4 ms·

> very much benefits the American economy This move seems consistent with Trump's and part of the GOP's nationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-international trade i

> very much benefits the American economy This move seems consistent with Trump's and part of the GOP's nationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-international trade ideology. He'll try to sell aspects of it in ways that appeal, but IMO it will have bad consequences for the U.S. and other economies: First, demonizing foreign companies is a very dangerous trend to start. It's the same thought process as racial and religious prejudice - the outsiders are just one broad stereotype and threatening. Is it coincidence that he chose a country that is different and more foreign to most Americans - i.e., he didn't choose the UK or Australia, or even Germany. Second, much of SV sells their products, including their technical services, outside the U.S.; if the U.S. becomes hostile to foreign goods and services, why will others continue to buying the same from American companies? If the U.S. abandons free trade in general, why will others pursue it? It also is a blow to global productivity; instead of large productivity benefits of economic specialization, with everyone using best-in-world products and services (again, many of which are American), we all become limited to best-in-our-country. Third, India in particular is very important to the U.S., economically and strategically. Power comes from wealth and population; since WWII the U.S. has been by far the largest advanced economy in the world (Japan is second, ~40% as big), and thus the leading world power. China and India each have around 4 times the U.S. population and their economies are advancing quickly; if they advance far enough, the U.S. will be to them as the UK is to the U.S.; also the core of world economic activity will be Asia, where the people and wealth are. China is hostile to the U.S. in many ways; India at least is a (somewhat) pluralistic democracy which shares a British heritage with America. The U.S. may need India economically and strategically, and if Indians feel the U.S. is hostile to them as a nation or on a racial basis, it could cause significant damage.

Amezarak 9y ago
> Is it coincidence that he chose a country that is different and more foreign to most Americans - i.e., he didn't choose the UK or Australia, or even Germany. According to the article, the three named companies are the three top recipients of H1B visas. Australia, Germany, and the UK are not mentioned because Australian, German, and UK companies are not among the top H1B abusers. There's no conspiracy here. The over-representation of Indians as H1B programmers has been noted even as far back as the GAO report I posted elsewhere. > China and India each have around 4 times the U.S. population and their economies are advancing quickly; if they advance far enough, the U.S. will be to them as the UK is to the U.S.; also the core of world economic activity will be Asia, where the people and wealth are. And much of that economic advancement in China has happened with very protectionist policies, so your argument that the US must promote free trade at the expense of enforcing its own laws and protecting its labor-force in order to maintain its economic strength is a little strange. > instead of large productivity benefits of economic specialization, with everyone using best-in-world products and services (again, many of which are American), we all become limited to best-in-our-country. Protectionism rarely means the outright banning of imports, it usually just involves tariffs. And there are plenty of tariffs right now in the US and many other countries and the world isn't falling apart as we're forced to use subpar products. (If anything, the relaxation of trade barriers and lowering of tariffs has resulted in more junk.) I have very little sympathy with the idea that we have to throw the American labor force under the bus because of nebulous concerns about the distant future. We have corporations exploiting the laws to suppress wages and lay off American workers in favor of H1Bs right now in the present, and we know what to do about it. We don't know how the future is going to play out. In the long run, we are all dead.
- hackuser 9y ago
  We agree more than you think, which I'll get to in a moment, but first a couple points: > much of that economic advancement in China has happened with very protectionist policies To a significant degree, China's growth has been due to international trade, importing materials and exporting manufactured goods. Also, China is a developing economy; they are in a much different situation than the U.S. and different rules apply. Protectionism for the fragile industries and national economies of developing nations is expected and, to a degree, healthy. If developing economies were open to all foreign business, there would be no domestic industries left (they can't compete with businesses capitalized at Western levels, with all the other advantages of advanced economies) and be very vulnerable to the whims of foreign businesses and governments. > nebulous concerns about the distant future These aren't nebulous at all, but well-established laws and patterns of economics. It's as predictable as not maintaining your code - we can call the consequences far off and nebulous because they aren't immediate, but really they are entirely predictable. > we have to throw the American labor force under the bus I agree completely that that shouldn't happen and isn't necessary. Labor should have a seat at the table when trade is negotiated and we can have both. In fact, it is necessary to have both: If the U.S. economy contracts or simply doesn't grow as fast, labor suffers the most. If trade with India is cut or doesn't grow as fast, that means fewer jobs for American workers. If global security is undermined, that has very serious impacts on everyone, including the workers who die on the front lines. The CEOs probably will be fine, for the most part. The fundamental problem, IMHO, is that while free trade is good for aggregate prosperity, we don't live in aggregate; we live as individuals. If the U.S. economy grows 1% because of the efficiency of the international labor pool, but no individual's income grows 1% (except coincidentally); it doesn't help the individual who loses his/her job - their economy contracted 100%. More specifically, capital can move much faster than labor: a factory can be moved from Missouri to Guangdong much faster than the workers in Missouri can move - they can't move to China at all and finding another factory takes time, more than a lifetime for many. Trade must serve people, as individuals, and must protect them from that economic reality.
  - pravinva 9y ago
    " we don't live in aggregate; we live as individuals. If the U.S. economy grows 1% because of the efficiency of the international labor pool, but no individual's income grows 1% (except coincidentally); it doesn't help the individual who loses his/her job - their economy contracted 100%. " This is superficial reasoning. Bastiat taught economists to look beyond this obvious job loss. Protectionism causes MORE job losses than free trade. The number of jobs in an economy are a function of aggregate demand and impacted by fiscal and monetary policy-trade doesn't change it one bit. Trade changes the _nature_ of the jobs, not the number. So the right thing is to allow freedom to trade.

Amezarak 9y ago

> Is it coincidence that he chose a country that is different and more foreign to most Americans - i.e., he didn't choose the UK or Australia, or even Germany. According to the article, the three named companies are the three top recipients of H1B visas. Australia, Germany, and the UK are not mentioned because Australian, German, and UK companies are not among the top H1B abusers. There's no conspiracy here. The over-representation of Indians as H1B programmers has been noted even as far back as the GAO report I posted elsewhere. > China and India each have around 4 times the U.S. population and their economies are advancing quickly; if they advance far enough, the U.S. will be to them as the UK is to the U.S.; also the core of world economic activity will be Asia, where the people and wealth are. And much of that economic advancement in China has happened with very protectionist policies, so your argument that the US must promote free trade at the expense of enforcing its own laws and protecting its labor-force in order to maintain its economic strength is a little strange. > instead of large productivity benefits of economic specialization, with everyone using best-in-world products and services (again, many of which are American), we all become limited to best-in-our-country. Protectionism rarely means the outright banning of imports, it usually just involves tariffs. And there are plenty of tariffs right now in the US and many other countries and the world isn't falling apart as we're forced to use subpar products. (If anything, the relaxation of trade barriers and lowering of tariffs has resulted in more junk.) I have very little sympathy with the idea that we have to throw the American labor force under the bus because of nebulous concerns about the distant future. We have corporations exploiting the laws to suppress wages and lay off American workers in favor of H1Bs right now in the present, and we know what to do about it. We don't know how the future is going to play out. In the long run, we are all dead.

hackuser 9y ago
We agree more than you think, which I'll get to in a moment, but first a couple points: > much of that economic advancement in China has happened with very protectionist policies To a significant degree, China's growth has been due to international trade, importing materials and exporting manufactured goods. Also, China is a developing economy; they are in a much different situation than the U.S. and different rules apply. Protectionism for the fragile industries and national economies of developing nations is expected and, to a degree, healthy. If developing economies were open to all foreign business, there would be no domestic industries left (they can't compete with businesses capitalized at Western levels, with all the other advantages of advanced economies) and be very vulnerable to the whims of foreign businesses and governments. > nebulous concerns about the distant future These aren't nebulous at all, but well-established laws and patterns of economics. It's as predictable as not maintaining your code - we can call the consequences far off and nebulous because they aren't immediate, but really they are entirely predictable. > we have to throw the American labor force under the bus I agree completely that that shouldn't happen and isn't necessary. Labor should have a seat at the table when trade is negotiated and we can have both. In fact, it is necessary to have both: If the U.S. economy contracts or simply doesn't grow as fast, labor suffers the most. If trade with India is cut or doesn't grow as fast, that means fewer jobs for American workers. If global security is undermined, that has very serious impacts on everyone, including the workers who die on the front lines. The CEOs probably will be fine, for the most part. The fundamental problem, IMHO, is that while free trade is good for aggregate prosperity, we don't live in aggregate; we live as individuals. If the U.S. economy grows 1% because of the efficiency of the international labor pool, but no individual's income grows 1% (except coincidentally); it doesn't help the individual who loses his/her job - their economy contracted 100%. More specifically, capital can move much faster than labor: a factory can be moved from Missouri to Guangdong much faster than the workers in Missouri can move - they can't move to China at all and finding another factory takes time, more than a lifetime for many. Trade must serve people, as individuals, and must protect them from that economic reality.
- pravinva 9y ago
  " we don't live in aggregate; we live as individuals. If the U.S. economy grows 1% because of the efficiency of the international labor pool, but no individual's income grows 1% (except coincidentally); it doesn't help the individual who loses his/her job - their economy contracted 100%. " This is superficial reasoning. Bastiat taught economists to look beyond this obvious job loss. Protectionism causes MORE job losses than free trade. The number of jobs in an economy are a function of aggregate demand and impacted by fiscal and monetary policy-trade doesn't change it one bit. Trade changes the _nature_ of the jobs, not the number. So the right thing is to allow freedom to trade.