3 ms·

But they are theoretical free-market niceties when you are a minority that has a low chance of getting a job in tech because companies would rather import cheap

But they are theoretical free-market niceties when you are a minority that has a low chance of getting a job in tech because companies would rather import cheap foreigners rather than work on building up a domestic workforce. The same goes for if you are a poor white person in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately, the same people driving these conditions would also use the results of this to drive the two groups against each other for ideological reasons that are seen as good. The US is a nation of immigrants. Nobody should deny that. But when workers inside a nation are negatively affected because companies would rather source cheap labor, there's a problem. A country's job first and foremost is to protect the rights of its citizens. They exist because S.V. software is used across global markets, so if protectionism for labor is ok as long as it helps your citizens, then I assume the same is true for trade protectionism or Internet 'great firewalls'? No, they exist because software is used across the world. Presumably if we weren't artificially manipulating labor, it'd help the domestic industries of many countries. To your second comment, IP, labor and capital have always been separated. You are directly conflating physical and virtual goods and that would not hold up in an other discussion in this industry. You can make this into some kind of indignant us vs them thing but I assure you there are a lot of people who care about the rights of workers everywhere and the current situation clearly has detrimental aspects.

lazaroclapp 10y ago
But I am not making it an us vs them, that's the whole point. Your argument is that we should all be trying to maximize the benefits to the citizens of our own country, and no one else, literally an us vs them position. For many countries, blocking U.S. Internet services and substituting 80%-of-the-way domestic alternatives does just that in terms of boosting employment. It might not be the same legal framework, but if you are advocating for putting co-national workers first at all costs, then that's very much an option. I consider an open web to be one of those principles that are worth maintaining, though. But it definitely is lower on the list than many other concerns that might count as 'nice to haves' under the nationalistic argument I am seeing made. Note that I am in favor of better conditions for workers, more progressive taxes, UBI, free higher education, some forms of fair-trade arrangements, you name it. What I am not for is "no foreigners until unemployment is strictly at zero". I think in the long run we should be able to come up with systems at the national and international levels that are fair to both local workers and immigrants. In the context of the current administration, though, I don't see us getting that, I see a lot of scapegoating, a lot of rash policies and an international industry supported by an international workforce, eventually either dying, fragmenting or leaving the U.S.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Your argument is that we should all be trying to maximize the benefits to the citizens of our own country, and no one else, literally an us vs them position. Building up domestic industries is a win for everyone and that goes for any country. Send your best workers to Silicon Valley and your nation is already suffering a drain on talent. For many countries, blocking U.S. Internet services and substituting 80%-of-the-way domestic alternatives does just that in terms of boosting employment. It might not be the same legal framework, but if you are advocating for putting co-national workers first at all costs, then that's very much an option. Those countries are welcome to try it and it might even be good for them, but I doubt they want to lose access to US services. That's what leverage is. If those countries have leverage then let them use it. I think in the long run we should be able to come up with systems at the national and international levels that are fair to both local workers and immigrants. Ok, so let's deal with the current H-1B program now instead of waiting another 4 or 8 or 16 years or however long some people would like to delay it.

lazaroclapp 10y ago

But I am not making it an us vs them, that's the whole point. Your argument is that we should all be trying to maximize the benefits to the citizens of our own country, and no one else, literally an us vs them position. For many countries, blocking U.S. Internet services and substituting 80%-of-the-way domestic alternatives does just that in terms of boosting employment. It might not be the same legal framework, but if you are advocating for putting co-national workers first at all costs, then that's very much an option. I consider an open web to be one of those principles that are worth maintaining, though. But it definitely is lower on the list than many other concerns that might count as 'nice to haves' under the nationalistic argument I am seeing made. Note that I am in favor of better conditions for workers, more progressive taxes, UBI, free higher education, some forms of fair-trade arrangements, you name it. What I am not for is "no foreigners until unemployment is strictly at zero". I think in the long run we should be able to come up with systems at the national and international levels that are fair to both local workers and immigrants. In the context of the current administration, though, I don't see us getting that, I see a lot of scapegoating, a lot of rash policies and an international industry supported by an international workforce, eventually either dying, fragmenting or leaving the U.S.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Your argument is that we should all be trying to maximize the benefits to the citizens of our own country, and no one else, literally an us vs them position. Building up domestic industries is a win for everyone and that goes for any country. Send your best workers to Silicon Valley and your nation is already suffering a drain on talent. For many countries, blocking U.S. Internet services and substituting 80%-of-the-way domestic alternatives does just that in terms of boosting employment. It might not be the same legal framework, but if you are advocating for putting co-national workers first at all costs, then that's very much an option. Those countries are welcome to try it and it might even be good for them, but I doubt they want to lose access to US services. That's what leverage is. If those countries have leverage then let them use it. I think in the long run we should be able to come up with systems at the national and international levels that are fair to both local workers and immigrants. Ok, so let's deal with the current H-1B program now instead of waiting another 4 or 8 or 16 years or however long some people would like to delay it.