3 ms·
Rhetoric doesn't do much good. I appreciate the reply but you may just have well said, "Magic!" ;-) To be clear, I'm not sure my question even really has an an
by KGIII 9y ago
Rhetoric doesn't do much good. I appreciate the reply but you may just have well said, "Magic!" ;-)
To be clear, I'm not sure my question even really has an answer. I understand the need to attract top talent. If we don't, they are just going to go to work somewhere else.
At the same time, do we really want to replace local talent with not as talented, but less expensive, people? There are some big implications there and I have seen reasoned arguments to support doing so. It hits very strongly on the concept of what duties the government has to its citizens and to the rest of humanity who are not citizens.
I really don't know. I don't have a solution. I can do your math homework, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to realistically determine the answers to these questions.
I suspect that nobody would listen, even if I did have the answers. Ah well...
- rtpg 9y ago>do we really want to replace local talent with not as talented, but less expensive, people? This is a false dichotomy. These people could be just as skilled, if not more. So then your only argument is localism. Also, if we _let immigrants compete in the labor market properly_ by not handcuffing people like H-1Bs to their company.... they won't be cheaper. They could just get poached by another company or take a job at market rates.
- KGIII 9y agoIf they were just as skilled, they'd not be being trained by the people they are replacing.
- _Tev 9y agoThat's very wrong POV - you can train someone else to work with tooling/software/processes specific to your company, while still being less skilled or otherwise beneficial than him/her overall.