2 ms·

Workers aren't monolithic. I'll be the first to admit that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for specific workers. NAFTA sucked for autoworkers. H1B visa

Workers aren't monolithic. I'll be the first to admit that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for specific workers. NAFTA sucked for autoworkers. H1B visas suck for IT and software workers. I think other types of workers benefit more than the portrait you paint, and not just the capital owners. Unless you are a utilitarian (I'm not), I agree there is a valid debate on how much policy should disadvantage a small group for "the greater good".

JAlexoid 2y ago
> H1B visas suck for IT and software workers. H1b only sucks for short sighted people. Places like India would in any case have more software engineers available, than the US. Moving and hiring best of Indian engineers in the US kept teams operating in the US from being offshored wholesale. Software isn't a car, doesn't require physical transportation. An understaffed team in the US would be worth less than an offshore team with offshoring overhead.
- John_Cena 2y ago
  I am an individual not a corporation, our interest don't align in this manner.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    They are saying that your individual salary would be lower without the additional talent.
carlosjobim 2y ago
Sure, I benefit that a washing machine costs $600 instead of $6000. That benefit is small in comparison with if my yearly income would be double. In almost all possible scenarios, higher wages are better than cheaper goods. You cannot improve your economic situation by purchasing cheap consumer goods, but you can do it with higher income.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Sure, but $600 washing machines for 300 million Americans is a hell of a lot more benefit than your one income.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    And double yearly income for 150 million working Americans is a hell lot more benefit for them than the $600 washing machine.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Indeed. And we should absolute pick that if we are presented with those two options.
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        All market effects are exponential. Of course a doubled salary is unrealistic, but not ridiculous. The generation of people who are elderly today, had more than double the salary of anybody who is a worker today. Yes, they had more expensive consumer goods, but they could instead afford the important things: land, houses, vehicles and have a surplus to invest.

JAlexoid 2y ago

> H1B visas suck for IT and software workers. H1b only sucks for short sighted people. Places like India would in any case have more software engineers available, than the US. Moving and hiring best of Indian engineers in the US kept teams operating in the US from being offshored wholesale. Software isn't a car, doesn't require physical transportation. An understaffed team in the US would be worth less than an offshore team with offshoring overhead.

John_Cena 2y ago
I am an individual not a corporation, our interest don't align in this manner.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  They are saying that your individual salary would be lower without the additional talent.

carlosjobim 2y ago

Sure, I benefit that a washing machine costs $600 instead of $6000. That benefit is small in comparison with if my yearly income would be double. In almost all possible scenarios, higher wages are better than cheaper goods. You cannot improve your economic situation by purchasing cheap consumer goods, but you can do it with higher income.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Sure, but $600 washing machines for 300 million Americans is a hell of a lot more benefit than your one income.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  And double yearly income for 150 million working Americans is a hell lot more benefit for them than the $600 washing machine.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Indeed. And we should absolute pick that if we are presented with those two options.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      All market effects are exponential. Of course a doubled salary is unrealistic, but not ridiculous. The generation of people who are elderly today, had more than double the salary of anybody who is a worker today. Yes, they had more expensive consumer goods, but they could instead afford the important things: land, houses, vehicles and have a surplus to invest.