4 ms·

>I've never understood why U.S. is so protective in terms of citizenship. The American electorate believes unemployment is caused by an improper ratio of peopl

>I've never understood why U.S. is so protective in terms of citizenship. The American electorate believes unemployment is caused by an improper ratio of people to jobs, and it can be solved both by increasing the number of jobs and decreasing the number of people. In this theory, your friend's expulsion was a victory for the American who took over her job, and for the unemployed person who entered the labor market (if not directly, then via a domino effect). We are comparatively loose with immigration statuses that don't permit work. Tourist, student, etc. visas are relatively trivial to obtain. We have programs that allow work which doesn't compete with Americans, such as international performing arts groups on tour. We even have programs to fill jobs that Americans aren't available to fill (H1B for highly skilled labor, seasonal farm workers, etc). The moat is built around statuses that permit competition with Americans for jobs in general. It remains this way because Americans do not generally consider or believe Econ 101 ideas like that trade necessarily benefits both sides of the exchange (or they would not make it), more workers also means more consumers, cheaper labor => cheaper goods and services => higher standard of living, etc.

ZoF 10y ago
Yes, that stupid American electorate who can't understand basic economics. I really wish everyone could be as enlightened as yourself.
Houshalter 10y ago
>It remains this way because Americans do not generally consider or believe Econ 101 ideas It's not at all clear this violates "Econ 101". Supply and demand set prices, and wages are basically the price for labor. Increasing the supply of labor should necessarily decrease wages, and vice versa. Imagine the extreme, worst case scenario. If the US opened it's borders completely, and imported every poor worker in the entire world into its borders. Do you really believe that average American worker would be better off? That they could compete with that, and be able to demand a decent wage? >trade necessarily benefits both sides of the exchange True, but extremely misleading. E.g. f you move factories overseas for cheaper labor, the local workers lose out, even though other classes may gain. The benefits of trade are not distributed among the entire population. >cheaper labor => cheaper goods and services Sure, but if everyone is making proportionally less money, they can't afford the cheaper services, and on net they are poorer.
- ddeck 10y ago
  >Increasing the supply of labor should necessarily decrease wages, and vice versa. This assumes everyone is taking jobs and noone is creating them. America has a strong tradition of immigrants building businesses.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    No, it assumes that less are created than are taken, not that none are created at all.
- froogle 10y ago
  > It's not at all clear this violates "Econ 101". Supply and demand set prices, and wages are basically the price for labor. Increasing the supply of labor should necessarily decrease wages, and vice versa. Increasing the supply of labor also increases the demand for other goods. Workers have to eat! If you kick someone out of the country, you reduce demand for food, clothes, etc., eliminating the local jobs that would have gone towards satisfying that worker's needs. Not that I'm arguing against the possibility of more workers lowering wages. They might, to some degree (studies are unclear on to what degree they do), but it's not a zero-sum game, here.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    But does the benefit make up for the cost? It would be really unlikely if 100% of a workers wages went into the local economy, let alone local workers. Many products they buy may be from overseas, for instance.
zubat 10y ago
The fears of globalization are various and not as simple as a GDP or employment rate. It promotes an uprooting and destabilization of people's lives as everything becomes more competitive. There is no guarantee that you stay near home, work in a familiar culture, build lasting ties in your career. These things aren't strictly a matter of globalization, and their value is not easily measured against the known benefits of bigger markets. But the status quo is to ram free trade down the precariat's throat without allowing protest or negotiation, with a paternalistic "we'll all be better off if you take it on the chin." Analogies to the enclosure movement come to mind.
Sir_Substance 10y ago
>We are comparatively loose with immigration statuses that don't permit work. Tourist, student, etc. visas are relatively trivial to obtain. That's a weird statement, I feel like you lack wider context. As an Australian, pretty much the only place in the western world where I need a visa /at all/ to be a tourist is the USA. In something like 50% of the the world, I can just show up at the border whenevs and they'll let me in on the promise that I'm going to leave in a few weeks. Your standards are actually pretty anal compared to almost everywhere else. China and Russia are really the only comparable places.

ZoF 10y ago

Yes, that stupid American electorate who can't understand basic economics. I really wish everyone could be as enlightened as yourself.

Houshalter 10y ago

>It remains this way because Americans do not generally consider or believe Econ 101 ideas It's not at all clear this violates "Econ 101". Supply and demand set prices, and wages are basically the price for labor. Increasing the supply of labor should necessarily decrease wages, and vice versa. Imagine the extreme, worst case scenario. If the US opened it's borders completely, and imported every poor worker in the entire world into its borders. Do you really believe that average American worker would be better off? That they could compete with that, and be able to demand a decent wage? >trade necessarily benefits both sides of the exchange True, but extremely misleading. E.g. f you move factories overseas for cheaper labor, the local workers lose out, even though other classes may gain. The benefits of trade are not distributed among the entire population. >cheaper labor => cheaper goods and services Sure, but if everyone is making proportionally less money, they can't afford the cheaper services, and on net they are poorer.

ddeck 10y ago
>Increasing the supply of labor should necessarily decrease wages, and vice versa. This assumes everyone is taking jobs and noone is creating them. America has a strong tradition of immigrants building businesses.
- ZoF 10y ago
  No, it assumes that less are created than are taken, not that none are created at all.
froogle 10y ago
> It's not at all clear this violates "Econ 101". Supply and demand set prices, and wages are basically the price for labor. Increasing the supply of labor should necessarily decrease wages, and vice versa. Increasing the supply of labor also increases the demand for other goods. Workers have to eat! If you kick someone out of the country, you reduce demand for food, clothes, etc., eliminating the local jobs that would have gone towards satisfying that worker's needs. Not that I'm arguing against the possibility of more workers lowering wages. They might, to some degree (studies are unclear on to what degree they do), but it's not a zero-sum game, here.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  But does the benefit make up for the cost? It would be really unlikely if 100% of a workers wages went into the local economy, let alone local workers. Many products they buy may be from overseas, for instance.

zubat 10y ago

The fears of globalization are various and not as simple as a GDP or employment rate. It promotes an uprooting and destabilization of people's lives as everything becomes more competitive. There is no guarantee that you stay near home, work in a familiar culture, build lasting ties in your career. These things aren't strictly a matter of globalization, and their value is not easily measured against the known benefits of bigger markets. But the status quo is to ram free trade down the precariat's throat without allowing protest or negotiation, with a paternalistic "we'll all be better off if you take it on the chin." Analogies to the enclosure movement come to mind.

Sir_Substance 10y ago

>We are comparatively loose with immigration statuses that don't permit work. Tourist, student, etc. visas are relatively trivial to obtain. That's a weird statement, I feel like you lack wider context. As an Australian, pretty much the only place in the western world where I need a visa /at all/ to be a tourist is the USA. In something like 50% of the the world, I can just show up at the border whenevs and they'll let me in on the promise that I'm going to leave in a few weeks. Your standards are actually pretty anal compared to almost everywhere else. China and Russia are really the only comparable places.