5 ms·

Should be illegal but I'm sure tech companies want this loophole to remain. Anyone based in the US/UK should be an advocate for keeping jobs local for their ow

Should be illegal but I'm sure tech companies want this loophole to remain. Anyone based in the US/UK should be an advocate for keeping jobs local for their own long term job security. Anyone who argues the opposite baffles me (sometimes for the sake of it).

librish 2y ago
While it might be better for your job security to keep your own field hiring locally, it could be better for your life if all other fields hire the best regardless of nationality.
bpodgursky 2y ago
[dead]
deepsun 2y ago
But then I would also argue that work restrictions are illegal as well. Why would we want to restrict any high-skilled already wanted candidates from any country in the world? Why we forbid them working and paying taxes here? Bums on the streets don't pay taxes (for many reasons), but we give them permission to work. While we at the same time forbid foreign highly paid professionals to pay taxes here?
- eweise 2y ago
  I think you know the answer but I can spell it out, if the supply of high-skilled workers goes up, then salaries go down. Most people would prefer a higher salary. Taxes remain the same, whether local or foreign people are doing the work.
  - deepsun 2y ago
    No, that's a common economy thinking flaw -- assuming there's a finite amount of work to be done. Short-term -- yes, but same as with luddites -- everyone benefits from the increased productivity of your company/city/state/country. New businesses grow, more productive companies take over business from others. So salaries raise as a whole. I would really want my city to have an influx of high-skilled workers. Even if they are higher-skilled than me -- my business would serve them and make more money.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      What do you think about those people in New York who didn’t want the Amazon headquarters there then? They were probably afraid of rent going up.
      - deepsun 2y ago
        Rent (and the big real estate problems) are because separate awful restrictions on building more properties. That's a local problem, created by NIMBY-ism of locals, not immigrants. We mix that with immigration, but there's no reason to. Typically workers _love_ new businesses around -- more work, more business.
        pedroma 2y ago
        Rent is mixed with immigration because housing (extending that, physical space) is a limited resource. If housing is static and never increases, no matter how much the Average Joe's pay is increased due to an influx of highly paid immigrants, they're still going to lose when competing against a highly skilled immigrant for limited resources. In reality housing is not static, but as you mentioned is highly regulated. The established wealth have incentive to not increase housing supply, especially if they have a number of properties in an area with a lot of immigrants (one such source of NIMBYism).
    - snozolli 2y ago
      No, that's a common economy thinking flaw -- assuming there's a finite amount of work to be done. Anyone who has tried and failed to find work during a recession knows that there is a finite amount of work to be done.
      - deepsun 2y ago
        No recession was ever caused by influx of foreign workers. But there are examples of the opposite, like USSR -- the most economically active people tried to move out, causing "brain drain" and exacerbating recession. If anything, an influx of skilled workers is a symptom of growth, not recession.
- wellbecause 2y ago
  Well because they fought so hard for their independence but now want to join their colonial forefathers in their homeland because home is not providing the independence they fought for. It's pretty clear.
  - onewouldsay 2y ago
    One would say this is reverse colonialism under the cover of globalization. Still don't understand why well-off of nations are supposed to provide jobs for other nations which have growing economies and where the high skilled workers already make a very comfortable wage for their societies. Can someone explain why the US has to generate jobs for foreigners when their own societies can't generate them themselves?
    - EatDevSlay 2y ago
      And it generates literally zero respect. Possibly even scorn. No one knows my friend, no one knows. We must fix it.
- Longlius 2y ago
  >But then I would also argue that work restrictions are illegal as well. We have a whole host of work restrictions that we have decided are very beneficial for society as a whole. Things like minimum wage, maximum working hours, overtime, etc. Maintaining domestic industries and talent by not selling out to foreign mercenary labor is generally quite beneficial for the national interest.
_factor 2y ago
If you take yourself out of the equation, hiring the best labor for local jobs, irrespective of location, is more effective use of resources and a net benefit over restricting employment to a smaller, less qualified field. It may hurt the individual, but helps the country.
- ethanwillis 2y ago
  Is this just a modern spin on trickle down economics?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- hmcq6 2y ago
  >I t may hurt the individual, but helps the country. No, it helps the Capitalists. Companies already do everything they can to avoid paying taxes. They'll move the business out of the country as soon as it is financially advisable.
  - _factor 2y ago
    When they’re not able to source labor locally, is that not incentive enough to leave?
    - hmcq6 2y ago
      They are able to source labor locally though. They're just not willing to pay market rate. The fact that companies can import more exploitable workers who they can also pay less than market rate does not equate to them not being unable to find skilled local laborers. There is an abundance of qualified local laborers.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Won't. not can't. They are having their cake. They want non-American labor to lower wages, and American resources, locations, and customers to utilize. Do you see the issue here?
downthefoxhole 2y ago
> Anyone based in the US/UK should be an advocate for keeping jobs local for their own long term job security. Anyone who argues the opposite baffles me It's the lesser of two evils. Given a choice 1) to let H1B's flood the market and produce lower wages, or 2) Have the company setup shop in a foreign land, and hire those people there locally, which do you think is better? At least with option 1, the money is still being made in the USA, taxes are paid here, and the money is spent here for housing, food, cars, etc.. which benefits everyone around.
- EatDevSlay 2y ago
  Tariffs and taxes easily solve that issue.
  - edc117 2y ago
    Will they? Trump has said he's in favor of the H1-B program and has given no indications that he plans to lessen or stop it. Tariffs will likely be used as bargaining tools - you won't see tariffs directed at a country because a US corporation has outsourced labor there. There's a lot of noise about changes to immigration right now, but I'd be very unsurprised if little or nothing changed.
    - EatDevSlay 2y ago
      I have no issues with the Right learning that it must become further right to achieve its goals.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    They worked so well against China in 2018 right?
    - EatDevSlay 2y ago
      Correct.
- alfalfasprout 2y ago
microtherion 2y ago
H1-Bs ARE keeping the JOBS local. They are merely filling them to some extent with immigrant EMPLOYEES (working side by side with true, red-blooded Americans). The alternative, in many cases, would not be companies hiring an all-American staff. It would be hiring in their foreign offices instead, with Americans only considered if they emigrate. Or an American skeleton crew being sidelined from where the bulk of development happens.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > Or an American skeleton crew being sidelined from where the bulk of development happens. Already the norm in cybersecurity. Most of the new gen (post 2015) cybersecurity vendors have almost completely moved engineering and product to Israel and India.

librish 2y ago

While it might be better for your job security to keep your own field hiring locally, it could be better for your life if all other fields hire the best regardless of nationality.

bpodgursky 2y ago

[dead]

deepsun 2y ago

But then I would also argue that work restrictions are illegal as well. Why would we want to restrict any high-skilled already wanted candidates from any country in the world? Why we forbid them working and paying taxes here? Bums on the streets don't pay taxes (for many reasons), but we give them permission to work. While we at the same time forbid foreign highly paid professionals to pay taxes here?

eweise 2y ago
I think you know the answer but I can spell it out, if the supply of high-skilled workers goes up, then salaries go down. Most people would prefer a higher salary. Taxes remain the same, whether local or foreign people are doing the work.
- deepsun 2y ago
  No, that's a common economy thinking flaw -- assuming there's a finite amount of work to be done. Short-term -- yes, but same as with luddites -- everyone benefits from the increased productivity of your company/city/state/country. New businesses grow, more productive companies take over business from others. So salaries raise as a whole. I would really want my city to have an influx of high-skilled workers. Even if they are higher-skilled than me -- my business would serve them and make more money.
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    What do you think about those people in New York who didn’t want the Amazon headquarters there then? They were probably afraid of rent going up.
    - deepsun 2y ago
      Rent (and the big real estate problems) are because separate awful restrictions on building more properties. That's a local problem, created by NIMBY-ism of locals, not immigrants. We mix that with immigration, but there's no reason to. Typically workers _love_ new businesses around -- more work, more business.
      - pedroma 2y ago
        Rent is mixed with immigration because housing (extending that, physical space) is a limited resource. If housing is static and never increases, no matter how much the Average Joe's pay is increased due to an influx of highly paid immigrants, they're still going to lose when competing against a highly skilled immigrant for limited resources. In reality housing is not static, but as you mentioned is highly regulated. The established wealth have incentive to not increase housing supply, especially if they have a number of properties in an area with a lot of immigrants (one such source of NIMBYism).
  - snozolli 2y ago
    No, that's a common economy thinking flaw -- assuming there's a finite amount of work to be done. Anyone who has tried and failed to find work during a recession knows that there is a finite amount of work to be done.
    - deepsun 2y ago
      No recession was ever caused by influx of foreign workers. But there are examples of the opposite, like USSR -- the most economically active people tried to move out, causing "brain drain" and exacerbating recession. If anything, an influx of skilled workers is a symptom of growth, not recession.
wellbecause 2y ago
Well because they fought so hard for their independence but now want to join their colonial forefathers in their homeland because home is not providing the independence they fought for. It's pretty clear.
- onewouldsay 2y ago
  One would say this is reverse colonialism under the cover of globalization. Still don't understand why well-off of nations are supposed to provide jobs for other nations which have growing economies and where the high skilled workers already make a very comfortable wage for their societies. Can someone explain why the US has to generate jobs for foreigners when their own societies can't generate them themselves?
  - EatDevSlay 2y ago
    And it generates literally zero respect. Possibly even scorn. No one knows my friend, no one knows. We must fix it.
Longlius 2y ago
>But then I would also argue that work restrictions are illegal as well. We have a whole host of work restrictions that we have decided are very beneficial for society as a whole. Things like minimum wage, maximum working hours, overtime, etc. Maintaining domestic industries and talent by not selling out to foreign mercenary labor is generally quite beneficial for the national interest.

_factor 2y ago

If you take yourself out of the equation, hiring the best labor for local jobs, irrespective of location, is more effective use of resources and a net benefit over restricting employment to a smaller, less qualified field. It may hurt the individual, but helps the country.

ethanwillis 2y ago
Is this just a modern spin on trickle down economics?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hmcq6 2y ago
>I t may hurt the individual, but helps the country. No, it helps the Capitalists. Companies already do everything they can to avoid paying taxes. They'll move the business out of the country as soon as it is financially advisable.
- _factor 2y ago
  When they’re not able to source labor locally, is that not incentive enough to leave?
  - hmcq6 2y ago
    They are able to source labor locally though. They're just not willing to pay market rate. The fact that companies can import more exploitable workers who they can also pay less than market rate does not equate to them not being unable to find skilled local laborers. There is an abundance of qualified local laborers.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Won't. not can't. They are having their cake. They want non-American labor to lower wages, and American resources, locations, and customers to utilize. Do you see the issue here?

downthefoxhole 2y ago

> Anyone based in the US/UK should be an advocate for keeping jobs local for their own long term job security. Anyone who argues the opposite baffles me It's the lesser of two evils. Given a choice 1) to let H1B's flood the market and produce lower wages, or 2) Have the company setup shop in a foreign land, and hire those people there locally, which do you think is better? At least with option 1, the money is still being made in the USA, taxes are paid here, and the money is spent here for housing, food, cars, etc.. which benefits everyone around.

EatDevSlay 2y ago
Tariffs and taxes easily solve that issue.
- edc117 2y ago
  Will they? Trump has said he's in favor of the H1-B program and has given no indications that he plans to lessen or stop it. Tariffs will likely be used as bargaining tools - you won't see tariffs directed at a country because a US corporation has outsourced labor there. There's a lot of noise about changes to immigration right now, but I'd be very unsurprised if little or nothing changed.
  - EatDevSlay 2y ago
    I have no issues with the Right learning that it must become further right to achieve its goals.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  They worked so well against China in 2018 right?
  - EatDevSlay 2y ago
    Correct.
alfalfasprout 2y ago

microtherion 2y ago

H1-Bs ARE keeping the JOBS local. They are merely filling them to some extent with immigrant EMPLOYEES (working side by side with true, red-blooded Americans). The alternative, in many cases, would not be companies hiring an all-American staff. It would be hiring in their foreign offices instead, with Americans only considered if they emigrate. Or an American skeleton crew being sidelined from where the bulk of development happens.

alephnerd 2y ago
> Or an American skeleton crew being sidelined from where the bulk of development happens. Already the norm in cybersecurity. Most of the new gen (post 2015) cybersecurity vendors have almost completely moved engineering and product to Israel and India.