5 ms·

When the US subsidizes corn production so much it destabilized local corn markets everywhere else in the world. Suddenly, it's cheaper to import corn from the U

When the US subsidizes corn production so much it destabilized local corn markets everywhere else in the world. Suddenly, it's cheaper to import corn from the US than buy at a local farm house in other places. This alone doesn't mean bad news to those other countries. The likely response may not be to increase import tax on corn. You need to see where the net positive results are accumulating as a consequence. I don't have a solution to these complicated problems. My observation is today's policy won't solve the problem even slightly. The US specializes in innovation, incentivizes economy to create innovation. IT consulting is not innovation. When you start hiring local employees at a higher salaries, influences inflation.. and what does this inflation from IT mean to other sectors? The right question is: What would be the cost of home grown IT consulting that can compete with Indian IT consulting? How fast can those policies be deployed? is it even in the US interest to pursue this direction? What I don't see is a framework that doesn't look like a patch work. It's definitely targeted to win elections. The real promise is not delivered.

nwienert 6y ago
So your claim is hiring locally somehow “influences” inflation... and does what? What is the cost of home grown IT? There’s no “cost”, it’s just a shift in market, the wage may go up a bit but business would also adapt, either by being more efficient or shifting budget, etc. I’m not really putting together where your questions are leading. They don’t feel like they have a coherent point, and they don’t seem to be pointing in any way. This is an incremental improvement, one that absolutely will reduce H1B which is a good thing for Americans. There’s no shortage of Americans able to take these jobs, and if there is ever at times, the increased demand will solve itself - companies will raise wages, Americans will respond to higher wages by filling the jobs, America will grow stronger with more white collar jobs going to our own citizens. And it will help win elections because it’s what citizens want, are you claiming any other way it helps win? It’s a popular policy and this is an effective change to it, if it wasn’t effective I doubt you’d be arguing about all these downstream effects you’re worried it will cause - you can’t say it won’t be effective but also it will be effective in a negative way. Tell me how raising wage requirements + requiring higher education does anything but lowering H1B usage and force companies to only get more qualified people on the visa. Win win.
- tomcat27 6y ago
  The market's network effects will negatively effect this new tax. There is cost-benefit analysis to everything one spends from their limited resources. The "just shift" in the market is painful like you said before.. to the weakest Americans the most. the US companies and individuals are economically so fragile they do have enough operating expenses to absorb a month loss of revenue. When the consumption and stimulus doesn't rise as much as needed within the time, shops close because of inflation. Lowering H1B only solves the problem when hiring local person does not increase budgets. And there is shortage of Americans applying to these jobs or studying for these jobs. And US companies operate on lean culture. A food, insurance company does not want to maintain in-house technology team for every project. Again it has to do with complex net of financial entanglements.. So it really has to be a consulting partner, whether American or not, but definitely meeting their current budget constraints. It is a worthy goal to aspire white collar jobs. Especially when the country specializes in production of high-technology. Something government should provide more to its people.. But I don't see a policy on the horizon in this direction. -- When the forest is on the fire, arial firefighting does not stop it, rain doesn't stop it... Solutions designed for small-scale problems do not work when those problems become large-scale.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    There never should be policy that purposely adds temporary competition to American workers with no proven large benefit to society as a whole. Where it the proof? What it seems you’re arguing is that H1B is proven to be absolutely necessary for American companies to be effective, can you back that up? Because in the absence of evidence of it being truly necessary for us to compete, there’s no argument for it existing. Americans are more than willing to consult and do IT, we are good at it and it’s our bread an butter. China is not importing cheaper labor sources to take over their white collar jobs, no country that cares about its future would make such a short sighted mistake as to distort its own markets to suppress wages of its most valuable sector employees. It’s pure regulatory capture by the big IT consulting firms and big tech firms who have shown time and time again they will do whatever they can do suppress wages. Apple and Google got caught colluding to suppress wages. Google is one of the biggest proponents of H1B, and yet since they got busted for illegal wage suppression practices, have they been at risk of going under? Have their stock prices dipped? It’s not small companies who are relying on these H1Bs it’s the Fortune 500, the most successful companies are benefiting from this in majority. You’re doing a lot of defending of big rich companies in favor of wage suppression and disincentivizing the next generation of American employees from learning tech. Even from a long term view: do we want to encourage Americans to move into tech or no? Does this policy increase incentives for Americans to learn IT or no? Simple questions. And if you truly believe the big companies can’t thrive without 40% more expensive IT (which wouldn’t even be the case, in house firms would optimize over time to compete better), then advocate for higher legal full immigration - at least then Americans win in the long run by retaining good talent. But you need to prove that it’s necessary first, and then you should argue for full legal immigration and be happy H1B are going down. The only people happy with H1B are those who think indentured servants should be imported to America to suppress wages and save big companies extra bottom line. Even if you support importing more white collar jobs, you should be happy at this news.

nwienert 6y ago

So your claim is hiring locally somehow “influences” inflation... and does what? What is the cost of home grown IT? There’s no “cost”, it’s just a shift in market, the wage may go up a bit but business would also adapt, either by being more efficient or shifting budget, etc. I’m not really putting together where your questions are leading. They don’t feel like they have a coherent point, and they don’t seem to be pointing in any way. This is an incremental improvement, one that absolutely will reduce H1B which is a good thing for Americans. There’s no shortage of Americans able to take these jobs, and if there is ever at times, the increased demand will solve itself - companies will raise wages, Americans will respond to higher wages by filling the jobs, America will grow stronger with more white collar jobs going to our own citizens. And it will help win elections because it’s what citizens want, are you claiming any other way it helps win? It’s a popular policy and this is an effective change to it, if it wasn’t effective I doubt you’d be arguing about all these downstream effects you’re worried it will cause - you can’t say it won’t be effective but also it will be effective in a negative way. Tell me how raising wage requirements + requiring higher education does anything but lowering H1B usage and force companies to only get more qualified people on the visa. Win win.

tomcat27 6y ago
The market's network effects will negatively effect this new tax. There is cost-benefit analysis to everything one spends from their limited resources. The "just shift" in the market is painful like you said before.. to the weakest Americans the most. the US companies and individuals are economically so fragile they do have enough operating expenses to absorb a month loss of revenue. When the consumption and stimulus doesn't rise as much as needed within the time, shops close because of inflation. Lowering H1B only solves the problem when hiring local person does not increase budgets. And there is shortage of Americans applying to these jobs or studying for these jobs. And US companies operate on lean culture. A food, insurance company does not want to maintain in-house technology team for every project. Again it has to do with complex net of financial entanglements.. So it really has to be a consulting partner, whether American or not, but definitely meeting their current budget constraints. It is a worthy goal to aspire white collar jobs. Especially when the country specializes in production of high-technology. Something government should provide more to its people.. But I don't see a policy on the horizon in this direction. -- When the forest is on the fire, arial firefighting does not stop it, rain doesn't stop it... Solutions designed for small-scale problems do not work when those problems become large-scale.
- nwienert 6y ago
  There never should be policy that purposely adds temporary competition to American workers with no proven large benefit to society as a whole. Where it the proof? What it seems you’re arguing is that H1B is proven to be absolutely necessary for American companies to be effective, can you back that up? Because in the absence of evidence of it being truly necessary for us to compete, there’s no argument for it existing. Americans are more than willing to consult and do IT, we are good at it and it’s our bread an butter. China is not importing cheaper labor sources to take over their white collar jobs, no country that cares about its future would make such a short sighted mistake as to distort its own markets to suppress wages of its most valuable sector employees. It’s pure regulatory capture by the big IT consulting firms and big tech firms who have shown time and time again they will do whatever they can do suppress wages. Apple and Google got caught colluding to suppress wages. Google is one of the biggest proponents of H1B, and yet since they got busted for illegal wage suppression practices, have they been at risk of going under? Have their stock prices dipped? It’s not small companies who are relying on these H1Bs it’s the Fortune 500, the most successful companies are benefiting from this in majority. You’re doing a lot of defending of big rich companies in favor of wage suppression and disincentivizing the next generation of American employees from learning tech. Even from a long term view: do we want to encourage Americans to move into tech or no? Does this policy increase incentives for Americans to learn IT or no? Simple questions. And if you truly believe the big companies can’t thrive without 40% more expensive IT (which wouldn’t even be the case, in house firms would optimize over time to compete better), then advocate for higher legal full immigration - at least then Americans win in the long run by retaining good talent. But you need to prove that it’s necessary first, and then you should argue for full legal immigration and be happy H1B are going down. The only people happy with H1B are those who think indentured servants should be imported to America to suppress wages and save big companies extra bottom line. Even if you support importing more white collar jobs, you should be happy at this news.