6 ms·

When companies like Tata are fulfilling government contracts, they _should_ be filling those positions with local labour at local rates. Here's an alternate pr

When companies like Tata are fulfilling government contracts, they _should_ be filling those positions with local labour at local rates. Here's an alternate proposal. Suppose it would cost $70k for the wrong type of people to provide labor, and $100k for the right type of person to provide labor. Lets continue having labor sold by the lowest cost provider. But then lets engage in direct wealth transfers; we'll have the government directly send $30k to the high income software engineers who might have been able to do the same job less efficiently. This is a more or less equivalent scheme to transfer wealth from taxpayers to high income people. Do you have any objection to this scheme? If so, why does your objection not apply equally well to your protectionist scheme?

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Who pays for that $30k the government sends the displaced worker?
- juhq 10y ago
  You answered your own question. Government of course.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    So general income taxes or deficit spending? Isn't that just unemployment insurance by another name?
    - juhq 10y ago
      Does it matter? Government collects taxes and then spends it as it chooses.
      - Touche 10y ago
        Yes, this is a new type of spending that hasn't existed before, and therefore taxes either have to increase or something else that is currently getting the 30k doesn't get it any more. You can't hand-wave away where this money comes from.
        tobltobs 10y ago
        Trumpists can: “This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?”
        croon 10y ago
        Before people dismiss this, it is an actual Trump quote.
        pessimizer 10y ago
        It is also completely true.
        croon 10y ago
        Sure, that statement is technically correct, but it doesn't support the argument he was making.
        KirinDave 10y ago
        It's not though. You don't "default" but your currency has to be well managed to a certain degree. The Dollar exists as it does because of its status as a reserve currency and because of how the Yuan is pinned relative to it. You could break it. It's not immune to the hyperinflation that's hit other currencies. Historically, the only other proposed option was the EU and much as been made about unsustainable financial policy there (many allege these issues are overblown to help discredit the notion of a strong Euro, but that's neither here nor there). But now we're starting to talk about creating to-order currencies with arbitrary properties, guaranteed supply limits and curiously popular ownership policies. While governments will never give up the power to mint their own currency, it's not unimaginable that in 10 years some some countries will seriously consider participating in a digital reserve.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Taxpayers, same as in fergie's scheme.
DarkKomunalec 10y ago
But it is not equivalent. Hiring local has many beneficial effects over outsourcing - increased labour demand increases wages, the local pool of talent and technology is developed, and the money you spend will in turn mostly be spent in your own economy, growing it and paying taxes to your government. You could argue that these secondary effects do not outweigh the higher cost, and I'm sure sometimes that would be true, but this is a much weaker and less general argument.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  We are discussing hiring local workers, not outsourcing. The local workers just happen to be brown and born in a different place. The money will still be spent in your own economy. The choices are threefold: My preferred scheme (1): Low income taxpayers keep $30k and spend it themselves. Government pays for $70k from lowest bidding software engineer (possibly an Indian). Fergie's preferred scheme (2): Low income taxpayers don't get to spend $30k on themselves. Government pays $100k to a non-Indian software engineer. My alternate scheme (3): Low income taxpayers don't get to spend $30k on themselves. Government pays $70k to some Indian software engineer and then gives $30k to some random high income non-Indian person. Your argument does not distinguish between (2) and (3). In both cases, money is transferred from taxpayers to high income colocated workers who will presumably spend it in the economy.
  - taneq 10y ago
    > We are discussing hiring local workers, not outsourcing. The local workers just happen to be brown and born in a different place. One distinction is that many immigrant workers will be sending money back to their family in their home country, resulting in a net drain on the economy in which they're working. I'm not saying this is a good reason to make life harder for them, but I do think it's a fair point.
    - vira 10y ago
      It's not that simple. An Indian expatriate's remittance may leave American shores, for example, but then re-enters when their family buys iPhones, Ford's and Hershey's.
crdoconnor 10y ago
>This is a more or less equivalent scheme to transfer wealth from taxpayers to high income people. Do you have any objection to this scheme? It's not equivalent at all. All taxpayers would now be on the hook for that 30k rather than just the corporations who pay for that labor.
mlmlmasd 10y ago
There's a difference between using tax payer money to pay people in that country, vs paying outsourced labor somewhere in another country.
battlebot 10y ago
I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" company providing the labor. I just think that by exploiting vulnerable non-citizen "guest" workers and promising to sponsor a green card, these companies have been able to suppress wages to an extent that I am not comfortable with. Also, H1B looks a lot like indentured servitude to me. I have watched close friends suffer through this process. Foreign workers need full payment of competitive market rate wages as well as the ability to fully maneuver in the marketplace so that they can act in their own best interest. It's already hard enough for them coming to the US with less competitive skillsets, but if they could bargain freely, they could at least earn market-rate wages in their skill range and grow their careers organically.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Who pays for that $30k the government sends the displaced worker?

juhq 10y ago
You answered your own question. Government of course.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  So general income taxes or deficit spending? Isn't that just unemployment insurance by another name?
  - juhq 10y ago
    Does it matter? Government collects taxes and then spends it as it chooses.
    - Touche 10y ago
      Yes, this is a new type of spending that hasn't existed before, and therefore taxes either have to increase or something else that is currently getting the 30k doesn't get it any more. You can't hand-wave away where this money comes from.
      - tobltobs 10y ago
        Trumpists can: “This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?”
        croon 10y ago
        Before people dismiss this, it is an actual Trump quote.
        pessimizer 10y ago
        It is also completely true.
        croon 10y ago
        Sure, that statement is technically correct, but it doesn't support the argument he was making.
        KirinDave 10y ago
        It's not though. You don't "default" but your currency has to be well managed to a certain degree. The Dollar exists as it does because of its status as a reserve currency and because of how the Yuan is pinned relative to it. You could break it. It's not immune to the hyperinflation that's hit other currencies. Historically, the only other proposed option was the EU and much as been made about unsustainable financial policy there (many allege these issues are overblown to help discredit the notion of a strong Euro, but that's neither here nor there). But now we're starting to talk about creating to-order currencies with arbitrary properties, guaranteed supply limits and curiously popular ownership policies. While governments will never give up the power to mint their own currency, it's not unimaginable that in 10 years some some countries will seriously consider participating in a digital reserve.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Taxpayers, same as in fergie's scheme.

DarkKomunalec 10y ago

But it is not equivalent. Hiring local has many beneficial effects over outsourcing - increased labour demand increases wages, the local pool of talent and technology is developed, and the money you spend will in turn mostly be spent in your own economy, growing it and paying taxes to your government. You could argue that these secondary effects do not outweigh the higher cost, and I'm sure sometimes that would be true, but this is a much weaker and less general argument.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
We are discussing hiring local workers, not outsourcing. The local workers just happen to be brown and born in a different place. The money will still be spent in your own economy. The choices are threefold: My preferred scheme (1): Low income taxpayers keep $30k and spend it themselves. Government pays for $70k from lowest bidding software engineer (possibly an Indian). Fergie's preferred scheme (2): Low income taxpayers don't get to spend $30k on themselves. Government pays $100k to a non-Indian software engineer. My alternate scheme (3): Low income taxpayers don't get to spend $30k on themselves. Government pays $70k to some Indian software engineer and then gives $30k to some random high income non-Indian person. Your argument does not distinguish between (2) and (3). In both cases, money is transferred from taxpayers to high income colocated workers who will presumably spend it in the economy.
- taneq 10y ago
  > We are discussing hiring local workers, not outsourcing. The local workers just happen to be brown and born in a different place. One distinction is that many immigrant workers will be sending money back to their family in their home country, resulting in a net drain on the economy in which they're working. I'm not saying this is a good reason to make life harder for them, but I do think it's a fair point.
  - vira 10y ago
    It's not that simple. An Indian expatriate's remittance may leave American shores, for example, but then re-enters when their family buys iPhones, Ford's and Hershey's.

crdoconnor 10y ago

>This is a more or less equivalent scheme to transfer wealth from taxpayers to high income people. Do you have any objection to this scheme? It's not equivalent at all. All taxpayers would now be on the hook for that 30k rather than just the corporations who pay for that labor.

mlmlmasd 10y ago

There's a difference between using tax payer money to pay people in that country, vs paying outsourced labor somewhere in another country.

battlebot 10y ago

I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" company providing the labor. I just think that by exploiting vulnerable non-citizen "guest" workers and promising to sponsor a green card, these companies have been able to suppress wages to an extent that I am not comfortable with. Also, H1B looks a lot like indentured servitude to me. I have watched close friends suffer through this process. Foreign workers need full payment of competitive market rate wages as well as the ability to fully maneuver in the marketplace so that they can act in their own best interest. It's already hard enough for them coming to the US with less competitive skillsets, but if they could bargain freely, they could at least earn market-rate wages in their skill range and grow their careers organically.