3 ms·

it may be working as intended, I think its a disaster for those foreign employees, and the americans that supplant. I love immigration, I think immigration is

by Aloha 8y ago

it may be working as intended, I think its a disaster for those foreign employees, and the americans that supplant. I love immigration, I think immigration is a good thing, I think however immigration policy that encourages lower payments to foreigners working in the united states is bad for everyone but the employers, corporations are not citizens, and shouldn't be the primary beneficiaries of laws like these.

Consultant32452 8y ago
I disagree with your assessment. Both corporations and foreign workers are helped the most from their previous state before these immigration policies were created. I will agree with you that the foreign worker is treated unfairly, but their lot is still greatly improved from their previous condition. The only party that has a net negative outcome is the citizens whose wages are suppressed by the increased supply. I have a fairly libertarian view on both immigration and income inequality. I'm generally ok with both. I have a harder time understanding people who support fairly liberal immigration while also being concerned about domestic income inequality. You didn't mention the latter, but it seems to me these positions are incompatible.
- Aloha 8y ago
  I see income inequality as a related but differentiated problem from immigration - immigration may push wages down by say 5% - but market forces from a highly immobile labor market in my opinion do the rest. If you look at the parts of the labor market with the greatest mobility (mostly affordability to relocate), you'll find the highest wages, and I'm reasonably certain this is a causation thing, not merely correlation. Labor mobility will go a long way to fix income inequality.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > If you look at the parts of the labor market with the greatest mobility (mostly affordability to relocate), you'll find the highest wages, and I'm reasonably certain this is a causation thing, not merely correlation. Well, there is obviously a causal link from higher wages to greater ability to relocate; causation in the other direction is less clear. Intuitively, the employee pool being more free to relocate should create a broader geographic market with common prices, but that means small increases are more effective at drawing in more candidates just as much as it means small decreases will tend to dry up the pool. Assuming merit is easily determined in the field, it probably means wages nationally reflect merit better rather than geography, if merit can't be measured it probably means that wages reflect whatever rough-cut filters employers use to keep hiring manageable. But, still, I don't think it means industry wide better pay.

by Aloha 8y ago

Consultant32452 8y ago

I disagree with your assessment. Both corporations and foreign workers are helped the most from their previous state before these immigration policies were created. I will agree with you that the foreign worker is treated unfairly, but their lot is still greatly improved from their previous condition. The only party that has a net negative outcome is the citizens whose wages are suppressed by the increased supply. I have a fairly libertarian view on both immigration and income inequality. I'm generally ok with both. I have a harder time understanding people who support fairly liberal immigration while also being concerned about domestic income inequality. You didn't mention the latter, but it seems to me these positions are incompatible.

Aloha 8y ago
I see income inequality as a related but differentiated problem from immigration - immigration may push wages down by say 5% - but market forces from a highly immobile labor market in my opinion do the rest. If you look at the parts of the labor market with the greatest mobility (mostly affordability to relocate), you'll find the highest wages, and I'm reasonably certain this is a causation thing, not merely correlation. Labor mobility will go a long way to fix income inequality.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If you look at the parts of the labor market with the greatest mobility (mostly affordability to relocate), you'll find the highest wages, and I'm reasonably certain this is a causation thing, not merely correlation. Well, there is obviously a causal link from higher wages to greater ability to relocate; causation in the other direction is less clear. Intuitively, the employee pool being more free to relocate should create a broader geographic market with common prices, but that means small increases are more effective at drawing in more candidates just as much as it means small decreases will tend to dry up the pool. Assuming merit is easily determined in the field, it probably means wages nationally reflect merit better rather than geography, if merit can't be measured it probably means that wages reflect whatever rough-cut filters employers use to keep hiring manageable. But, still, I don't think it means industry wide better pay.