5 ms·

Immigrants are what built the US recently (after the real Americans... the native ones). Why close the gates now? Please don't use them (or us; though I'm not i

by henvic 7y ago

Immigrants are what built the US recently (after the real Americans... the native ones). Why close the gates now? Please don't use them (or us; though I'm not in the US) as scapegoats; this is not just. No one should have a privilege to employment. You and your potential employer shall have the right to associate freely. They should be seen just as regular competitors [with really hard barriers of entry]. If anything, blame the state agencies for making their lives worse and yours more unpredictable because by the blink of an eye, they can make the market go one direction or another, unjustly. We should end these artificial barriers. Not blame the victims (that includes not only the immigrants but also locals who can't figure out the real market forces both to plan their careers and to make hiring decisions).

bumby 7y ago
What other artificial employment barriers do you advocate removing? They may not all be just or implemented particularly well, but I think there are some (e.g., child labour, work-health standards, etc.) that make sure the economy is serving society and not the other way around.
- ktta 7y ago
  Having to go through a lottery based visa system to work?
  - bumby 7y ago
    I know you're not the parent commenter, but is your issue with the intent of the policy (presumably, to manage immigration) or with the implementation of said policy (via a lottery based system)?
    - ktta 7y ago
      Both, but mostly the implementation of policy.
      - bumby 7y ago
        Out of curiosity, is there a method of implementation you'd be more in favor of?
        ktta 7y ago
        Yes, a preference system similar to the Canadian one, which has a points system based on a variety of factors. Especially factoring in the fields with the most need and also education level (or equivalent experience that is actually verified). That is a more clearer approach than a lottery based one. This is what I would suggest if I was American. Speaking as a non-American: I have issues with the intent too, because I am not happy about the fact that this is a country developed by immigrants, yet there is anti-immigrant sentiment. People have to 'prove' themselves to get in, and even there's no guarantee of success there with clear goalposts, and only extra-ordinary ability people (O-1 visa) can get in without much headache. A bit like locking the door behind you IMO. I want to say that I understand the problems unrestricted immigration will place on the country. However, there is a position that will allow many more immigrants than current immigrant visa system allows for, and we are not close to that. I believe the reason is that people aren't comfortable possibly having their salaries drop by a small percent. The hypocrisy is what really gets to me though. America is touted as a free market economy, especially by the Republicans who fight for less government intervention in business, yet they're the ones advocating for tighter immigration controls which is the opposite of free market. Apologies if this seems like a rant. You might not get what I'm trying to convey because you probably not know the feeling of being dealt the shitty hand of being born in a place that isn't a first world country.
        henvic 7y ago
        I'd disagree on the salaries drop. Imagine if poor immigrants weren't allowed in the US. Bathrooms wouldn't clean itself (maybe in Japan?). What would happen is that many more Americans would be working on entry-level jobs than currently: this is something hard to see because we take what we have for granted, and seeing what we wouldn't have is harder. Another point is that we produce just a couple of things our whole lives, but consume hundred of thousands. The more diverse the knowledge, expertise, and wish to work of people around us, the better we tend to be.
- henvic 7y ago
  What about if we move this discussion to focus on how you fear people from poor countries might have the competency to be your competitor in the job market? I used to make just USD 5-10 an hour as a senior software engineer before joining a company in another country. I have no sympathy for people who were born in a developed country and feels entitled to get a job I could possibly get just because I wasn't born there. Sure, locals should be valued, but that doesn't mean you should forbid people from outside a geopolitical area to compete with fairness. Mind your own business instead of tyring to regulate other people businesses through the government as you were a soviet. If you like communism so much and want to have the state control the employement market, why don't you move to North Korea? Now, instead of trying to show how a heartless libertarian am I, what about if you expose why you think you have a right to force people to hire you instead of letting them choose between you and me?
  - bumby 7y ago
    This type of reaction doesn't reflect on you very well and doesn't generally fit with the HN guidelines to provide substantive discussion while assuming good faith. I'm sorry you were paid poorly. The unfortunate reality is that we are often paid commensurate with our ability to negotiate and not necessarily based on our skill. With that said, you made an awful lot of assumptions based on a single comment. I am honestly curious about what (if any) regulations you feel are necessary and which you do not. I'll help make the discussion easier. Trimming the snark out of your comment, it sounds like you'd rather favor a merit-based immigration policy. What do you think is the best way to implement that?
    - henvic 7y ago
      You say my comment doesn't reflect on me very well. Very well, except my comment was exactly trying to make you see you were doing exactly this: you suggested I'd be for using child labor for something [preposterously dangerous like mining arsenic, I guess]. I don't favor a merit-based migration policy. I favor free markets. Free trade or free migration should be the norm. I don't believe in the central government. This isn't something to be 'implemented'. In actually, most the state does is to hinder immigration by those who would provide great value to the society. If you are uneducated and have not much to lose, it doesn't make much difference for you to migrate to somewhere where you will end up with the lower-income jobs, and there is nothing bad with it. You even freed a person born in a wealthier place to go work on something better for themselves. This is how you end up seeing people from some ethnics working as janitors more often than even americans, in the USA. This is good for both the immigrant [who are willing to spend, say, ten years working illegally] and to the local people. However, the people with higher education will likely just go somewhere else (like me) if you don't let them work legally there, then you have something like a brain drain. The only difference is that the brains weren't there in the first place, so you won't notice much what you are losing [1]. Related: [1] That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen Frédéric Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

by henvic 7y ago

bumby 7y ago

What other artificial employment barriers do you advocate removing? They may not all be just or implemented particularly well, but I think there are some (e.g., child labour, work-health standards, etc.) that make sure the economy is serving society and not the other way around.

ktta 7y ago
Having to go through a lottery based visa system to work?
- bumby 7y ago
  I know you're not the parent commenter, but is your issue with the intent of the policy (presumably, to manage immigration) or with the implementation of said policy (via a lottery based system)?
  - ktta 7y ago
    Both, but mostly the implementation of policy.
    - bumby 7y ago
      Out of curiosity, is there a method of implementation you'd be more in favor of?
      - ktta 7y ago
        Yes, a preference system similar to the Canadian one, which has a points system based on a variety of factors. Especially factoring in the fields with the most need and also education level (or equivalent experience that is actually verified). That is a more clearer approach than a lottery based one. This is what I would suggest if I was American. Speaking as a non-American: I have issues with the intent too, because I am not happy about the fact that this is a country developed by immigrants, yet there is anti-immigrant sentiment. People have to 'prove' themselves to get in, and even there's no guarantee of success there with clear goalposts, and only extra-ordinary ability people (O-1 visa) can get in without much headache. A bit like locking the door behind you IMO. I want to say that I understand the problems unrestricted immigration will place on the country. However, there is a position that will allow many more immigrants than current immigrant visa system allows for, and we are not close to that. I believe the reason is that people aren't comfortable possibly having their salaries drop by a small percent. The hypocrisy is what really gets to me though. America is touted as a free market economy, especially by the Republicans who fight for less government intervention in business, yet they're the ones advocating for tighter immigration controls which is the opposite of free market. Apologies if this seems like a rant. You might not get what I'm trying to convey because you probably not know the feeling of being dealt the shitty hand of being born in a place that isn't a first world country.
        henvic 7y ago
        I'd disagree on the salaries drop. Imagine if poor immigrants weren't allowed in the US. Bathrooms wouldn't clean itself (maybe in Japan?). What would happen is that many more Americans would be working on entry-level jobs than currently: this is something hard to see because we take what we have for granted, and seeing what we wouldn't have is harder. Another point is that we produce just a couple of things our whole lives, but consume hundred of thousands. The more diverse the knowledge, expertise, and wish to work of people around us, the better we tend to be.
henvic 7y ago
What about if we move this discussion to focus on how you fear people from poor countries might have the competency to be your competitor in the job market? I used to make just USD 5-10 an hour as a senior software engineer before joining a company in another country. I have no sympathy for people who were born in a developed country and feels entitled to get a job I could possibly get just because I wasn't born there. Sure, locals should be valued, but that doesn't mean you should forbid people from outside a geopolitical area to compete with fairness. Mind your own business instead of tyring to regulate other people businesses through the government as you were a soviet. If you like communism so much and want to have the state control the employement market, why don't you move to North Korea? Now, instead of trying to show how a heartless libertarian am I, what about if you expose why you think you have a right to force people to hire you instead of letting them choose between you and me?
- bumby 7y ago
  This type of reaction doesn't reflect on you very well and doesn't generally fit with the HN guidelines to provide substantive discussion while assuming good faith. I'm sorry you were paid poorly. The unfortunate reality is that we are often paid commensurate with our ability to negotiate and not necessarily based on our skill. With that said, you made an awful lot of assumptions based on a single comment. I am honestly curious about what (if any) regulations you feel are necessary and which you do not. I'll help make the discussion easier. Trimming the snark out of your comment, it sounds like you'd rather favor a merit-based immigration policy. What do you think is the best way to implement that?
  - henvic 7y ago
    You say my comment doesn't reflect on me very well. Very well, except my comment was exactly trying to make you see you were doing exactly this: you suggested I'd be for using child labor for something [preposterously dangerous like mining arsenic, I guess]. I don't favor a merit-based migration policy. I favor free markets. Free trade or free migration should be the norm. I don't believe in the central government. This isn't something to be 'implemented'. In actually, most the state does is to hinder immigration by those who would provide great value to the society. If you are uneducated and have not much to lose, it doesn't make much difference for you to migrate to somewhere where you will end up with the lower-income jobs, and there is nothing bad with it. You even freed a person born in a wealthier place to go work on something better for themselves. This is how you end up seeing people from some ethnics working as janitors more often than even americans, in the USA. This is good for both the immigrant [who are willing to spend, say, ten years working illegally] and to the local people. However, the people with higher education will likely just go somewhere else (like me) if you don't let them work legally there, then you have something like a brain drain. The only difference is that the brains weren't there in the first place, so you won't notice much what you are losing [1]. Related: [1] That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen Frédéric Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html