H1-Bs -- some damning data

[RVonse]

Of course it's Loren's reasoning that I've seen. If it affects my job or my choices than it's bad, but if only affects someone else then it's okay.

+1 Agree

No truer words ever spoken. Loren would be perfectly fine with the hiring of scab labor or moving production overseas in order to break union wages. But do exactly same thing with white collar labor........and then you have poked his golden cow!

 

[coloradoatheist]

Okay. But the whole argument comes down to. I deserve a job because I was born between two imaginary lines. tomorrow we could easily say that there is no border between Canada and the US.

Yes, and politics assumes the existence of those imaginary lines and that those imaginary lines have some sort of meaning. It doesn't make those lines less imaginary, but the premise of political discussions is that they're there. Questioning that premise is a matter for the philosophy section, not a matter for derailing derailing other threads about.

Also, you didn't define what you meant by "argument", "deserve" or "two". You're going to need to write at least three paragraphs on each of those to clarify what you're saying when you use them before any sort of legitimate answer can be given to your post.

Yeah, tribalism exists in humans, but doesn't mean that it's a correct belief that needs to continue. It wasn't until relatively recent that people didn't think blacks deserved jobs over whites. Why one artificial group (whites vs blacks) is wrong but (one group born on on side of a river) is okay?

 

[Elixir]

Yes, and politics assumes the existence of those imaginary lines and that those imaginary lines have some sort of meaning. It doesn't make those lines less imaginary, but the premise of political discussions is that they're there. Questioning that premise is a matter for the philosophy section, not a matter for derailing derailing other threads about.

Also, you didn't define what you meant by "argument", "deserve" or "two". You're going to need to write at least three paragraphs on each of those to clarify what you're saying when you use them before any sort of legitimate answer can be given to your post.

Yeah, tribalism exists in humans, but doesn't mean that it's a correct belief that needs to continue.

Tribalism isn't a belief, it's evolved instinct. Those who are most afflicted by it are totally unaware of it as a driver of their beliefs and actions.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yeah, tribalism exists in humans, but doesn't mean that it's a correct belief that needs to continue.

Tribalism isn't a belief, it's evolved instinct. Those who are most afflicted by it are totally unaware of it as a driver of their beliefs and actions.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that, but I also believe that racism too belongs in that evolved instinct. But we've come to say that racism is wrong.

 

[prideandfall]

Why one artificial group (whites vs blacks) is wrong but (one group born on on side of a river) is okay?

because the first group is part not only of your general sense of ethnic/national/geographic community group, but is part of your local economy (and more broadly speaking your national economy) while the other is on the opposite side of the planet and no input or interaction with your life on a daily level.

if you live in ohio you can live next to a black person who is contributing to the function of your local society, and in that circumstance racism is absurd.
if you live in ohio you literally can't physically live next to a person who's in india, and in that circumstance having a conversation about the economic logistics of hiring regionally as opposed to outsourcing aren't without merit.

it's basically a macro level example of "promoting from within" - which is another thing that has gone down the fucking toilet in the last couple decades.

employers will outsource your job to increase profit, they'll promote from outside the company rather than internally, they lobby for at-will laws and will fire you for any reason (or no reason), and yet they wonder why it is that employees as a group no longer have any sense of a hard work ethic or loyalty to the company.

 

[ronburgundy]

By what magick do temporary workers depress wages but immigrants not?

Good question. Are they people against the H1B Visas also the ones for Trumps immigration policies?

Nah, its a terrible question, only made less terrible relative to your even more terrible question.

Trump's immigration policies target people by race and religion, and his efforts to mask this objective fact doesn't make it any less the case. Opposing H1-B visas is not intended to, nor does it have net harm primarily against a particular racial or religious group.
In fact, the whole purpose of such Visas is to benefit the employers by harming US workers, which include members of all racial groups. Any benefit to foreigners is inconsistent and incidental. Also, H1-B visas benefit mostly the richest and largest corporations who have immigration attorneys on full time staff, who are needed to file the applications and craft the lies about market need and wages in a way that cover the employers ass. That is why all non-racists and also all those who value secularism oppose Trump's immigration policies, but they might oppose H1-B visas.

As to what makes H1-B visas more harmful to wage depression, the simple answer is that H1-B visas are specifically designed to suppress wages. They are given to people whose entry into the US will be sure to suppress wages in particular fields where wages are not already low due to other factors. The majority of immigrants (both legal and illegal) wind up in jobs that are already relatively low paying. Also, immigrants are free to quite their current job due to mistreatment. H1-B visa holders are completely under the thumb of their current employer, even moreso than illegal immigrants. Illegals can and do change jobs all the time. H1-B workers are "on the grid" and the second they quit it triggers a deportation process. And wage depression cannot be assessed merely by the numbers on the paystubs of workers, because wage levels are inherently relative to amount of work required. Employers can and do depress wages not merely by lower annual salaries but by requiring many additional work hours for any salary level, and the H1-B worker has no recourse other than to leave the country.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Good question. Are they people against the H1B Visas also the ones for Trumps immigration policies?

Nah, its a terrible question, only made less terrible relative to your even more terrible question.

Trump's immigration policies target people by race and religion, and his efforts to mask this objective fact doesn't make it any less the case. Opposing H1-B visas is not intended to, nor does it have net harm primarily against a particular racial or religious group.
In fact, the whole purpose of such Visas is to benefit the employers by harming US workers, which include members of all racial groups. Any benefit to foreigners is inconsistent and incidental. Also, H1-B visas benefit mostly the richest and largest corporations who have immigration attorneys on full time staff, who are needed to file the applications and craft the lies about market need and wages in a way that cover the employers ass. That is why all non-racists and also all those who value secularism oppose Trump's immigration policies, but they might oppose H1-B visas.

As to what makes H1-B visas more harmful to wage depression, the simple answer is that H1-B visas are specifically designed to suppress wages. They are given to people whose entry into the US will be sure to suppress wages in particular fields where wages are not already low due to other factors. The majority of immigrants (both legal and illegal) wind up in jobs that are already relatively low paying. Also, immigrants are free to quite their current job due to mistreatment. H1-B visa holders are completely under the thumb of their current employer, even moreso than illegal immigrants. Illegals can and do change jobs all the time. H1-B workers are "on the grid" and the second they quit it triggers a deportation process. And wage depression cannot be assessed merely by the numbers on the paystubs of workers, because wage levels are inherently relative to amount of work required. Employers can and do depress wages not merely by lower annual salaries but by requiring many additional work hours for any salary level, and the H1-B worker has no recourse other than to leave the country.

Trump is also pushing to build a wall to Mexico. That policy isn't to step just a religious minority. But people are supporting that policy because of the belief that immigrants from the south cause three major problems. They depress wages of the lower class (mixed support for it), the drain on social services, and the culture that they bring.

So again. It's a policy that affects my middle or upper class job, but if it affects the poor it's okay. The conditions for a H1B visa sound bad, but can they find people that know the risks/rewards and still want to do it? Why do you deserve a middle class lifestyle just because you were lucky to be born in the right country?

- - - Updated - - -

Why one artificial group (whites vs blacks) is wrong but (one group born on on side of a river) is okay?

because the first group is part not only of your general sense of ethnic/national/geographic community group, but is part of your local economy (and more broadly speaking your national economy) while the other is on the opposite side of the planet and no input or interaction with your life on a daily level.

if you live in ohio you can live next to a black person who is contributing to the function of your local society, and in that circumstance racism is absurd.
if you live in ohio you literally can't physically live next to a person who's in india, and in that circumstance having a conversation about the economic logistics of hiring regionally as opposed to outsourcing aren't without merit.

it's basically a macro level example of "promoting from within" - which is another thing that has gone down the fucking toilet in the last couple decades.

employers will outsource your job to increase profit, they'll promote from outside the company rather than internally, they lobby for at-will laws and will fire you for any reason (or no reason), and yet they wonder why it is that employees as a group no longer have any sense of a hard work ethic or loyalty to the company.

However the people that are opposing immigration (whether it's middle east, or from the south) are doing it in their minds to protect their community. We're talking H1 Visas here, so that's having middle class jobs come into the community but that's wrong, but the jobs where people come here to scrub toilets or pick fruit are perfectly okay.

 

[prideandfall]

However the people that are opposing immigration (whether it's middle east, or from the south) are doing it in their minds to protect their community.

and one would think that the blatant contradiction in simple logic would lead somebody who has more than 2 functioning neurons and a piece of lint to rub together to conclude that the shallow justifications given to excuse racist xenophobic anti-immigration bullshit is bullshit.

(hint: it has nothing to do with protecting shit, because the unassailable truth is that illegal immigrants in the US commit less crime, work more hours, pay equal taxes, and utilize less public services than legal residents)

We're talking H1 Visas here, so that's having middle class jobs come into the community but that's wrong

except that's not what's happening - that's middle class jobs that were already in the community that have been hired out to people from outside the community.
(well technically they're in the community since they're living there for the duration of the job, but the position was farmed out in the first place instead of just taken from the local pool)

but the jobs where people come here to scrub toilets or pick fruit are perfectly okay.

and again we're talking about jobs americans want vs. jobs americans don't want and/or refuse to do.

you've all consistently refused to address this point.
high demand jobs vs. zero demand jobs.
that's the fundamental difference.

 

[TSwizzle]

However the people that are opposing immigration (whether it's middle east, or from the south) are doing it in their minds to protect their community. We're talking H1 Visas here, so that's having middle class jobs come into the community but that's wrong, but the jobs where people come here to scrub toilets or pick fruit are perfectly okay.

H1-B visas have little to do with immigration. H1-B is a temporary work visa. After the stipulated time, the visa expires and the holder has to go home. It's exploited by (some) employers to screw people over.

 

[dismal]

you've all consistently refused to address this point.
high demand jobs vs. zero demand jobs.
that's the fundamental difference.

There are not intrinsically "high demand jobs" and "low demand jobs". This is economic nonsense on stilts. Supply and demand equilibrate based on price.

If you increase the supply, the price they equilibrate at will be lower.

 

[laughing dog]

you've all consistently refused to address this point.
high demand jobs vs. zero demand jobs.
that's the fundamental difference.

There are not intrinsically "high demand jobs" and "low demand jobs". This is economic nonsense on stilts. Supply and demand equilibrate based on price.

Someone was not paying attention in econ 101. Labor markets are notoriously slow to "equilibrate". High demand jobs usually means jobs for which there is a current shortage of workers (i.e the market wage has not risen sufficiently to bring the market to an equilibrium).

 

[prideandfall]

you've all consistently refused to address this point.
high demand jobs vs. zero demand jobs.
that's the fundamental difference.

There are not intrinsically "high demand jobs" and "low demand jobs". This is economic nonsense on stilts. Supply and demand equilibrate based on price.

If you increase the supply, the price they equilibrate at will be lower.

thought i made it pretty expressly clear in the context of the way that was worded, but evidently not - okay, fair enough, i'll take the blame for that.

i meant 'demand' from the working force, so perhaps "desire" would have been a better term.

jobs people want being farmed out to folks from another country vs. jobs nobody wants being given to the only people who take them, who happen to be illegals.

 

[dismal]

There are not intrinsically "high demand jobs" and "low demand jobs". This is economic nonsense on stilts. Supply and demand equilibrate based on price.

If you increase the supply, the price they equilibrate at will be lower.

thought i made it pretty expressly clear in the context of the way that was worded, but evidently not - okay, fair enough, i'll take the blame for that.

i meant 'demand' from the working force, so perhaps "desire" would have been a better term.

jobs people want being farmed out to folks from another country vs. jobs nobody wants being given to the only people who take them, who happen to be illegals.

The jobs people desire are highly dependent on the wage they pay. If you believe no one would pick fruit for $1,000,000 per year there is a good chance you're wildly wrong.

 

[prideandfall]

thought i made it pretty expressly clear in the context of the way that was worded, but evidently not - okay, fair enough, i'll take the blame for that.

i meant 'demand' from the working force, so perhaps "desire" would have been a better term.

jobs people want being farmed out to folks from another country vs. jobs nobody wants being given to the only people who take them, who happen to be illegals.

The jobs people desire are highly dependent on the wage they pay. If you believe no one would pick fruit for $1,000,000 per year there is a good chance you're wildly wrong.

what does that have to do with anything, other than you once again avoiding addressing the original point?

 

[dismal]

The jobs people desire are highly dependent on the wage they pay. If you believe no one would pick fruit for $1,000,000 per year there is a good chance you're wildly wrong.

what does that have to do with anything, other than you once again avoiding addressing the original point?

I am not aware you have a point beyond blind faith denial of basic economics.

The trouble with economics is it still applies even if you deny it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There are not intrinsically "high demand jobs" and "low demand jobs". This is economic nonsense on stilts. Supply and demand equilibrate based on price.

Someone was not paying attention in econ 101. Labor markets are notoriously slow to "equilibrate". High demand jobs usually means jobs for which there is a current shortage of workers (i.e the market wage has not risen sufficiently to bring the market to an equilibrium).

But dismal asked exactly what high demand jobs are and what are low demand jobs. They are based on their wage. Everybody wants to a bank manager because it pays as high as it does. Nobody wants to clean toilets because it pays lower than other opportunities. But even then we can only say we think it's high demand.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So if we didn't have immigrants, what would happen to toilets and fruit? Would we not pay anybody to do either?

 

[prideandfall]

But dismal asked exactly what high demand jobs are and what are low demand jobs. They are based on their wage.

i disagree with this entirely.
they are partly based on how much they pay, yes, but i find an equally significant factor is what i call the "BS to $$" ratio.
everyone wants to make enough to live comfortably and to be able to save up some, absolutely... but everyone also wants to not be fucking miserable every second that they are work, so by and large the amount of money people expect from a position is proportional to how much BS they have to put up with day to day.
(an odd exception to that being customer facing positions, which are universally treated like absolute garbage by everyone)

wages basically work like this:
if you're doing something god awful that nobody would ever WANT to do and your job is stressful and/or exhausting or otherwise somehow horrific, but the outcome of your job is for the betterment of your community and civilization as a whole, then the job pays shit and you get treated like a pariah by society.
if you're doing something god awful that nobody would ever WANT to do and your job is stressful and/or exhausting or otherwise somehow horrific, but the outcome of your job serves no function whatsoever besides making a bunch of rich assholes even richer, then then job pays you more money than you could ever spend in your lifetime and you get treated like a saint by society.

most of us exist somewhere in the middle - our job doesn't do anything for the quality of mankind, but we're not soul crushing leeches on civilization either, so the best we can really hope for is a job that pays well enough and doesn't make us hate our life in the process.

 

[prideandfall]

So if we didn't have immigrants, what would happen to toilets and fruit? Would we not pay anybody to do either?

we already know exactly what would happen because we've seen it small scale several times in the US.

the price of fruit would go up like 5,000 percent because harvest volume would plummet, and then toilets would still be cleaned occasionally but not as well or as often, and we'd all have to just kind of get used to filth all the time.

 

[dismal]

the price of fruit would go up like 5,000 percent

Well, then they could pay a lot of money to people to harvest that fruit.

You're saying immigrants are destroying those high paid jobs.