6 ms·

Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a

Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Or is this a guise for xenophobia?

gorbachev 11y ago
There are certain benefits to making sure your citizens are gainfully employed. Also citizens vote, foreigners don't.
larrik 11y ago
I'm not sure I would consider laws that favor a country's citizens over foreign nationals "xenophobia". They CAN be, of course, but they can also be solid policy that most or all nations do.
strictnein 11y ago
Because New York and California are part of the same country? And it's not "certain types" of people. It's all non-Americans.
seibelj 11y ago
"Certain types of people", you mean non-citizens? The H1B lets non-US citizens into the country, ostensibly to fill a supposed skills gap. In reality, most H1B's issued are to replace high paid citizens with lower paid, low benefits immigrants. Whether you think this is good or bad, it isn't xenophobia or racism, it's a dollars and cents issue.
- outworlder 11y ago
  > In reality, most H1B's issued That's a pretty bold claim! That would imply widespread fraud. I don't think all companies do that, not even most of them. I think the bodyshops heavily skew the perception, though.
untog 11y ago
I'm actually in favour of expanding immigration, but describing opposition to it as xenophobia is extremely unfair. The logic is really very simple: those artificial barriers are also the borders between economies, social benefit systems, etc. etc. Every person within those borders that does not have a job puts a drain on the rest of the country. Someone without a job outside of those borders does not. So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative. Obviously that is a vast, vast oversimplification, but there is a logic. Xenophobia is an "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries" - putting your own economic interests ahead of others isn't necessarily the product of dislike or fear. And some would say it's entirely rational.
- davidw 11y ago
  > So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative. You're right - that's a vast oversimplification. Here's one of my own: at the same time Linus Torvalds moved to the US, there were a number of unemployed people. I still think it was a net win to let him in, though. Be very wary of the lump of labor fallacy, it's what's behind the "they took rrrr jawbs" mentality.
  - untog 11y ago
    At the same time, expanding immigration because Linus Torvalds exists is also a vast oversimplification. Even most anti-immigration people I've spoken to concede that there should be avenues for outstandingly talented people to emigrate if they wish.
    - davidw 11y ago
      Plenty of skilled immigrants have skills that unemployed locals do not have. Even the 'cut rate labor' people love to hate.
- Legogris 11y ago
  This seems more like an argument in favor of employing these people, not having artificial barriers to employment.
searine 11y ago
>Or is this a guise for xenophobia? TIL not actively undermining your countries economic foundation is xenophobia.
- dafas32 11y ago
  And not only sinks wages, it also wrecks social trust.
rayiner 11y ago
It's justified in avoiding free rider effects. If the public subsidizes the operation of a company through security, education, and infrastructure, the community that makes that investment is entitled to ensure that the fruits of that investment go to other members of the community.
- DINKDINK 11y ago
  Thanks for replying with some well-thought-out arguments. Why are free rider effects acceptable when someone moves from New York to California but not when it's India to California? There are two, distinct forces at play here. Free-rider effects and cost subsidization. The non-local worker would start paying taxes into that system? If a corporation is taxed on it's profits, wouldn't they start paying more into that social community.
diogenescynic 11y ago
>artificial barriers Like citizenship? Do you consider citizenship an artificial barrier? As someone who has worked at tech companies and various law firms in the Silicon Valley, I've seen this story played out several times. Hire Cognizant, TCS, Infosys, Symphony, or some other outsourcing firm and then bring in H-1Bs for an entire department. All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top. How do you feel about companies and law firms gaming job postings to disqualify qualified workers in the US so they can hire someone on a visa for much less? Employers are posting jobs that don’t really exist, seeking candidates they don’t want, and paying for bogus non-ads to show there’s an IT labor shortage in America. Here is the law firm Cohen & Grigsby advising other employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified applicants, and the steps they go through to disqualify even the most qualified Americans in order to secure green cards for H-1b workers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU Do you consider this abuse or fraudulent? >Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Implying that the only people against immigration are racists is just a lazy, offensive, and dismissive argument. Try something else.
- aianus 11y ago
  > All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone What about the guys on H1B's who are now earning 4x more than they were back in India? Are they not people too?
  - diogenescynic 11y ago
    Of course they are people, but I think the US government should be more concerned with protecting its own citizens (voters), not the international community. The US government has an obligation to protect its own citizens above all others.
    - davidw 11y ago
      The best way to ensure that no immigrants take urrr jawbs is to have a shitty economy. It worked great in reducing Mexican immigration during the recent recession. Of course, it caused a lot of damage for many people in the US, too. Perhaps the best answer for everyone is to worry about growing the pie, rather than keeping people out.
jowiar 11y ago
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? Beneficial to whom? The world (or humanity) as a whole? Not really. US Citizens presumably want employers in the US to employ them over, well, people who aren't US Citizens. The US Gov't is elected by US Citizens. Hence the existence of legal barriers. If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Because states don't have the power to enact those restrictions. US Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.", and "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfield_v._Coryell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfield_v._Coryell As far as the Xenophobia bit? Yes and no. It's very easy to argue that discrimination based on place of birth is fundamentally wrong, and that open borders are an ideal worth striving for. Not sure if anyone has figured out the pragmatic policymaking around that -- i.e. designing social structures that are resilient to open borders.
jmspring 11y ago
If a company wants to cut labor costs and move, open the new facility and train the people in the new location. Do not bring them in on a visa meant for skilled labor, make someone train their replacement and then fire them. Personally, I would like to see the H1-B system go away/become unavailable to large body shops and consulting firms. All they are doing is the scenario outlined above. Some companies are good, some, like IBM which are attempting to cater to the daily whims of Wall Street, not so much.
electricblue 11y ago
It's generally better for your whole country if your citizens are employed doing high wage, productive labor rather than having their jobs poached by foreigners who get paid very little send much of their wealth back to their home country. This in practice benefits a very small minority of very wealthy people and doesn't do much for your overall country. It is also better on a state level as well, to (for example) keep Apple in California rather than have them and their jobs leave for Texas, as well as the highly educated citizens you have leaving California for jobs in Texas.
crdoconnor 11y ago
>Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? To prevent a race to the bottom on 1st world wages and worker welfare and to arrest 3rd world brain drain. Can you explain why India should be forced by dint of its poverty to invest in free education for its smartest citizens and let the benefits accrue to US elites rather than to the Indian people? >If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Because they are both US citizens and their welfare is the responsibility of the US government. If the United States and India were to join at the hip and elect a single government collectively (do you want that?) then I see no reason why we shouldn't have free and open immigration between the two countries. >Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Or is race baiting just a cynical ploy to funnel yet more money into the pockets of the 0.01% hyper-elite?
outworlder 11y ago
What they are trying to protect is US citizens from losing their jobs (or getting lesser wages) due to a sudden availability of cheaper labor. So, the supply is restricted. It's not exactly xenophobia, it is market control. I bet a lot of opposition would disappear overnight if foreign workers could only be hired at a very high high salary level. Of course, go too high and you'll get complaints from US citizens that are not yet at that level. But I guess that would be a minority. Level the playing field (at least in wages), and there's much less of an excuse to restrict immigration. After all, if an immigrant with no networking, who doesn't have English as his native language and a different culture, and has to jump through a lot of hoops just to be able to legally move and work in the country (a process that can take months), if he can just walk in and steal your job, then there was something wrong about your job security in the first place. The problem is how to define what a [high|fair] wage would be at a given location and industry.
whybroke 11y ago
>Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Would you be in favor of increasing the general US immigration cap by 65000 and abolishing H1B completely? Because I would. If you are not in favor of that then perhaps there is a motive to your concern other than racial harmony.
- davidw 11y ago
  There is no 'general US immigration cap', because most immigrants are family members who pretty much get to come as long as they pass some checks. Source: my Italian wife and I went through that process when we moved here from Italy.

gorbachev 11y ago

There are certain benefits to making sure your citizens are gainfully employed. Also citizens vote, foreigners don't.

larrik 11y ago

I'm not sure I would consider laws that favor a country's citizens over foreign nationals "xenophobia". They CAN be, of course, but they can also be solid policy that most or all nations do.

strictnein 11y ago

Because New York and California are part of the same country? And it's not "certain types" of people. It's all non-Americans.

seibelj 11y ago

"Certain types of people", you mean non-citizens? The H1B lets non-US citizens into the country, ostensibly to fill a supposed skills gap. In reality, most H1B's issued are to replace high paid citizens with lower paid, low benefits immigrants. Whether you think this is good or bad, it isn't xenophobia or racism, it's a dollars and cents issue.

outworlder 11y ago
> In reality, most H1B's issued That's a pretty bold claim! That would imply widespread fraud. I don't think all companies do that, not even most of them. I think the bodyshops heavily skew the perception, though.

untog 11y ago

I'm actually in favour of expanding immigration, but describing opposition to it as xenophobia is extremely unfair. The logic is really very simple: those artificial barriers are also the borders between economies, social benefit systems, etc. etc. Every person within those borders that does not have a job puts a drain on the rest of the country. Someone without a job outside of those borders does not. So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative. Obviously that is a vast, vast oversimplification, but there is a logic. Xenophobia is an "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries" - putting your own economic interests ahead of others isn't necessarily the product of dislike or fear. And some would say it's entirely rational.

davidw 11y ago
> So bringing someone across those borders while an unemployed person is within them is a net economic negative. You're right - that's a vast oversimplification. Here's one of my own: at the same time Linus Torvalds moved to the US, there were a number of unemployed people. I still think it was a net win to let him in, though. Be very wary of the lump of labor fallacy, it's what's behind the "they took rrrr jawbs" mentality.
- untog 11y ago
  At the same time, expanding immigration because Linus Torvalds exists is also a vast oversimplification. Even most anti-immigration people I've spoken to concede that there should be avenues for outstandingly talented people to emigrate if they wish.
  - davidw 11y ago
    Plenty of skilled immigrants have skills that unemployed locals do not have. Even the 'cut rate labor' people love to hate.
Legogris 11y ago
This seems more like an argument in favor of employing these people, not having artificial barriers to employment.

searine 11y ago

>Or is this a guise for xenophobia? TIL not actively undermining your countries economic foundation is xenophobia.

dafas32 11y ago
And not only sinks wages, it also wrecks social trust.

rayiner 11y ago

It's justified in avoiding free rider effects. If the public subsidizes the operation of a company through security, education, and infrastructure, the community that makes that investment is entitled to ensure that the fruits of that investment go to other members of the community.

DINKDINK 11y ago
Thanks for replying with some well-thought-out arguments. Why are free rider effects acceptable when someone moves from New York to California but not when it's India to California? There are two, distinct forces at play here. Free-rider effects and cost subsidization. The non-local worker would start paying taxes into that system? If a corporation is taxed on it's profits, wouldn't they start paying more into that social community.

diogenescynic 11y ago

>artificial barriers Like citizenship? Do you consider citizenship an artificial barrier? As someone who has worked at tech companies and various law firms in the Silicon Valley, I've seen this story played out several times. Hire Cognizant, TCS, Infosys, Symphony, or some other outsourcing firm and then bring in H-1Bs for an entire department. All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top. How do you feel about companies and law firms gaming job postings to disqualify qualified workers in the US so they can hire someone on a visa for much less? Employers are posting jobs that don’t really exist, seeking candidates they don’t want, and paying for bogus non-ads to show there’s an IT labor shortage in America. Here is the law firm Cohen & Grigsby advising other employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified applicants, and the steps they go through to disqualify even the most qualified Americans in order to secure green cards for H-1b workers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU Do you consider this abuse or fraudulent? >Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Implying that the only people against immigration are racists is just a lazy, offensive, and dismissive argument. Try something else.

aianus 11y ago
> All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone What about the guys on H1B's who are now earning 4x more than they were back in India? Are they not people too?
- diogenescynic 11y ago
  Of course they are people, but I think the US government should be more concerned with protecting its own citizens (voters), not the international community. The US government has an obligation to protect its own citizens above all others.
  - davidw 11y ago
    The best way to ensure that no immigrants take urrr jawbs is to have a shitty economy. It worked great in reducing Mexican immigration during the recent recession. Of course, it caused a lot of damage for many people in the US, too. Perhaps the best answer for everyone is to worry about growing the pie, rather than keeping people out.

jowiar 11y ago

Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? Beneficial to whom? The world (or humanity) as a whole? Not really. US Citizens presumably want employers in the US to employ them over, well, people who aren't US Citizens. The US Gov't is elected by US Citizens. Hence the existence of legal barriers. If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Because states don't have the power to enact those restrictions. US Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.", and "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfield_v._Coryell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfield_v._Coryell As far as the Xenophobia bit? Yes and no. It's very easy to argue that discrimination based on place of birth is fundamentally wrong, and that open borders are an ideal worth striving for. Not sure if anyone has figured out the pragmatic policymaking around that -- i.e. designing social structures that are resilient to open borders.

jmspring 11y ago

If a company wants to cut labor costs and move, open the new facility and train the people in the new location. Do not bring them in on a visa meant for skilled labor, make someone train their replacement and then fire them. Personally, I would like to see the H1-B system go away/become unavailable to large body shops and consulting firms. All they are doing is the scenario outlined above. Some companies are good, some, like IBM which are attempting to cater to the daily whims of Wall Street, not so much.

electricblue 11y ago

It's generally better for your whole country if your citizens are employed doing high wage, productive labor rather than having their jobs poached by foreigners who get paid very little send much of their wealth back to their home country. This in practice benefits a very small minority of very wealthy people and doesn't do much for your overall country. It is also better on a state level as well, to (for example) keep Apple in California rather than have them and their jobs leave for Texas, as well as the highly educated citizens you have leaving California for jobs in Texas.

crdoconnor 11y ago

>Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? To prevent a race to the bottom on 1st world wages and worker welfare and to arrest 3rd world brain drain. Can you explain why India should be forced by dint of its poverty to invest in free education for its smartest citizens and let the benefits accrue to US elites rather than to the Indian people? >If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Because they are both US citizens and their welfare is the responsibility of the US government. If the United States and India were to join at the hip and elect a single government collectively (do you want that?) then I see no reason why we shouldn't have free and open immigration between the two countries. >Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Or is race baiting just a cynical ploy to funnel yet more money into the pockets of the 0.01% hyper-elite?

outworlder 11y ago

What they are trying to protect is US citizens from losing their jobs (or getting lesser wages) due to a sudden availability of cheaper labor. So, the supply is restricted. It's not exactly xenophobia, it is market control. I bet a lot of opposition would disappear overnight if foreign workers could only be hired at a very high high salary level. Of course, go too high and you'll get complaints from US citizens that are not yet at that level. But I guess that would be a minority. Level the playing field (at least in wages), and there's much less of an excuse to restrict immigration. After all, if an immigrant with no networking, who doesn't have English as his native language and a different culture, and has to jump through a lot of hoops just to be able to legally move and work in the country (a process that can take months), if he can just walk in and steal your job, then there was something wrong about your job security in the first place. The problem is how to define what a [high|fair] wage would be at a given location and industry.

whybroke 11y ago

>Or is this a guise for xenophobia? Would you be in favor of increasing the general US immigration cap by 65000 and abolishing H1B completely? Because I would. If you are not in favor of that then perhaps there is a motive to your concern other than racial harmony.

davidw 11y ago
There is no 'general US immigration cap', because most immigrants are family members who pretty much get to come as long as they pass some checks. Source: my Italian wife and I went through that process when we moved here from Italy.