Subject: How 'Hire American' may do more harm than good to our economy Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:15 pm
This week, the White House issued an executive order targeting the H-1B visa program. These visas are available for jobs that require specific college level or professional level education. The executive order appears to address the perception that H-1B visas are being used to recruit a low-skilled workforce that is being paid below the median wages.
In trying to create a quick fix to perceived problems, this executive order can cause much more harm than good. Indubitably, we need modernization of the H-1B program and concomitant simplification and streamlining of overly complex regulations and dilatory procedures. But to act without deliberation and input from stakeholders would be disastrous.
The executive order purports to target H-1B program by elevating wages and employment of U.S. workers. While the objectives are laudable, whether or not H-1B workers actually create jobs instead of taking them is still an open question. Specifically, the executive order states that its goals are to create higher wages and employment rates for U.S. workers and to rigorously enforce the laws.
The executive order directs the Department of State, the Attorney General, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Homeland Security to propose new rules, issue new guidance. It also suggest reforms to help ensure that H-1B visas are awarded to the most-skilled or highest-paid petition beneficiaries.
The formulation of “most skilled” or “highest paid” ignores the fact that H-1B visas are used by U.S. universities for researchers and professors, schools for teachers, medically underserved areas for physicians, and several other such professions. Additionally, the “most skilled” standard ignores the needs of those industries where mid-level professional jobs are difficult to fill because of lack of qualified workers or of workers willing to take on short-term projects that require relocation or moving from project to project.
Further, blind victimization of consulting companies ignores raw facts. Take for instance the position of “management analyst.” According to DOL data, this job is expected to grow by 14 percent in 10 years, but “job opportunities are expected to be best for those who have a graduate degree or a certification, specialized expertise, fluency in a foreign language, or a talent for sales and public relations.” Many variables like these are being ignored in the formulaic recitation proposed by the executive order. This would place U.S. companies at substantial competitive disadvantage.
The agencies must further consider key elements from a 2014 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration report: 72 percent of H-1B petitions approved that year were for workers between the ages of 25 and 34, while 45 percent of H-1B petitions approved in 2014 were for workers with a bachelor’s degree, 43 percent had a master’s degree, 8 percent had a doctorate, and 4 percent were for workers with a professional degree. About 65 percent of H-1B petitions approved in FY 2014 were for workers in computer related occupations. The median salary of beneficiaries of approved H-1B petitions was $75,000.
To characterize H-1B workers as low skilled or low paid without appropriate, impartial study is likely to be highly detrimental to our national interest. There are, broadly speaking, three types of agency actions that are implicated under the executive order.
Existing substantive rules cannot be rescinded or amended without mandated procedures including inviting input from all interested parties. The rulemaking process would require the agencies to carefully review all available or required data. These rules currently provide the most assurance of continuity to U.S. businesses.
Unlike rules that are substantive, interpretive are much easier to amend or repeal. As the Congressional Research Service points out “[a] new President can also immediately direct the heads of executive branch agencies to withdraw discretionary directives and guidance documents that were issued by an executive agency.” The CRS notes that it would be easy to repeal or amend “agency policy statements, interpretive rules, guidance documents, letters … not issued pursuant to the notice and comment rulemaking procedures.”
Such abrupt and ill-advised changes in policy are by far the biggest danger. Legally, these changes may be minor, but they seriously affect the stakeholders. Several policy actions taken by agencies over the last decade have had deep and sudden impact on a large number of stakeholders.
The executive order requires the agencies to suggest reforms. Agencies must ensure proper consideration and assessment of input from stakeholders. Overarching protection against action without consideration is available because many of the H-1B provisions are mandated by statute and cannot be changed without legislative action.
Even if change in key policies and immediate harm to the H-1B framework and to the employers is unlikely, the risk of imminent harm is itself a deterrent. This year the number of H-1B filings declined for the first time in five years. Reportedly, the number of foreign students applying to American universities has also declined.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/329617-how-hire-american-may-cause-more-harm-than-good-to-our-economy _________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, The Dark Side, Post-Apocalypse, OZschwitz Contraband
Subject: Re: How 'Hire American' may do more harm than good to our economy Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:54 pm
We don't need anyone else (besides those who are willing to become Ancaps) coming in.
There's no free trade without the free flow of people, that's point one.
Also, we do need the very best of brains, in all the different fields and that's simply not possible if sourcing just 'locally,' that's point two.
It would be a violation of individual rights, to forcibly prevent people from freely entering, that's point three. (Criminal elements excluded) ===========
99.9 percent of all immigrants are statists in one way or another.
Irrelevant. So are Americans themselves... would you throw them out as well?
Immigrants aren't the problem. The current SYSTEM is. ================
I'll just throw this in, as I have it handy:
You make a good point.
I actually would like to go anywhere I please... provided I wasn't a strain on the populace (like these other immigrants) of course.
But therein lies the rub.
Would I throw out the American Statists?
Well... you did just say that the current SYSTEM is the problem.
These people who support the system... who mock Ancap values... who do nothing to help...
I would say that any Statist (be it an American or otherwise), is a problem. You're right that being an American isn't a guarantee that they're going to be conservative, but the odds are rather increased exponentially if you're raised here.
I said raised, and not necessarily "born". I'll admit one can be born somewhere else and still be raised with conservative values.
I know you've probably already seen the above video, I just thought it was important to bring up... problematic people.
Both Liberal Americans AND Liberal Immigrants should, at the very least, be ignored (if they can't be banned).
That's why I was actually for Calexit. You get rid of the majority of foreign and native liberals in one fell swoop.
But the idea of being able to travel anywhere is also incredibly appealing.
I can't decide.
All I know is that I can't stand to be around liberals anymore.
But there's one thing though... I cannot be in favor of Globalization. Even with the best of intentions (Good Globalization), it almost always goes awry.
I'll read the article later on though. It'll be good to take in another perspective.
I had to delete the link however, because I'm not allowed to post them for seven days...
Last edited by Ash. on Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:00 am; edited 2 times in total
I know you've probably already seen the above video...
Why do you say that? _________________ Anarcho Capitalists Retail , Molyneux Cult Watch Souvenir Mall , OZschwitz Downunder BoutiqueAnarcho-Capitalists,AnCaps Forum,Anti-State,Anti-Statist,Inalienable Rights Defenders,Non-Aggression Principle,Non-Initiation of Force Principle,Rothbardians,Anarchist,Capitalist,objectivism,Ayn Rand,Anarcho-Capitalism,Anarcho-Capitalist,politics,libertarianism,Ancap Forum,Anarchist Forum,Vulgar Libertarians,Hippies of The Right,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalist,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalists,Forum for AnCap,Forum for AnCaps,Libertarian,Anarcho-Objectivist,Freedom, Laissez Faire, Free Trade, Black Market, Randroid, Randroids, Rothbardian, AynArchist, Anarcho-Capitalist Forum, Anarchism, Anarchy, Free Market Anarchism, Free Market Anarchy, Market Anarchy
Subject: Re: How 'Hire American' may do more harm than good to our economy Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:35 am
Well, Molynoob is sort of famous for his Ancap views, so I figured this would probably be a video most Ancaps would go to when debating immigration.
I'm not saying he's the end all of said views, but since he's one of the most vocal (next to Anarchyball/Mr. Dapperton, I believe), most people would have at least gravitated towards that one vid (due to its "controversial" subject matter).
Subject: Re: How 'Hire American' may do more harm than good to our economy Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:01 am
Ash, 'globalization' has been going on for centuries, millenniums... ie. East India Company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
International trade didn't just happen a few decades ago, lol.
It is a net benefit to all...
Yes there's many issues surrounding immigration and free travel and the like, but you can get to the bottom of it all just by focusing on one thing: Individual Rights. Once you get that correctly under your belt, the rest follows easily... Here, this should help: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html
As for that conman MolyFuck, he gets short shrift here, ie. http://ancaps.super-forum.net/t4794-molyneux-cult-watch Stef Molyneux (aka Stealth CultishStew) can bedazzle with stats all he wants, but it's typically dishonest nonsense. Just like the the stats he presented above re people either for or against Capitalism: All those results pertain to commenting on a Mixed Economy, which people typically incorrectly refer to as 'Capitalism' and which it is NOT! Not even close... LOL, we even have an anti-FDR, anti-Moly shop, lolol. (Though he made sure that the very best products got censored and are unfortunately no longer available.) You can find it in my signature below...
Finally, yes, we're familiar with all the counter-arguments re immigration, voting, etc... But as I said earlier, it's the system which is at fault, not the immigrants. That's what you should be fighting against, as that's the cause of the problem both politically and economically. (I'm disregarding education and philosophy and which are deeper issues still...)
PS. Shouldn't you be asleep, lolol? _________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, The Dark Side, Post-Apocalypse, OZschwitz Contraband
Last edited by CovOps on Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Subject: Re: How 'Hire American' may do more harm than good to our economy Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:24 pm
I think I understand what you're saying a little better now.
Reading the articles you mentioned would probably be a good idea right about now.
You're right. I should be sleeping.
Subject: Re: How 'Hire American' may do more harm than good to our economy Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:56 pm
I ask this with no sarcasm: Is Tucker Carlson part of the problem?
He makes a good point where he says H1 visas create more unemployment @ 2:20.
100 million homeless Americans.
We change the system now by changing the people within it (sabotaging garbage corporatists, leftists, and all their supporters) or the system changes us.
Subject: Re: How 'Hire American' may do more harm than good to our economy Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:20 am
When Tucker Carlson Goes Bad
I like Tucker Carlson's FOX News show.
He is sharp, quick and funny but when he goes bad he goes real bad.
When he is off, his laugh and the faces he makes are almost a caricature of the sound Tucker Carlson.
Last week, he went way off the deep end.
He had on as a guest Ray Keating who was one of nearly 1,500 economists who signed a letter to President Trump and congressional leaders saying immigration is good for the U.S. economy.
Carlson doesn't think such immigration is good. Keating did a serviceable job defending immigration but he is nowhere near in the league of Carlson when it comes to television debate.
Here's the clip with my comments following.
The Carlson absurdities start right at the top. At the 45 second mark, he says that
The underlying assumption is that all immigrants are the same.
Where the hell does he get this idea from? Does he really think that people who hire the immigrants hanging outside a Home Depot have the same skill set as software programmers coming from India?
Does he really think people offering the Home Depot hanger outs a couple hours of work are doing so because they expect those immigrants to knock out a software program?
I know of no one that holds the view that the skill set of all immigrants is the same.
Carlson then goes on to claim that some people are "hurt" by immigrants. If by this he means that some people (immigrants) are getting particular jobs, he is correct though I wouldn't call it "hurt." To take Carlson's "hurt" theory one step further, the same could be said of Carlson's employment. Because he was hired by Fox for a certain time slot and took the job someone else didn't get it. According to Carlson logic, he "hurt" that alternative hire. Should we ban Carlson from America because of this?
But none of this means that the American people, who aren't working at the jobs where immigrants work, are sleeping on the sidewalk. Does Carlson think the person that was next in line to get his job at Fox is sleeping on the street?
Further, because an American isn't willing to work for the same low wage as an immigrant means the American has more attractive alternatives, otherwise he would compete with the immigrant for the job.
Both find jobs. And this has to be the case if they want jobs. The only time this wouldn't be the case is if wages were at zero, To think otherwise is to deny the fundamentals of supply and demand economics. Markets clear, (I hasten to add there can be non-voluntary unemployment caused by minimum wage laws, but this is unemployment caused by government law, not immigrants.) That both work also implies an increase in general production. No one is going to hire someone unless they expect to gain more in product than what they can currently spend the money on that they pay an immigrant worker.
Carlson then claims that China and Singapore have no immigration and they have spectacular growth, but this means nothing with regard to the argument on immigration. This argument is just incorrect economic methodology. It could mean that China already has a lot of cheap labor and therefore there is no edge for an unskilled immigrant to attempt to sneak into China. Further, it does not say anything about what would happen if China and Singapore allowed immigrants, maybe their economies would show even more impressive growth.
The point is that we don't know what these economies would look like unless there is free movement of labor. Carslon is talking here as though we live in a world of equilibrium where all the facts are already laid out in front of him and it is simply him working out an equation to reach an answer: "Singapore and China don't have immigrants. They have growth. Therefore the U.S. should not allow immigrants" Does Carlson seriously think this is how answers to economic policy can be reached?
He also introduces California into the question and suggests that it is immigrants that have caused the California economy to decline. Thus ignoring crazed lefty laws, regulations and high taxes. Playing this bogus Carlson methodological game, one could blow Carlson up and point to the massive 19th century and early 20th century immigration into the United States and the growth during the period and claim it was precisely because of the immigrant growth that the country showed such spectacular economic growth.
Carson then goes on to attack Keating for saying that there is a type of "entrepreneurial DNA in the United States" that causes entrepreneurial immigrants to come to the US. But isn't there?
Aren't respect for private property and the rule of law fundamental to economic growth and strong here in the U.S. (though fading)? Why wouldn't an entrepreneurially oriented immigrant want to take a shot in the U.S. versus in a totalitarian country?
Keating was spot on with this point and it is shocking that Carlson mocked this on national television to gain a debate point.
Carlson then goes on at the 4:15 mark to say there are immigrants who are a net drain. He could be talking about immigrants on welfare or be confused about workers. He wasn't clear. For a communicator, this comment was a total abortion on his part. Who knows what he really meant? Or even if he knew what he meant? Maybe he was just trying to score more debate points.
At the 4:26 mark, he then suggests an "affirmative" program to bring in people with skills and wealth. Wow, what a central planner!
Where does he get the idea that these are the kind of people the US needs to enter the U.S? Maybe we need people from other countries to mow our lawns and clean our offices? Or is Carlson going to cut back his hours on air and mow the lawn at Fox and empty the trash baskets three days a week so that fewer immigrants enter the country?
Evan SmileyApril 18, 2017 at 9:21 AM Funny how these conservatives suddenly lose all their skepticism of big government when it comes time to centrally plan the composition of the country's population.
Francisco TorresApril 18, 2017 at 8:05 PM
It was Tucker who, in a snarky manner, quipped that he didn't 'worship' the Market as a god, during a lively debate between him and Alex Nowrasteh (from CATO).
Now, Nowrasteh is a much better debater than Keating. Yet Carlson used the same bad arguments and absurd bromides against Keating as he used when debating Nowrasteh. There's a person unwilling to learn.
What I found most disturbing about Tucker's arguments is how they were cemented on a truly socialist notion that people are OWED a job or even a community of a certain make up by the mere accident of being born within certain borders. I don't make this insinuation lightly: the idea behind these anti-immigrant attacks is socialiatic in essence. _________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, The Dark Side, Post-Apocalypse, OZschwitz Contraband
How 'Hire American' may do more harm than good to our economy