5 ms·

Ok what's the suprise here? If you give companies a chance to get cheaper "mostly the same" labor without a downside, or maybe with the upside they can't leave

Ok what's the suprise here? If you give companies a chance to get cheaper "mostly the same" labor without a downside, or maybe with the upside they can't leave, they're going to take it. That's why I do believe globalization and the availability of huge amounts of cheap unregulated labor does hurt American jobs and industry. Its not xenophobia, its just common sense. I think if you look past any ideas of racism, xenophobia, etc, you'll see that in plain economic terms, Trump is right -- but it applies to every industry, not just SV. Imagine how if this is applicable to something requiring the skills of software development, how much more so it would be true of some low-skill job.

d--b 10y ago
It's not obvious at all. Shipping lower skilled jobs to other countries mean higher margins for US companies. Which is good in itself for the US economy. Buying manufacturing from other countries means it's easier to sell stuff to them as well, which is also good to US economy. The fact is that the US has a very good overall economy, so maybe one has to look at the issue of redistribution of wealth for instance. Economy-wise, the problem is a lot more complex than what you make it appear. You can't just say: economically speaking it makes sense to close the borders...
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  > Shipping lower skilled jobs to other countries mean higher margins for US companies. Which is good in itself for the US economy. US companies and the collection of US voters are different. Their interests do not always coincide. One might say that higher margins are "good for the US economy", but that doesn't mean they're good for every person participating in the US economy -- which is what the US voter cares more about. It's important to recognize that US Companies, to a great degree, are owned by shareholders. It is the shareholders who receive the profit. The fact that Walmart sells goods manufactured overseas, giving it higher margins, has allowed various members of the Walton family to become billionaires. But someone working as a Walmart greeter probably sees very little benefit. And, of course, the now unemployed US manufacturing workers/voters do benefit a little from Walmart's lower prices as customers. But, it's reasonable to question whether such workers are better off unemployed, even if they are able to buy cheap products from Walmart.
  - valuearb 10y ago
    The shareholders are us, our 401ks, our pensions, etc. Overall, higher margins are good for us. Walmart should not sell higher cost products just to have them made in this country. The ability to specialize is why free trade makes both parties wealthier, if we can't make bicycles as well as the chinese, then let them make the bikes and we'll sell them smartphones and apps. If you were a lawyer making $300 an hour and could type 200 WPM, would you hire a secretary for $30/hour who could only type 100 WPM to type your filings for you? Of course you would because that means you can bill more $300 hours. Thats the specialization of free trade.
    - douche 10y ago
      > The shareholders are us, our 401ks, our pensions, etc. Overall, higher margins are good for us. The people working shit jobs at Walmart don't have 401ks or pensions. Or maybe they did, back when there were some good manufacturing jobs that produced goods locally, instead of being outsourced to the other side of the world.
      - valuearb 10y ago
        Running a cash register isn't a high skill job, do you think they'd get paid more if the goods were american, because they wouldn't. But the savings passed to consumers is spent on lots of things, like apps. And app developers are doing pretty good. The economy is much more fluid that you seem to understand.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      Specialization only works on seller's market, i.e. when there's more demand than capacity. If there's more capacity than demand, it makes sense to try and capture bigger share of the market while being less efficient at delivery.
- mdorazio 10y ago
  I think you're missing two key points here - 1) what are corporations doing with their increased profits as a result of tactics like abuse of the H1B system?, and 2) what portion of H1B salaries ends up back in the US economy vs. abroad? The net effect for the overall economy is only going to be better under the current H1B system if companies reinvest their profits into productive uses, which they haven't been [1]. And if H1B workers spend their earnings in the US instead of sending that money back home. I don't have solid data on this last point, but having worked with many H1Bs over the years I can at least anecdotally confirm it. You can also look at our trade deficit with India as another data point here [2]. We are not, in fact, selling more stuff into India than they sell us. There's a pretty strong argument to be made that the current system is more harmful than helpful to the economy as a whole. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/magazine/why-are-corporations-hoarding-trillions.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/magazine/why-are-corporat... [2] https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/south-central-asia/india https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/south-central-asia/india
  - dxhdr 10y ago
    > 1) what are corporations doing with their increased profits as a result of tactics like abuse of the H1B system? I'll answer that for anyone confused: stock buybacks, of course!
  - valuearb 10y ago
    It's not about selling stuff to India, its about selling stuff to the world and Indian developers help us do that. And it's not H1B abuse it's what it's intended for. Since we slammed the door on immigration 50 years ago, this program was created to release a tiny amount of the massive pressure of super smart people world wide who want to come to the US and help make it better. It's funny that engineers don't get the massive benefits of free trade that built this country, and the huge risks (Smoot Hawley) of trade barriers to our economy. Every dollar we send to India has to be spent in the US to be worth anything. They can save it, store it, send it to other countries, but it's nothing but imaginary paper if no one ever buys something from the US or reinvests it here. And if you are tired of foreigners buying our T-Bills instead of our goods/services, then stop running such massive budget deficits and fix the corporate income tax system that is taxing reinvested capital so highly that US firms are forced to park their foreign profits overseas to avoid losing nearly half of them to federal and state taxes. It's like a farmer eating their seed corn.
- yuhong 10y ago
  I think the basic idea is that the economy has operated on credit since the 1970s, with both a budget and a trade deficit. The idea is that debt increases over time, and obviously they want to get as much as possible of the extra debt. That is why higher profit margins are good for the US economy.
darkarmani 10y ago
> That's why I do believe globalization and the availability of huge amounts of cheap unregulated labor does hurt American jobs and industry. Its not xenophobia, its just common sense. I'm not sure what you mean by unregulated labor, but the bigger problem in this specific case is not the foreign worker, but the fact that they don't have freedom of movement once hired. If they could transfer job easily, companies would have to pay closer to market salaries.
- program_whiz 10y ago
  Was referring more to general case, like using less regulated labor abroad (China, Mexico). It has an impact because workers in the US or other first world countries are essentially in an unfair competition those workers can't demand benefits or higher salaries, and the US workers can't "skirt the law" to take lower wages or benefits (for example you can't pay a factory worker $2 / hr in the US). Put it another way, the law essentially says "If you use workers here, your minimum cost is $X. You have unlimited freedom to use workers elsewhere though, and you don't have to follow these rules in that case."
projectramo 10y ago
There have been many studies on this. Conservatives usually use the phrase "at best, the impact is nil" Liberals usually use the phrase "at worst, the impact is nil" Because the study shows there is negligible impact. Every laborer is also a spender. If the person saves, then every laborer is also an investor. If you believe in the mainstream economic theory, more jobs are produced for the ones that are "taken." You might ask where are those jobs, and then people will say they are in new fields and require training etc. The debate goes on: why aren't tech jobs in short supply? A: They are. Q: I don't see that, where? A: there isn't one "tech", there are many different fields and they are in short supply in the important ones etc. It is not as straightforward as you make it out to be.
- program_whiz 10y ago
  > Because the study shows there is negligible impact. Every laborer is also a spender. If the person saves, then every laborer is also an investor. See the sweatshops, guess they are just "another spender": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Inside-Apples-Chinese-sweatshop-factory-workers-paid-just-1-12-hour.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Ins...
  - projectramo 10y ago
    I said immigration may not cost jobs. And you responded with poverty is bad. If that was a response to what I said, I don't see how.
    - program_whiz 10y ago
      Your point was that the impact of using non-American labor was essentially nil in every study ever done. My point was that replacing a $25 / hr union factory worker who has healthcare and PTO, with a $2/hr factory worker in a "suicide sweatshop" is not nil. You said that in general, the replacement workers are just economic spenders too, and I provided a counter example (don't seem like these Chinese workers are likely to buy $800 iphones anytime soon).
program_whiz 10y ago
My point here is that its not surprising that a company takes a better cheaper option that can't just leave, and often costs less and has fewer regulations. That means that its worse for the average American worker, because they either have to lower standards and wages to compete, or just lose the potential job.
valuearb 10y ago
Globalization has made the US massively wealthy since the American Revolution. We rely on the ability to sell our goods and services across the world, cut off the world and we get poorer. Look up Smoot Hawley. These engineers will be working for our foreign competitors if Trump has his way, how is it good for our economy if more apps are sold by foreign firms, that Samsung sells more phones, etc, etc?
- tdkl 10y ago
  It's made the wealthy US 1% wealthier.
  - bdavisx 10y ago
    In reality, it's made more than just the 1% wealthier, but the balance is that it's made a whole lot more people poorer. I don't have references, but I remember reading them at some point, in terms of numbers there have been more losers than winners when you look at inflation adjusted wages.

d--b 10y ago

It's not obvious at all. Shipping lower skilled jobs to other countries mean higher margins for US companies. Which is good in itself for the US economy. Buying manufacturing from other countries means it's easier to sell stuff to them as well, which is also good to US economy. The fact is that the US has a very good overall economy, so maybe one has to look at the issue of redistribution of wealth for instance. Economy-wise, the problem is a lot more complex than what you make it appear. You can't just say: economically speaking it makes sense to close the borders...

HillaryBriss 10y ago
> Shipping lower skilled jobs to other countries mean higher margins for US companies. Which is good in itself for the US economy. US companies and the collection of US voters are different. Their interests do not always coincide. One might say that higher margins are "good for the US economy", but that doesn't mean they're good for every person participating in the US economy -- which is what the US voter cares more about. It's important to recognize that US Companies, to a great degree, are owned by shareholders. It is the shareholders who receive the profit. The fact that Walmart sells goods manufactured overseas, giving it higher margins, has allowed various members of the Walton family to become billionaires. But someone working as a Walmart greeter probably sees very little benefit. And, of course, the now unemployed US manufacturing workers/voters do benefit a little from Walmart's lower prices as customers. But, it's reasonable to question whether such workers are better off unemployed, even if they are able to buy cheap products from Walmart.
- valuearb 10y ago
  The shareholders are us, our 401ks, our pensions, etc. Overall, higher margins are good for us. Walmart should not sell higher cost products just to have them made in this country. The ability to specialize is why free trade makes both parties wealthier, if we can't make bicycles as well as the chinese, then let them make the bikes and we'll sell them smartphones and apps. If you were a lawyer making $300 an hour and could type 200 WPM, would you hire a secretary for $30/hour who could only type 100 WPM to type your filings for you? Of course you would because that means you can bill more $300 hours. Thats the specialization of free trade.
  - douche 10y ago
    > The shareholders are us, our 401ks, our pensions, etc. Overall, higher margins are good for us. The people working shit jobs at Walmart don't have 401ks or pensions. Or maybe they did, back when there were some good manufacturing jobs that produced goods locally, instead of being outsourced to the other side of the world.
    - valuearb 10y ago
      Running a cash register isn't a high skill job, do you think they'd get paid more if the goods were american, because they wouldn't. But the savings passed to consumers is spent on lots of things, like apps. And app developers are doing pretty good. The economy is much more fluid that you seem to understand.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Specialization only works on seller's market, i.e. when there's more demand than capacity. If there's more capacity than demand, it makes sense to try and capture bigger share of the market while being less efficient at delivery.
mdorazio 10y ago
I think you're missing two key points here - 1) what are corporations doing with their increased profits as a result of tactics like abuse of the H1B system?, and 2) what portion of H1B salaries ends up back in the US economy vs. abroad? The net effect for the overall economy is only going to be better under the current H1B system if companies reinvest their profits into productive uses, which they haven't been [1]. And if H1B workers spend their earnings in the US instead of sending that money back home. I don't have solid data on this last point, but having worked with many H1Bs over the years I can at least anecdotally confirm it. You can also look at our trade deficit with India as another data point here [2]. We are not, in fact, selling more stuff into India than they sell us. There's a pretty strong argument to be made that the current system is more harmful than helpful to the economy as a whole. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/magazine/why-are-corporations-hoarding-trillions.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/magazine/why-are-corporat... [2] https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/south-central-asia/india https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/south-central-asia/india
- dxhdr 10y ago
  > 1) what are corporations doing with their increased profits as a result of tactics like abuse of the H1B system? I'll answer that for anyone confused: stock buybacks, of course!
- valuearb 10y ago
  It's not about selling stuff to India, its about selling stuff to the world and Indian developers help us do that. And it's not H1B abuse it's what it's intended for. Since we slammed the door on immigration 50 years ago, this program was created to release a tiny amount of the massive pressure of super smart people world wide who want to come to the US and help make it better. It's funny that engineers don't get the massive benefits of free trade that built this country, and the huge risks (Smoot Hawley) of trade barriers to our economy. Every dollar we send to India has to be spent in the US to be worth anything. They can save it, store it, send it to other countries, but it's nothing but imaginary paper if no one ever buys something from the US or reinvests it here. And if you are tired of foreigners buying our T-Bills instead of our goods/services, then stop running such massive budget deficits and fix the corporate income tax system that is taxing reinvested capital so highly that US firms are forced to park their foreign profits overseas to avoid losing nearly half of them to federal and state taxes. It's like a farmer eating their seed corn.
yuhong 10y ago
I think the basic idea is that the economy has operated on credit since the 1970s, with both a budget and a trade deficit. The idea is that debt increases over time, and obviously they want to get as much as possible of the extra debt. That is why higher profit margins are good for the US economy.

darkarmani 10y ago

> That's why I do believe globalization and the availability of huge amounts of cheap unregulated labor does hurt American jobs and industry. Its not xenophobia, its just common sense. I'm not sure what you mean by unregulated labor, but the bigger problem in this specific case is not the foreign worker, but the fact that they don't have freedom of movement once hired. If they could transfer job easily, companies would have to pay closer to market salaries.

program_whiz 10y ago
Was referring more to general case, like using less regulated labor abroad (China, Mexico). It has an impact because workers in the US or other first world countries are essentially in an unfair competition those workers can't demand benefits or higher salaries, and the US workers can't "skirt the law" to take lower wages or benefits (for example you can't pay a factory worker $2 / hr in the US). Put it another way, the law essentially says "If you use workers here, your minimum cost is $X. You have unlimited freedom to use workers elsewhere though, and you don't have to follow these rules in that case."

projectramo 10y ago

There have been many studies on this. Conservatives usually use the phrase "at best, the impact is nil" Liberals usually use the phrase "at worst, the impact is nil" Because the study shows there is negligible impact. Every laborer is also a spender. If the person saves, then every laborer is also an investor. If you believe in the mainstream economic theory, more jobs are produced for the ones that are "taken." You might ask where are those jobs, and then people will say they are in new fields and require training etc. The debate goes on: why aren't tech jobs in short supply? A: They are. Q: I don't see that, where? A: there isn't one "tech", there are many different fields and they are in short supply in the important ones etc. It is not as straightforward as you make it out to be.

program_whiz 10y ago
> Because the study shows there is negligible impact. Every laborer is also a spender. If the person saves, then every laborer is also an investor. See the sweatshops, guess they are just "another spender": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Inside-Apples-Chinese-sweatshop-factory-workers-paid-just-1-12-hour.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Ins...
- projectramo 10y ago
  I said immigration may not cost jobs. And you responded with poverty is bad. If that was a response to what I said, I don't see how.
  - program_whiz 10y ago
    Your point was that the impact of using non-American labor was essentially nil in every study ever done. My point was that replacing a $25 / hr union factory worker who has healthcare and PTO, with a $2/hr factory worker in a "suicide sweatshop" is not nil. You said that in general, the replacement workers are just economic spenders too, and I provided a counter example (don't seem like these Chinese workers are likely to buy $800 iphones anytime soon).

program_whiz 10y ago

My point here is that its not surprising that a company takes a better cheaper option that can't just leave, and often costs less and has fewer regulations. That means that its worse for the average American worker, because they either have to lower standards and wages to compete, or just lose the potential job.

valuearb 10y ago

Globalization has made the US massively wealthy since the American Revolution. We rely on the ability to sell our goods and services across the world, cut off the world and we get poorer. Look up Smoot Hawley. These engineers will be working for our foreign competitors if Trump has his way, how is it good for our economy if more apps are sold by foreign firms, that Samsung sells more phones, etc, etc?

tdkl 10y ago
It's made the wealthy US 1% wealthier.
- bdavisx 10y ago
  In reality, it's made more than just the 1% wealthier, but the balance is that it's made a whole lot more people poorer. I don't have references, but I remember reading them at some point, in terms of numbers there have been more losers than winners when you look at inflation adjusted wages.