Trump to go after H1B visa abuse next.

[Madison320]

Are humans identical to TVs?

Economic principles work the same for purchasing a good (tv) or purchasing a service (person).

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Economic principles work the same for purchasing a good (tv) or purchasing a service (person).

Does a TV need healthcare? Does it need it's own home? Are these not economic effects beyond simple supply and demand?

 

[timosman]

Does a TV need healthcare? Does it need it's own home? Are these not economic effects beyond simple supply and demand?

Modison320 is a very simple person. It does not need any of that. A perfect ingredient for a human centipede.

 

[TheCount]

Does a TV need healthcare? Does it need it's own home? Are these not economic effects beyond simple supply and demand?

This isn't your point, but yes, additional people cause the economy to grow larger. They expand the pie. Additional TVs do not. Therefore, the economic benefits of additional people are greater than those of additional TVs.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This isn't your point, but yes, additional people cause the economy to grow larger. They expand the pie. Additional TVs do not. Therefore, the economic benefits of additional people are greater than those of additional people.

Yes, I did have that in mind too. That is one part of the bigger picture. But the point is that TVs do not compete for the same resources as people (like housing). And also that there are costs, especially in a welfare state, such as healthcare.

Therefore, there is no guarantee whatsoever that there will be a net gain economically, let alone when all things are considered beyond economics, such as politics, quality of life, scarce resources, etc.

 

[TheCount]

But the point is that TVs do not compete for the same resources as people (like housing).

That's only a downside if you view demand as a bad thing. If you work in construction or real estate, then 'competition' for housing means employment.

And also that there are costs, especially in a welfare state, such as healthcare.

Or, if you work in the field of healthcare, demand means employment.

Therefore, there is no guarantee whatsoever that there will be a net gain economically, let alone when all things are considered beyond economics, such as politics, quality of life, scarce resources, etc.

Has there ever been a net economic loss due to population growth?

 

[Madison320]

Modison320 is a very simple person. It does not need any of that. A perfect ingredient for a human centipede.

Dude, what is your problem?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

That's only a downside if you view demand as a bad thing. If you work in construction or real estate, then 'competition' for housing means employment.

Or, if you work in the field of healthcare, demand means employment.

Has there ever been a net economic loss due to population growth?

All pyramid schemes eventually collapse. Government interference can hinder benefits to providers for increased demand. Not all doctors benefit from Obamacare. Resources are limited, and some people don't want to live like ants in a hive.

Has there ever been an expansion of liberty due to population growth?

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[TheCount]

All pyramid schemes eventually collapse.

Well, in the entire span of human existence, the 'pyramid scheme' of population growth has continued unabated. I don't expect it to topple anytime soon.

Government interference can hinder benefits to providers for increased demand. Not all doctors benefit from Obamacare. Resources are limited, and some people don't want to live like ants in a hive.

Obamacare has nothing to do with this. You've posted repeatedly on this topic, and the clear indication is that you believe people to be a net negative to a society in every aspect. I disagree, and I think that all of human history is on my side.

Economics is not a zero sum game. Life is not a zero sum game. One person does not have to lose in order for another to win.

Has there ever been an expansion of liberty due to population growth?

Let me see if I can follow: We need to restrict liberties in order to prevent population growth, which will then expand liberties? Will that work?

Have government restrictions on people ever led to greater liberty?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Well, in the entire span of human existence, the 'pyramid scheme' of population growth has continued unabated. I don't expect it to topple anytime soon.

Population growth has abated in the past, and decreased at times. I suppose if the yeast in a barrel of fermenting wine could talk, they would be celebrating endless population growth when they hit their peak.

Obamacare has nothing to do with this.

It's a part of the welfare state, and it's part of the cost of immigration.

You've posted repeatedly on this topic, and the clear indication is that you believe people to be a net negative to a society in every aspect.

When supply for people exceeds demand, they become worth less. Likewise, liberty results when the individual has more value. Sorry, that is my hypothesis, so you won't find it in a book, unless someone else has already put forth that hypothesis.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, I did have that in mind too. That is one part of the bigger picture. But the point is that TVs do not compete for the same resources as people (like housing). And also that there are costs, especially in a welfare state, such as healthcare.

Therefore, there is no guarantee whatsoever that there will be a net gain economically, let alone when all things are considered beyond economics, such as politics, quality of life, scarce resources, etc.

Ummmmmmmm.......welfare has nothing to do with H1B Visas. Red herring.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ummmmmmmm.......welfare has nothing to do with H1B Visas. Red herring.

So, decades of the libertarian motto that immigration can increase once the welfare state is abolished goes right out the window?

 

[charrob]

What the study found was that there was no shortage of STEM Bachelor's degrees (science, technology, engineering, math), which is not synonymous with high level technology workers. For one, the study did not address higher level Master's or Ph.D STEM degrees.

Do you have a link showing that this study involved only Bachelor's degrees? From the article:

The report, titled, Is There a STEM Worker Shortage? A look at employment and wages in science, technology, engineering, and math, is consistent with research from:

• Georgetown University,
• the Economic Policy Institute (EPI),
• the Rand Corporation,
• the Urban Institute, and
• the National Research Council

that have also found no evidence that America has a shortage of high-tech workers. And its findings concluded that America “has more than twice as many workers with STEM degrees as there are STEM jobs.” When combined with slight wage growth in the STEM fields for more than a decade, the authors concluded that “both employment and wage data indicate there is no shortage of STEM workers in the United States.”​

Additionally, just as all Bachelor's degrees are not alike, neither are all STEM bachelor's degrees. For instance wildlife ecology, forest management, archaeology, anthropology, etc., are all degrees that are include in the STEM Bachelor's degrees. However they have very little demand in the marketplace outside of perhaps academia, teaching or government.

Do you have a link showing that people getting degrees in "forest management", "wildlife ecology", etc., were included in the numbers in this study? The article is discussing hi-tech jobs. Additionally all those other organizations shown above had consistent results from their research and I highly doubt all those organizations were including degrees in "forest management" in their research.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The onus needs to be on the employer to prove that they cannot find the skills and abilities within the U.S. population. There may be some PHD specialty(s) that complies with this. But, overall, a result of H1b Visas has been that thousands of U.S. tech workers have been replaced by their cheaper foreign counterparts. That in itself shows there are more tech workers then there are tech jobs. All it takes is a quick google to see that this is a problem:

• In Charlotte, foreign workers replace Americans in tech roles
• The Myth of H-1B Job Creation
• Insourcing: Americans Lose Jobs to H-1B Visa Workers
• Caterpillar hires H-1B foreign grads, fires 300 Americans
• Intel Lays Off 12,000 After Seeking Visas to Import 14,523 Foreign Professionals Since 2010
• American IT Workers Complain of Losing Jobs to Foreign H-1B Visa Holders
• There Is No Tech Worker Shortage And If There Is It's The Tech Companies' Fault
• Silenced workers who lost jobs to H-1B visa abuse (quietly) speak out
• Displaced American STEM workers spur Senate hearing

This has destroyed many lives with people losing not just their jobs but their homes, families and way of life. For those not replaced by foreign counterparts, wages have stagnated in parts of the tech sector because of the oversupply. I've read many hardship stories in the tech sector with Americans losing everything for about 2 decades now and am sickened that the U.S. government has allowed and promoted it. This artificial increase of supply distorts the labor market, harms our people, and decreases the standard of living for Americans.

If there is a need that no American can do, a foreigner might be considered. But the question as always is: is it that no American can do the job, or is it that no American is willing to do the job for the wages offered by the employer? I suspect 99.9% of the cases is the latter. And for those cases I say if the employers want an employee with those capabilities, and Americans exist who have those capabilities, then he needs to pay the going rate for U.S. workers. That's the whole magic of supply/demand in the marketplace without the artificial distortion of endless foreigners.

There's discussion in this thread about why American young people are not going into tech fields in college. Who can blame them? They see their families, their neighbors, etc. lose their homes and everything else after getting STEM degrees then being thrown out the door by cheap labor foreigners. Why would they ever get a Comp Sci degree when that's the end result?

 

[Superfluous Man]

"Abuse" is code for trying to live your life without the government bossing you around in every minuscule detail that's nobody else's business.

 

[TheCount]

Population growth has abated in the past, and decreased at times.

Depending on our technological ability to feed and support the quantity of people, yes. Right now we're essentially unlimited on that.

However, current growth rates are lower because for some reason the safer and more content people feel, the less need they feel to produce a ton of kids.

I suppose if the yeast in a barrel of fermenting wine could talk, they would be celebrating endless population growth when they hit their peak.

So we're not allowed to compare people to TVs, but yeast is fine.

It's a part of the welfare state, and it's part of the cost of immigration.

Two things. First, you're conflating economic theory as to the value of people in the labor market and in the economy in general with a completely different issue. Second, you used other examples as well, such as housing. Are there Obamahouses? Do immigrants receive Obamacare benefits? Do citizens not?


As I said, either people are a net positive to a society or they're a net negative. It seems to be that you believe they are a net negative.


Alternatively, you could argue that the net benefit to a society of a person stems from the GPS coordinates of their mom's vagina at the time of their birth, their 'culture,' or some other metric.

When supply for people exceeds demand, they become worth less.

First:
Unemployment is going down. The country is approaching full employment. At full employment, the lack of available people will stifle economic growth, and cause entrepreneurs and investors to embark on projects in places where people are more available.

Second:
Now we're back to people are valued like TVs? I thought you just argued against that?

Third:
People spark demand for more people. Again, this is not a zero sum game. There are not a fixed number of jobs in an economy. As more people are added, an additional number is required in order to provide the various services that are demanded by the increased population.

Likewise, liberty results when the individual has more value. Sorry, that is my hypothesis, so you won't find it in a book, unless someone else has already put forth that hypothesis.

If you want to value a person by their worth in a labor market, what is the value of a person living on their own in a cabin in the woods with no one else around?

Zero?

Is that person more or less free?

 

[timosman]

Depending on our technological ability to feed and support the quantity of people, yes. Right now we're essentially unlimited on that.

Ok genius, you've made your point.

 

[TheCount]

The onus needs to be on the employer to prove that they cannot find the skills and abilities within the U.S. population.

Alternatively, we could actually fix our immigration system and adopt something like what New Zealand has, wherein there's a list of in-demand / shortage fields, as well as the required certification(s) to prove that you are qualified to work in that field. Meet those requirements? Congrats, here's your visa, and you're fast-tracked for permanent residency.

This has the double benefit of providing a (imho) better system than H-1B temp visas, and eliminating a system where the new immigrant is essentially shackled to their employer. That's to the benefit of everyone involved, if you ask me.


It's not necessarily a 'free' immigration system, but it would suck less and could potentially make both sides happy.


(Unless, of course, one of the sides is just plain anti-immigrant for other reasons and is just hiding behind jobs as a reason to oppose immigration.)

 

[TheCount]

Ok genius, you've made your point.

Actually not sure which direction your sarcasm is going on this one.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Depending on our technological ability to feed and support the quantity of people, yes. Right now we're essentially unlimited on that.

However, current growth rates are lower because for some reason the safer and more content people feel, the less need they feel to produce a ton of kids.

So we're not allowed to compare people to TVs, but yeast is fine.

Two things. First, you're conflating economic theory as to the value of people in the labor market and in the economy in general with a completely different issue. Second, you used other examples as well, such as housing. Are there Obamahouses? Do immigrants receive Obamacare benefits? Do citizens not?

As I said, either people are a net positive to a society or they're a net negative. It seems to be that you believe they are a net negative.

Alternatively, you could argue that the net benefit to a society of a person stems from the GPS coordinates of their mom's vagina at the time of their birth, their 'culture,' or some other metric.

First:
Unemployment is going down. The country is approaching full employment. At full employment, the lack of available people will stifle economic growth, and cause entrepreneurs and investors to embark on projects in places where people are more available.

Second:
Now we're back to people are valued like TVs? I thought you just argued against that?

Third:
People spark demand for more people. Again, this is not a zero sum game. There are not a fixed number of jobs in an economy. As more people are added, an additional number is required in order to provide the various services that are demanded by the increased population.

If you want to value a person by their worth in a labor market, what is the value of a person living on their own in a cabin in the woods with no one else around?

Zero?

Is that person more or less free?

All of this sophistry aside, you will not change my mind, and I will not change yours, so there is no point in beating a dead horse. I can say that I used to be a full global, open immigration person, and reality has required a change to that ideal. It's like someone leaving a church/religion and you are trying to convince them to come back. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

 

[charrob]

Alternatively, we could actually fix our immigration system and adopt something like what New Zealand has, wherein there's a list of in-demand / shortage fields, as well as the required certification(s) to prove that you are qualified to work in that field. Meet those requirements? Congrats, here's your visa, and you're fast-tracked for permanent residency.

This has the double benefit of providing a (imho) better system than H-1B temp visas, and eliminating a system where the new immigrant is essentially shackled to their employer. That's to the benefit of everyone involved, if you ask me. It's not necessarily a 'free' immigration system, but it would suck less and could potentially make both sides happy.

Over several decades thousands of competent U.S. tech workers have been thrown out of their tech jobs and have been made to train their foreign replacements just to get their severance pay. What you have written above does not solve this problem; it exacerbates it.