3 ms·

People who recognize that countries become wealthy when people do useful work in them. An educated, young person doing useful work that comes to your country i

by vkou 1y ago

People who recognize that countries become wealthy when people do useful work in them. An educated, young person doing useful work that comes to your country is a massive gift, and a debit to the country they have left.

Saline9515 1y ago
Highly educated US graduates currently experience difficulties in landing a first job[0]. Should they or the foreign workers be prioritized? [0] https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/jobs-unemployment-rise-young-people-ce4704d8 https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/jobs-unemployment-rise-youn...
- vkou 1y ago
  Let me flip it around for you. Would the country benefit if skilled young people started fleeing it? People that you've invested decades of labour and education into? Surely, this would be great news for the ones who remained. Why shouldn't we pursue policies that result in just that? --- If net emigration of that demographic wouldn't be a net benefit, why do you think the reverse is a net harm?
  - Saline9515 1y ago
    A democratic State is supposed to work in the interests of all of its citizens. Degrading the economic environment to lead young graduates to "flee" is clearly against this mandate. The strategy that you mention is however used, with success by countries that are either dictatorships (e.g Algeria) or that have too many men, due to archaic sexist traditions of aborting females (e.g India). Maybe you'd prefer that the USA become more like those two examples?
    - donkeybeer 1y ago
      You failed to understand a warning vs an endorsement.
      - Saline9515 1y ago
        The framing is weasely. Saying that black is bad does mean that white is good. If you need such argumentation to "prove" a point, maybe you are wrong from the start.
        Balinares 1y ago
        Strong disagreement -- your point sounds more weasely to me, to be honest. The situation as described is zero-sum; a talented youth leaving place A in favor of place B leaves the same amount of talented youth in the overall picture. If their departure is detrimental to place A, then the value that goes missing in that place does not vanish, it ends up in place B. So, the point stands. If talented youth left the USA in significant numbers, would that be detrimental or beneficial to the USA? And you can feel either way about the answer there; however, you then can't have it different for talented youth leaving their own current home to bring their talent to the USA. Not in good faith anyway.
        Saline9515 1y ago
        The problem here is that you allude to a vague definition of what is good - "the USA" is an abstract idea. Is it the people living in the USA? The citizens? The State? The companies? The US stock market? A benefit for companies can be a big problem for citizens - environment, or privacy come easily to mind. It is also context-dependent: is there a real unsatisfied need for skilled professionals in the sector that affects everyone in society (e.g in healthcare)? Otherwise the added workers will just push down the wages for the other workers - but companies and investors may benefit, true. However, should a State policy be decided for the interest of companies against the citizens? Why is there even a need to vote then? So yeah, oversimplifying a situation and then implying that if A is bad B should be true is sophistic, sorry. I could do the same, and ask if skilled immigration is good, why not remove quotas and let 3 million Indian ninja/x100 software engineers in per year. If not, how much is the right quota? How do you define it? And you're back at the start.
        vkou 1y ago
jalapenos 1y ago
Not if you're an educated young local person who got nudged out of a job as a result. The "country" is an amorphous - having the money to move out of your parents basement is not. You could just as soon zoom out to the earth rather than fetishizing "the country", then it's zero sum.

by vkou 1y ago

Saline9515 1y ago

Highly educated US graduates currently experience difficulties in landing a first job[0]. Should they or the foreign workers be prioritized? [0] https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/jobs-unemployment-rise-young-people-ce4704d8 https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/jobs-unemployment-rise-youn...

vkou 1y ago
Let me flip it around for you. Would the country benefit if skilled young people started fleeing it? People that you've invested decades of labour and education into? Surely, this would be great news for the ones who remained. Why shouldn't we pursue policies that result in just that? --- If net emigration of that demographic wouldn't be a net benefit, why do you think the reverse is a net harm?
- Saline9515 1y ago
  A democratic State is supposed to work in the interests of all of its citizens. Degrading the economic environment to lead young graduates to "flee" is clearly against this mandate. The strategy that you mention is however used, with success by countries that are either dictatorships (e.g Algeria) or that have too many men, due to archaic sexist traditions of aborting females (e.g India). Maybe you'd prefer that the USA become more like those two examples?
  - donkeybeer 1y ago
    You failed to understand a warning vs an endorsement.
    - Saline9515 1y ago
      The framing is weasely. Saying that black is bad does mean that white is good. If you need such argumentation to "prove" a point, maybe you are wrong from the start.
      - Balinares 1y ago
        Strong disagreement -- your point sounds more weasely to me, to be honest. The situation as described is zero-sum; a talented youth leaving place A in favor of place B leaves the same amount of talented youth in the overall picture. If their departure is detrimental to place A, then the value that goes missing in that place does not vanish, it ends up in place B. So, the point stands. If talented youth left the USA in significant numbers, would that be detrimental or beneficial to the USA? And you can feel either way about the answer there; however, you then can't have it different for talented youth leaving their own current home to bring their talent to the USA. Not in good faith anyway.
        Saline9515 1y ago
        The problem here is that you allude to a vague definition of what is good - "the USA" is an abstract idea. Is it the people living in the USA? The citizens? The State? The companies? The US stock market? A benefit for companies can be a big problem for citizens - environment, or privacy come easily to mind. It is also context-dependent: is there a real unsatisfied need for skilled professionals in the sector that affects everyone in society (e.g in healthcare)? Otherwise the added workers will just push down the wages for the other workers - but companies and investors may benefit, true. However, should a State policy be decided for the interest of companies against the citizens? Why is there even a need to vote then? So yeah, oversimplifying a situation and then implying that if A is bad B should be true is sophistic, sorry. I could do the same, and ask if skilled immigration is good, why not remove quotas and let 3 million Indian ninja/x100 software engineers in per year. If not, how much is the right quota? How do you define it? And you're back at the start.
        vkou 1y ago

jalapenos 1y ago

Not if you're an educated young local person who got nudged out of a job as a result. The "country" is an amorphous - having the money to move out of your parents basement is not. You could just as soon zoom out to the earth rather than fetishizing "the country", then it's zero sum.