5 ms·

It's not about competition limiting, it's about unfair pricing and abuse. It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper.

by mvpu 10y ago

It's not about competition limiting, it's about unfair pricing and abuse. It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. And, there are tons and tons of staffing firms who systematically abuse the H1B program - they funnel workers from different countries (especially India), often mistreat them / threaten them / underpay them.

paradite 10y ago
> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. I think you just disagreed with the concept of globalization. Granted that human resources are more complex than other resources. However, judging by your use of term "unfair pricing" on human, you seem to make no distinction between them in this discussion.
Klockan 10y ago
> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. Why not? I'd argue that it is more unfair that an American worker gets paid many times more than an Indian worker even when they do exactly the same job. Letting those Indian workers come to America and compete on more equal terms is among the fairest things you can do.
- anjc 10y ago
  Fair to who?
  - keerthiko 10y ago
    That's a perverse question. The word "fairness" implies to all parties involved, typically by uplifting whoever would be disadvantaged in the system pre-fairness-implementation. You probably meant "advantageous to who?" and the answer to that is obviously the employer, and to a lesser extent the migrant worker. Capitalism is about favoring businesses (employers) in general, hoping for trickle-down benefits to individual consumers, so allowing hiring immigrant workers for lower wage seems consistent with capitalist principles.
    - anjc 10y ago
      Ok so then you feel that it's possible that it may increase net-fairness, but that it could be be unfair to some parties? So with regards to the indictment described in the OP, it would be very clearly unfair if indigenous workers were displaced due to the illegal availability of cheaper non-national workers, right? I don't see how it's a perverse question.
      - aianus 10y ago
        Imagine some guy was hired at $50/h to flip burgers and a few years down the line he gets fired in favor of a cheaper worker. Which part was unfair? The part where he was making $50/h flipping burgers or the termination? Edit: what if the reason he was making $50/h was because he lobbied his government to restrict burger flipping work authorization to people born within 2km of his home and he was the only one qualified?
        anjc 10y ago
        The analogous part that's unfair would be the illegal importation of cheaper labour from emerging economies who will flip burgers for a wage that doesn't allow for an acceptable standard of living (meaning that they can only afford rent if they share bedrooms with strangers and so on). The reason for increased issuances of visas is corporate lobbying too, and most American workers have very little protection in terms of rights and lobbying, so your comparison is flipped around to describe the opposite of reality.
      - toast0 10y ago
        > Ok so then you feel that it's possible that it may increase net-fairness, but that it could be be unfair to some parties? It's more fair to all parties, if fairness means equal pay for equal work. It was never fair for the US worker that got paid 3x the salary for doing the job in the US instead of overseas. Being paid a more fair wage doesn't mean the US worker will be happier (in fact, the opposite is likely).
        anjc 10y ago
witty_username 10y ago
> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. It's as fair as buying something for cheaper when you can. In fact, it's probably more fair as globalization lifts foreign workers out of poverty. A richer local worker loses while a poorer foreign worker wins and the U.S. overall wins.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  "richer" Being middle class in a third world country and being poor in a poverty-stricken American zip code are different enough that it's not even worth deciding who has it worse.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    I'm not sure if your assertion is relevant because the jobs for H-1B are not that poor I think. Your assertion may be wrong; it depends on what is "poor" in a poverty-stricken zipcode. The median per capita income in India is 616$. PPP adjusted that is 2351$. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Income_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_... shows people at the 6.48th percentile in the United States earn $2500.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  Is it really fair? That rich people benefit from the laws and protections of the U.S., without having to deal with the corruption and laws of India. But they can then import cheap workers to displace the very people who paid for those protections to even exist in the first place? It seems a breakdown of the social contract to me. I think there's definitely two ways to look at this one.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    > That rich people benefit from the laws and protections of the U.S., without having to deal with the corruption and laws of India. But they can then import cheap workers to displace the very people who paid for those protections to even exist in the first place? If the tax system is so broken that the poorer are paying for the richer's protection, then fix the tax system so that the rich person pays the "correct/fair" amount. For example, remove most of the deductions and other rules and replace it with a simple flat tax. Anyways, why are you saying "rich people"? Ordinary people own these companies and purchase from these companies. They benefit.
csomar 10y ago
> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. See. This is the problem. Is it fair to buy a Toyota because it's cheaper than a Cadillac? You either accept globalization or you don't. Globalization brings nice and bad things. You can't just have your cake and eat it to. Doing that will result in inefficiencies that in the long term will kill your internal economy. Imagine the USA didn't have access to outsourcing. Industries would have collapsed instead of bringing the top level jobs the US citizen enjoys now.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Except more toyotas than caddys are built in the USA. The workforce follows the money.

by mvpu 10y ago

paradite 10y ago

> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. I think you just disagreed with the concept of globalization. Granted that human resources are more complex than other resources. However, judging by your use of term "unfair pricing" on human, you seem to make no distinction between them in this discussion.

Klockan 10y ago

> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. Why not? I'd argue that it is more unfair that an American worker gets paid many times more than an Indian worker even when they do exactly the same job. Letting those Indian workers come to America and compete on more equal terms is among the fairest things you can do.

anjc 10y ago
Fair to who?
- keerthiko 10y ago
  That's a perverse question. The word "fairness" implies to all parties involved, typically by uplifting whoever would be disadvantaged in the system pre-fairness-implementation. You probably meant "advantageous to who?" and the answer to that is obviously the employer, and to a lesser extent the migrant worker. Capitalism is about favoring businesses (employers) in general, hoping for trickle-down benefits to individual consumers, so allowing hiring immigrant workers for lower wage seems consistent with capitalist principles.
  - anjc 10y ago
    Ok so then you feel that it's possible that it may increase net-fairness, but that it could be be unfair to some parties? So with regards to the indictment described in the OP, it would be very clearly unfair if indigenous workers were displaced due to the illegal availability of cheaper non-national workers, right? I don't see how it's a perverse question.
    - aianus 10y ago
      Imagine some guy was hired at $50/h to flip burgers and a few years down the line he gets fired in favor of a cheaper worker. Which part was unfair? The part where he was making $50/h flipping burgers or the termination? Edit: what if the reason he was making $50/h was because he lobbied his government to restrict burger flipping work authorization to people born within 2km of his home and he was the only one qualified?
      - anjc 10y ago
        The analogous part that's unfair would be the illegal importation of cheaper labour from emerging economies who will flip burgers for a wage that doesn't allow for an acceptable standard of living (meaning that they can only afford rent if they share bedrooms with strangers and so on). The reason for increased issuances of visas is corporate lobbying too, and most American workers have very little protection in terms of rights and lobbying, so your comparison is flipped around to describe the opposite of reality.
    - toast0 10y ago
      > Ok so then you feel that it's possible that it may increase net-fairness, but that it could be be unfair to some parties? It's more fair to all parties, if fairness means equal pay for equal work. It was never fair for the US worker that got paid 3x the salary for doing the job in the US instead of overseas. Being paid a more fair wage doesn't mean the US worker will be happier (in fact, the opposite is likely).
      - anjc 10y ago

witty_username 10y ago

> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. It's as fair as buying something for cheaper when you can. In fact, it's probably more fair as globalization lifts foreign workers out of poverty. A richer local worker loses while a poorer foreign worker wins and the U.S. overall wins.

humanrebar 10y ago
"richer" Being middle class in a third world country and being poor in a poverty-stricken American zip code are different enough that it's not even worth deciding who has it worse.
- witty_username 10y ago
  I'm not sure if your assertion is relevant because the jobs for H-1B are not that poor I think. Your assertion may be wrong; it depends on what is "poor" in a poverty-stricken zipcode. The median per capita income in India is 616$. PPP adjusted that is 2351$. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Income_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_... shows people at the 6.48th percentile in the United States earn $2500.
mattmanser 10y ago
Is it really fair? That rich people benefit from the laws and protections of the U.S., without having to deal with the corruption and laws of India. But they can then import cheap workers to displace the very people who paid for those protections to even exist in the first place? It seems a breakdown of the social contract to me. I think there's definitely two ways to look at this one.
- witty_username 10y ago
  > That rich people benefit from the laws and protections of the U.S., without having to deal with the corruption and laws of India. But they can then import cheap workers to displace the very people who paid for those protections to even exist in the first place? If the tax system is so broken that the poorer are paying for the richer's protection, then fix the tax system so that the rich person pays the "correct/fair" amount. For example, remove most of the deductions and other rules and replace it with a simple flat tax. Anyways, why are you saying "rich people"? Ordinary people own these companies and purchase from these companies. They benefit.

csomar 10y ago

> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. See. This is the problem. Is it fair to buy a Toyota because it's cheaper than a Cadillac? You either accept globalization or you don't. Globalization brings nice and bad things. You can't just have your cake and eat it to. Doing that will result in inefficiencies that in the long term will kill your internal economy. Imagine the USA didn't have access to outsourcing. Industries would have collapsed instead of bringing the top level jobs the US citizen enjoys now.

Neliquat 10y ago
Except more toyotas than caddys are built in the USA. The workforce follows the money.