I have found, surprisingly, bipartisan support on this topic with the reps I engage with. I encourage you to make the time to engage as well.
It's a real question - what legal or regulatory environment (that can't be trivially side-stepped) do you see I play here?
And how do you argue against foreign work when unemployment is pretty much as low as it has ever been?
Making it less economically favorable when transferring value for offshored labor. Laws are just words, you can make them do many things. You can even sanction entire nation states with them. Determine the desired outcome, construct policy, observe, iterate. It is statute as a PID feedback loop.
> And how do you argue against foreign work when unemployment is pretty much as low as it has ever been?
Labor isn't fungible (service sector and healthcare jobs are very in demand, tech and similar white collar work is cooling), and I don't support corporations offshoring to put downward pressure on wages for management and shareholder returns. Even with unemployment being low, wages must be pushed higher (based on observing macro US household financial conditions and stress). If you want access to the market, you can employ in the market. People worry about AI paperclip maximizers when that is already what corporations and those who run them are. Under 30 cohort is very pro labor rights (obviously, how could you not considering current state), lots of control is still in the hands of 55+ cohort (Congressional demographics, corporate leadership, ~5 minutes in your favorite search engine will confirm), so progress is a function of the rate at which those folks age out (~5k per day, ~1.8M/year).
This isn't a labor participation rate issue; this is a how labor is valued issue.
While I agree iteration of laws to refine the outcomes is a useful approach, it's also an approach govt is bad at. So having a reasonable starting position might be helpful to discuss. Frankly, I don't have one. At least not one which isn't immediately gameable in the real world.
For 200 years the "young" have been waiting for the "old" to age out the system, then discover when they do that they're the new "old".
It's hard to change the system when the rule-writers are where they are -because- of the system, and where huge swathes of the country are against any change at all.
More software , such as banking software, iot, control systems all needs to be done vertically in the U.S. just as cyber security should be done by people with clearances.
It really is a security concern.