3 ms·
The fact that everyone would be broadly better off in the long run doesn't change the fact trade and immigration barriers do indeed benefit the local incumbents
by akavi 14y ago
The fact that everyone would be broadly better off in the long run doesn't change the fact trade and immigration barriers do indeed benefit the local incumbents (At least on career (ie, decades) timescales). It's similar to the idea that a monopoly is bad for the economy as a whole, but great for the monopoly.
Though I strongly support relaxing immigration constraints for principled reasons, from a personal financial standpoint, it's almost certainly better for me if no foreign programmer was ever allowed to work in the USA.
And that is why the debate will continue: Rational Self Interest (admittedly, at the expense of the "greater good"), not economic misconceptions.
- dmor 14y agoYou're not even doing a good job being selfish, since you'd actually benefit a lot more from more people having the opportunity to create value. The "it is better personally for me" argument could also have been made against women working in your role, or black people. Do you realize how screwed up that line of thinking is?
- akavi 14y ago> You're not even doing a good job being selfish, since you'd actually benefit a lot more from more people having the opportunity to create value. Well, that's sort of the question, isn't it? Will the benefit I receive from other people's production of value outweigh the devaluation of my own productivity? I don't think there's an easy way to answer that, though my suspicion is that there is a large number of people for whom the answer is no. Note, I don't advocate this line of thought; I'm just saying that it's not irrational for someone to advocate it.
- msfreemind 14y ago"Rational self-interest" does not include violating individual rights. If an employer wants to hire someone outside of the U.S., that is his decision, not yours or anyone else's.