354
Kamala Harris polls 20 points ahead of Trump in voters age 18-34
(www.axios.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
354 points (97.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7211 readers
472 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not sure I agree with your last point. While skilled foreign labor (H1B or similar) certainly drives down wages, part of that is because of the restrictions on employment. If you need to be sponsored, it is very hard to get the prevailing local wage for your skills. Green cards open that up and allow proper competition.
The biggest argument is that foreign-born workers are willing to accept lower wages for the same work and the same conditions. This is exactly what happened during the days of "No Irish Need Apply". The big difference here is that it would only apply to college graduates. But is it actually wrong to do? It's similar to a bad union, where people feel entitled to the higher pay simply because they were here first.
While it would still be better to encourage and grow our own people to develop the skills needed, this is a much more complicated proposal. We have a distinct lack of skilled workers, and in a variety of types/areas. This could help with that need.
I fully agree on the rest though. Fuck Trump and everyone around him.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/donald-trump-immigration-expansionist/
No we do not. That's propaganda from the wealthy elites to drive down American wages. There are tons of people even in STEM or computer fields who can not get jobs in their majors.
It's totally different. The "No Irish" signs were about people who had already immigrated here. That stuff was both racist and completely pointless since they were all already here and obviously needed to work. Nothing to do with today. Trump's going to hand out green cards to the entire world to come here and work an American job. China alone has 1.2 billion people. India alone has 1.4 billion people. Basic law of supply and demand. Increase supply of workers and lower wages and working conditions and worker bargaining power. Also, good luck getting your kid into college ever again.
https://www.aamc.org/news/press-releases/new-aamc-report-shows-continuing-projected-physician-shortage
As someone in IT, I can tell you that it is incredibly hard to fill most of our common sysadmin roles. We don't even get applicants with the desired qualifications (SCCM, Azure, VMware, MS SQL, Power Shell, etc. Not in the same role, but these common skills). This is despite the fact that we're competitive on pay, allow fully remote, and are a household name (fortune 100). I sincerely doubt that we're alone on that.
As for your point about unemployed STEM grads, it's entirely possible that they are in an area that has a surplus. But it's also possible they are inexperienced (most employers want experience), or they don't know how to connect with the employers looking for their skill set.
I'm not saying that I'm sold on the idea. Just that it's not entirely clear what the impact would be, nor that it would be a net negative.
I don't think the problem is with the foreign people accepting lower wages and forcing more competition. I believe it is more of a symptom/mechanism of wage theft. Which has been going on for decades to bleed the workforce dry and enslave them through unrepayable debts.
Though I believe foreign graduates taking less pay for employment is not the problem or inherently bad, it's not helping workers as a whole.
I believe that in addition to your suggestions there would need to be stronger wage and worker protection laws to prevent companies from clearing out employees with longer tenure/higher rates of pay before enacting this specific type of policy.
I think that would allow for a more healthy competition where incumbent workers/natural citizens won't be replaced/undercut by foreign graduates who have to debase themselves by taking lesser pay for the same work.
In my opinion it's as if Trump would do this as a way to weaponize cheaper labor against the working class so corporations can improve their margin by slashing labor costs.
I could be totally wrong, and am open to other opinions but maybe that's where OP's line of thinking may be.