Hacker News Reader

Comment by lupusreal | Hacker News Reader

> "Wage theft" is a bit spicy as well. Are employees entitled to their job at a given wage as some kind of Nativist birth right?

"Entitled" and "Nativist birth right" is loaded language that I think you're using to discredit valid labor concerns. Most people besides techy libertarians with empathy trouble generally think that workers should be getting paid enough to get by on, although opinions on what that level is or how best to accomplish it vary considerably. Having to compete with the slave labor of authoritarian regimes isn't right. Having to compete with indentured servants on H1B visas isn't right. These things are good for corporations, but as Sam Hyde pointed out, they make America worse.

View on HN

> indentured servants on H1B visas

That a pretty loaded statement on its own too.

I was an H1B, but I most certainly didn't feel indentured. Nor did other recruiters who wanted to talk to me.

I did actually end up moving back to Denmark, but that's another story.

I think my point is that even for Europeans that have competitive job offers elsewhere, H1B is still the easiest visa, if you want to work on the US.

I'll admit I think I mostly did it for the experience -- it was fun, I learned a lot -- but it's not like I couldn't have gotten the same job in Europe or Canada. I probably could, probably even with the same employer. I did even work remotely a few months from Denmark before my H1B kicked in.

I would be sad to see H1B go, I had a lot of fun. And if I wanted to stay I'm confident I would have found a green card sponsor with ease.

It's inaccurate insofar as as the indentured servitude of the 19th century was actually a proper path to citizenship while the new form officially is not, with participants only hoping to have a shot at citizenship if they get lucky with other visa applications. Otherwise, it binds workers to their employer in a way that facilitates wage suppression and other labor abuse. That's why it's indentured servitude.

People can jump employers while one H1B, anyways, it's besides my point, which is:

Until the US had better visa programs, it would be a shame to dismantle the H1B program.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Make a replacement, then talk about changing H1B.

> People can jump employers while one H1B

Good luck finding a new employer willing to sponsor your H1B within just 60 days (the grace period allowed before self-deportation) in this job market.

Additionally, switching employers resets your green card approval process (if it has started), which can take years. This serves as a significant disincentive to change employers unless you've already filed your I-485. Considering that an H1B worker has only 6 years to progress through this process, there is even more pressure to avoid changing employers.

>Most people besides techy libertarians with empathy trouble generally think that workers should be getting paid enough to get by on

I think everyone will agree that workers, or anyone else for that matter should live comfortable lives. The question is how and who? Should those poor souls slaving away under an authoritarian regime be given a chance to escape to greener pastures?

The question of wages is well outlined, but more concerning is the purchasing power of those wages. This relates directly to productivity, specialization and the cost of goods.

As for the concept of nativist birth right entitlement, for myself, I must start somewhere with first principles. Perhaps you have an alternative method of reasoning that you might outline for us.

Many here take libertarianism to be some kind of Gordon Gecko caricature, or perhaps the Monopoly Man comes to mind. Yet if they propose that the state take matters (authoritarian regime?) into its own hands with central planning, they assume it to be a purely altruistic endeavor. Regulatory capture and a host of other malign incentives are lying in wait.

Please don't assume a lack of empathy. It is simply a different approach to solving the problem of how workers or anyone else can prosper in an economy.

It's not the libertarianism that's the problem, it's the assumption that, at scale, humans are fungible. Your "first principles" should include the presumption that "countries are the way they are because of their citizens." So the question is not just whether a given individual "deserves" to live in more or less comfortable circumstances. It's also: what happens when you import a large number of people from a place with an authoritarian regime to a democracy?

Like when we imported a whole lotta slaves?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com