Comment by colordrops | Hacker News Reader

Comment by colordrops | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

These Carly Fiorina-style arguments that no one has a special right to a job are ignoring a lot of context. In a world with even handed regulation and no borders, that could make sense. But that is not the world we live in. The current situation is not that trade is completely deregulated and labor is tied up in red tape. What is really happening is that there is a complex surface area of varying degrees of regulation and deregulation that in most cases benefits an elite class at the expense of others. Companies in America take advantage of rights to purchase land, subsidies, government contracts, military protection, tax advantages, tariffs, etc, all funded by American tax payers. Why wouldn't it be fair for Americans to have an advantage in the American market place? I actually agree that in an ideal world nations and borders wouldnt exist. But as long as the majority see benefit in their existence and they are being propped up by the powers that be, why would you kick the legs out from any small advantage you have from being a citizen of one?

Said in another way, capital is fungible but labor is not. This means capital can flow readily to the lowest cost suppliers and workers but workers cannot flow readily to higher paying employers.

This leads to a mismatch where, temporarily, employers can capture higher-skilled workers at lower costs.

Another comment, how are anti-disparagement clauses not a violation of first amendment rights?

> Another comment, how are anti-disparagement clauses not a violation of first amendment rights?

This is a common misunderstanding of the first amendment. It's a short amendment, shorter than your comment, so you might as well just read the amendment.

Ah thanks for the advice :)

> Another comment, how are anti-disparagement clauses not a violation of first amendment rights?

First amendment applies to Congress (and after the 14th amendment, the state governments), not to any private citizen or organization. You're free to make private agreements that sign away any rights you have, except (after the 13th amendment) your freedom.

Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense. It feels weird there aren't basic worker protections against such agreements but I think I get it - people are free or not free to enter into such agreements and receive benefits for doing so.

(Not talking about H1B)

Immigrants arriving would benefit the economy (as long as they aren't too poor and take lots of welfare), at least ideally speaking.

> Why wouldn't it be fair for Americans to have an advantage in the American market place?

This is pointless, just like banning trade with X country to allow more jobs to be in America. It looks good on the surface, but really Americans would be losing out on the cheaper prices of X country's goods and services.

The key idea is that trades are mutually beneficial. When an employer hires an immigrant employee, they both gain.

Ceteris paribus allowing anyone in the world to take a job if the employer wants them leads to better outcomes on average. That includes the situation where America is paying for global protection and other special negotiated treaties.

Even if you wanted to specially protect American workers, it would still be more beneficial to allow anyone to take the job then use the excess GDP to make up for the lost wages of Americans. The estimate by Borjas (the most anti-immigrant economist) is that wages would drop at most 5% (IIRC) if open borders happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com