Foreign tech workers are avoiding travel to the US
computerworld.com
computerworld.com
On another note, we're having our next international team get together in Canada rather than SF. Make of that what you will.
On a serious note, being able to go face to face is sometimes a huge win, and can really help hammer through sticky problems, to the point where companies that are downright cheapskates on expenses still see enough value to justify paying for travel. I promise you, if it was really unnecessary, they wouldn't spend a dime they didn't need to.
Trump legitimately campaigned on being cruel to illegal migrants and refugees. He also campaigned on reducing immigration in general. To that extent, you are correct inasmuch as Trump's H1-B policies were promised. (MAGA wasn't subtle [1].)
Where I think we can legitimately say this is MAGA versus Republicans is in the reverse brain drain. America in the 1950s was a destination for top minds. Ameirca in the 2020s is not. Part of that is due to remote work. Part due to us not being in the wake of a world war. But part was due to an explicit policy to attract the most ambitious to America, and then to encourage them to stay.
[1] https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/wo...
I do think it's counter-productive for America to make it harder for legal and talented immigrants, and we should fix that - but what's your evidence that America isn't still the world capital for the ambitious?
Statistically: The close competitors (e.g. Western Europe, Canada) are looking pretty dire economically compared to the US.
Anecdotally: I have friends from Estonia, Canada, the UK, and France that are all clamoring to be in America for the opportunity.
Historically: Post-WWII in the 1950s, 6.9% of the population was foreign-born. It's now 15.8%. So are we really more closed-off than we were then? Or is this just the response to the ever-increasing interest in immigrating because of the US being as compelling as it is?
It's a loose hypothesis informed by e.g. this article.
I think America remains a net attractor. If you're smart and driven, you can become a multi-millionaire in America in a way that's harder almost anywhere else. But I'm saying harder. Decades prior, that was closer to impossible. Instead, we're now increasingly the economy where political connections dominate talent. (Again, we're still mostly not that. But we're shifting from the destination to one where talented people in India and China, for example, increasingly stay home.)
Nobody else is brain draining, correct. But neither is America. That cedes a comparative advantage.
China’s entire battery and solar platform is built on tech invented in America. They’ve since taken the lead on truly remaking modern manufacturing. But in an alternate world, A123 stayed American.
It’s really not. Exit polls show a tiny fraction of voters picked Trump for anything other than his empty promises of “instantly fixing the economy”.
That’s ignoring all the people who didn’t vote at all. Saying not voting is the same as voting for the bad thing is an empty accusation that lacks critical thinking.
I do wish we'd have a bunch of electoral reforms but those candidates don't do well during primaries.
Pew Research disagrees. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/13/what-trum...
Economy ranked #1 - 93% said it was very important (side note: something Democrats somehow missed).
Second was immigration - 82% said it was very important (another thing Democrats missed).
Less important to Trump voters: climate change (11% said it was very important), racial and ethnic equality (18% said it was very important), and abortion (35%).
> > The one topic that lagged a bit was health care: 58% said they knew what he would do if he won the race.
I would love to see a deep dive on the 58%'s answer since Trump has had a healthcare plan since 2015 that we have yet to see.
It's game theory. Gaining a vote is as valuable as convincing someone who would have voted against you to not turn out.
Caveat: if you aren't in a swing state, and we're constraining ourselves to the Presidency, you're right. (Though not voting on anything on the ballot is just stupidity or laziness. Pretty much every jurisdiction has meangingful issues being decided by plebiscite every few years.)
If you're in a swing state, however, not voting endorses the status quo. It may not be what was intended by the voter. But drunk drivers are dangerous irrespective of intent.
In practice, the issues people tend to bring up for conscientously not voting tend to be comically undone by the winner of the election. And if you tallied up everyone who didn't vote (let's take them at their word that it's conscientiousness), you'd swing almost every election. So yeah, a non-voter and a MAGA voter are electorally identical, ceteris paribus.
As far as I can tell the best fix is higher education (exposure to diverse viewpoints & critical thinking predicts partisan shifting). But I'm sure there are other options.
These people here love to shoot themselves in the foot.
I always say that Sherman should have never stopped. He should have burnt everything to the ground.
that will be news to a lot of people in the south.
I'm going to guess that it also has more college graduates per capita than any country except the US as a whole.
Also, US states and US regions have almost no control over how diverse they are: the Federal government decides who to let into the country, then those people are free to chose which state to live in regardless of how much the residents of a state dislike immigrants.
Also, the Southern US can't be doing that badly at guarding civil rights if a non-white immigrant can write,
>As a brown guy I'd prefer my odds in the reddest county in Mississippi than anywhere in Asia (other than my own ethnostate).
China is safer only for people who are compliant, apolitical, unorganized, and unremarkable. For a disadvantaged person, the main risk is not random crime. In China there is no independent court, no reliable legal recourse, no protected media scrutiny, and no guaranteed exit. When something goes wrong, it cannot be challenged.
Mississippi has real and serious problems, but the state is constrained by federal courts, national law, public reporting, and internal mobility. Those constraints materially change the risk profile when abuse occurs.
Low street crime under an unconstrained government is not “safety.” It is conditional calm. Treating that as “safer” than a place with enforceable limits on state power misunderstands what actually puts disadvantaged people at risk.
In China however, living standards are quickly catching up to the US. Average life expectancy has already caught up. See here https://data.worldhappiness.report/chart Fit 2 lines on that data and you can extrapolate by ~2030 China will be a better place to live. That's really not that far off. I suspect most of the tier 1 Chinese cities are already on par.
I get what you're saying and actually I don't entirely disagree. But in a lot of very practical ways the US already doesn't have democracy or rule of law.
In Mississippi, if a local official, police department, or state agency harms you, that action can be challenged outside the state that committed it. Federal courts can overrule Mississippi. National media can report it. NGOs can litigate it. You can leave the state. The same authority that harmed you does not get to decide whether it acted lawfully.
In China, when the state harms you, there is no external forum. Courts answer to the same party that ordered the action. Media cannot investigate it. Lawyers can be punished for challenging it. The authority that harms you also decides whether the harm was lawful, and that decision is final.
“China will be better on average by 2030” is not the same as “safer for minorities.” Tier-1 city averages describe the majority. Minorities face an unconstrained state with no external recourse. That distinction doesn’t show up in a line fit.
That difference is what “constraints” mean in practice. Worsening outcomes in Mississippi don’t erase it. Rising averages in China don’t replace it. It’s why calling China “safer” by pointing to low street crime misses the real source of risk for disadvantaged people.
Averages tell enough of the story. Look at the US: In that WHR report we rank in the top 10 for Boomers but way down near 60th for Gen Z. That's what is dragging down the US curve. You can't hit Finland-level numbers without bringing everyone along. China still has a massive hill to climb, but they are determined, let’s see where they are in ten years.
Most Americans are very procedural, which is where I disagree. Personally at the end of the day all I care about is outcomes. I agree with Deng Xiaoping: It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.
I have an expanding blacklist of states I won't live in because of their broken policies. If you don't support freedom and liberty, you're not a welcome place for civic-minded Americans who can think past their nose. The states very much can control their appeal to outsiders but the demagogues that get elected don't care. There is a collective mind disease that has infected governance since the Gingrich era.
This leads to a self-sorting effect where people who have the means to leave go elsewhere. I grew up in Arkansas and not speaking as an ignorant outsider. I have no interest in living there because of the broad cultural problems and lack of work opportunity.
The disparity between the big indicators and the lives of the people is in fact a source of political contention. In 2024, people were angry in a "growing" economy that seemed to have gotten inflation and unemployment under control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_...
US is 9th, so the south alone would rank even lower.
US manufacturing employment peaked in June 1979 at ~19.6 million jobs. It never "stopped" — output has grown — but jobs declined steadily afterward.
Main causes of job losses (especially sharp drop 2000–2010):
* Globalization and offshoring by US multinationals (key driver) * China's WTO entry (2001) + PNTR (2000), accelerating imports * Automation/productivity gains Trade deficits and competition from low-cost countries (Asia, Mexico)
Who contributed:
* US corporations/multinationals seeking lower costs * US government policies (trade agreements, PNTR with China) * Economic forces (globalization, container shipping, currency issues)
It seems to me that big money, greed, and self-intrest, are ultimately to blame for any lack of employment in the US, for natives and foreign workers. Blaming the one politician that is trying to restore this country's economic power and ability to support its citizens is short-sighted, childish and really messed up because for the longest times, foreign tech workers have been the preferred go to employee for most of not all of the company's responsible for this mess.
US manufacturing employment peaked in June 1979 under "President Jimmy Carter (D)."
Key World leaders during major events:
1979 peak → *US: Jimmy Carter. *China: Deng Xiaoping (paramount leader).
China's WTO entry (2001) + PNTR (2000) → *US: Bill Clinton (D) signed PNTR into law (October 2000). *China: Jiang Zemin (CCP General Secretary).
Decline accelerated post-2000 due to globalization, offshoring by US corporations, and policies under multiple administrations (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr.).
Job losses stem from corporate cost-cutting and systemic economic forces, not one politician. If you're going to blame a politician, then at least list the ones that contributed to the chaos not the ones you don't like because it's affecting you personally.
On a side note, I am one of those natives that has not been able to find a stable job, for the past 30+ years until Trump came in, but then lost it after Job Biden arrived. This is how life has been here in the US, at least for me, after graduating high school. I for one, I'm glad someone is doing something about this mess :)