4 ms·

I happen to be one of these 'foreign indentured servants'. Or rather someone who would gladly be a 'foreign indentured servant' if only the H-1B lottery picked

by an_cap 11y ago

I happen to be one of these 'foreign indentured servants'. Or rather someone who would gladly be a 'foreign indentured servant' if only the H-1B lottery picked me. I am also pretty sure that there are probably millions if not tens of millions of people just like me.

lkenflkewnf 11y ago
You realize that by leaving, you would be negatively impacting the economic development of your native country, correct? Mass exoduses of capital and the most capable members of a nation's society have historically had disastrous effects. It would be harming orders of magnitude more people than those who benefited slightly by leaving.
- an_cap 11y ago
  Sort of like how the 'slight benefit' of allowing the most capable blacks to go work in predominantly white companies had disastrous effects on blacks? Also, I'm not arguing that H-1B should be restricted to only the most capable members of a nation's society. I am super into allowing the least capable members of India to work in the US - for instance programmers who would only command $20K per year in the US job market because they are not very capable.
jacalata 11y ago
I happen to be one myself and I think your argument is a poor one.
- an_cap 11y ago
  I didn't really spell out an argument in detail so let me try to clarify my argument and then we can productively disagree? 1. There are lots of people who would be better off (using any reasonable definition of better off that you chose) working as an H-1B worker in the US despite all the potential for abuse (real and exaggerated) that the status entails. They'd be better off because the pay would be higher. They might be better off because they like american culture better than that of their home country. They might be better off because their is greater scope for career advancement. They might be better off because they might learn more from their peers in the US. Etc. 2. H-1B workers do have the option of quitting their jobs and going back to their home countries if they decide that the abuse is too much. I understand that this is complicated by the fact that they might have taken out loans, or developed attachments to America. However, I don't think that, on net, this justifies banning them from the US labor market. Perhaps the strongest claim I'm willing to make is that the vast majority of workers ( >90%? ) currently in H-1B status in the US don't wish that the H-1B option wasn't available to them. And that the vast majority of wannabe H-1B workers would still choose to come to work in the US even after they are made aware of all the abuses. I'm aware that I'm only comparing H-1B as is to no H-1B at all and that numerous other hypothetical arrangements exist that would be better than both.
  - jacalata 11y ago
    I should have said analogy - your analogy to breaking apartheid was shitty and didn't imply that you had any good arguments, and perhaps were arguing that people against the H1B system were simply racist. Your follow up post appears completely unrelated and doesnt justify the initial analogy in any way.
    - an_cap 11y ago
      I see. My bad! Let me try to explain the analogy to apartheid South Africa. I didn't mean to suggest that people are against the H-1B system because they are racist. I mean to claim that restricting foreigners from competing in US labor markets is bad for the same reason that restricting black South Africans from competing in the labor markets of white South Africa is bad. In apartheid South Africa, it was illegal for blacks to work in the white parts of South Africa without getting a permit (sort of like the H-1B visa or the green card in the case of the US). Most people consider this to be wrong primarily based on the intuition that such severe discrimination on the basis of race is unethical. 1. Why is it not okay to discriminate on the basis of race but okay to discriminate on the basis of country of birth? Why is it not okay to require that only highly skilled, highly paid black South Africans be allowed to participate in the labor markets of white South Africa but okay to disallow less competent Indians willing to work for a lower wage access to the US/UK labor markets? 2. The South Africa analogy is particularly compelling because black South Africans were not considered citizens of white South Africa. This analogy is not original to me. I stole it from Lant Pritchett. This is what he says in 'Let their people come': "The analogy between apartheid and restrictions on labor mobility is almost exact. People are not allowed to live and work where they please. Rather, some are only allowed to live in places where earning opportunities are scarce. [...] The restrictions about who can work where are based on conditions of birth, not on any notion of individual effort or merit. The current international system of restrictions on labor mobility enforces gaps in living standards across people that are large or larger than any in apartheid South Africa. It is even true that labor restrictions in nearly every case explicitly work to disadvantage people of “color” against those of European descent."
      - 11y ago

by an_cap 11y ago

lkenflkewnf 11y ago

You realize that by leaving, you would be negatively impacting the economic development of your native country, correct? Mass exoduses of capital and the most capable members of a nation's society have historically had disastrous effects. It would be harming orders of magnitude more people than those who benefited slightly by leaving.

an_cap 11y ago
Sort of like how the 'slight benefit' of allowing the most capable blacks to go work in predominantly white companies had disastrous effects on blacks? Also, I'm not arguing that H-1B should be restricted to only the most capable members of a nation's society. I am super into allowing the least capable members of India to work in the US - for instance programmers who would only command $20K per year in the US job market because they are not very capable.

jacalata 11y ago

I happen to be one myself and I think your argument is a poor one.

an_cap 11y ago
I didn't really spell out an argument in detail so let me try to clarify my argument and then we can productively disagree? 1. There are lots of people who would be better off (using any reasonable definition of better off that you chose) working as an H-1B worker in the US despite all the potential for abuse (real and exaggerated) that the status entails. They'd be better off because the pay would be higher. They might be better off because they like american culture better than that of their home country. They might be better off because their is greater scope for career advancement. They might be better off because they might learn more from their peers in the US. Etc. 2. H-1B workers do have the option of quitting their jobs and going back to their home countries if they decide that the abuse is too much. I understand that this is complicated by the fact that they might have taken out loans, or developed attachments to America. However, I don't think that, on net, this justifies banning them from the US labor market. Perhaps the strongest claim I'm willing to make is that the vast majority of workers ( >90%? ) currently in H-1B status in the US don't wish that the H-1B option wasn't available to them. And that the vast majority of wannabe H-1B workers would still choose to come to work in the US even after they are made aware of all the abuses. I'm aware that I'm only comparing H-1B as is to no H-1B at all and that numerous other hypothetical arrangements exist that would be better than both.
- jacalata 11y ago
  I should have said analogy - your analogy to breaking apartheid was shitty and didn't imply that you had any good arguments, and perhaps were arguing that people against the H1B system were simply racist. Your follow up post appears completely unrelated and doesnt justify the initial analogy in any way.
  - an_cap 11y ago
    I see. My bad! Let me try to explain the analogy to apartheid South Africa. I didn't mean to suggest that people are against the H-1B system because they are racist. I mean to claim that restricting foreigners from competing in US labor markets is bad for the same reason that restricting black South Africans from competing in the labor markets of white South Africa is bad. In apartheid South Africa, it was illegal for blacks to work in the white parts of South Africa without getting a permit (sort of like the H-1B visa or the green card in the case of the US). Most people consider this to be wrong primarily based on the intuition that such severe discrimination on the basis of race is unethical. 1. Why is it not okay to discriminate on the basis of race but okay to discriminate on the basis of country of birth? Why is it not okay to require that only highly skilled, highly paid black South Africans be allowed to participate in the labor markets of white South Africa but okay to disallow less competent Indians willing to work for a lower wage access to the US/UK labor markets? 2. The South Africa analogy is particularly compelling because black South Africans were not considered citizens of white South Africa. This analogy is not original to me. I stole it from Lant Pritchett. This is what he says in 'Let their people come': "The analogy between apartheid and restrictions on labor mobility is almost exact. People are not allowed to live and work where they please. Rather, some are only allowed to live in places where earning opportunities are scarce. [...] The restrictions about who can work where are based on conditions of birth, not on any notion of individual effort or merit. The current international system of restrictions on labor mobility enforces gaps in living standards across people that are large or larger than any in apartheid South Africa. It is even true that labor restrictions in nearly every case explicitly work to disadvantage people of “color” against those of European descent."
    - 11y ago