7 ms·

If the company falls under US jurisdiction, it's incumbent upon policy makers to put Americans first

ekianjo 8y ago
Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Companies follow the law of the land, written by government for the benefit of its citizens (and not everyone can be a citizen; resource limits, cultural integration, those such issues, see the EU for examples of those challenges and why they limit economic migrants). Companies should obey the law, or leave and be prohibited from operating in the jurisdiction (China does this successfully). Edit: My apologies for reiterating this here (I mention it in a child comment), I don’t want to be verbose but I also don’t want to comment all over the place and risk a throttling flag: If you are a company and relocate, a country has many tools at it’s disposal to retaliate, and they should be used when necessary (see how the US almost drove ZTE to insolvency).
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    So are you fine if Cisco relocates most of their operations in India for example? Because companies can move, and have done so many times in the past 30 years. That is basically what such restrictions lead to.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      I am, and I am fine with tariffing their products if they do so, or going so far as to invalidate their patents or IP (as India does with some pharmaceuticals). China just plain ol shuts you out of their market entirely! A company only exists because a nation state allows it. That formation can be revoked at any time.
    - amaccuish 8y ago
      >So are you fine if Cisco relocates most of their operations in India for example That is almost always threatened and almost always never happens. As toomuchtodo suggests, this lassez-faire culture with business needs to stop. Every year it's a different scandal, we need to stop tip-toeing around business. They rely on a nation's education system, transport, internet infrastructure etc, they didn't come from nothing. China and India in these respects are doing very well, and I'm sure their citizens are thankful.
      - refurb 8y ago
        That is almost always threatened and almost always never happens. What? There has been a huge amount of offshoring in the past few decades. Not sure you can say it never happens.
        amaccuish 8y ago
        Ye that's been parts like customer service as the famous example. I was talking about a firm's entire operations, including head office.
  - oneplane 8y ago
    The companies will be happy to relocate, there is nothing keeping them in a specific spot (unless it's a mining company or a company serving a very local market -- both are not the type of tech we are talking about)
  - baddox 8y ago
    > written by government for the benefit of its citizens But why, or perhaps more importantly, why should this be the case? Why should citizenship (which is itself an arbitrary legal distinction made by the government) mean a person is more deserving of anything than non-citizen residents? It's not like naturalized citizens did anything to earn their citizenship.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Because citizens are stakeholders in their government. Everyone else is not. Naturalized citizens earn their citizenship through a well defined process [1]. [1] https://www.usa.gov/become-us-citizen#item-36212 https://www.usa.gov/become-us-citizen#item-36212 > The decision to apply is a significant one. Citizenship offers many benefits and equally important responsibilities. By applying, you are demonstrating your commitment to this country and our form of government. > Support and defend the Constitution. Stay informed of the issues affecting your community. Participate in the democratic process. Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws. Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others. Participate in your local community. Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities. Serve on a jury when called upon. Defend the country if the need should arise. https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-right...
      - baddox 8y ago
        How so? Because citizens can vote? Because citizens have some legal protections that don't apply to non-citizens? Doesn't that mean that non-citizens actually have more of a stake in the competence and behavior of the government because they have much more to lose from certain government actions?
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        I'm unsure how we can argue this any further. You're arguing "what supports the existence of the concept of citizenship and a sovereign nation". That is the legal framework (across nations) we've agreed upon.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    >and not everyone can be a citizen; resource limits, cultural integration, those such issues, see the EU for examples of those challenges and why they limit economic migrants Concern about the "challenges" of too many brown people in your country is usually just called "racism."
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      It’s not the color of their skin, it’s their contribution as citizens (mostly; some immigrants don’t want to assimilate into their host country culture, which again is not a racial issue, it’s a cultural issue). Point me to a country that takes in unskilled immigrants on a visa for anything other than farm labor (in limited quantities). If you have nothing to offer a country, why would that country accept you except under extenuating circumstances (ie political asylum)? You must be able to contribute in a meaningful way.
      - closeparen 8y ago
        How about the US our ancestors immigrated to? EDIT: Shifting from a biological to a cultural explanation for why certain racial groups have inferior/unacceptable behaviors doesn't diminish the level of racism. Country of origin dominates any measure of individual assimilation w.r.t your chances in the immigration system, so it's not clear that shifting the rhetorical justification changes anything either.
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        That country and time no longer exist, and it’s disingenuous to make such a comparison.
        closeparen 8y ago
        Shouldn't you be a little suspicious of a finding that it stopped being appropriate to share $thing after you got yours? Of course that country still exists. We're all sitting here benefitting from it while we kick the ladder on everyone else.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
  If you think H1B leads to that outcome, you are either unaware of the issues surrounding it or intentionally misframing the problem. You have no idea what these people go through, my heart breaks every time I see one with a family and the thousand yard stare they have because they’re clearly being exploited.
- mc32 8y ago
  Sure but then let's make that happen in every major economy. Doing this unilaterally is foolish and will be taken advantage of.
  - mLuby 8y ago
    How would it be taken advantage of?
- oneplane 8y ago
  @toomuchtodo: no, at scale, they don't. And in tech, a country has very little to offer unless it possesses something you can't get elsewhere, which the USA doesn't. Why do you think there is so much 'business' going on between larger enterprises and government at many levels? It's all to keep them around, not because it's the best fit. Take Amazon, they want to build an office, so all states and counties and whatever else you have in local government bends over backwards to try and reel them in.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  >Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? I think you're referring to a different program than the H1B system.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  " I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy." Citizens have absolutely no interest in enabling and empowering corporations unless they serve the community in some way. Ergo, if corps serve only the benefit of shareholders and not really consumers or anyone else ... and the population derives no benefit ... then those people would vote to disable the very concept of incorporation, after all, why do they want these things around? Clearly a case can be made for hiring some foreigners. And more apt - if Cisco can benefit a lot from hiring people from India, it may be better for everyone if they are actually hired and working in India proper. It's very reasonable for companies to consider locals for jobs 'all things being equal' ... even though they never are :)
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > Citizens have absolutely no interest in enabling and empowering corporations unless they serve the community in some way. Citizens have absolutely no interest in enabling and empowering corporations unless they provide them with a beneficial service/product(s). I seriously doubt most citizens/consumers understand (or care about) the philanthropy implied by your statement. Do you really think people around the world would stop using google because they prefered to hire non-local folks? Some super small minority of folks (the 'locals') might care, but the vast majority of their customer base would be none the wiser. > and not really consumers or anyone else ... and the population derives no benefit ... then those people would vote to disable the very concept of incorporation No, they'd go bankrupt because their business model didn't include a viable way for them to survive.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      Hiring locals is not philanthropy and people generally care quite a lot about it, that's why ABC corp can't hire anyone in the world and just bring them to America. Remember that hiring foreigners doesn't just mean 'work' - it means bringing them into the country and all that entails.
- h4b4n3r0 8y ago
  >> Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? Here's what H1-B actually works if you hire "the best": you hire people who are way overqualified for the job, and pay them peanuts while they are on H1-B. "But H1-B requires that they are paid no less than US workers" you might reasonably object. There's a loophole for that: just hire them at a way lower job ladder level than an American would consider adequate, and don't promote them as much. It's not like they have much of a choice anyway: they can either work here or GTFO to their country of origin within 2 weeks. I liked Trump's proposal that only the highest paid positions get H1-B visas. That way economic incentives essentially turn H1-B into an auction for the truly great people, and make life easier for fresh US grads. I'm not sure what happened to that proposal. It was probably smothered in the crib by FANG lobbyists. Full disclosure: I'm a former H1-B, now a naturalized US citizen.
8note 8y ago
which Americans are you putting first though, the workers, the customers, or the owners?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Companies follow the law of the land, written by government for the benefit of its citizens (and not everyone can be a citizen; resource limits, cultural integration, those such issues, see the EU for examples of those challenges and why they limit economic migrants). Companies should obey the law, or leave and be prohibited from operating in the jurisdiction (China does this successfully). Edit: My apologies for reiterating this here (I mention it in a child comment), I don’t want to be verbose but I also don’t want to comment all over the place and risk a throttling flag: If you are a company and relocate, a country has many tools at it’s disposal to retaliate, and they should be used when necessary (see how the US almost drove ZTE to insolvency).
- ekianjo 8y ago
  So are you fine if Cisco relocates most of their operations in India for example? Because companies can move, and have done so many times in the past 30 years. That is basically what such restrictions lead to.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I am, and I am fine with tariffing their products if they do so, or going so far as to invalidate their patents or IP (as India does with some pharmaceuticals). China just plain ol shuts you out of their market entirely! A company only exists because a nation state allows it. That formation can be revoked at any time.
  - amaccuish 8y ago
    >So are you fine if Cisco relocates most of their operations in India for example That is almost always threatened and almost always never happens. As toomuchtodo suggests, this lassez-faire culture with business needs to stop. Every year it's a different scandal, we need to stop tip-toeing around business. They rely on a nation's education system, transport, internet infrastructure etc, they didn't come from nothing. China and India in these respects are doing very well, and I'm sure their citizens are thankful.
    - refurb 8y ago
      That is almost always threatened and almost always never happens. What? There has been a huge amount of offshoring in the past few decades. Not sure you can say it never happens.
      - amaccuish 8y ago
        Ye that's been parts like customer service as the famous example. I was talking about a firm's entire operations, including head office.
- oneplane 8y ago
  The companies will be happy to relocate, there is nothing keeping them in a specific spot (unless it's a mining company or a company serving a very local market -- both are not the type of tech we are talking about)
- baddox 8y ago
  > written by government for the benefit of its citizens But why, or perhaps more importantly, why should this be the case? Why should citizenship (which is itself an arbitrary legal distinction made by the government) mean a person is more deserving of anything than non-citizen residents? It's not like naturalized citizens did anything to earn their citizenship.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Because citizens are stakeholders in their government. Everyone else is not. Naturalized citizens earn their citizenship through a well defined process [1]. [1] https://www.usa.gov/become-us-citizen#item-36212 https://www.usa.gov/become-us-citizen#item-36212 > The decision to apply is a significant one. Citizenship offers many benefits and equally important responsibilities. By applying, you are demonstrating your commitment to this country and our form of government. > Support and defend the Constitution. Stay informed of the issues affecting your community. Participate in the democratic process. Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws. Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others. Participate in your local community. Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities. Serve on a jury when called upon. Defend the country if the need should arise. https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-right...
    - baddox 8y ago
      How so? Because citizens can vote? Because citizens have some legal protections that don't apply to non-citizens? Doesn't that mean that non-citizens actually have more of a stake in the competence and behavior of the government because they have much more to lose from certain government actions?
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        I'm unsure how we can argue this any further. You're arguing "what supports the existence of the concept of citizenship and a sovereign nation". That is the legal framework (across nations) we've agreed upon.
- closeparen 8y ago
  >and not everyone can be a citizen; resource limits, cultural integration, those such issues, see the EU for examples of those challenges and why they limit economic migrants Concern about the "challenges" of too many brown people in your country is usually just called "racism."
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    It’s not the color of their skin, it’s their contribution as citizens (mostly; some immigrants don’t want to assimilate into their host country culture, which again is not a racial issue, it’s a cultural issue). Point me to a country that takes in unskilled immigrants on a visa for anything other than farm labor (in limited quantities). If you have nothing to offer a country, why would that country accept you except under extenuating circumstances (ie political asylum)? You must be able to contribute in a meaningful way.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      How about the US our ancestors immigrated to? EDIT: Shifting from a biological to a cultural explanation for why certain racial groups have inferior/unacceptable behaviors doesn't diminish the level of racism. Country of origin dominates any measure of individual assimilation w.r.t your chances in the immigration system, so it's not clear that shifting the rhetorical justification changes anything either.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        That country and time no longer exist, and it’s disingenuous to make such a comparison.
        closeparen 8y ago
        Shouldn't you be a little suspicious of a finding that it stopped being appropriate to share $thing after you got yours? Of course that country still exists. We're all sitting here benefitting from it while we kick the ladder on everyone else.
0x8BADF00D 8y ago
If you think H1B leads to that outcome, you are either unaware of the issues surrounding it or intentionally misframing the problem. You have no idea what these people go through, my heart breaks every time I see one with a family and the thousand yard stare they have because they’re clearly being exploited.
mc32 8y ago
Sure but then let's make that happen in every major economy. Doing this unilaterally is foolish and will be taken advantage of.
- mLuby 8y ago
  How would it be taken advantage of?
oneplane 8y ago
@toomuchtodo: no, at scale, they don't. And in tech, a country has very little to offer unless it possesses something you can't get elsewhere, which the USA doesn't. Why do you think there is so much 'business' going on between larger enterprises and government at many levels? It's all to keep them around, not because it's the best fit. Take Amazon, they want to build an office, so all states and counties and whatever else you have in local government bends over backwards to try and reel them in.
castlecrasher2 8y ago
>Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? I think you're referring to a different program than the H1B system.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
" I never understand why locals should get preferential treatment. Companies do business, not philanthropy." Citizens have absolutely no interest in enabling and empowering corporations unless they serve the community in some way. Ergo, if corps serve only the benefit of shareholders and not really consumers or anyone else ... and the population derives no benefit ... then those people would vote to disable the very concept of incorporation, after all, why do they want these things around? Clearly a case can be made for hiring some foreigners. And more apt - if Cisco can benefit a lot from hiring people from India, it may be better for everyone if they are actually hired and working in India proper. It's very reasonable for companies to consider locals for jobs 'all things being equal' ... even though they never are :)
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > Citizens have absolutely no interest in enabling and empowering corporations unless they serve the community in some way. Citizens have absolutely no interest in enabling and empowering corporations unless they provide them with a beneficial service/product(s). I seriously doubt most citizens/consumers understand (or care about) the philanthropy implied by your statement. Do you really think people around the world would stop using google because they prefered to hire non-local folks? Some super small minority of folks (the 'locals') might care, but the vast majority of their customer base would be none the wiser. > and not really consumers or anyone else ... and the population derives no benefit ... then those people would vote to disable the very concept of incorporation No, they'd go bankrupt because their business model didn't include a viable way for them to survive.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Hiring locals is not philanthropy and people generally care quite a lot about it, that's why ABC corp can't hire anyone in the world and just bring them to America. Remember that hiring foreigners doesn't just mean 'work' - it means bringing them into the country and all that entails.
h4b4n3r0 8y ago
>> Why not hire the best no matter where they come from? Here's what H1-B actually works if you hire "the best": you hire people who are way overqualified for the job, and pay them peanuts while they are on H1-B. "But H1-B requires that they are paid no less than US workers" you might reasonably object. There's a loophole for that: just hire them at a way lower job ladder level than an American would consider adequate, and don't promote them as much. It's not like they have much of a choice anyway: they can either work here or GTFO to their country of origin within 2 weeks. I liked Trump's proposal that only the highest paid positions get H1-B visas. That way economic incentives essentially turn H1-B into an auction for the truly great people, and make life easier for fresh US grads. I'm not sure what happened to that proposal. It was probably smothered in the crib by FANG lobbyists. Full disclosure: I'm a former H1-B, now a naturalized US citizen.

8note 8y ago

which Americans are you putting first though, the workers, the customers, or the owners?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]