5 ms·

So importing cheap labor is ethical, opposing that practice - is not ethical?

by jazzyk 9y ago

balfirevic 9y ago
I don't really understand what you're asking, but note that I did not even address what is "actually" ethical or not in my comment. I simply stated that it is not weird (and should actually be expected), that somebody opposes some practice they find unethical even if the practice would benefit them. Honestly, what's weird is that what I'm saying is even remotely controversial.
- jazzyk 9y ago
  Your statement would have been non-controversial if it had not been made in the context of the parent statements. But it was contextual.
aianus 9y ago
Yes? Paying someone with American citizenship more than someone with Chinese citizenship for the same work should be regarded as unethical as paying a man more than a woman or a white person more than a black person.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Is your contention that it is racist for the American government to prioritize the needs of citizens who vote for it and live under its laws over the citizens who don't?
  - aianus 9y ago
    American is not a race so it's not racist, no. But I do feel that it's wrong to restrict the supply of foreign programmers so that an engineer in Silicon Valley can earn $200k instead of 'only' $150k. The average SV programmer is already in the global 0.1%, they don't need protectionism.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >But I do feel that it's wrong to restrict the supply of foreign programmers so that an engineer in Silicon Valley can earn $200k instead of 'only' $150k. Do you feel that Yelp paying $200k rather than $150k is a greater injustice than poorer countries footing the bill for educating their best and brightest only to see their best and brightest flee to San Francisco because domestic companies cannot compete with 'only $150k'?
      - aianus 9y ago
        The injustice is not (just) Yelp paying $200k instead of $150k, it's an engineer in India with the same skillset earning $30k. Or any number of projects not being undertaken at all because the return is less than $200k. I don't know what the solution to education financing would be in this scenario; perhaps something like Singapore's Tuition Grant Agreement obligating students to stay in-country or pay a big penalty to leave.
      - smsm42 9y ago
        > poorer countries footing the bill for educating their best and brightest only to see their best and brightest flee to San Francisco Do you imply that "poorer countries" somehow own their people and those people owe them indentured servitude until they "return" the "investment" made into them to their "country"? And until then they are not free to move wherever they please and seek as large salary as they can find? That the only "just" outcome would be for people not to seek better lives, whereever that could be, but to stay where they were born, even in worse conditions and despite their wishes, because they owe "the bill" now? Because it certainly looks like you do. Moreover, it looks like you claim US has a moral obligation to impose this lockdown and not allow any foreign nationals in until they paid their "debt" to the home country. This also looks exactly like the argument USSR made when prohibiting its citizens to leave. "The country invested in you, so we can't allow you to move freely outside and benefit those capitalists now". I mean, exactly to the letter. It is eery how closely these match.
        crdoconnor 9y ago
        Nope. That's a massive Straw man you just lit on fire. Honestly, I don't even really like the Singaporean approach of educating your citizens and then slapping a bond on them either. I think education should be free. I think the US owes the poorer country if it takes their citizens though, and in a just world, corporation taxes on the companies that employ these people would foot the bill of the education they are are using. We live in a world where poor subsidize rich though and the USSR being both very poor and having a great education system was one example of that. I think it's weird that you used scare quotes around the word "investment". Do you consider the idea that there should be a societal gain for educating ones' citizens controversial?
- jazzyk 9y ago
  Like it or not, we have nation-states, not a global labor market. The government of EVERY country in the world is elected to take care of their citizens. Why should the US government worry about wages of Chinese citizens - Chinese people have their own government, no? BTW, the US is already very open (close to 15% of population is foreign born, the highest in a century). In an economic crisis, it is not unreasonable to slow down immigration a bit. Also, it is ironic that you use the example of China, perhaps the most protectionist major country in the world.

So importing cheap labor is ethical, opposing that practice - is not ethical?

by jazzyk 9y ago

So importing cheap labor is ethical, opposing that practice - is not ethical?

I don't really understand what you're asking, but note that I did not even address what is "actually" ethical or not in my comment. I simply stated that it is not weird (and should actually be expected), that somebody opposes some practice they find unethical even if the practice would benefit them. Honestly, what's weird is that what I'm saying is even remotely controversial.

jazzyk 9y ago
Your statement would have been non-controversial if it had not been made in the context of the parent statements. But it was contextual.

aianus 9y ago

Yes? Paying someone with American citizenship more than someone with Chinese citizenship for the same work should be regarded as unethical as paying a man more than a woman or a white person more than a black person.

crdoconnor 9y ago
Is your contention that it is racist for the American government to prioritize the needs of citizens who vote for it and live under its laws over the citizens who don't?
- aianus 9y ago
  American is not a race so it's not racist, no. But I do feel that it's wrong to restrict the supply of foreign programmers so that an engineer in Silicon Valley can earn $200k instead of 'only' $150k. The average SV programmer is already in the global 0.1%, they don't need protectionism.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >But I do feel that it's wrong to restrict the supply of foreign programmers so that an engineer in Silicon Valley can earn $200k instead of 'only' $150k. Do you feel that Yelp paying $200k rather than $150k is a greater injustice than poorer countries footing the bill for educating their best and brightest only to see their best and brightest flee to San Francisco because domestic companies cannot compete with 'only $150k'?
    - aianus 9y ago
      The injustice is not (just) Yelp paying $200k instead of $150k, it's an engineer in India with the same skillset earning $30k. Or any number of projects not being undertaken at all because the return is less than $200k. I don't know what the solution to education financing would be in this scenario; perhaps something like Singapore's Tuition Grant Agreement obligating students to stay in-country or pay a big penalty to leave.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      > poorer countries footing the bill for educating their best and brightest only to see their best and brightest flee to San Francisco Do you imply that "poorer countries" somehow own their people and those people owe them indentured servitude until they "return" the "investment" made into them to their "country"? And until then they are not free to move wherever they please and seek as large salary as they can find? That the only "just" outcome would be for people not to seek better lives, whereever that could be, but to stay where they were born, even in worse conditions and despite their wishes, because they owe "the bill" now? Because it certainly looks like you do. Moreover, it looks like you claim US has a moral obligation to impose this lockdown and not allow any foreign nationals in until they paid their "debt" to the home country. This also looks exactly like the argument USSR made when prohibiting its citizens to leave. "The country invested in you, so we can't allow you to move freely outside and benefit those capitalists now". I mean, exactly to the letter. It is eery how closely these match.
      - crdoconnor 9y ago
        Nope. That's a massive Straw man you just lit on fire. Honestly, I don't even really like the Singaporean approach of educating your citizens and then slapping a bond on them either. I think education should be free. I think the US owes the poorer country if it takes their citizens though, and in a just world, corporation taxes on the companies that employ these people would foot the bill of the education they are are using. We live in a world where poor subsidize rich though and the USSR being both very poor and having a great education system was one example of that. I think it's weird that you used scare quotes around the word "investment". Do you consider the idea that there should be a societal gain for educating ones' citizens controversial?
jazzyk 9y ago
Like it or not, we have nation-states, not a global labor market. The government of EVERY country in the world is elected to take care of their citizens. Why should the US government worry about wages of Chinese citizens - Chinese people have their own government, no? BTW, the US is already very open (close to 15% of population is foreign born, the highest in a century). In an economic crisis, it is not unreasonable to slow down immigration a bit. Also, it is ironic that you use the example of China, perhaps the most protectionist major country in the world.