5 ms·

When US companies (and universities) can operate and profit by operating in other countries, like India. Why should we not allow employees from other countries

When US companies (and universities) can operate and profit by operating in other countries, like India. Why should we not allow employees from other countries (like India an China) to seek employment in US, if they can do the job better and at a competitive price point. Why should it be just a one sided gain model that always benefits US employees.

british_india 10y ago
It's a myth that the quality is better. Experience with H-1B holders shows they produce worse quality.
davidw 10y ago
People worked really hard to be born in the US and expect to reap the advantages of it!
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  So you're saying deepening the labor pool doesn't push wages down? If you're going to advocate policies that reduce the compensation middle class workers can receive, don't be shocked when they vote for a candidate promising to stop free trade agreements. A government exists to protect the quality of life of its citizens.
  - davidw 10y ago
    > So you're saying deepening the labor pool doesn't push wages down? Do you know what the current population of the US is compared to 100 years ago? And yet, we're much better off now. Economics is not a zero sum game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy Here are a few companies founded by immigrants or their children: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#4dc7a54c7a22 http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-per...
    - markonthewall 10y ago
      You link a Wikipedia article about a highly contentious issue among economists and expect to be taken seriously? It is almost universally the case that when someone says "economists think X" they actually refer to a group of academics belonging to a specific school of thought which defends that particular position. Not that scholarly consensus does not matter, just a reminder that in certain fields those questions become so highly ideological that you simply cannot treat them as a math question on which you can definitely rule one thesis or another.
      - davidw 10y ago
        Actually there are plenty of things - like rent control - that aren't much debated among economists. Economists almost universally reject the lump of labor fallacy.
        commentzorro 10y ago
        In the overall economy it's considered a fallacy, but in the small or subset of the economy (like highly skilled IT people) there is not that consensus. Empirical evidence bears this out too.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      You're putting the economic aggregate above the people left behind. If we had a solid safety net, it wouldn't be a problem, but there's a reason poverty and drug abuse leading to death is an epidemic across the US. Opinions like this is what caused Brexit to occur, and what will probably get Donald Trump elected.
      - davidw 10y ago
        > economic aggregate above the people left behind. Since it's a positive sum game, you could share the gains with the few people who lose out from immigration or trade, or automation (which is probably more important than the others) and still have some left over. Or yeah, you could get all protectionist and watch the economy whither.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Jobs are not a zero-sum game. The more smart engineers we get in Silicon Valley, the more innovative companies get built. Many startups are led by immigrants.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Of course it pushes wages down for people currently capturing rents. Similarly, ending Jim Crow pushed wages down for white workers. Was that a bad thing?
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Wanting a middle class income in your own country is not capturing rents.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        If the market price for a job is $X, but domestic workers get $Y > $X because men with guns stop domestic consumers from buying from foreign workers, then the domestic workers capture a rent of $Y - $X. The rent is taken from domestic consumers. In much the same way, Jim Crow/Davis Bacon/similar laws are also a form of rent seeking.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        You're entitled to your (IMHO, warped) opinion on trade regulations and the labor market. Labor rights are more important than consumer rights.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        So the thing is I'm currently in Bombay, not NY. To you they are funny brown people who pull "our" wages down. To me, they are simply Kadambari, Ankur or even "that drunk lady from Bar Stock Exchange last night". Your faceless economic threat is for me a nice lady who loves her dog or the new office boy who is surprised when a firang speaks Hindi. Perhaps that does warp my opinion.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Wanting better for my own countrymen doesn't make me a racist, it makes me a nationalist. At least slander me with the correct term.
h4nkoslo 10y ago
Because that is literally the mission of the United States government. "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
markonthewall 10y ago
Because those companies are US companies, their very existence is a byproduct of this political community's stability, of the infrastructure that was paid with taxpayer money, sometimes of the direct subsidies of the US states and their federal government and generally speaking by the direct or indirect economic activity that US citizens generates. Simple as that. There is a social contract that exists and that holds together the civic tissue of this country. Of course, some companies are going to try cheating it. That's fine, it is the reason we also have law enforcement agencies. In the case of UCSF, a public University that almost exclusively relies on public funding to survive. I think people have an overwhelming amount of reasons to be pissed off.
- padiyar83 10y ago
  > Because those companies are US companies, their very existence is a byproduct of this political community's stability. Engineering talent (in US and other countries) is also a byproduct of that society's investment into educating its children. Arguably graduate education is also funded by tax payer money in these countries. So when US firms hire an engineer from India or China, they essentially are getting an engineer without funding his education. > There is a social contract that exists and that holds together the civic tissue of this country. Of course, some companies are going to try cheating it. Seeking merit (searching for a person who can do the job at a competitive price point) is not cheating. If UCSF does not offer good courses at great prices someone else will. That someone else could very well be a Indian or a Chinese university.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  > In the case of UCSF, a public University that almost exclusively relies on public funding to survive. Alternative view to that is that any entity seeking public funds should be frugal with those funds. Would you accept a tax and tuition increase to double (or triple, or quadruple) everyone's pay at UCSF?
greglindahl 10y ago
Note that it's extremely difficult for a non-Indian to work in India. "Business visit" for 60 days a year, yes, but work?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  For an IT worker it's not that hard. The main conditions are being paid a minimum amount (it's about 15 lac/year, last I heard), registering with the police every 180 days, and other details like that. The 15 lac/year requirement doesn't even apply to ethnic chefs and language teachers.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Ah, the thing I'm remembering is the Economist noting that there's no path to citizenship. Every H1B my companies have ever employed became a citizen of the US. ("15 lac" is 15 lakh is 1.5 million rupees, which is around $22,500 at the moment.)
- padiyar83 10y ago
  I agree and its wrong. India should have a path to allow for long periods of staying and working in the country and provide for a valid path towards citizenship. Thats the only way India can be a country that can attract and retain smart global talent to enable its companies compete globally.

british_india 10y ago

It's a myth that the quality is better. Experience with H-1B holders shows they produce worse quality.

davidw 10y ago

People worked really hard to be born in the US and expect to reap the advantages of it!

toomuchtodo 10y ago
So you're saying deepening the labor pool doesn't push wages down? If you're going to advocate policies that reduce the compensation middle class workers can receive, don't be shocked when they vote for a candidate promising to stop free trade agreements. A government exists to protect the quality of life of its citizens.
- davidw 10y ago
  > So you're saying deepening the labor pool doesn't push wages down? Do you know what the current population of the US is compared to 100 years ago? And yet, we're much better off now. Economics is not a zero sum game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy Here are a few companies founded by immigrants or their children: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#4dc7a54c7a22 http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-per...
  - markonthewall 10y ago
    You link a Wikipedia article about a highly contentious issue among economists and expect to be taken seriously? It is almost universally the case that when someone says "economists think X" they actually refer to a group of academics belonging to a specific school of thought which defends that particular position. Not that scholarly consensus does not matter, just a reminder that in certain fields those questions become so highly ideological that you simply cannot treat them as a math question on which you can definitely rule one thesis or another.
    - davidw 10y ago
      Actually there are plenty of things - like rent control - that aren't much debated among economists. Economists almost universally reject the lump of labor fallacy.
      - commentzorro 10y ago
        In the overall economy it's considered a fallacy, but in the small or subset of the economy (like highly skilled IT people) there is not that consensus. Empirical evidence bears this out too.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    You're putting the economic aggregate above the people left behind. If we had a solid safety net, it wouldn't be a problem, but there's a reason poverty and drug abuse leading to death is an epidemic across the US. Opinions like this is what caused Brexit to occur, and what will probably get Donald Trump elected.
    - davidw 10y ago
      > economic aggregate above the people left behind. Since it's a positive sum game, you could share the gains with the few people who lose out from immigration or trade, or automation (which is probably more important than the others) and still have some left over. Or yeah, you could get all protectionist and watch the economy whither.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Jobs are not a zero-sum game. The more smart engineers we get in Silicon Valley, the more innovative companies get built. Many startups are led by immigrants.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Of course it pushes wages down for people currently capturing rents. Similarly, ending Jim Crow pushed wages down for white workers. Was that a bad thing?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Wanting a middle class income in your own country is not capturing rents.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      If the market price for a job is $X, but domestic workers get $Y > $X because men with guns stop domestic consumers from buying from foreign workers, then the domestic workers capture a rent of $Y - $X. The rent is taken from domestic consumers. In much the same way, Jim Crow/Davis Bacon/similar laws are also a form of rent seeking.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        You're entitled to your (IMHO, warped) opinion on trade regulations and the labor market. Labor rights are more important than consumer rights.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        So the thing is I'm currently in Bombay, not NY. To you they are funny brown people who pull "our" wages down. To me, they are simply Kadambari, Ankur or even "that drunk lady from Bar Stock Exchange last night". Your faceless economic threat is for me a nice lady who loves her dog or the new office boy who is surprised when a firang speaks Hindi. Perhaps that does warp my opinion.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Wanting better for my own countrymen doesn't make me a racist, it makes me a nationalist. At least slander me with the correct term.

h4nkoslo 10y ago

Because that is literally the mission of the United States government. "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

markonthewall 10y ago

Because those companies are US companies, their very existence is a byproduct of this political community's stability, of the infrastructure that was paid with taxpayer money, sometimes of the direct subsidies of the US states and their federal government and generally speaking by the direct or indirect economic activity that US citizens generates. Simple as that. There is a social contract that exists and that holds together the civic tissue of this country. Of course, some companies are going to try cheating it. That's fine, it is the reason we also have law enforcement agencies. In the case of UCSF, a public University that almost exclusively relies on public funding to survive. I think people have an overwhelming amount of reasons to be pissed off.

padiyar83 10y ago
> Because those companies are US companies, their very existence is a byproduct of this political community's stability. Engineering talent (in US and other countries) is also a byproduct of that society's investment into educating its children. Arguably graduate education is also funded by tax payer money in these countries. So when US firms hire an engineer from India or China, they essentially are getting an engineer without funding his education. > There is a social contract that exists and that holds together the civic tissue of this country. Of course, some companies are going to try cheating it. Seeking merit (searching for a person who can do the job at a competitive price point) is not cheating. If UCSF does not offer good courses at great prices someone else will. That someone else could very well be a Indian or a Chinese university.
prostoalex 10y ago
> In the case of UCSF, a public University that almost exclusively relies on public funding to survive. Alternative view to that is that any entity seeking public funds should be frugal with those funds. Would you accept a tax and tuition increase to double (or triple, or quadruple) everyone's pay at UCSF?

greglindahl 10y ago

Note that it's extremely difficult for a non-Indian to work in India. "Business visit" for 60 days a year, yes, but work?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
For an IT worker it's not that hard. The main conditions are being paid a minimum amount (it's about 15 lac/year, last I heard), registering with the police every 180 days, and other details like that. The 15 lac/year requirement doesn't even apply to ethnic chefs and language teachers.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Ah, the thing I'm remembering is the Economist noting that there's no path to citizenship. Every H1B my companies have ever employed became a citizen of the US. ("15 lac" is 15 lakh is 1.5 million rupees, which is around $22,500 at the moment.)
padiyar83 10y ago
I agree and its wrong. India should have a path to allow for long periods of staying and working in the country and provide for a valid path towards citizenship. Thats the only way India can be a country that can attract and retain smart global talent to enable its companies compete globally.