can be done at the lowest cost.

    I think it might be the other way around. I understand you have a duty to your shareholders, which compels you to improve your bottom line for the benefit of their return on investment. My only point is that if we can accept, as a society, government induced inflation of domestic labor, then we as a society should be willing to accept government limitations on hiring cheaper labor. Particularly for those firms who bring in the cheaper labor to be trained by the citizen who will be displaced. (Not saying that is your business practice, but you are aware of it happening, no?)

    This flies in the face of the reality of global competition. One way or another American labor will have to compete with international labor either through immigration or outsourcing.

    • #38
  9. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Particularly for those firms who bring in the cheaper labor to be trained by the citizen who will be displaced. (Not saying that is your business practice, but you are aware of it happening, no?)

    This flies in the face of the reality of global competition. One way or another American labor will have to compete with international labor either through immigration or outsourcing.

    We just do it the easy way: hire the labor regardless of where it is.

    It seems obvious to me that America would be better off if the talented workforce I hired were living in America rather than elsewhere. The wealth of a nation is not found in its hard assets, but in its human assets. Attracting more skilled labor makes America wealthier, not poorer.

    • #39
  10. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    My only point is that if we can accept, as a society, government induced inflation of domestic labor, then we as a society should be willing to accept government limitations on hiring cheaper labor.

    But when the labor is done on a computer, the government cannot limit it! Which means that knowledge workers are essentially free from regulation, and the poor schmoes who have to show up at a workplace get hammered.

    • #40
  11. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    iWe (View Comment):
    Attracting more skilled labor makes America wealthier, not poorer.

    Not at the expense of people you helped effectively launch on to welfare.

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    One way or another American labor will have to compete with international labor either through immigration or outsourcing.

    Or eliminating the minimum wage and reforming education requirements for non-professional work.

    • #41
  12. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Why are you guys such oikophobes?

    • #42
  13. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    iWe (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    My only point is that if we can accept, as a society, government induced inflation of domestic labor, then we as a society should be willing to accept government limitations on hiring cheaper labor.

    But when the labor is done on a computer, the government cannot limit it! Which means that knowledge workers are essentially free from regulation, and the poor schmoes who have to show up at a workplace get hammered.

    That is true, the tech world has opened up a whole new can of worms for labor. For instance, how do you regulate a workforce that can telecommute from India, Malaysia, or France to terminals in, say, San Mateo via remote login to the computers? Where does US labor law have jurisdiction then, the physical place of the person doing the work or the virtual place of where the work is done? However, I don’t think this can apply to places like Disney, where H1Bs were hired, trained by the people they replaced, and lived happily ever after. That type of situation can definitely be controlled through certain government practices, namely the abolition of the H1B visas.

    • #43
  14. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Stina (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):
    Attracting more skilled labor makes America wealthier, not poorer.

    Not at the expense of people you helped effectively launch on to welfare.

    Protectionism and socialism have been tried, and found wanting.  Competition may not be fun, but it works to provide the most benefit for the most people.

    I do not let country borders determine where I hire my talent. If America does not compete, it loses.

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    One way or another American labor will have to compete with international labor either through immigration or outsourcing.

    Or eliminating the minimum wage and reforming education requirements for non-professional work.

    Yes. Making it easier to hire, retain, and fire means a more dynamic and successful economy and workforce.  The Real World is a scary place, but the alternative is sclerosis or worse.

    • #44
  15. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    However, I don’t think this can apply to places like Disney, where H1Bs were hired, trained by the people they replaced, and lived happily ever after. That type of situation can definitely be controlled through certain government practices, namely the abolition of the H1B visas.

    So we end up making Disneyland more expensive, which becomes a tax on Disney’s customers.

    Is there a logical limit to this approach? Because to me it looks like there is no endpoint short of socialism.

    • #45
  16. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Stina (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):
    Attracting more skilled labor makes America wealthier, not poorer.

    Not at the expense of people you helped effectively launch on to welfare.

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    One way or another American labor will have to compete with international labor either through immigration or outsourcing.

    Or eliminating the minimum wage and reforming education requirements for non-professional work.

    Well it’s more of a double edged sword than a zero sum situation. Yes, Americans overall have been made richer as we have imported skilled labor in certain economic sectors. But at the same time–and Charles Murray has pointed this out–other segments of Americans have been, not just harmed, but ruined by having no other recourse but welfare. Now we all know that the minimum wage is a huge burden that needs to be done away with, but ask yourself which will happen first, abolition of minimum wage or my two dogs building a Saturn 5 and walking on the moon? Yeah, my money is on my two dogs too. One solution offered by this OP is coming from a standpoint of reality, of what “is.” I happen to think this would be more attainable than any attempt of getting rid of the minimum wage. If that happens to hurt shareholders or tech industries, frankly I don’t care. My guess is that you guys would be better situated to adjust to the new reality and avoid welfare than the guy who just lost his job at Disney.

    • #46
  17. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    iWe (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    However, I don’t think this can apply to places like Disney, where H1Bs were hired, trained by the people they replaced, and lived happily ever after. That type of situation can definitely be controlled through certain government practices, namely the abolition of the H1B visas.

    So we end up making Disneyland more expensive, which becomes a tax on Disney’s customers.

    Is there a logical limit to this approach? Because to me it looks like there is no endpoint short of socialism.

    Wait a minute, prior to Disney taking advantage of the H1Bs, people were still flocking to Disneyland by the millions each year, so your premise is faulty at best.

    • #47
  18. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    This story was in 2015

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

    You trying to tell me that Disney was A) hurting in lost profits and B) people weren’t flocking to Disney in the years prior to 2015? Well, maybe we should discuss beachfront property in Arizona while we are here.

    • #48
  19. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    iWe (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    However, I don’t think this can apply to places like Disney, where H1Bs were hired, trained by the people they replaced, and lived happily ever after. That type of situation can definitely be controlled through certain government practices, namely the abolition of the H1B visas.

    So we end up making Disneyland more expensive, which becomes a tax on Disney’s customers.

    Is there a logical limit to this approach? Because to me it looks like there is no endpoint short of socialism.

    And getting rid of H1bs is nowhere near socialism. All it says is that you either take your ball outside the country or operate with the labor market you have here. Limiting immigration is not a socialist notion, nor does it lead to one. No one, certainly not I, is telling you to keep your business here. I’m just saying if you are going to keep it here, there should not be a specific immigration policy that allows you to bring in cheaper labor at the expense of people in your neighborhood or town, etc.

    • #49
  20. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    If you are a techie, you are in competition with the folks seeking H-1Bs whether they come here or not. Might as well get used to it.

    • #50
  21. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Stina (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):
    Attracting more skilled labor makes America wealthier, not poorer.

    Not at the expense of people you helped effectively launch on to welfare.

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    One way or another American labor will have to compete with international labor either through immigration or outsourcing.

    Or eliminating the minimum wage and reforming education requirements for non-professional work.

    How do you plan on reforming educational requirements for non-professional work? Companies can require whatever they want for a position.

    • #51
  22. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    If that happens to hurt shareholders or tech industries, frankly I don’t care.

    You will once the jobs start disappearing entirely. I already have the option of outsourcing my development and IT management. Heck with internet speeds the way they are I don’t even need the IT infrastructure to be physically in the United States.

    • #52
  23. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    This story was in 2015

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

    You trying to tell me that Disney was A) hurting in lost profits and B) people weren’t flocking to Disney in the years prior to 2015? Well, maybe we should discuss beachfront property in Arizona while we are here.

    My understanding is that this is expressly illegal under the H1B visa program. Seems like enforcement is in order.

    • #53
  24. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Percival (View Comment):
    If you are a techie, you are in competition with the folks seeking H-1Bs whether they come here or not. Might as well get used to it.

    All hail the almighty dollar.

    I’m unfollowing. Continue the mannon worship.

    • #54
  25. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    However, I don’t think this can apply to places like Disney, where H1Bs were hired, trained by the people they replaced, and lived happily ever after. That type of situation can definitely be controlled through certain government practices, namely the abolition of the H1B visas.

    So we end up making Disneyland more expensive, which becomes a tax on Disney’s customers.

    Is there a logical limit to this approach? Because to me it looks like there is no endpoint short of socialism.

    And getting rid of H1bs is nowhere near socialism. All it says is that you either take your ball outside the country or operate with the labor market you have here. Limiting immigration is not a socialist notion, nor does it lead to one. No one, certainly not I, is telling you to keep your business here. I’m just saying if you are going to keep it here, there should not be a specific immigration policy that allows you to bring in cheaper labor at the expense of people in your neighborhood or town, etc.

    How is labor price protection different from regular ole price protection?

    • #55
  26. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Stina (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    If you are a techie, you are in competition with the folks seeking H-1Bs whether they come here or not. Might as well get used to it.

    All hail the almighty dollar.

    I’m unfollowing. Continue the mannon worship.

    @Stina how else to you think an economy should be arranged?

    • #56
  27. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    If you are a techie, you are in competition with the folks seeking H-1Bs whether they come here or not. Might as well get used to it.

    All hail the almighty dollar.

    I’m unfollowing. Continue the mannon worship.

    @Stina how else to you think an economy should be arranged?

    I am a techie. I am in competition with them. I am used to it.

    • #57
  28. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    If you are a techie, you are in competition with the folks seeking H-1Bs whether they come here or not. Might as well get used to it.

    All hail the almighty dollar.

    I’m unfollowing. Continue the mannon worship.

    @Stina how else to you think an economy should be arranged?

    With some kind of care and consideration for the people around you!!! Not at the force of government, but because YOU actually care about the people in your community.

    It may give a small bump to your bottom line to go looking elsewhere, but it should, in an ethical way, matter how you treat your community.

    None of you, who make arguments about free labor trade, care one iota about the people around you. You claim “shareholders”, but the shareholders are abstract things next to the people in your own community. How is it that you think catering to the paper holders matters more?

    The more I see these arguments, the more I think the stock market was the greatest disaster for the global economy that ever could exist. It dehumanizes the entire experience, and the economy is about making a living – survival and growth. Not about scraping pennies for intangibles while crapping all over the actual people who need to make a living.

    We talk wonders about how great our economy is because of global trade while absolutely ignoring the very real neighbors who don’t have jobs and no matter how hard they try, can’t find one! And then, to assuage guilt, argue they should just get up and move – completely oblivious to the costs of packing up and moving. Like its that easy? It isn’t.

    Maybe for all y’all with good jobs who can move from Australia to a nice, safe neighborhood with your precious families, but not the jobless guy looking at assisted living in a crime ridden neighborhood.

    Show a bit more compassion in your arguments and I may be less inclined to crap all over your arguments, but I’ve had enough of utilitarian and pragmatic messages on our economy from people who claim not to be utilitarian or pragmatic.

    ESOPs – all you small business owners should consider them. So its your own employees your business is catering to.

    • #58
  29. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    However, I don’t think this can apply to places like Disney, where H1Bs were hired, trained by the people they replaced, and lived happily ever after. That type of situation can definitely be controlled through certain government practices, namely the abolition of the H1B visas.

    So we end up making Disneyland more expensive, which becomes a tax on Disney’s customers.

    Is there a logical limit to this approach? Because to me it looks like there is no endpoint short of socialism.

    And getting rid of H1bs is nowhere near socialism. All it says is that you either take your ball outside the country or operate with the labor market you have here. Limiting immigration is not a socialist notion, nor does it lead to one. No one, certainly not I, is telling you to keep your business here. I’m just saying if you are going to keep it here, there should not be a specific immigration policy that allows you to bring in cheaper labor at the expense of people in your neighborhood or town, etc.

    How is labor price protection different from regular ole price protection?

    I am sorry but I don’t view people in terms of “labor price.” Like I said, if you want to outsource your firm, go right ahead. But don’t sit here in this country that you supposedly love and bemoan the lack of cheap labor while you benefit from the opening of flood gates of cheap labor via law. As the comment a couple up said, go ahead an worship that dollar at the expense of your fellow man, uh sorry, your fellow widget to be molded and shaped to fit your expansive machine dedicated to an increased dividend for your shareholders.

    • #59
  30. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Stina (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    If you are a techie, you are in competition with the folks seeking H-1Bs whether they come here or not. Might as well get used to it.

    All hail the almighty dollar.

    I’m unfollowing. Continue the mannon worship.

    @Stina how else to you think an economy should be arranged?

    With some kind of care and consideration for the people around you!!! Not at the force of government, but because YOU actually care about the people in your community.

    It may give a small bump to your bottom line to go looking elsewhere, but it should, in an ethical way, matter how you treat your community.

    None of you, who make arguments about free labor trade, care one iota about the people around you. You claim “shareholders”, but the shareholders are abstract things next to the people in your own community. How is it that you think catering to the paper holders matters more?

    The more I see these arguments, the more I think the stock market was the greatest disaster for the global economy that ever could exist. It dehumanizes the entire experience, and the economy is about making a living – survival and growth. Not about scraping pennies for intangibles while crapping all over the actual people who need to make a living.

    We talk wonders about how great our economy is because of global trade while absolutely ignoring the very real neighbors who don’t have jobs and no matter how hard they try, can’t find one! And then, to assuage guilt, argue they should just get up and move – completely oblivious to the costs of packing up and moving. Like its that easy? It isn’t.

    Maybe for all y’all with good jobs who can move from Australia to a nice, safe neighborhood with your precious families, but not the jobless guy looking at assisted living in a crime ridden neighborhood.

    Show a bit more compassion in your arguments and I may be less inclined to crap all over your arguments, but I’ve had enough of utilitarian and pragmatic messages on our economy from people who claim not to be utilitarian or pragmatic.

    ESOPs – all you small business owners should consider them. So its your own employees your business is catering to.

    Well, I could not have said this any better either. Careful, for we will be called heretics for daring to encourage our business minded compatriots to have some compassion when measuring their bottom line.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.