4 ms·

Honest question: if immigrants are willing to do the same job for less money, why do US citizens deserve special treatment and higher wages? Why should companie

Honest question: if immigrants are willing to do the same job for less money, why do US citizens deserve special treatment and higher wages? Why should companies be forced to not hire in an economically optimal way?

alehul 8y ago
I think the simpler form of that question is "what's wrong with globalism?", to which there's many answers. One of the foremost would be that an American company should support the livelihoods of the American people, especially as long as other countries like China wouldn't allow an American to work so easily in the reverse situation. It's just a natural tribal instinct, also, to care more for the welfare of your neighbor than someone across the world. I'm not commenting on the validity of those arguments, though, as I think a core part of America's success is being unusually open to immigration.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  The main problem with globalism is that capital conspires against labor but labor doesn't respond with a unified front.
  - chii 8y ago
    Yes! I think that the amount of propaganda and cultural infusion of negativity against unions (often slurring unions with communism) is the real cause of the stagnation in worker rights and wages.
  - taurath 8y ago
    Companies and money can cross borders, people cannot (generally).
  - Buldak 8y ago
    Why is that a problem principally a problem of globalism rather than capitalism?
- fickleycurious 8y ago
  True but if the American company has market access to other countries, what's wrong with hiring people from such countries ?
- baddox 8y ago
  > an American company should support the livelihoods of the American people And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Citizenship is itself an arbitrary legal distinction made by the government. The vast majority of citizens received their citizenship by being born in the country rather than by any effort or merit on their part. So the claim becomes "an American company should support the livelihoods of people born within the borders of America," which I think is pretty clearly an arbitrary claim that needs a lot of explanation before I'll accept it as reasonable. > It's just a natural tribal instinct, also, to care more for the welfare of your neighbor than someone across the world. We're talking about work visas, which means those people move here and thus become your neighbors, so you'd have to extend that "natural tribal instinct" defense beyond place of residence.
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    >And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Since when? I have literally never heard this. This is a patently absurd claim to make. Just because someone lives here does not mean they are "American", unless you think that all of the inputs to national identity are vapid, meaningless attributes that are completely transferable. >We're talking about work visas, which means those people move here and thus become your neighbors, so you'd have to extend that "natural tribal instinct" defense beyond place of residence. Just because someone has moved in next door does not mean they are now "part of your tribe". This has never been true throughout history, and it will not magically become true today regardless of the outcome of this immigration debate.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      It's true that accepting immigrants into the tribe is historically unusual, but that's why it's a distinctive and important feature of American national identity.
      - remarkEon 8y ago
        I think you should go back and review some of that history. Integration into the "American tribe" has been bumpy at best and downright violent at worst. It's often taken actual war to make it happen. The Draft Riots come to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
- tanilama 8y ago
  I think your assessment is correct on certain level. But the problem is, American companies, especially, IT companies, are making money, big money across the GLOBE. They are literally monopolies in many European countries and contribute neither local employment and tax. Make no mistake, they are THE biggest beneficiaries of globalism. Their product, internet service, is dumping to the whole world, probably except China, without any check and balance. It should not happen, let alone last to date. In that way, if globalism is to be fixed, internet companies need to be both held accountable in and outside of US. If they pay fair share to hire local people and pay taxes in the country they operate, I believe US won't have this ridiculously high salary for tech workers. In short, tech salary being so abnormally high and jobs concentrated in US is the symptom of globalism. Once fixed, the tech workers salary will be more evenly distributed across the countries, immigration problem will be fixed as a result of that. As internet industry is plateauing, the technology is becoming ever more commoditized everyday, and the policy makers are finally doing the job to act on it, I am staying optimistic that the redistribution of tech workforce from US to the world will finally happen. The internet has no boundary, that is just a globalist fantasy. It definitely should have boundary, as the tax and economic activities created alike. GDPR is a very welcome move, and it is taking effects, I would expect more systematic approach coming after it.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
Because labor needs more power against capital. Immigrant vs non-immigrant is a shoddy technique, but constraining supply is an effective way to gain negotiating power against capital.
highratiotech 8y ago
Self-interest. It's (arguably) better for Americans that American companies (over) pay Americans.
andscoop 8y ago
The potential flip side of this is why aren't visa workers being paid market value. Are they held back so much by employer's biases that they can't reliably compete for a fair salary on the open market?
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Mobility is the number one reason. The second one is legal expenses: the employee does not pay them directly, but does so indirectly. A visa application can cost up to 10k, and also you have a 40% chance it doesnt go through, which means its way more expensive. Also, what is market value and fair? Does the immigrant have a thick accent? A slighlty incompatible culture? A lower quality education?
sidlls 8y ago
Not that I agree with our immigration laws, but have you considered that it's not so much "willing" as it is a choice between poor options ("take this position at less than market rate" or "stay in this country and have little or nothing")? In other words, you are presenting the case as if it's a simple free market at work when in fact there are many other factors making that not the case.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
It's not about citizens vs immigrants, it's permanent residents and citizens vs "temporary" workers
clairamerican12 8y ago
Because the United States is a sovereign nation founded for the benefit of its citizens and their posterity, not an economic zone for the benefit of the profit of transnational corporations that only exist the way they do because of the legal system, civic institutions, international influence, and military power of the US.
- throwaway28473 8y ago
  In the long term, Cisco needs to be competitive in the global marketplace to survive. When you force companies like Cisco to pay above market rates, it benefits American workers in the short term but over time the company will lose to e.g. Huawei who are operating in a much more favourable regulatory environment. At that point, America loses in a big way.
  - clairamerican12 8y ago
    Huawei's favorable regulatory environment has less to do with its ability to bring in foreign labor like Cisco and other US tech companies, and more to do with trade barriers set up by China for national security purposes (also, potentially other actions in violation of its membership in the WTO). The US claims Huawei as a national security threat, because the Chinese government could be using their devices to backdoor critical infrastructure. In the same manner, China claims Cisco as a national security threat [1]. The point here is that the spherical cow of all things being rootless, unbound, purely individual and rational economic transactions does not actually exist. Behaving as if it does is a loss for your group as other groups adopt more mercantile policy. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-25/cisco-china-sales-vulnerable-as-media-urge-domestic-shift https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-25/cisco-chi...
- conanbatt 8y ago
  It is for the benefits of americans as a whole to get workers that produce more than what they cost.
AlexB138 8y ago
Because that is a race to the bottom for Americans. Americans enjoy a very high standard of living, and having to normalize your wage expectation with people from countries with significantly lower standards of living would destroy that. American companies operate according to American laws, and American laws should be setup in the interest of Americans, not as some charity for the world. As to "deserve", American citizens also paid the taxes that supplied the infrastructure, education system, legal system, police, etc that allows these companies to grow. That aside, America is a sovereign country, and no one but its citizens has any right to expect it to act in their interest.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Fresh college graduates have not paid taxes yet. Every legitimately employed worker pays taxes regardless of citizenship.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > Because that is a race to the bottom for Americans. Americans enjoy a very high standard of living, and having to normalize your wage expectation with people from countries with significantly lower standards of living would destroy that. Malthus pokes its head. The workers get paid a fraction of what they produce. Thus the whole society is richer the more workers you have. Do you really believe americans would be richer if 90% of its population were to be decimated, leaving the survivors with the highest paying jobs?
throwaway292939 8y ago
It sounds like immigrants are willing to do it because they have no other option. The issue here isn't US citizens deserving special treatment; the issue is closing the loophole which only benefits the companies.

alehul 8y ago

I think the simpler form of that question is "what's wrong with globalism?", to which there's many answers. One of the foremost would be that an American company should support the livelihoods of the American people, especially as long as other countries like China wouldn't allow an American to work so easily in the reverse situation. It's just a natural tribal instinct, also, to care more for the welfare of your neighbor than someone across the world. I'm not commenting on the validity of those arguments, though, as I think a core part of America's success is being unusually open to immigration.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
The main problem with globalism is that capital conspires against labor but labor doesn't respond with a unified front.
- chii 8y ago
  Yes! I think that the amount of propaganda and cultural infusion of negativity against unions (often slurring unions with communism) is the real cause of the stagnation in worker rights and wages.
- taurath 8y ago
  Companies and money can cross borders, people cannot (generally).
- Buldak 8y ago
  Why is that a problem principally a problem of globalism rather than capitalism?
fickleycurious 8y ago
True but if the American company has market access to other countries, what's wrong with hiring people from such countries ?
baddox 8y ago
> an American company should support the livelihoods of the American people And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Citizenship is itself an arbitrary legal distinction made by the government. The vast majority of citizens received their citizenship by being born in the country rather than by any effort or merit on their part. So the claim becomes "an American company should support the livelihoods of people born within the borders of America," which I think is pretty clearly an arbitrary claim that needs a lot of explanation before I'll accept it as reasonable. > It's just a natural tribal instinct, also, to care more for the welfare of your neighbor than someone across the world. We're talking about work visas, which means those people move here and thus become your neighbors, so you'd have to extend that "natural tribal instinct" defense beyond place of residence.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  >And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Since when? I have literally never heard this. This is a patently absurd claim to make. Just because someone lives here does not mean they are "American", unless you think that all of the inputs to national identity are vapid, meaningless attributes that are completely transferable. >We're talking about work visas, which means those people move here and thus become your neighbors, so you'd have to extend that "natural tribal instinct" defense beyond place of residence. Just because someone has moved in next door does not mean they are now "part of your tribe". This has never been true throughout history, and it will not magically become true today regardless of the outcome of this immigration debate.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    It's true that accepting immigrants into the tribe is historically unusual, but that's why it's a distinctive and important feature of American national identity.
    - remarkEon 8y ago
      I think you should go back and review some of that history. Integration into the "American tribe" has been bumpy at best and downright violent at worst. It's often taken actual war to make it happen. The Draft Riots come to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
tanilama 8y ago
I think your assessment is correct on certain level. But the problem is, American companies, especially, IT companies, are making money, big money across the GLOBE. They are literally monopolies in many European countries and contribute neither local employment and tax. Make no mistake, they are THE biggest beneficiaries of globalism. Their product, internet service, is dumping to the whole world, probably except China, without any check and balance. It should not happen, let alone last to date. In that way, if globalism is to be fixed, internet companies need to be both held accountable in and outside of US. If they pay fair share to hire local people and pay taxes in the country they operate, I believe US won't have this ridiculously high salary for tech workers. In short, tech salary being so abnormally high and jobs concentrated in US is the symptom of globalism. Once fixed, the tech workers salary will be more evenly distributed across the countries, immigration problem will be fixed as a result of that. As internet industry is plateauing, the technology is becoming ever more commoditized everyday, and the policy makers are finally doing the job to act on it, I am staying optimistic that the redistribution of tech workforce from US to the world will finally happen. The internet has no boundary, that is just a globalist fantasy. It definitely should have boundary, as the tax and economic activities created alike. GDPR is a very welcome move, and it is taking effects, I would expect more systematic approach coming after it.

fjsolwmv 8y ago

Because labor needs more power against capital. Immigrant vs non-immigrant is a shoddy technique, but constraining supply is an effective way to gain negotiating power against capital.

highratiotech 8y ago

Self-interest. It's (arguably) better for Americans that American companies (over) pay Americans.

andscoop 8y ago

The potential flip side of this is why aren't visa workers being paid market value. Are they held back so much by employer's biases that they can't reliably compete for a fair salary on the open market?

conanbatt 8y ago
Mobility is the number one reason. The second one is legal expenses: the employee does not pay them directly, but does so indirectly. A visa application can cost up to 10k, and also you have a 40% chance it doesnt go through, which means its way more expensive. Also, what is market value and fair? Does the immigrant have a thick accent? A slighlty incompatible culture? A lower quality education?

sidlls 8y ago

Not that I agree with our immigration laws, but have you considered that it's not so much "willing" as it is a choice between poor options ("take this position at less than market rate" or "stay in this country and have little or nothing")? In other words, you are presenting the case as if it's a simple free market at work when in fact there are many other factors making that not the case.

fjsolwmv 8y ago

It's not about citizens vs immigrants, it's permanent residents and citizens vs "temporary" workers

clairamerican12 8y ago

Because the United States is a sovereign nation founded for the benefit of its citizens and their posterity, not an economic zone for the benefit of the profit of transnational corporations that only exist the way they do because of the legal system, civic institutions, international influence, and military power of the US.

throwaway28473 8y ago
In the long term, Cisco needs to be competitive in the global marketplace to survive. When you force companies like Cisco to pay above market rates, it benefits American workers in the short term but over time the company will lose to e.g. Huawei who are operating in a much more favourable regulatory environment. At that point, America loses in a big way.
- clairamerican12 8y ago
  Huawei's favorable regulatory environment has less to do with its ability to bring in foreign labor like Cisco and other US tech companies, and more to do with trade barriers set up by China for national security purposes (also, potentially other actions in violation of its membership in the WTO). The US claims Huawei as a national security threat, because the Chinese government could be using their devices to backdoor critical infrastructure. In the same manner, China claims Cisco as a national security threat [1]. The point here is that the spherical cow of all things being rootless, unbound, purely individual and rational economic transactions does not actually exist. Behaving as if it does is a loss for your group as other groups adopt more mercantile policy. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-25/cisco-china-sales-vulnerable-as-media-urge-domestic-shift https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-25/cisco-chi...
conanbatt 8y ago
It is for the benefits of americans as a whole to get workers that produce more than what they cost.

AlexB138 8y ago

Because that is a race to the bottom for Americans. Americans enjoy a very high standard of living, and having to normalize your wage expectation with people from countries with significantly lower standards of living would destroy that. American companies operate according to American laws, and American laws should be setup in the interest of Americans, not as some charity for the world. As to "deserve", American citizens also paid the taxes that supplied the infrastructure, education system, legal system, police, etc that allows these companies to grow. That aside, America is a sovereign country, and no one but its citizens has any right to expect it to act in their interest.

closeparen 8y ago
Fresh college graduates have not paid taxes yet. Every legitimately employed worker pays taxes regardless of citizenship.
conanbatt 8y ago
> Because that is a race to the bottom for Americans. Americans enjoy a very high standard of living, and having to normalize your wage expectation with people from countries with significantly lower standards of living would destroy that. Malthus pokes its head. The workers get paid a fraction of what they produce. Thus the whole society is richer the more workers you have. Do you really believe americans would be richer if 90% of its population were to be decimated, leaving the survivors with the highest paying jobs?

throwaway292939 8y ago

It sounds like immigrants are willing to do it because they have no other option. The issue here isn't US citizens deserving special treatment; the issue is closing the loophole which only benefits the companies.