This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Good. That's how it should be. And given how much hype was about that project, they probably would have not much trouble carving out some quota for this - it's several hundreds people, compared to Big Tech companies who get thousands and tens of thousands of slots. They could even make a special allocation, it's Biden admin after all, it's not like they'd say no to anyone. They just din't bother to because why bother if the law is dead anyway and anything goes.
Why? Let's say the US has X amount of specialized talent and thus they can only do Y amount of productivity with in a year. If companies in (or investing in) our country are so productive and there's enough market demand that they want to do >Y creation, then why is it good to cap them artificially?
Now I know, the general response is "because those jobs should go to the locals!" but the thing is, talented local people already have jobs. If they're hard working and capable, then they're mostly already doing their part in achieving Y (or doing something else in another industry) because companies want them.
As any hiring manager knows nowadays, the job pool is mostly incompetents, liars, lazies, addicts, or otherwise unwanted because of a serious flaw. It's the same way that dating apps like Tinder are mostly used by the unpleasant and unwanted, the good ones are already picked through. Of course just like the apps there's often some amount of pickings but they're limited and get scooped up quick of course and we're still overall limited to Y production.
Now maybe that's what we as a society want, jobs programs for the lazy drug addicted idiots being put in roles above their worth, and we're willing to sacrifice efficiency in key industries for it. And maybe it's worth it if we put hard limits on economic growth and only allow Y production no matter how much market demand exists.
But that's a discussion with some hard tradeoffs is it not?
Because importing foreign workers in massive amounts have costs. Assimilation capacity is not infinite. And breaking assimilation processes - and the host culture - has societal costs that everybody is going to pay. Cultures have value, and breaking them has costs. Immigration is not quantity-neutral. One immigrant is not going to cause any significant strain on the system and in general case will contribute to the society and increase general welfare. One million of immigrants, brought synchronously into the country are going to cost non-linearly more, and may cause profound changes in the society, which may not be for the better. That's why you need an "artificial" cap - it's only artificial if you don't consider externalities. The process is not linear and not neutral towards time scales - it's like I asked you to drink 100 gallons of water. If it's over a year, you probably would be healthier for that. If you try to do it all at once, you will die. It's the same water, but not the same rate.
I am not sure that's actually true. Even for the market I have the most experience with - computer programming - looking for a job, if you aren't ok with shitty job that pays peanuts, it is a very frustrating and nerve-racking experience. Having to answer the question "why should we pay you X if we can hire a cheap foreigner for X/2" does not make it any easier. And in my experience, getting cold-hired by a company that does mass outsourcing, without knowing somebody on the inside, is next to impossible now. In most cases, they won't even bother to talk to you. Even if you know you are much better worker, the people who make hiring decisions just don't care. They tell the public they have massive shortage of talent and need thousands of H1Bs, but try to send them your resume, and they won't even bother to read it, it goes straight to the reject pile. Sorry, I don't believe it anymore, I think it's a con. H1Bs are just cheaper and easier to handle, that's all. I can only imagine how much worse it is in places where prices are the only thing you can compete on.
You're saying it as if any of the key industries have a slightest idea about how to measure efficiency. I know for a fact in my industry, nobody has a faintest clue how to do it. It's either "if we hit the deadline - which has been invented arbitrarily based on what some marketer promised to some analyst bigwig because they had one too many cocktails while golfing - then we are golden" or "we're making money? Cool! Let's make even more money!". There's no some "efficiency" science behind it and nobody has a slightest idea how to make it. It's all done by the seat of one's pants, and people that by either luck or talent can pull stuff out of their asses that is better than other get billions and people that are unlucky don't, and that's how it goes. Let's not pretend we have some science behind it, nobody does.
Yes, but not in a way you present it. It's not uniform, as I mentioned. Accepting a small amount of immigrants is almost always going to be net positive, especially if selected by any sane criteria (skin color is definitely not one of the best, but even that could work up to a limit). With increased quantity, costs raise non-linearly and the tradeoffs become more and more hard. There is a wide area where the net is still positive, but this area is not infinite. Eventually it comes to a point where a select few players reap all the benefits and the rest pays massive, sometimes society-breaking externalities. It's not uncommon - a lot of modern politics is based on emphasizing benefits for select few and covering up externalities for the rest - this is one of the prominent examples.
More options
Context Copy link
With the labor force constrained to the people currently living here, when we want to do >Y production, we can bid up the wages for it, or we can figure out ways to produce more efficiently, both of which are strong, socially-positive alternatives to simply capping production. Importing more workers achieves neither.
You have gall, I'll give you that.
The other effect keeping to a fixed pool of labor provides, it seems to me, is that there is less incentive to simply write off the sort of people you evidently hold in such contempt. If we cannot simply export jobs or import cheap foreign labor, we have a vested interest in keeping our people from turning into human waste, and a vested interest in salvaging absolutely any of them that we can. It appears to me that you are rating these people as worthless in order to continue the process by which they lost their worth.
I was recently reading an article about drug problems, and it mentioned the communities that have been blighted by drugs "since the economic upheaval of the 90s". the 90s was when we started buying in to the pitch you're making here. I remember that pitch when it was new, how there would be some disruption but the economic prosperity would lift all boats. I remember small towns with their town squares, full of bustling businesses and broad-based prosperity. I drive through some of those old town squares now; they're uniformly ghost towns, boarded up and crumbling. We were foolish to buy the pitch then. Buying it now requires a special sort of derangement.
Adopting your view necessarily means devaluing our countrymen. If I'm going to devalue my countrymen, I'm going to do it for more fitting reasons than pecuniary interest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link