5 ms·

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 ra

by 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."

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
The problem is that this is a form of discrimination against local employees in favour of cheaper labour which is often less competent. There is no other reason for the continuing existence of H1B. It's simply a naive and rather stupid cost-cutting measure. The analogy to SA is absolutely inappropriate, because SA was run on the basis that black South Africans were fundamentally morally, ethically, culturally, and socially inferior to white South Africans, solely on the basis of skin colour (as a proxy for heritage.) With H1B, no one cares about anything except cost of labour. Which is a problem, for reasons that may not be obvious. Consider the possibility that moving (say) Indian talent to the US will stall growth in India and move it to the US. It may be a good deal for individual Indians, but it's not necessarily such a great deal for the Indian economy. In fact you get a kind of reverse Ricardian effect, where free movement of labour can depress all the economies involved. The source economy loses talented people, and spending on wages contracts in the destination economy, which drives down consumer demand. (Profits increase in the short term - hurrah! - but if you drive down consumer demand enough, your economy falls off a cliff.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo#Comparative_advantage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo#Comparative_adva... Morally free movement of populations should be a human right. But you have to get rid of nation states and most notions of economic competition to make it work, and I'm not expecting those changes any time soon.
- an_cap 11y ago
  I find it very disheartening that you and other commenters in this conversation are so happy to brush away the the real harm to the foreigner who doesn't get to work in the first world. You for instance summarize the benefits of free movement of labor as 'profits increase in the short term - hurrah' and 'good deal for individual Indians but not for the Indian economy'. I feel like that is quite hurtful to H-1B holder whose life could be radically transformed by having the opportunity to work in the US. I find the ease with which you are willing to draft me in a war that I did not chose to be disheartening. That somehow it is the duty of the talented people of the source economy to to grow it. How about you move to India the grow its economy? (Maybe you are actually a third-worlder who gave up the opportunity to move to the first-world to make your home country better. In that case I deeply admire your sacrifice. But if in fact you are a first-worlder who grew up with all the advantages that the first-world has to offer and still don't see the hypocrisy in asking a third-worlder to stay home because he/she happened to be born in the wrong country, you should engage in some self-reflection. Your citation of the Comparative Advantage section of David Ricardo's wikipedia page does not give me too much confidence on your understanding of the economic theory of free trade (especially as it pertains to labor) and the shortcomings of that theory. You must be aware that Ricardo says exactly the opposite of your point of view since you label your point of view as the 'reverse Ricardian effect.' At the very least, provide a reference to the 'reverse Ricardian effect' that perhaps quantitatively models how reduced spending on wages causes an economy to fall off a cliff? Also, I'm not sure I understand your theory of what counts as unethical discrimination. Why is it wrong for an employer to prefer less competent but cheaper employees? And is this only a problem if the cheaper employees are non-local?
  - Umn44 11y ago
    I don't think you understand what he is getting at, the business classes are protected and subsidized by state power, the people who own society and the majority of businesses people work at are shielded from market competition by the state. The vast majority of the population however is not, individually they would want to protect their incomes and their jobs, the same way the upper class uses state power to protect themselves from competition from other states the masses via state subsidies. The state intervenes on behalf of employers to keep wages down. WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-... Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 Energy subsidies https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW07021...

by an_cap 11y ago

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

The problem is that this is a form of discrimination against local employees in favour of cheaper labour which is often less competent. There is no other reason for the continuing existence of H1B. It's simply a naive and rather stupid cost-cutting measure. The analogy to SA is absolutely inappropriate, because SA was run on the basis that black South Africans were fundamentally morally, ethically, culturally, and socially inferior to white South Africans, solely on the basis of skin colour (as a proxy for heritage.) With H1B, no one cares about anything except cost of labour. Which is a problem, for reasons that may not be obvious. Consider the possibility that moving (say) Indian talent to the US will stall growth in India and move it to the US. It may be a good deal for individual Indians, but it's not necessarily such a great deal for the Indian economy. In fact you get a kind of reverse Ricardian effect, where free movement of labour can depress all the economies involved. The source economy loses talented people, and spending on wages contracts in the destination economy, which drives down consumer demand. (Profits increase in the short term - hurrah! - but if you drive down consumer demand enough, your economy falls off a cliff.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo#Comparative_advantage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo#Comparative_adva... Morally free movement of populations should be a human right. But you have to get rid of nation states and most notions of economic competition to make it work, and I'm not expecting those changes any time soon.

an_cap 11y ago
I find it very disheartening that you and other commenters in this conversation are so happy to brush away the the real harm to the foreigner who doesn't get to work in the first world. You for instance summarize the benefits of free movement of labor as 'profits increase in the short term - hurrah' and 'good deal for individual Indians but not for the Indian economy'. I feel like that is quite hurtful to H-1B holder whose life could be radically transformed by having the opportunity to work in the US. I find the ease with which you are willing to draft me in a war that I did not chose to be disheartening. That somehow it is the duty of the talented people of the source economy to to grow it. How about you move to India the grow its economy? (Maybe you are actually a third-worlder who gave up the opportunity to move to the first-world to make your home country better. In that case I deeply admire your sacrifice. But if in fact you are a first-worlder who grew up with all the advantages that the first-world has to offer and still don't see the hypocrisy in asking a third-worlder to stay home because he/she happened to be born in the wrong country, you should engage in some self-reflection. Your citation of the Comparative Advantage section of David Ricardo's wikipedia page does not give me too much confidence on your understanding of the economic theory of free trade (especially as it pertains to labor) and the shortcomings of that theory. You must be aware that Ricardo says exactly the opposite of your point of view since you label your point of view as the 'reverse Ricardian effect.' At the very least, provide a reference to the 'reverse Ricardian effect' that perhaps quantitatively models how reduced spending on wages causes an economy to fall off a cliff? Also, I'm not sure I understand your theory of what counts as unethical discrimination. Why is it wrong for an employer to prefer less competent but cheaper employees? And is this only a problem if the cheaper employees are non-local?
- Umn44 11y ago
  I don't think you understand what he is getting at, the business classes are protected and subsidized by state power, the people who own society and the majority of businesses people work at are shielded from market competition by the state. The vast majority of the population however is not, individually they would want to protect their incomes and their jobs, the same way the upper class uses state power to protect themselves from competition from other states the masses via state subsidies. The state intervenes on behalf of employers to keep wages down. WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-... Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 Energy subsidies https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW07021...