Hacker News Reader

Comment by hwstar | Hacker News Reader

Google in a hypothetical case would then offer a lower salary to cover the visa cost, and/or deem it too much trouble to bring the H-1B on board. This leaves the H-1B worker operating in a suboptimal market. The issue of visa fees does not confront the H-1B employee, only the employer which sponsored them in the first place. Besides it should cost slighly more to bring in an H-1B than current parket rates. Maybe then more natives would be hired.

View on HN

Why would it be beneficial if more (extremely wealthy) natives were hired rather than (extremely poor) immigrants?

Why would you want to use trade barriers to increase inequality?

Is should be slightly more expensive to bring in immigrants because one of the governments missions voters expect is to ensure that there is a job market where there are good well-paying jobs, not a market where it is flooded with immigrants that have driven down wages. Having American citizens and green card holders idled or having to work in a lower paying job is not a true free market because only the employers are benefiting.

Once the domestic pool of potential employers has dried up, then employers will bring in the slightly more expensive foreign labor.

Why is it the government's mission to harm Indians, harm consumers of software services, and benefit sellers of software services?

Again, why is creating more inequality, harming the poor, and harming consumers via rent seeking a good thing?

The idealised government's role has always been acting in the interest of its citizens.

More importantly though: how is not letting Indians into the US harming them? Are Indians incapable of creating a US-like environment in their own country? If so, that's an argument to keep them out. If not, why wouldn't they do just that instead of moving half-way around the world?

Why don't we pass laws saying it's illegal to move out of Flint, MI. Would such a law harm the people living there who might like to move?

Black Americans in Flint seem incapable of creating a NYC-like environment in their own city. Is that an argument to prevent them from moving to NY?

And none of this explains why American consumers should pay extra. Apparently Indian humans count for less than 3/5, but don't American consumers count as full humans? Why should labor sellers be privileged over consumers?

First, it's dishonest to compare a law stopping foreigners from moving in and a hypothetical one making Flint residents prisoners in their county.

Second, New Yorkers routinely enact regulations to stop unapproved immigrants from moving in through housing cooperatives for example. And Americans all around the country do with gated communities.

I lost track of what you're arguing. Are you arguing against freedom of association? For some sort of forced integration where everyone should be allowed to move wherever they please regardless of the opinion of people already living there?

Why is it dishonest? Why is it wrong to make people prisoners in their county, but not prisoners in their country?

I'm arguing that it's wrong for person A to use violence to prevent person B from hiring person C, even if that undercuts the wages of person A. I believe this to be true even if person C was born into an unfavorable group.

None of the arguments you've made explain treating Indians different from Flintians.

Maybe you are arguing that some arbitrary lines on the map (e.g. countRy boundaries) deserve moral weight, but not others (e.g. county boundaries)? Is that your claim?

Exactly.

It's not really an argument to keep them out. We should let them in when real demand is there. Right now, its a race to the bottom in this country due to job market manipulation by business.

Also I'm all for letting Indian entrepreneurs into the country because they will create jobs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com