5 ms·

Protectionism doesn't work. There is wide consensus among economists on comparative advantage [1]. Healthy, non-protectionist immigration policies have been pro

by shas3 11y ago

Protectionism doesn't work. There is wide consensus among economists on comparative advantage [1]. Healthy, non-protectionist immigration policies have been proposed to have similar effects as free trade [2,3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage [2] http://www.economics.uci.edu/files/docs/micro/s07/Peri.pdf http://www.economics.uci.edu/files/docs/micro/s07/Peri.pdf [3] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443477104577551250082215534 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100008723963904434771045775512...

melling 11y ago
How do you determine what's "healthy"? Millions of Americans are caught in an endless cycle of poverty and we're fighting a $15 minimum wage. We've shipped millions of manufacturing jobs to China so it's harder to get a good job without a college education. Now we want to reduce the salaries of well-paid jobs by onshoring them. I'd say we should take a closer look at what we're actually doing.
- marknutter 11y ago
  Wouldn't raising the minimum was make shipping jobs to China even more attractive?
  - Frondo 11y ago
    No, because you can't ship a Burger King job to China.
    - Shivetya 11y ago
      why is a job flipping burgers worth 30k? by running up the cost of unskilled labor pressure is put upon those who need skilled labor and many of those jobs can go overseas
      - Frondo 11y ago
        Why? Because we (as in "we the people") decide it is so? Remember, the government, and all its laws, derives its power from us, not the other way 'round.
        fche 11y ago
        ... but "we" haven't given government the power to micromanage every aspect of our lives.
        Frondo 11y ago
        A minimum wage law isn't micromanagement of our lives.
        fche 11y ago
        But by your reasoning, "we the people ... deciding" is good enough justification for government action. There need to be limits on "we the people deciding" other people's affairs - that's elementary.
        scutfarcuss 11y ago
        "We the people" decide that it's not worth 30k by refusing to pay $20 for a big mac.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Australia has an appropriate minimum wage yet their Big Mac's don't cost $20.
    - ryandrake 11y ago
      Yet
    - johnchristopher 11y ago
      Not that I agree with the parent but jobs that weren't burger king like were actually shipped to China and others.
    - xienze 11y ago
      But you can turn a BK job into a robot job...
    - thesteamboat 11y ago
      But sometime in the future, you can have China build a burger flipping robot.
VLM 11y ago
The protectionism in this situation is protecting the company from having to participate in an open and free employment market. Import some slaves, threaten them with immediate deportation if they don't accept substandard pay and substandard management... The anti-H1B folks want to remove the protectionism and have a fair employment market. I don't like slavery, don't like H1B, and I think a perfect solution would be to shut down the H1B program and hand every participant a green card if not outright naturalization papers. We have enough class problems in the USA as it is. Having the .gov encourage the creation and growth of a slave caste via the H1B program is the last thing we need.
makeitsuckless 11y ago
Any immigration policy short of opening the borders completely is "protectionist". Just waving the word "protectionism" around is a non-statement that doesn't say anything about what may or may not be wrong wit the current policy.
- shas3 11y ago
  > Any immigration policy short of opening the borders completely is "protectionist". How so? The idea of comparative advantage is that one country has a market, another, the means to provide for that market and you facilitate this 'trade'. India, China, pretty much most countries have plenty of top notch talent that cannot be satiated by opportunities within their own countries. These are not necessarily geniuses, but most high-performing highly skilled workers qualify. The satisfaction that these highly talented folks seek is often provided only in the US. For a moment, set aside the notion that people want to work in the US for greenbacks. This is only partially true, in my experience. Most friends and colleagues I know want to immigrate because their jobs are higher quality, as is the work culture, etc. US provides the (job) market for top talent, China, India, Europe, etc. supply the talent. Protectionism in this situation is just the act of putting ill-conceived roadblocks in this 'trade'. No one is asking for open borders, just a fair system where this 'trade' can be carried on smoothly.
  - makeitsuckless 11y ago
    Non-protectionist would be free traffic across borders like within the EU. Any immigration policy is a form of protectionism. BTW, I find your naive notion of the US as the promised land rather unsettling. Personally, I don't know anybody who would want to immigrate to the US, and especially not for the archaic, exploitative work culture. Yes, this is matter of perspective. But you seem to be lacking any other perspective than US good, everywhere else bad. Which is probably one of the reasons why it's so easy to exploit immigrant knowledge workers in the US.
    - shas3 11y ago
      Wow! Gratuitous negativity?
dailo10 11y ago
Actually, the dirty secret amongs development economists is that protectionism works when you're trying to establish yourself in an industry. If you look at a number of successful developing countries, they first created protectionist policies to nurture homegrown companies. Once those companies matured and acquired skills/knowledge, they slowly remove those policies to compete on a global level. Of course, it's different for a developed country like the U.S. But I object to those who blithely proclaim that free trade is the best solution. Even when you look at the U.S., freer trade has led to clear winners and losers -- the winners being bigger profits for corporations, and the losers being those who have lost their jobs. I'm not sure what a better solution looks like, but increasing globalization forces us to grapple with some very real issues and growing inequality.
geebee 11y ago
I think the problem is that occupation-specific visas may distort markets in a way that general immigration would not. Now, short of open borders in every direction, any immigration system could be seen as a form of protectionism. But an immigration system that allows people to come in as free and full citizens, without requiring them to have a specific academic background or have a job offer from a specific kind of company in a specific kind of position (tech, in this case), would do more to preserve the positive qualities of a free labor market than targeted, industry specific, role specific visas. Let me give an example of what I mean. Suppose that a country with a large and valuable market has a 100% protectionist tariff on all foreign grown fruits and vegetables. The next day, the government removes tariffs on lemons only. Would that lead to a freer market in fruits and vegetables? Most likely what would happen is that anyone outside the borders seeking access to that market would start producing lemons, and anyone inside it would seek to start producing something that is still protected by tariffs. Domestic production would collapse, imports would soar. I think this is essentially what the US has done with IT. We've created very specific visas for a narrow band of roles, under the assumption that there is a "shortage". Open borders are a political non-starter, but we could replace this with a lottery that allows people to come here as free and full participants in the labor market, welcome to choose whatever field they like. This way, tech employers would have to actually compete in a free labor market. My opinion, like a lot of people here, is that there really is no shortage, in the sense that aversion to tech careers may be very rational when you consider options available to people with the talent to do tech. Without these visas, tech employers would actually have to compete with finance, law, medicine, nursing, and dental hygeine, and so forth to hire workers. There is no reason immigration would need to subvert this, all we need to do is allow immigrants to come here as free citizens with choice, and not force them to study a particular field or work in a particular job role as a condition of coming here.

by shas3 11y ago

melling 11y ago

How do you determine what's "healthy"? Millions of Americans are caught in an endless cycle of poverty and we're fighting a $15 minimum wage. We've shipped millions of manufacturing jobs to China so it's harder to get a good job without a college education. Now we want to reduce the salaries of well-paid jobs by onshoring them. I'd say we should take a closer look at what we're actually doing.

marknutter 11y ago
Wouldn't raising the minimum was make shipping jobs to China even more attractive?
- Frondo 11y ago
  No, because you can't ship a Burger King job to China.
  - Shivetya 11y ago
    why is a job flipping burgers worth 30k? by running up the cost of unskilled labor pressure is put upon those who need skilled labor and many of those jobs can go overseas
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Why? Because we (as in "we the people") decide it is so? Remember, the government, and all its laws, derives its power from us, not the other way 'round.
      - fche 11y ago
        ... but "we" haven't given government the power to micromanage every aspect of our lives.
        Frondo 11y ago
        A minimum wage law isn't micromanagement of our lives.
        fche 11y ago
        But by your reasoning, "we the people ... deciding" is good enough justification for government action. There need to be limits on "we the people deciding" other people's affairs - that's elementary.
      - scutfarcuss 11y ago
        "We the people" decide that it's not worth 30k by refusing to pay $20 for a big mac.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Australia has an appropriate minimum wage yet their Big Mac's don't cost $20.
  - ryandrake 11y ago
    Yet
  - johnchristopher 11y ago
    Not that I agree with the parent but jobs that weren't burger king like were actually shipped to China and others.
  - xienze 11y ago
    But you can turn a BK job into a robot job...
  - thesteamboat 11y ago
    But sometime in the future, you can have China build a burger flipping robot.

VLM 11y ago

The protectionism in this situation is protecting the company from having to participate in an open and free employment market. Import some slaves, threaten them with immediate deportation if they don't accept substandard pay and substandard management... The anti-H1B folks want to remove the protectionism and have a fair employment market. I don't like slavery, don't like H1B, and I think a perfect solution would be to shut down the H1B program and hand every participant a green card if not outright naturalization papers. We have enough class problems in the USA as it is. Having the .gov encourage the creation and growth of a slave caste via the H1B program is the last thing we need.

makeitsuckless 11y ago

Any immigration policy short of opening the borders completely is "protectionist". Just waving the word "protectionism" around is a non-statement that doesn't say anything about what may or may not be wrong wit the current policy.

shas3 11y ago
> Any immigration policy short of opening the borders completely is "protectionist". How so? The idea of comparative advantage is that one country has a market, another, the means to provide for that market and you facilitate this 'trade'. India, China, pretty much most countries have plenty of top notch talent that cannot be satiated by opportunities within their own countries. These are not necessarily geniuses, but most high-performing highly skilled workers qualify. The satisfaction that these highly talented folks seek is often provided only in the US. For a moment, set aside the notion that people want to work in the US for greenbacks. This is only partially true, in my experience. Most friends and colleagues I know want to immigrate because their jobs are higher quality, as is the work culture, etc. US provides the (job) market for top talent, China, India, Europe, etc. supply the talent. Protectionism in this situation is just the act of putting ill-conceived roadblocks in this 'trade'. No one is asking for open borders, just a fair system where this 'trade' can be carried on smoothly.
- makeitsuckless 11y ago
  Non-protectionist would be free traffic across borders like within the EU. Any immigration policy is a form of protectionism. BTW, I find your naive notion of the US as the promised land rather unsettling. Personally, I don't know anybody who would want to immigrate to the US, and especially not for the archaic, exploitative work culture. Yes, this is matter of perspective. But you seem to be lacking any other perspective than US good, everywhere else bad. Which is probably one of the reasons why it's so easy to exploit immigrant knowledge workers in the US.
  - shas3 11y ago
    Wow! Gratuitous negativity?

dailo10 11y ago

Actually, the dirty secret amongs development economists is that protectionism works when you're trying to establish yourself in an industry. If you look at a number of successful developing countries, they first created protectionist policies to nurture homegrown companies. Once those companies matured and acquired skills/knowledge, they slowly remove those policies to compete on a global level. Of course, it's different for a developed country like the U.S. But I object to those who blithely proclaim that free trade is the best solution. Even when you look at the U.S., freer trade has led to clear winners and losers -- the winners being bigger profits for corporations, and the losers being those who have lost their jobs. I'm not sure what a better solution looks like, but increasing globalization forces us to grapple with some very real issues and growing inequality.

geebee 11y ago

I think the problem is that occupation-specific visas may distort markets in a way that general immigration would not. Now, short of open borders in every direction, any immigration system could be seen as a form of protectionism. But an immigration system that allows people to come in as free and full citizens, without requiring them to have a specific academic background or have a job offer from a specific kind of company in a specific kind of position (tech, in this case), would do more to preserve the positive qualities of a free labor market than targeted, industry specific, role specific visas. Let me give an example of what I mean. Suppose that a country with a large and valuable market has a 100% protectionist tariff on all foreign grown fruits and vegetables. The next day, the government removes tariffs on lemons only. Would that lead to a freer market in fruits and vegetables? Most likely what would happen is that anyone outside the borders seeking access to that market would start producing lemons, and anyone inside it would seek to start producing something that is still protected by tariffs. Domestic production would collapse, imports would soar. I think this is essentially what the US has done with IT. We've created very specific visas for a narrow band of roles, under the assumption that there is a "shortage". Open borders are a political non-starter, but we could replace this with a lottery that allows people to come here as free and full participants in the labor market, welcome to choose whatever field they like. This way, tech employers would have to actually compete in a free labor market. My opinion, like a lot of people here, is that there really is no shortage, in the sense that aversion to tech careers may be very rational when you consider options available to people with the talent to do tech. Without these visas, tech employers would actually have to compete with finance, law, medicine, nursing, and dental hygeine, and so forth to hire workers. There is no reason immigration would need to subvert this, all we need to do is allow immigrants to come here as free citizens with choice, and not force them to study a particular field or work in a particular job role as a condition of coming here.