H1-Bs -- some damning data

[Lumpenproletariat]

Basic economics -- supply & demand

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

one of them is outsourcing high demand skill-intensive jobs to what is essentially the geographical equivalent of a labor farm that requires less wages for substandard but acceptable work, . . .

Let the buyers (employers and consumers) decide what is substandard. Buyers are always entitled to seek a lower cost and judge the quality. And sometimes the foreigner is a superior worker. (Unless you think all foreigners by definition are inferior.)

. . . while the other is giving menial but fundamentally essential jobs that nobody wants to do for wages that nobody wants to the only people who will take them.

Actually this argument, even by the good guys who favor immigrants, is phony. Because there is no job that won't be taken if the employer offers a high-enough wage.

Most of us would take a job picking lettuce if it paid $30/hour.

So if the point is just to force the employer to pay a "decent" wage, we could kick out ALL them damn foreigners and force employers to hire only red-blooded Americans, and pay as high as necessary to get the labor. At $30 or $40 / hour they'd get all the labor they need.

So it all just comes down to the workers vs. the consumers: Reduce the competition > increase the cost > drive up prices > drive down the living standard of all.

 

[lpetrich]

There's only one standard that matters: Serve the consumers better, whatever it takes.

Implying that "consumers" are some privileged class that gets its money from picking money trees, and that "consumers" have a right to get everything for free. Also implying that workers ought to be enslaved, so they will spend all their waking hours working and not be able to run away.

I.e., the function of business is to serve consumers, not pander to the crybaby wage-earners.

Lumpenproletariat, you seem to have a hate-on for ordinary workers. As if nothing less than gulag-like conditions would be fit for them.

 

[OLDMAN]

You know when you return goods to Walmart or wherever...they don't put them on the shelf for resale. That $200 Ninja coffee maker, isn't worth $20. They don't check them out or anything. The goods just go to a warehouse auction and are sold for pennies on the dollar. Most stuff ends up being thrown in the garbage. We do the same thing with most food items...it is priced to throw away. The whole world is full of junk and waste. Capitalism is great at creating waste and things we don't need. Somehow we think it is the best system for feeding and clothing the world...but it probably isn't...especially when you look at the consequences of a throw away society, where it is easier and cheaper to toss away resources than conserve.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So if a low skilled worker loses his job or has his wages cut it's okay, but we can't let that happen to someone making more money?

first you'd have to show that low skilled worker's are losing jobs or having their wages cut.
when you can show me the droves of american fruit pickers who are out of their 12 hour a day job because mexican immigrants will do it for cheaper, then you might have a point.

you can keep trying to make a comparison directly in order to use that straw man as the basis for your argument, but the fact remains that on the one hand you have in-demand jobs that people want, and on the other hand you have what is essentially slave labor that nobody wants and only the desperate take on.

But it's "slave labor" only because the wage isn't high enough, and the only reason "nobody wants" the job is that it doesn't pay high enough. If the employer raises the wage to $20 or $30 or $40 / hour that would change and there would be enough applicants.

No matter how you slice it, any extra wage competition makes consumers better off, no matter what kind of work it is. The benefits of the cheap labor always apply.

There is no reason to allow visas for only certain jobs and not others. All the jobs could be done by domestic labor only, and would be, if the wage level is forced up high enough.

No matter what is done to artificially boost the wage level, overall it makes the country worse off by driving up the prices.

And anything which brings the labor cost down (or ANY cost) makes the country better off.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Any business that cannot survive if it pays a living wage doesn't deserve to exist.

"living wage"?

By that rule millions of small businesses around the world don't deserve to exist, and thus millions of consumers dependent on them deserve to starve. Why do you think millions of people deserve to starve?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

These industries would die here-the orchards and fields would go fallow, or be developed for some other purpose and these commodities would be imported.

It's happened before, the sugar beet industry used to be big in Colorado and SW Wyoming, but when they were forced to hire American Union labor, the industries died and the land has mostly gone to alfalfa production and the processing plants have closed.

If we think it sucks being dependent on foreign oil, wait till we are dependent on foreign food.

How is either worse than being dependent on foreign workers?

There's nothing wrong with being dependent on foreign oil or foreign food or foreign workers.

All that matters is making sure that consumers get the best deal, regardless where it comes from.

 

[TSwizzle]

The H1-B is a bit of a farce now. It had good intentions to begin with but a lot of companies use it inappropriately and exploit the people on it.

It's inappropriate only for uncompetitive crybabies. But it's appropriate for consumers who are made better off.

*sigh* not this guff again.

 

[bilby]

How is either worse than being dependent on foreign workers?

There's nothing wrong with being dependent on foreign oil or foreign food or foreign workers.

All that matters is making sure that consumers get the best deal, regardless where it comes from.

I understand that you think that's all that matters. But why should anyone agree with you?

It's not all that matters to me. Lots of other things matter. Many of them matter a lot more. Why should I accept your simplistic single priority as a replacement for my complex set of priorities that have served me very well?

 

[Trausti]

Meet the new boss, not the same as the old boss.

As the government begins approving H-1B applications for the year, the Justice Department has issued a public warning to employers seeking those visas not to use them to harbor bias against US-based workers.

"The Justice Department will not tolerate employers misusing the H-1B visa process to discriminate against US workers," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Tom Wheeler of DOJ's Civil Rights Division. "US workers should not be placed in a disfavored status, and the department is wholeheartedly committed to investigating and vigorously prosecuting these claims."

 

[barbos]

Meet the new boss, not the same as the old boss.

As the government begins approving H-1B applications for the year, the Justice Department has issued a public warning to employers seeking those visas not to use them to harbor bias against US-based workers.

"The Justice Department will not tolerate employers misusing the H-1B visa process to discriminate against US workers," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Tom Wheeler of DOJ's Civil Rights Division. "US workers should not be placed in a disfavored status, and the department is wholeheartedly committed to investigating and vigorously prosecuting these claims."

That sucks, H1-B was the only practical and legal way to immigrate to US.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How does it make us worse off if it's produced by foreigners?

There's nothing wrong with being dependent on foreign oil or foreign food or foreign workers.

All that matters is making sure that consumers get the best deal, regardless where it comes from.

I understand that you think that's all that matters. But why should anyone agree with you?

It's not all that matters to me.

When it comes to production, what matters other than serving consumers?

How are you damaged by a product just because a foreigner had something to do with producing it?

Lots of other things matter. Many of them matter a lot more.

Name something producers are supposed to do which matters more than serving consumers? i.e., something that matters more than offering to consumers what they want at the lowest price?

Why should I accept your simplistic single priority as a replacement for my complex set of priorities that have served me very well?

If they have served you so well, why are you ashamed to say what they are?

What priority for producers is higher than that of serving consumers? i.e., offering a better product at a lower price?

Why is it wrong to be dependent on foreign food or foreign oil or foreign workers, as long as these are making us better off? If our dependency on them is due to market forces, based on supply & demand, i.e., competition and producers seeking to gain more by serving the demand, then how does that not make us better off?

How are we not made better off by having producers serve us better and perform better? If the domestic workers or food producers or oil producers can serve us better, won't the market then reward them and let them succeed and not be replaced by "them damn foreigners"?

So if "them damn foreigners" are serving us better, why aren't we better off letting them do so rather than throwing up artificial requirements that one must first be a more costly "red-blooded American" in order to serve us?

 

[bilby]

I understand that you think that's all that matters. But why should anyone agree with you?

It's not all that matters to me.

When it comes to production, what matters other than serving consumers?

How are you damaged by a product just because a foreigner had something to do with producing it?

Lots of other things matter. Many of them matter a lot more.

Name something producers are supposed to do which matters more than serving consumers? i.e., something that matters more than offering to consumers what they want at the lowest price?

Why should I accept your simplistic single priority as a replacement for my complex set of priorities that have served me very well?

If they have served you so well, why are you ashamed to say what they are?

What priority for producers is higher than that of serving consumers? i.e., offering a better product at a lower price?

Why is it wrong to be dependent on foreign food or foreign oil or foreign workers, as long as these are making us better off? If our dependency on them is due to market forces, based on supply & demand, i.e., competition and producers seeking to gain more by serving the demand, then how does that not make us better off?

How are we not made better off by having producers serve us better and perform better? If the domestic workers or food producers or oil producers can serve us better, won't the market then reward them and let them succeed and not be replaced by "them damn foreigners"?

So if "them damn foreigners" are serving us better, why aren't we better off letting them do so rather than throwing up artificial requirements that one must first be a more costly "red-blooded American" in order to serve us?

LOL you are making a lot of false assumptions here.

For a start, where I am, an American is a foreigner no matter what colour his or her blood might be.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There's only one standard that matters: Serve the consumers better, whatever it takes.

Implying that "consumers" are some privileged class that gets its money from picking money trees, . . .

No, the assumption is that "consumers" earned what they have by being productive. As producers their function is to serve consumers.

. . . and that "consumers" have a right to get everything for free.

No, that they have a right to get it at the lowest price it can be offered for by a producer.

In an ideal perfect world, everything would be produced free to the consumers. Their wish for it would produce it instantaneously at no cost. Whatever is the closest to that is what we're entitled to, in the real world.

Also implying that workers ought to be enslaved, so they will spend all their waking hours working and not be able to run away.

No, what's implied is that everyone should get what they want, as far as it's possible. The maximum possible benefit to everyone.

I.e., the function of business is to serve consumers, not pander to the crybaby wage-earners.

Lumpenproletariat, you seem to have a hate-on for ordinary workers.

Only the ones who are crybabies. The ones who demand to be paid more than the value of their production.

As if nothing less than gulag-like conditions would be fit for them.

That's what you're saying. You're saying that if workers were paid their real value, this is so low that the result would be gulag-like conditions -- and that's why they must be paid more than what they're worth.

You're saying most of the workers are worthless rabble who belong in the gulag (if paid only what they're worth), but since we can't do that with them, the only alternative is to pay them more than their real value.

But you're wrong to assume they are worthless rabble whose value is so low that the gulag is all they're worth and who must therefore be paid more than their real value.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

When it comes to production, what matters other than serving consumers?

How are you damaged by a product just because a foreigner had something to do with producing it?

Lots of other things matter. Many of them matter a lot more.

Name something producers are supposed to do which matters more than serving consumers? i.e., something that matters more than offering to consumers what they want at the lowest price?

Why should I accept your simplistic single priority as a replacement for my complex set of priorities that have served me very well?

If they have served you so well, why are you ashamed to say what they are?

What priority for producers is higher than that of serving consumers? i.e., offering a better product at a lower price?

Why is it wrong to be dependent on foreign food or foreign oil or foreign workers, as long as these are making us better off? If our dependency on them is due to market forces, based on supply & demand, i.e., competition and producers seeking to gain more by serving the demand, then how does that not make us better off?

How are we not made better off by having producers serve us better and perform better? If the domestic workers or food producers or oil producers can serve us better, won't the market then reward them and let them succeed and not be replaced by "them damn foreigners"?

So if "them damn foreigners" are serving us better, why aren't we better off letting them do so rather than throwing up artificial requirements that one must first be a more costly "red-blooded American" in order to serve us?

LOL you are making a lot of false assumptions here.

For a start, where I am, an American is a foreigner no matter what colour his or her blood might be.

So then we both agree that:

"There's nothing wrong with being dependent on foreign oil or foreign food or foreign workers.

All that matters is making sure that consumers get the best deal, regardless where it comes from."

 

[bilby]

When it comes to production, what matters other than serving consumers?

How are you damaged by a product just because a foreigner had something to do with producing it?

Lots of other things matter. Many of them matter a lot more.

Name something producers are supposed to do which matters more than serving consumers? i.e., something that matters more than offering to consumers what they want at the lowest price?

Why should I accept your simplistic single priority as a replacement for my complex set of priorities that have served me very well?

If they have served you so well, why are you ashamed to say what they are?

What priority for producers is higher than that of serving consumers? i.e., offering a better product at a lower price?

Why is it wrong to be dependent on foreign food or foreign oil or foreign workers, as long as these are making us better off? If our dependency on them is due to market forces, based on supply & demand, i.e., competition and producers seeking to gain more by serving the demand, then how does that not make us better off?

How are we not made better off by having producers serve us better and perform better? If the domestic workers or food producers or oil producers can serve us better, won't the market then reward them and let them succeed and not be replaced by "them damn foreigners"?

So if "them damn foreigners" are serving us better, why aren't we better off letting them do so rather than throwing up artificial requirements that one must first be a more costly "red-blooded American" in order to serve us?

LOL you are making a lot of false assumptions here.

For a start, where I am, an American is a foreigner no matter what colour his or her blood might be.

So then we both agree that:

"There's nothing wrong with being dependent on foreign oil or foreign food or foreign workers.

All that matters is making sure that consumers get the best deal, regardless where it comes from."

I (mostly) agree with the first part.

The second part is pseudo-religious nonsense.

There are no concise statements that begin "All that matters is...", and that are true; what matters is determined by the complex desires, ambitions and hopes of several billion humans. To suggest that this could be accurately summarised in a single sentence is batshit insane.