4 ms·

It's a terrible goal, and a terrible metric. TIf immigration is good, then you want as much as possible. If immmigration is bad then you want as little as poss

It's a terrible goal, and a terrible metric. TIf immigration is good, then you want as much as possible. If immmigration is bad then you want as little as possible. It doesn't make sense as a goal to say you want to limit something you want to get. The second is that wage is a very fungible metric. It's a bad metric target because the economic value of a work to the country is not necesarily measured by wages. Clinical doctors make less than some categories of software engineers, but their value could literally save lives by cheapening and increasing access to healthcare. And then you have a lot of ways to manipulate it: FAANG pays a lot with stock that does not show in the base compensation, so now the incentive would be to eliminate stock and increase salary, which can be tax inneficient and more expensive and inconvenient for the company and the employee. Then you can cut benefits: PTO, parental leave, health insurance. Then you can cut office presentism and hire contractors, etc. What a perverse incentive. > It solves the whole issue with consultancy companies flooding the H1B pool with extremely underpaid bodies, thus making it more difficult for other people to get their H1B visas. It solves them by reducing the underpaid persons wages to 0, because they become unemployable in the US. Why a software engineer making 70k is better by making 0? Senseless. This is a senseless discussion that only exists because a rule exists. This discussion makes no sense in hiring international contractors, importing software products or hiring internacional software companies, all solutions that pay less than prevailing wages and pay no taxes to the US. Most countries run subsidy programs, campaigns, prizes to try to keep software engineers from going to the US, and the US keeps investing money in throwing that advantage away.

filoleg 6y ago
>If immmigration is bad then you want as little as possible. It doesn't make sense as a goal to say you want to limit something you want to get. People want food to sustain themselves. But, for a lot of people, limiting the amount of food consumed and picking healthy foods over junk food is a good idea. You don't want just "any" food, you want the food that will sustain you and will be good for your health in long-term.
- conanbatt 6y ago
  You want access to all the food you can get, to eat what you want. Immigrants still need to find an employer willing to pay for their labor. Additional, the best argument against limitation of immigration for labor is not that immigrants don't have rights, but that this is taking rights from Americans to choose. It is Americans that are being forced into hiring more expensively, or not at all.

filoleg 6y ago

>If immmigration is bad then you want as little as possible. It doesn't make sense as a goal to say you want to limit something you want to get. People want food to sustain themselves. But, for a lot of people, limiting the amount of food consumed and picking healthy foods over junk food is a good idea. You don't want just "any" food, you want the food that will sustain you and will be good for your health in long-term.

conanbatt 6y ago
You want access to all the food you can get, to eat what you want. Immigrants still need to find an employer willing to pay for their labor. Additional, the best argument against limitation of immigration for labor is not that immigrants don't have rights, but that this is taking rights from Americans to choose. It is Americans that are being forced into hiring more expensively, or not at all.