4 ms·

>If you take this nonsense seriously, you conclude that massacring your neighbors and using their territory for "living space" is good policy. Come now, this i

>If you take this nonsense seriously, you conclude that massacring your neighbors and using their territory for "living space" is good policy. Come now, this is just a rather poor slippery slope argument. One can act in his own interest without infringing on other's rights. The economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is not random that the semiconductor jobs are in America vs another country. The people in this country have all contributed to the economy that supports these businesses. Thus Americans should be the first to benefit from the jobs we ourselves are responsible for creating.

philwelch 15y ago
I would argue that a more qualified worker contributes more and hence deserves the job. Full stop. This is a nation of immigrants where, as often as not, immigrants are the ones creating the jobs in the first place. That's actually one reason the jobs are in America in the first place. You think a less qualified engineer who happens to have citizenship is more responsible for that economy than the qualified workers--native and migrant--who are actually working to create that wealth? "We ourselves" are responsible for creating those jobs? Give me a fucking break. Many immigrants are working hard in this country, and many American citizens are sitting on their entitled asses begging for a piece of the pie. It's not a matter of nationality that decides how responsible you are for the wealth of the country.
- hackinthebochs 15y ago
  I think we need to define what "qualified" for a job means. This term has been bastardized lately to mean "exactly fits my arbitrary specifications". We can see this to the extreme in development jobs. No one wants someone who can program well, they want specifically X years with Y technology, rinse, repeat. This definition is specifically crafted for the benefit of the company to the detriment of worker pool. Lets do away with this bullshit definition. Qualified to me means "has a certain level of experience or expertise that allows him or her to perform the job well with a certain amount of training". With this new definition we can more clearly see my point. If there are no qualified workers in this country, it makes sense to allow companies to bring in talent from abroad. The problem is companies are too cheap to tap into the talent that exists here. This is bad social policy for a myriad reasons. The wealth of a nations workers helps create an environment where companies can flourish. Bringing in talent from overseas when there are workers here that can do the job (with some training) is in fact a net-negative for the country as a whole. It's not a swap: were not sending away the "unqualified" American, the system still has to support him somehow. Now he'll either have a lower paying job or in the case of the story in the article, he'll a burden on the country's safety net. This is a net negative for the integrity of the country. For equal or nearly equal qualifications (by my definition), the local worker deserves the job. Companies don't start in vacuums. Their tax dollars has supported these companies, created environments where they can flourish, created a healthy workforce that allowed the company to grow, etc. The nations workers deserve the benefit of their "investment". Extremely liberal immigration policies may be a net positive for the world, but its decidedly a net negative for the workers here. >This is a nation of immigrants where, as often as not, immigrants are the ones creating the jobs in the first place Of course, the ones that are creating jobs can be let in :). But for every entrepreneur immigrant there are many times more rank-and-file worker who's job could probably be done by someone locally (with training perhaps). >It's not a matter of nationality that decides how responsible you are for the wealth of the country. Yeah it is? As a citizen, I'm certainly more responsible for the wealth of this country than a non-citizen chosen at random.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    > I think we need to define what "qualified" for a job means. Yes, hiring is imperfect. I don't see how we can improve it by having uninvested bureaucrats introduce nationalistic biases into the process. > The problem is companies are too cheap to tap into the talent that exists here. Not seeing it. The companies that pay the most and hire the best people regardless of nationality bring in as many foreigners as anyone else. > Bringing in talent from overseas when there are workers here that can do the job (with some training) is in fact a net-negative for the country as a whole. It's not a swap: were not sending away the "unqualified" American, the system still has to support him somehow. You're acting like "training" has no cost and no risk. You think it's better to take the risk of trying to "train" someone, rather than hire someone who already knows what he's doing? So companies should spend more money and hire less qualified candidates--out of nationalism? > Now he'll either have a lower paying job or in the case of the story in the article Good! Then he still has a job and a chance to contribute to the economy, and so does the immigrant. Everyone wins. If he wants a higher paying job, he can work to earn the qualifications for it, just like the immigrant did. > Their tax dollars has supported these companies, created environments where they can flourish, created a healthy workforce that allowed the company to grow, etc. The nations workers deserve the benefit of their "investment". Immigrants pay taxes, immigrants provide a healthy workforce, and immigrants provide demand just as much as native-born workers. > Yeah it is? As a citizen, I'm certainly more responsible for the wealth of this country than a non-citizen chosen at random. We're not choosing at random, though. As the rhetorical employer, I'm choosing between a better engineer who happens to be from India, and a worse engineer who I'll have to try and "train", because he hasn't bothered to put in the same work as the Indian to gain the qualifications ahead of time. Are you working to create wealth in this country? Then you're responsible for the wealth of this country. The color of passport is as irrelevant as the color of your skin. And when you're hiring people, hiring the best qualified worker who can produce the most with your company means that whoever you hire will be the one contributing the most possible to the wealth of your company and hence the wealth of your country.
    - hackinthebochs 15y ago
      >Are you working to create wealth in this country? Then you're responsible for the wealth of this country. The color of passport is as irrelevant as the color of your skin. The point you're missing is that a citizen here has paid taxes all his life, and his parents, and so forth. This is the investment I refer to. Those who are already here are responsible for what the country is today, and all its business-supporting policies. When someone is out of work for whatever reason, they have a reasonable expectation that they will benefit from this investment in their country with an opportunity to be placed at a job they are "qualified" for. The local person does deserve the job, for all these reasons. You're taking a very corporate-centric view here. From the perspective of the corporation, of course they want the worker that will be the cheapest to do the job. That is why those "uninvested bureaucrat" are the ones that are tasked with creating policies that protect the "investment" of the American worker. It is not the case that the best interest of the corporation is always inline with the best interest of the nation, or even that own corporations long term interest. This is exactly why these external entities create these policies.

philwelch 15y ago

I would argue that a more qualified worker contributes more and hence deserves the job. Full stop. This is a nation of immigrants where, as often as not, immigrants are the ones creating the jobs in the first place. That's actually one reason the jobs are in America in the first place. You think a less qualified engineer who happens to have citizenship is more responsible for that economy than the qualified workers--native and migrant--who are actually working to create that wealth? "We ourselves" are responsible for creating those jobs? Give me a fucking break. Many immigrants are working hard in this country, and many American citizens are sitting on their entitled asses begging for a piece of the pie. It's not a matter of nationality that decides how responsible you are for the wealth of the country.

hackinthebochs 15y ago
I think we need to define what "qualified" for a job means. This term has been bastardized lately to mean "exactly fits my arbitrary specifications". We can see this to the extreme in development jobs. No one wants someone who can program well, they want specifically X years with Y technology, rinse, repeat. This definition is specifically crafted for the benefit of the company to the detriment of worker pool. Lets do away with this bullshit definition. Qualified to me means "has a certain level of experience or expertise that allows him or her to perform the job well with a certain amount of training". With this new definition we can more clearly see my point. If there are no qualified workers in this country, it makes sense to allow companies to bring in talent from abroad. The problem is companies are too cheap to tap into the talent that exists here. This is bad social policy for a myriad reasons. The wealth of a nations workers helps create an environment where companies can flourish. Bringing in talent from overseas when there are workers here that can do the job (with some training) is in fact a net-negative for the country as a whole. It's not a swap: were not sending away the "unqualified" American, the system still has to support him somehow. Now he'll either have a lower paying job or in the case of the story in the article, he'll a burden on the country's safety net. This is a net negative for the integrity of the country. For equal or nearly equal qualifications (by my definition), the local worker deserves the job. Companies don't start in vacuums. Their tax dollars has supported these companies, created environments where they can flourish, created a healthy workforce that allowed the company to grow, etc. The nations workers deserve the benefit of their "investment". Extremely liberal immigration policies may be a net positive for the world, but its decidedly a net negative for the workers here. >This is a nation of immigrants where, as often as not, immigrants are the ones creating the jobs in the first place Of course, the ones that are creating jobs can be let in :). But for every entrepreneur immigrant there are many times more rank-and-file worker who's job could probably be done by someone locally (with training perhaps). >It's not a matter of nationality that decides how responsible you are for the wealth of the country. Yeah it is? As a citizen, I'm certainly more responsible for the wealth of this country than a non-citizen chosen at random.
- philwelch 15y ago
  > I think we need to define what "qualified" for a job means. Yes, hiring is imperfect. I don't see how we can improve it by having uninvested bureaucrats introduce nationalistic biases into the process. > The problem is companies are too cheap to tap into the talent that exists here. Not seeing it. The companies that pay the most and hire the best people regardless of nationality bring in as many foreigners as anyone else. > Bringing in talent from overseas when there are workers here that can do the job (with some training) is in fact a net-negative for the country as a whole. It's not a swap: were not sending away the "unqualified" American, the system still has to support him somehow. You're acting like "training" has no cost and no risk. You think it's better to take the risk of trying to "train" someone, rather than hire someone who already knows what he's doing? So companies should spend more money and hire less qualified candidates--out of nationalism? > Now he'll either have a lower paying job or in the case of the story in the article Good! Then he still has a job and a chance to contribute to the economy, and so does the immigrant. Everyone wins. If he wants a higher paying job, he can work to earn the qualifications for it, just like the immigrant did. > Their tax dollars has supported these companies, created environments where they can flourish, created a healthy workforce that allowed the company to grow, etc. The nations workers deserve the benefit of their "investment". Immigrants pay taxes, immigrants provide a healthy workforce, and immigrants provide demand just as much as native-born workers. > Yeah it is? As a citizen, I'm certainly more responsible for the wealth of this country than a non-citizen chosen at random. We're not choosing at random, though. As the rhetorical employer, I'm choosing between a better engineer who happens to be from India, and a worse engineer who I'll have to try and "train", because he hasn't bothered to put in the same work as the Indian to gain the qualifications ahead of time. Are you working to create wealth in this country? Then you're responsible for the wealth of this country. The color of passport is as irrelevant as the color of your skin. And when you're hiring people, hiring the best qualified worker who can produce the most with your company means that whoever you hire will be the one contributing the most possible to the wealth of your company and hence the wealth of your country.
  - hackinthebochs 15y ago
    >Are you working to create wealth in this country? Then you're responsible for the wealth of this country. The color of passport is as irrelevant as the color of your skin. The point you're missing is that a citizen here has paid taxes all his life, and his parents, and so forth. This is the investment I refer to. Those who are already here are responsible for what the country is today, and all its business-supporting policies. When someone is out of work for whatever reason, they have a reasonable expectation that they will benefit from this investment in their country with an opportunity to be placed at a job they are "qualified" for. The local person does deserve the job, for all these reasons. You're taking a very corporate-centric view here. From the perspective of the corporation, of course they want the worker that will be the cheapest to do the job. That is why those "uninvested bureaucrat" are the ones that are tasked with creating policies that protect the "investment" of the American worker. It is not the case that the best interest of the corporation is always inline with the best interest of the nation, or even that own corporations long term interest. This is exactly why these external entities create these policies.