5 ms·

something something democracy. The country is run (roughly) on something resembling democracy and equality. If, instead, the ethos changes to "more power to p

by adekok 10y ago

something something democracy. The country is run (roughly) on something resembling democracy and equality. If, instead, the ethos changes to "more power to people who pay more", we give up any pretence at democracy. We might as well just advertise that politicians are for sale. Which the mostly are right now, but at least they have to pay lip service to the people. Once that's gone, the culture of the country will change enormously. And not for the better. See William Shirer's "Collapse of the Third Republic" for what happens to countries in this situation. It's less well known than "The rise and fall of the third reich", but I found it a lot more informative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Collapse_of_the_Third_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Collapse_of_the_Third_Repu...

koolba 10y ago
> something something democracy. > The country is run (roughly) on something resembling democracy and equality. If, instead, the ethos changes to "more power to people who pay more", we give up any pretence at democracy. We might as well just advertise that politicians are for sale. What's not democratic about optimizing need based upon projected tax revenue? Are we discriminating against "poor companies"? Would you classify companies that allow their employees to work remotely doing the same? (ex: I'm sure Google can pay more for a remote employee than any local company in Podunk USA). I personally have no horse in the H1-B race. I don't employ any nor do I intend to apply for visas. The vast majority of citizens and permanent residents in the USA are in that group as well. It's in their interests to raise the price of said foreign labor. I'd say that's very democratic and keeping the price of it artificially low is short changing democracy.
- adekok 10y ago
  > What's not democratic about optimizing need based upon projected tax revenue? Are we discriminating against "poor companies"? Would you classify companies that allow their employees to work remotely doing the same? The unstated assumption in your questions seems to be that optimizing for revenue should be the #1 (or a high) priority for a government. If so, why not just cut all social programs? They're expensive, and the poor people can find jobs, right? My leaning is more towards the idea that governments should optimize for something else. Perhaps "the greater good", however the citizens decide that. Money is always an issue, but optimizing for tax revenue is a little to inhuman for me to be comfortable with it. > It's in their interests to raise the price of said foreign labor. ... to artificially raise the price of foreign labor. Many companies now are trying to artificially lower the price of foreign labor, through lobbying, etc. And the foreign labor market is in no way free. When I worked in the Bay area, it was well known that many H1B holders were paid low salaries, and treated like crap. Because they wanted to stay in the country, and were willing to accept hardship in order to do so. That artificially lowered the labor cost, and lowered salaries. If they were paid the same as local talent, the artificial low cost would go away, and more local talent would be hired.
  - koolba 10y ago
    >> What's not democratic about optimizing need based upon projected tax revenue? Are we discriminating against "poor companies"? Would you classify companies that allow their employees to work remotely doing the same? > The unstated assumption in your questions seems to be that optimizing for revenue should be the #1 (or a high) priority for a government. > If so, why not just cut all social programs? They're expensive, and the poor people can find jobs, right? Social programs aren't revenue, they're an expense. > My leaning is more towards the idea that governments should optimize for something else. Perhaps "the greater good", however the citizens decide that. The beauty of using something objective like salary or even a pure auction where the USA sells the via to the highest bidder is that it's objective and consistent. "Greater good" is a feel good (no pun intended) term that has no objective meaning. It may make you feel better that you've provided a job to a third-world immigrant but that doesn't mean it's objectively a good thing for the USA. And at the end of the day the foreign policy of the USA is for its own interests (which may align with global ones but not at the expense of USA ones). > Money is always an issue, but optimizing for tax revenue is a little to inhuman for me to be comfortable with it. If you don't pick something objective where at least the government can get a fair share of the money, you'll end up with outsourcing firms gaming the system. It's the immigration equivalent of "this is why we can't have nice things". >> It's in their interests to raise the price of said foreign labor. > ... to artificially raise the price of foreign labor. Many companies now are trying to artificially lower the price of foreign labor, through lobbying, etc. It's not artificial at all. It's the price of providing that same service locally which is what the H1-B's salary is supposed to be anyway. If the foreign labor wants to provide that service remotely, more power to them. Let them do so. But if it's done in SF, or NY, or anywhere in the USA, the prevailing labor rate is what should be paid. The point isn't to provide cheap labor to firms. It's to fill gaps in the labor market (or at least that was supposed to be the point). > And the foreign labor market is in no way free. When I worked in the Bay area, it was well known that many H1B holders were paid low salaries, and treated like crap. Because they wanted to stay in the country, and were willing to accept hardship in order to do so. > That artificially lowered the labor cost, and lowered salaries. If they were paid the same as local talent, the artificial low cost would go away, and more local talent would be hired. Well duh. That's what I'm trying to say!!
patrickg_zill 10y ago
America is not a democracy. It is a representative republic.
- arjie 10y ago
  Meaningless distinction based off the differing meanings of 'democracy'. It's a constitutional representative democracy that is also a republic. I don't even agree that a move like this takes power from the people but the democracy/republic distinction wasn't even relevant.
bjornsing 10y ago
In the labor market I'd say we gave in to "more power to people who pay more" [1] quite some time ago, and rightly so. 1. Like e.g. employees, all other things equal, tend to work for the employer that pays better. That gives more power to employers that can pay more.
- adekok 10y ago
  In a free labor market. The labor market inside the country is mostly free. People can move to where the jobs are. The labor market for foreigners isn't free. There are restrictions in place to prevent foreign immigration. If it's cheaper to import someone from India rather than Montana, is that OK? If so, why? If not, why not?
  - bjornsing 10y ago
    > If it's cheaper to import someone from India rather than Montana, is that OK? If so, why? If not, why not? As I understand the reasoning behind the H1B visa program: If it's just cheaper, then it's not ok, essentially because workers in Montana should be protected from wage competition. But if it's unlikely that someone in Montana could / wants to do the job, then it's ok, because then there is no competitive situation and the interest of the business / economy to fill a position takes precedence. Isn't a good way to ensure that to just raise the bar in terms of wage? If a business has to pay $150k/y for a H1B worker (because otherwise they won't get the visa) then they'd probably prefer a comparable candidate from Montana for $140k/y. If they still hire the H1B it's because nobody in Montana wants to / can do the job for $140k/y, so no wage competition (except of course if someone in Montana does want to do the job for $160k/y - but in that case they're perhaps not in desperate need of "protectionistic intervention" from their government). So to me it seems an "auction" allocation strategy for H1B visas would strike a pretty good balance, raising the wage bar when demand for visas go up (and lowering it if/when demand goes down).
wz1000 10y ago
Most countries today will give you citizenship if you pay enough.
- vinay427 10y ago
  Source please. From my experience, this is not even close to true. You might gain a residence visa that after several years might yield citizenship, and even this is not available in many countries.
briandear 10y ago
Ok democracy. Let's put H1 policy to a vote. Democracy has nothing to do with equality of outcomes: it's about the representation of the citizens. Why can't I easily get an oil exploration license but some multi-national can? I can't afford millions of dollars. But with a license, I'd have a scarce resource and could easily raise money to drill. Why aren't radio frequency spectrums allocated by a lottery system? Why is surplus federal equipment sold at auction and not just sold to the first person that shows up? Pricing is an excellent regulatory mechanism. It works -- until the system is gamed by the well-connected. Making third Reich comparisons, even tangentially, seems like an unnecessary Godwin.
- adekok 10y ago
  > Making third Reich comparisons, even tangentially, seems like an unnecessary Godwin. Insults like this are unethical, especially when you didn't bother reading the link I posted. The reference was to France, not to Nazi Germany. I've seen rather a lot more of this on HN recently. People who automatically assume that the comments they're replying to hide some kind of nefarious evil intent. Stop it. It's anti-social and abusive.

by adekok 10y ago

koolba 10y ago

> something something democracy. > The country is run (roughly) on something resembling democracy and equality. If, instead, the ethos changes to "more power to people who pay more", we give up any pretence at democracy. We might as well just advertise that politicians are for sale. What's not democratic about optimizing need based upon projected tax revenue? Are we discriminating against "poor companies"? Would you classify companies that allow their employees to work remotely doing the same? (ex: I'm sure Google can pay more for a remote employee than any local company in Podunk USA). I personally have no horse in the H1-B race. I don't employ any nor do I intend to apply for visas. The vast majority of citizens and permanent residents in the USA are in that group as well. It's in their interests to raise the price of said foreign labor. I'd say that's very democratic and keeping the price of it artificially low is short changing democracy.

adekok 10y ago
> What's not democratic about optimizing need based upon projected tax revenue? Are we discriminating against "poor companies"? Would you classify companies that allow their employees to work remotely doing the same? The unstated assumption in your questions seems to be that optimizing for revenue should be the #1 (or a high) priority for a government. If so, why not just cut all social programs? They're expensive, and the poor people can find jobs, right? My leaning is more towards the idea that governments should optimize for something else. Perhaps "the greater good", however the citizens decide that. Money is always an issue, but optimizing for tax revenue is a little to inhuman for me to be comfortable with it. > It's in their interests to raise the price of said foreign labor. ... to artificially raise the price of foreign labor. Many companies now are trying to artificially lower the price of foreign labor, through lobbying, etc. And the foreign labor market is in no way free. When I worked in the Bay area, it was well known that many H1B holders were paid low salaries, and treated like crap. Because they wanted to stay in the country, and were willing to accept hardship in order to do so. That artificially lowered the labor cost, and lowered salaries. If they were paid the same as local talent, the artificial low cost would go away, and more local talent would be hired.
- koolba 10y ago
  >> What's not democratic about optimizing need based upon projected tax revenue? Are we discriminating against "poor companies"? Would you classify companies that allow their employees to work remotely doing the same? > The unstated assumption in your questions seems to be that optimizing for revenue should be the #1 (or a high) priority for a government. > If so, why not just cut all social programs? They're expensive, and the poor people can find jobs, right? Social programs aren't revenue, they're an expense. > My leaning is more towards the idea that governments should optimize for something else. Perhaps "the greater good", however the citizens decide that. The beauty of using something objective like salary or even a pure auction where the USA sells the via to the highest bidder is that it's objective and consistent. "Greater good" is a feel good (no pun intended) term that has no objective meaning. It may make you feel better that you've provided a job to a third-world immigrant but that doesn't mean it's objectively a good thing for the USA. And at the end of the day the foreign policy of the USA is for its own interests (which may align with global ones but not at the expense of USA ones). > Money is always an issue, but optimizing for tax revenue is a little to inhuman for me to be comfortable with it. If you don't pick something objective where at least the government can get a fair share of the money, you'll end up with outsourcing firms gaming the system. It's the immigration equivalent of "this is why we can't have nice things". >> It's in their interests to raise the price of said foreign labor. > ... to artificially raise the price of foreign labor. Many companies now are trying to artificially lower the price of foreign labor, through lobbying, etc. It's not artificial at all. It's the price of providing that same service locally which is what the H1-B's salary is supposed to be anyway. If the foreign labor wants to provide that service remotely, more power to them. Let them do so. But if it's done in SF, or NY, or anywhere in the USA, the prevailing labor rate is what should be paid. The point isn't to provide cheap labor to firms. It's to fill gaps in the labor market (or at least that was supposed to be the point). > And the foreign labor market is in no way free. When I worked in the Bay area, it was well known that many H1B holders were paid low salaries, and treated like crap. Because they wanted to stay in the country, and were willing to accept hardship in order to do so. > That artificially lowered the labor cost, and lowered salaries. If they were paid the same as local talent, the artificial low cost would go away, and more local talent would be hired. Well duh. That's what I'm trying to say!!

patrickg_zill 10y ago

America is not a democracy. It is a representative republic.

arjie 10y ago
Meaningless distinction based off the differing meanings of 'democracy'. It's a constitutional representative democracy that is also a republic. I don't even agree that a move like this takes power from the people but the democracy/republic distinction wasn't even relevant.

bjornsing 10y ago

In the labor market I'd say we gave in to "more power to people who pay more" [1] quite some time ago, and rightly so. 1. Like e.g. employees, all other things equal, tend to work for the employer that pays better. That gives more power to employers that can pay more.

adekok 10y ago
In a free labor market. The labor market inside the country is mostly free. People can move to where the jobs are. The labor market for foreigners isn't free. There are restrictions in place to prevent foreign immigration. If it's cheaper to import someone from India rather than Montana, is that OK? If so, why? If not, why not?
- bjornsing 10y ago
  > If it's cheaper to import someone from India rather than Montana, is that OK? If so, why? If not, why not? As I understand the reasoning behind the H1B visa program: If it's just cheaper, then it's not ok, essentially because workers in Montana should be protected from wage competition. But if it's unlikely that someone in Montana could / wants to do the job, then it's ok, because then there is no competitive situation and the interest of the business / economy to fill a position takes precedence. Isn't a good way to ensure that to just raise the bar in terms of wage? If a business has to pay $150k/y for a H1B worker (because otherwise they won't get the visa) then they'd probably prefer a comparable candidate from Montana for $140k/y. If they still hire the H1B it's because nobody in Montana wants to / can do the job for $140k/y, so no wage competition (except of course if someone in Montana does want to do the job for $160k/y - but in that case they're perhaps not in desperate need of "protectionistic intervention" from their government). So to me it seems an "auction" allocation strategy for H1B visas would strike a pretty good balance, raising the wage bar when demand for visas go up (and lowering it if/when demand goes down).

wz1000 10y ago

Most countries today will give you citizenship if you pay enough.

vinay427 10y ago
Source please. From my experience, this is not even close to true. You might gain a residence visa that after several years might yield citizenship, and even this is not available in many countries.

briandear 10y ago

Ok democracy. Let's put H1 policy to a vote. Democracy has nothing to do with equality of outcomes: it's about the representation of the citizens. Why can't I easily get an oil exploration license but some multi-national can? I can't afford millions of dollars. But with a license, I'd have a scarce resource and could easily raise money to drill. Why aren't radio frequency spectrums allocated by a lottery system? Why is surplus federal equipment sold at auction and not just sold to the first person that shows up? Pricing is an excellent regulatory mechanism. It works -- until the system is gamed by the well-connected. Making third Reich comparisons, even tangentially, seems like an unnecessary Godwin.

adekok 10y ago
> Making third Reich comparisons, even tangentially, seems like an unnecessary Godwin. Insults like this are unethical, especially when you didn't bother reading the link I posted. The reference was to France, not to Nazi Germany. I've seen rather a lot more of this on HN recently. People who automatically assume that the comments they're replying to hide some kind of nefarious evil intent. Stop it. It's anti-social and abusive.