5 ms·

It is too politically loaded for people to examine. In the simple terms, as per the title, it is protectionism. Without making an argument for either position,

It is too politically loaded for people to examine. In the simple terms, as per the title, it is protectionism. Without making an argument for either position, it seems a bit hypocritical when tariff critics, "You know this means the consumer will pay more, right?", reverse their position and demand protectionism for labor. Of course there is much more nuance. Many H1Bs are not the mega-geniuses proponents allege. I lose interest when the argument turns towards IQ distributions and ID politics. "Wage theft" is a bit spicy as well. Are employees entitled to their job at a given wage as some kind of Nativist birth right? Comedian Sam Hyde had some interesting takes. I'm not convinced of his position, but he did well to illustrate how the dialogue around this issue isn't getting us there.

bobosha 2y ago
well said, this debate is too emotional to have a balanced conversation. Overall h1b issue is a dichotomy - like with many such hot-button issues - with both sides right about the other side, but wrong about themselves.
- cactacea 2y ago
  So we just shouldn't then? Please help me understand your point
rayiner 2y ago
No, we can openly debate the issue now. https://youtu.be/oumNS_ORzd0?si=g2yJaz4u4iznt4KH https://youtu.be/oumNS_ORzd0?si=g2yJaz4u4iznt4KH. We need to have an honest conversation about not only the economic aspect, but the cultural aspect as well. We know that key cultural traits like social trust persist for generations in immigrants: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... What is the effect of importing H1B workers, who are mostly elites back home, into the U.S. where many of them or their children attain positions of power over Americans? My extended family has been extremely successful as immigrants from Bangladesh to Canada, the U.S., and Australia. But temperamentally, even the second generation folks are still basically Desi. They lack the egalitarianism and conscientiousness of Anglo Americans, and retain much of the “everyone for themselves” from back home. Ross Douthat wrote a fascinating article about the ramifications of this change: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/opinion/george-bush-wasps.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/opinion/george-bush-wasps...
- orwin 2y ago
  > They lack the egalitarianism and conscientiousness of Anglo Americans I'm sorry, but egalitarianism is not a trait I would attribute to Anglo Americans. America is a very selfish nation, built on selfish ideals. You'll have communities that aren't, but they aren't Anglo Americans: it's mostly germano-americans, maybe Acadians, or Swedish/Norwegian late immigrants communities. And probably Sikhs recent immigrants, although I'm not sure about that.
  - palmfacehn 2y ago
    I think it is important to distinguish between individualism vs. collectivism and selfish vs. altruistic. Egalitarian ideals are something different again. The US is highly individualistic. The founding documents are explicitly egalitarian.
  - onetokeoverthe 2y ago
    List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charita... US ranks #1. the-world-s-most-charitable-nations https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-world-s-most-charitable-nations.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-world-s-most-charita... #4 https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charit... #6, only 2% less than #1.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Those two things aren’t in contradiction. Egalitarianism refers to equality of opportunity regardless of social class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism. That’s distinct from believing everyone has a communal responsibility to take care of each other. E.g. Desi culture is communal—people lean on each other for support. But it’s not egalitarian—social class, family reputation, and even birth order are important in social interactions. I have cousins that married above their league because our family reputation carries weight back in our town. Americans by contrast are not communal. The difference is especially stark within extended families, where the bonds of mutual support are very weak. But they are egalitarian. Nobody cares about your family reputation. Egalitarianism is one of the things that makes America so attractive for immigration. Immigrants by definition have no spot in established familial hierarchies. In a society where that matters, immigrants can’t get to the top.
jvanderbot 2y ago
Looking for a "right" answer here is a lost cause. These are preference- and value-based policies, and we just have to cohere around a set of values that drive our policies. If it was framed in terms of "I value this" then the moral defensiveness would probably subside a little. It is my opinion that any argument against a native birthright to work and collectively demand the peak wage you can get is a fools errand. It just seems a natural extension of labor unions to have the whole country itself block access to jobs for foreign workers, to the extent that it does not subsequently drive ourselves out of a job through non-competitiveness. USA (arguably!) does not have a competitiveness problem yet in tech. But it also fits with the value of competition to have foreign workers enable our own businesses to succeed, such that they enable it through irreplaceable innovation, rather than wage suppression. Stealing scientists makes sense. Importing cheap labor does not. So, on paper, it fits with my values. In practice, that's another problem, and that's where we can change it.
lupusreal 2y ago
> "Wage theft" is a bit spicy as well. Are employees entitled to their job at a given wage as some kind of Nativist birth right? "Entitled" and "Nativist birth right" is loaded language that I think you're using to discredit valid labor concerns. Most people besides techy libertarians with empathy trouble generally think that workers should be getting paid enough to get by on, although opinions on what that level is or how best to accomplish it vary considerably. Having to compete with the slave labor of authoritarian regimes isn't right. Having to compete with indentured servants on H1B visas isn't right. These things are good for corporations, but as Sam Hyde pointed out, they make America worse.
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  >Most people besides techy libertarians with empathy trouble generally think that workers should be getting paid enough to get by on I think everyone will agree that workers, or anyone else for that matter should live comfortable lives. The question is how and who? Should those poor souls slaving away under an authoritarian regime be given a chance to escape to greener pastures? The question of wages is well outlined, but more concerning is the purchasing power of those wages. This relates directly to productivity, specialization and the cost of goods. As for the concept of nativist birth right entitlement, for myself, I must start somewhere with first principles. Perhaps you have an alternative method of reasoning that you might outline for us. Many here take libertarianism to be some kind of Gordon Gecko caricature, or perhaps the Monopoly Man comes to mind. Yet if they propose that the state take matters (authoritarian regime?) into its own hands with central planning, they assume it to be a purely altruistic endeavor. Regulatory capture and a host of other malign incentives are lying in wait. Please don't assume a lack of empathy. It is simply a different approach to solving the problem of how workers or anyone else can prosper in an economy.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    It's not the libertarianism that's the problem, it's the assumption that, at scale, humans are fungible. Your "first principles" should include the presumption that "countries are the way they are because of their citizens." So the question is not just whether a given individual "deserves" to live in more or less comfortable circumstances. It's also: what happens when you import a large number of people from a place with an authoritarian regime to a democracy?

bobosha 2y ago

well said, this debate is too emotional to have a balanced conversation. Overall h1b issue is a dichotomy - like with many such hot-button issues - with both sides right about the other side, but wrong about themselves.

cactacea 2y ago
So we just shouldn't then? Please help me understand your point

rayiner 2y ago

No, we can openly debate the issue now. https://youtu.be/oumNS_ORzd0?si=g2yJaz4u4iznt4KH https://youtu.be/oumNS_ORzd0?si=g2yJaz4u4iznt4KH. We need to have an honest conversation about not only the economic aspect, but the cultural aspect as well. We know that key cultural traits like social trust persist for generations in immigrants: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-transplant https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... What is the effect of importing H1B workers, who are mostly elites back home, into the U.S. where many of them or their children attain positions of power over Americans? My extended family has been extremely successful as immigrants from Bangladesh to Canada, the U.S., and Australia. But temperamentally, even the second generation folks are still basically Desi. They lack the egalitarianism and conscientiousness of Anglo Americans, and retain much of the “everyone for themselves” from back home. Ross Douthat wrote a fascinating article about the ramifications of this change: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/opinion/george-bush-wasps.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/opinion/george-bush-wasps...

orwin 2y ago
> They lack the egalitarianism and conscientiousness of Anglo Americans I'm sorry, but egalitarianism is not a trait I would attribute to Anglo Americans. America is a very selfish nation, built on selfish ideals. You'll have communities that aren't, but they aren't Anglo Americans: it's mostly germano-americans, maybe Acadians, or Swedish/Norwegian late immigrants communities. And probably Sikhs recent immigrants, although I'm not sure about that.
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  I think it is important to distinguish between individualism vs. collectivism and selfish vs. altruistic. Egalitarian ideals are something different again. The US is highly individualistic. The founding documents are explicitly egalitarian.
- onetokeoverthe 2y ago
  List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charita... US ranks #1. the-world-s-most-charitable-nations https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-world-s-most-charitable-nations.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-world-s-most-charita... #4 https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charit... #6, only 2% less than #1.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Those two things aren’t in contradiction. Egalitarianism refers to equality of opportunity regardless of social class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism. That’s distinct from believing everyone has a communal responsibility to take care of each other. E.g. Desi culture is communal—people lean on each other for support. But it’s not egalitarian—social class, family reputation, and even birth order are important in social interactions. I have cousins that married above their league because our family reputation carries weight back in our town. Americans by contrast are not communal. The difference is especially stark within extended families, where the bonds of mutual support are very weak. But they are egalitarian. Nobody cares about your family reputation. Egalitarianism is one of the things that makes America so attractive for immigration. Immigrants by definition have no spot in established familial hierarchies. In a society where that matters, immigrants can’t get to the top.

jvanderbot 2y ago

Looking for a "right" answer here is a lost cause. These are preference- and value-based policies, and we just have to cohere around a set of values that drive our policies. If it was framed in terms of "I value this" then the moral defensiveness would probably subside a little. It is my opinion that any argument against a native birthright to work and collectively demand the peak wage you can get is a fools errand. It just seems a natural extension of labor unions to have the whole country itself block access to jobs for foreign workers, to the extent that it does not subsequently drive ourselves out of a job through non-competitiveness. USA (arguably!) does not have a competitiveness problem yet in tech. But it also fits with the value of competition to have foreign workers enable our own businesses to succeed, such that they enable it through irreplaceable innovation, rather than wage suppression. Stealing scientists makes sense. Importing cheap labor does not. So, on paper, it fits with my values. In practice, that's another problem, and that's where we can change it.

lupusreal 2y ago

> "Wage theft" is a bit spicy as well. Are employees entitled to their job at a given wage as some kind of Nativist birth right? "Entitled" and "Nativist birth right" is loaded language that I think you're using to discredit valid labor concerns. Most people besides techy libertarians with empathy trouble generally think that workers should be getting paid enough to get by on, although opinions on what that level is or how best to accomplish it vary considerably. Having to compete with the slave labor of authoritarian regimes isn't right. Having to compete with indentured servants on H1B visas isn't right. These things are good for corporations, but as Sam Hyde pointed out, they make America worse.

palmfacehn 2y ago
>Most people besides techy libertarians with empathy trouble generally think that workers should be getting paid enough to get by on I think everyone will agree that workers, or anyone else for that matter should live comfortable lives. The question is how and who? Should those poor souls slaving away under an authoritarian regime be given a chance to escape to greener pastures? The question of wages is well outlined, but more concerning is the purchasing power of those wages. This relates directly to productivity, specialization and the cost of goods. As for the concept of nativist birth right entitlement, for myself, I must start somewhere with first principles. Perhaps you have an alternative method of reasoning that you might outline for us. Many here take libertarianism to be some kind of Gordon Gecko caricature, or perhaps the Monopoly Man comes to mind. Yet if they propose that the state take matters (authoritarian regime?) into its own hands with central planning, they assume it to be a purely altruistic endeavor. Regulatory capture and a host of other malign incentives are lying in wait. Please don't assume a lack of empathy. It is simply a different approach to solving the problem of how workers or anyone else can prosper in an economy.
- rayiner 2y ago
  It's not the libertarianism that's the problem, it's the assumption that, at scale, humans are fungible. Your "first principles" should include the presumption that "countries are the way they are because of their citizens." So the question is not just whether a given individual "deserves" to live in more or less comfortable circumstances. It's also: what happens when you import a large number of people from a place with an authoritarian regime to a democracy?