6 ms·

" increasing costs to consumers by protecting high-wage American workers from foreign competition?" Sorry I have to disagree, I am the most vehement loather of

" increasing costs to consumers by protecting high-wage American workers from foreign competition?" Sorry I have to disagree, I am the most vehement loather of Trump and his fan base but fundamentally this just encourages a race to the bottom, does it not?

icebraining 10y ago
In the same way that California allowing workers from other states. Some industries already have state-specific licensing requirements, maybe the software industry should too, to keep the riff-raff from flyover country from lowering their wages.
- bottled_poe 10y ago
  There is no doubt that the software engineering discipline is plagued by passionless amateurs. I welcome the next dot-com collapse, as only those who love their craft will remain, while the rest chase the next gravy train.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    >I welcome the next dot-com collapse, as only those who love their craft will remain No you don't. It's painful for the good ones too.
    - bottled_poe 10y ago
      I'll admit my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Allowing competition between whites and negroes (by ending Jim Crow, Davis Bacon and similar laws) also encourages a race to the bottom. Do you have any principled reason for opposing those laws? (Note: I'm not calling you "racist" - that's a slur that has lost all meaning these days. I'm taking a policy I'm pretty sure you oppose and asking you for a principled reason why you oppose it.)
- bottled_poe 10y ago
  Perhaps this ideology has been lost these days, but I believe a country has an obligation to provide services and a high quality of life to its citizens (aka taxpayers) before anyone else. Importing employees to fill roles (which local workers could do) cannibalises the taxpayer-funded foundations on which these companies were built.
  - chu4n 10y ago
    H1-B's pay taxes to the state and the federal government too.
- DarkKomunalec 10y ago
  The Jim Crow laws were a government favoring some of its citizens over other citizens, whereas these laws favor citizens over foreigners. In my opinion, it is a country's duty to place its own people first, but in the end it's up to the electorate.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    This is favoring some of its citizens (certain classes of workers) over other citizens (buyers in general, workers affected by reciprocal changes by other countries, etc).
    - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
      Those are secondary effects, and it is very much debatable who they favour. I would argue reducing the labour pool gives workers a stronger bargaining position, and thus better wages, reducing the rising income inequality.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        That would only be true if it gave better wages to people below the median. If you give better wages to people above the median, you increase inequality.

icebraining 10y ago

In the same way that California allowing workers from other states. Some industries already have state-specific licensing requirements, maybe the software industry should too, to keep the riff-raff from flyover country from lowering their wages.

bottled_poe 10y ago
There is no doubt that the software engineering discipline is plagued by passionless amateurs. I welcome the next dot-com collapse, as only those who love their craft will remain, while the rest chase the next gravy train.
- Clubber 10y ago
  >I welcome the next dot-com collapse, as only those who love their craft will remain No you don't. It's painful for the good ones too.
  - bottled_poe 10y ago
    I'll admit my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Allowing competition between whites and negroes (by ending Jim Crow, Davis Bacon and similar laws) also encourages a race to the bottom. Do you have any principled reason for opposing those laws? (Note: I'm not calling you "racist" - that's a slur that has lost all meaning these days. I'm taking a policy I'm pretty sure you oppose and asking you for a principled reason why you oppose it.)

bottled_poe 10y ago
Perhaps this ideology has been lost these days, but I believe a country has an obligation to provide services and a high quality of life to its citizens (aka taxpayers) before anyone else. Importing employees to fill roles (which local workers could do) cannibalises the taxpayer-funded foundations on which these companies were built.
- chu4n 10y ago
  H1-B's pay taxes to the state and the federal government too.
DarkKomunalec 10y ago
The Jim Crow laws were a government favoring some of its citizens over other citizens, whereas these laws favor citizens over foreigners. In my opinion, it is a country's duty to place its own people first, but in the end it's up to the electorate.
- icebraining 10y ago
  This is favoring some of its citizens (certain classes of workers) over other citizens (buyers in general, workers affected by reciprocal changes by other countries, etc).
  - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
    Those are secondary effects, and it is very much debatable who they favour. I would argue reducing the labour pool gives workers a stronger bargaining position, and thus better wages, reducing the rising income inequality.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      That would only be true if it gave better wages to people below the median. If you give better wages to people above the median, you increase inequality.