3 ms·
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 o
by _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 agoIs 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 agoWhen they’re not able to source labor locally, is that not incentive enough to leave?
- hmcq6 2y agoThey 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 agoWon'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?
- johnnyanmac 2y agoYour post makes the assumption that Americans are less qualified. Why is that?
- _factor 2y agoA smaller selection pool is statistically less likely to be qualified, all else being equal.