3 ms·
One of my "friends" bragged to me this year about how he threatened to replace one of his underperforming programmers with someone from Pakistan for $10 an hour
by havblue 2y ago
One of my "friends" bragged to me this year about how he threatened to replace one of his underperforming programmers with someone from Pakistan for $10 an hour.
Say you're on the receiving end of this threat. Do you really care what country your replacement is from? Is my "friend" really all that benevolent to fire someone for less money?
- sanderjd 2y agoWhat is the political salience of this anecdote, in your view?
- havblue 2y agoParent discusses immigration in terms of xenophobia. The anecdote is an example of how an employee not wanting to be replaced by a lower salary individual isn't xenophobic. The desire to drive down wages though is in the economic interests of employers.
- sanderjd 2y agoYeah, but what is the political salience of that? It's unclear to me what political party or set of policies this anecdote relates to.
- havblue 2y agoThe anecdote would imply that if you're a tech worker, hiring more H1B's or outsourcing development is financially beneficial to shareholders and management while it puts downward pressure on wages for employees.
- sanderjd 2y agoYes, but again, what political conclusion are you suggesting would be drawn by that?
- BrenBarn 2y agoI wasn't one of the ones who posted in this thread, but the obvious answer seems to be that the person who is told "we'll replace you with a $10/hr worker from Pakistan" will conclude "immigration hurts me and should be reduced" and thus that political parties should adopt that position.
- sanderjd 2y agoNeither political party in the US has this as part of their platform. I'm not sure whether or not anyone here is implying that they do, which is why I keep asking, to try to figure that out.
- BrenBarn 2y agoI think Trump's first term pretty clearly showed that he is in favor of reducing immigration across the board.
- sanderjd 2y agoThis is not talking about immigration, it is talking about outsourcing.
- havblue 2y agohttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/us-presidential-elections-the-writing-on-the-wall-is-clear-tighter-h-1b-norms-on-anvil-perhaps-with-wage-hikes-and-stiffer-vetting-of-applications/articleshow/115025897.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/us-presidential... I have no idea whether the Times of India is an acceptable source or not, but here is a quote from them on what happened last time. "Immigration attorney Kripa Upadhyay told TOI, “During the last Trump administration, there was significant disruption due to the introduction of ‘extreme vetting’ for visa interviews. Certain job categories, such as ‘Computer Occupations, All Other,’ may no longer be an option, as they may require applicants to demonstrate specific technical skills and knowledge.”" So, likely more tightly vetted candidates who are paid more under Trump 47 but not necessarily fewer.
- tucnak 2y agoI'm sorry, I don't understand either. You use these hundred-dollar words that sound smart, but their meaning escapes me completely.
- sanderjd 2y agoI think the confusion is mostly my fault, I should have just said this: I don't think either political party has shown themselves to be against outsourcing. So I don't really understand what political conclusion I'm supposed to draw from an anecdote about replacing someone with cheap outsourced labor.