What you're talking about--raising prices and limiting supply--is a guild system.
No, he isn't "setting a higher price". There is an artificial scarcity: only a fixed number of H-1Bs are available. Trump didn't do that, Congress did.
Within that artificial scarcity, the economically best allocation is the one that allocates those visas to the economically most valuable jobs. The economically most valuable jobs are those that employers are willing to pay the most for.
The US public educational system has become a political battleground for tech companies, teachers, social justice warriors, social conservatives, corporations, and all sorts of other groups. They all lobby for their own benefit, not for the benefit of the children. The only way to address this is to let parents vote with their feet.
Simple: I started off as a Democrat and progressive in my 20s, then I learned a lot about history and politics and I grew up. And the Democratic party also changed, from an economically moderate, socially liberal party to a dysfunctional and bigoted collection of socialists, progressives, and crony capitalists. But don't give up hope, you may still outgrow your youthful and ignorant politics as well.
Correct. Which is why Americans increasingly reject race-based government policies, divisive racist rhetoric, and immigration policies designed to increase diversity. That is, it's why Americans reject the policies of Democrats and progressives.
It's why Americans instead favor a society in which government treats everybody equally, doesn't patronize minorities, and bases immigration decision based on skill and the ability to contribute to US society.
Oh now you've resorted to conflating today's progressives with those of the interwar era. I tire of these silly games.
"Resort to"? It's the same ideology: it opposes capitalism and favors equality of outcome, substitutes expert judgment for individual choice, and advocates race-based policies. Many of these people (e.g., Keynes, Wilson, Sanger) and their policies are revered by today's progressives. Wake up, man: that is what you promote.
I have pointed out multiple examples of Breitbart's white nationalism including a specific article which clearly supports white nationalism and segregationist tendencies.
No, you pointed out an article in which an author clearly warns about the dangers ("the risk otherwise is") of white nationalism, one danger being that much of their ideology may seem appealing to the masses. You yourself illustrate insidious these ideas are, being blind to your own deep-seated racism and disdain for individual liberty.
And when confronted with the fact that many minorities support conservative and libertarian causes and have no problems with Breitbart, you call them "Uncle Toms", particularly insulting given that you yourself are not black.
I have no further interest in speaking with you.
I have had no interest in speaking with racists and authoritarians like you at all. But the fact is that evil people like you have some political traction in the US, and Americans need to understand you and your arguments so that we can effectively oppose you. I don't want the US to turn into the kind of socialist, progressive, or fascist hellhole that you promote; that's what I got away from when I emigrated.
Whoa what alternate reality are you living in where the American left pushes segregationism?
Progressives were at the forefront of segregation and scientific racism (e.g., here).
Isn't it progressives who push housing programs that help low-income residents move into higher-income areas?
Who do you think razed the minority communities, destroyed families, and pushed African Americans into crime-infested housing projects in the first place? Was it laissez-faire Republicans? Libertarian small government type? No. It was, of course, progressives. The same progressives acting on the same impulses that cause them to implement eugenics and segregation half a century earlier.
Isn't it mainstream conservatives who push against and roll back these efforts?
Given how disastrous the last two major progressive attempts to help minorities through meddling with housing were, however, I think there is good reason not to rush into yet another such scheme. However, Republicans seem to be generally support housing vouchers, they just want to add work requirements for those able to work; why is that a bad thing?
Anyway, I'm addressing a bunch of distracting whataboutism, apparently based on fiction.
No "whataboutism" at all. You accused Breitbart of being "white nationalist" and pointed to a specific article. That article, in fact, warned about segregationist tendencies being increasingly mainstream in the US, which is correct. Since you are evidently ignorant of the history, I also pointed out that it wasn't conservatives or libertarians that have been responsible for segregationist tendencies, but progressives; given the close historical connections between progressivism and fascism, that also is hardly surprising.
The way forward is to reject failed progressive policies and adopt a more traditionally liberal approach towards the problems of minorities, namely voluntary assimilation and integration regardless of race or ethnicity, motivated by economic self-interest.
The bulk of their demands, after all, are not so audacious: they want their own communities, populated by their own people, and governed by their own values. [That describes white nationalism in nice words. An exclusive white nation ruled by, and in favor of, whites.]
And how is that different from the ideology of the American left, namely that each ethnic minority should live in "their own communities, populated by their own people, and governed by their own values"? The racism and segregationist tendencies in US politics and government originates from progressives, not conservatives.
Actual conservatives and liberals, in contrast, do not believe that government should promote multiculturalism; instead, the goal of government policies should be to encourage people to integrate into a single, mainstream culture, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Also I'm starting to suspect that you're 14 years old
No, you misinterpret that. You simply argue like an ignorant 14 year old, which is why people talk to you like that.
It's an argument that white nationalism in a nutshell is "not so audacious" and that it's the only alternative to genocide.
Bullshit.
And Milo Yiannopolous is gay and Herman Cain is black, so what? He still wrote words that attempt to rationalize white nationalism. Uncle Toms come in all kinds!
Yes, Master, we will all vote for wealthy white Democrats in the future, Master, because you have told us so, and as a straight white male, you are obviously in possession of superior intelligence, Master!
If we could just build a huge wall around Europe up into space and avoid having all the US, Chinese, Russian coal and and such emissions out of our nice clean air.
You are so out of touch with reality. Europe's massive deforestation and desertification over the last few centuries means that it is strongly dependent on the Americas for carbon capture. And European air quality sucks https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea... As you can see from that map, that pollution is home-made; it doesn't come from the US, China, or Russia.
So, go ahead and build that wall, then suffocate in your own pollution and filth.
The Swedish government, like many other governments in Europe and the US, is so out of touch with the people that they are driving voters into the arms of right wing extremists; the "Sweden Democrats" have gone from a non-entity to the second strongest party in Sweden in just a few years.
Yes, that is what good, rational analysis does: it strips away irrelevant data and focuses on the important facts.
Those are fairly high numbers - more than statistical noise. The civilian reported numbers are even higher.
I didn't say it was "statistical noise", I said it was "noise". That is, it isn't caused by statistical sampling, it is caused by unknown factors, specifically unknown factors other than racism.
The NYT is a very reliable source and one of the most trusted in the country.
I unsubscribed from the NYT long before I stopped being a progressive.
If you claim they're not credible, you must also think the national review is not credible since they get their information from the NYT.
I don't think that any newspaper or magazine is "credible".
The right tries to portray them as not credible because facts make the right look [bad].
True: the left frequently uses facts to attack opponents, while the right frequently and deliberately ignores facts and instead insists on the application of principles and values. For example, the left likes to use facts about disparate outcomes while the right insists that applying a principle of equality before the law is what our politics should be based on, regardless of outcome.
The left insists on a scientific, rational, utilitarian approach to government, while libertarians, conservatives, and Christians unapologetically and rationally reject such an approach to government.
Terms like "progressive", "liberal", "conservative", etc. have meanings in political science and history that differ from their literal meanings
In fact, it is quite common for political movements to adopt terms that try to make themselves more appealing. But in actual fact, US liberalism is quite illiberal, socialism is quite anti-social, progressivism doesn't aim for progress, conservatism often pines for a non-existent past, etc.
Just about the only term that is fairly accurate is "fascism", which refers to the "binding together" of the individuals into a strong society (similar to what progressives believe).
Yes, These proposed changes would mean America would sort of be in a union where the government would work on behalf on the people instead of corporate interests.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this change would be a win-win for both workers and corporations. It would lessen competition from cheap foreign labor with American workers, and it would also improve the allocation of valuable foreign workers to US corporations.
The H1-B visa people are restricted from getting other employment while they're here are they not?
That's ancient history. For many years, you have been able to easily change jobs on an H-1B. Your current employer won't even find out until you start with your new employer.
If you have a resource that's cheap and you wall it off, what do you call that? Typically, we call it "artificial scarcity." Somehow it's different if the resource is labor.
The "walling off" is a given: there is only a fixed number of H-1Bs issued.
That's not Trump's decision. What he is suggesting is allocating this scarce resource to more valuable immigrants, instead of wasting this scarce resource on low value immigrants. And the way he is considering doing that is via what effectively amounts to an auction. That makes the market more efficient and doesn't affect the scarcity at all.
There is nothing "artificial" about it; the wages are higher because the people are worth it.
If the US had a limit on car imports and then changed policies to allow more BMWs and fewer Yugos, that wouldn't "artificially inflate the price of cars", it simply means that the average price of the import goes up because people buy nicer cars.
Should the liberal tribe (and let’s not deny it any longer – that’s both the Democratic and GOP Establishments these days) do business with them? Well, the risk otherwise is that the 1488ers start persuading people that their solution to natural conservatives’ problems is the only viable one. The bulk of their demands, after all, are not so audacious: they want their own communities, populated by their own people, and governed by their own values.
Sincere attempt to rationalize white nationalism LOLZ SO FUNNAY!
Seriously? You are taking an explicit warning against the dangers of the possible appeal to large groups of voters of white nationalism as supporting white nationalism? An opinion piece written by a self-described "radical progressive liberal" whose ethnicity is a mix of English-Pakistani-Slovenian? That's the damning accusation of white nationalism against Breitbart? And in support you link to a WaPo article written by a privileged WASPish sports reporter who is obviously every bit as thick as you are?
RCAF, but I can see how you'd make the mistake, since your understanding of history you actually have access to is already so poor...
Obviously, your grandfather didn't fly for Stalin; obviously you are a pampered, ignorant North American, and that's why you didn't get my reference. Stalin and communist regimes loved accusing (actual) liberals of being fascists. Hitler loved talking about how racist US society was. Your unfounded accusations of fascism and racism against the US simply place you firmly in the ideological tradition of the extreme left and the extreme right, who love to mislabel themselves as liberals, but actually despise liberal democracy.
Actually, the biggest group of voters, and the decisive group, was voters like me, who didn't vote for either of these clowns.
And if you think we're just waiting for women in vagina outfits to progsplain social justice to us, or Berkeley radicals to set our cars on fire, you are sadly mistaken.
This time I stayed home. Next time, I may well vote Republican, since the aftermath of this election has shown just how irrational, intolerant, and undemocratic progressives and Democrats have become. I think I'm hardly alone. Democrats are pissing people off left and right.
Just moved to the South and am disturbed to occasionally find some racism here.
There is occasionally racism in the North too. You'll never eliminate private racial discrimination. What we can do is demand that people have the same rights before the law, nothing more and nothing less.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he isn't "setting a higher price". There is an artificial scarcity: only a fixed number of H-1Bs are available. Trump didn't do that, Congress did.
Within that artificial scarcity, the economically best allocation is the one that allocates those visas to the economically most valuable jobs. The economically most valuable jobs are those that employers are willing to pay the most for.
The US public educational system has become a political battleground for tech companies, teachers, social justice warriors, social conservatives, corporations, and all sorts of other groups. They all lobby for their own benefit, not for the benefit of the children. The only way to address this is to let parents vote with their feet.
Simple: I started off as a Democrat and progressive in my 20s, then I learned a lot about history and politics and I grew up. And the Democratic party also changed, from an economically moderate, socially liberal party to a dysfunctional and bigoted collection of socialists, progressives, and crony capitalists. But don't give up hope, you may still outgrow your youthful and ignorant politics as well.
Correct. Which is why Americans increasingly reject race-based government policies, divisive racist rhetoric, and immigration policies designed to increase diversity. That is, it's why Americans reject the policies of Democrats and progressives.
It's why Americans instead favor a society in which government treats everybody equally, doesn't patronize minorities, and bases immigration decision based on skill and the ability to contribute to US society.
Well, you certainly are, as are many of Hillary Clinton's supporters.
"Resort to"? It's the same ideology: it opposes capitalism and favors equality of outcome, substitutes expert judgment for individual choice, and advocates race-based policies. Many of these people (e.g., Keynes, Wilson, Sanger) and their policies are revered by today's progressives. Wake up, man: that is what you promote.
No, you pointed out an article in which an author clearly warns about the dangers ("the risk otherwise is") of white nationalism, one danger being that much of their ideology may seem appealing to the masses. You yourself illustrate insidious these ideas are, being blind to your own deep-seated racism and disdain for individual liberty.
And when confronted with the fact that many minorities support conservative and libertarian causes and have no problems with Breitbart, you call them "Uncle Toms", particularly insulting given that you yourself are not black.
I have had no interest in speaking with racists and authoritarians like you at all. But the fact is that evil people like you have some political traction in the US, and Americans need to understand you and your arguments so that we can effectively oppose you. I don't want the US to turn into the kind of socialist, progressive, or fascist hellhole that you promote; that's what I got away from when I emigrated.
Seems like a good ratio.
You ignore the unhelpful comments. I mean, they aren't really hurting you, are they? All you really need is the one answer that solves your problem.
Are you coming on to me?
Progressives were at the forefront of segregation and scientific racism (e.g., here).
Who do you think razed the minority communities, destroyed families, and pushed African Americans into crime-infested housing projects in the first place? Was it laissez-faire Republicans? Libertarian small government type? No. It was, of course, progressives. The same progressives acting on the same impulses that cause them to implement eugenics and segregation half a century earlier.
Given how disastrous the last two major progressive attempts to help minorities through meddling with housing were, however, I think there is good reason not to rush into yet another such scheme. However, Republicans seem to be generally support housing vouchers, they just want to add work requirements for those able to work; why is that a bad thing?
No "whataboutism" at all. You accused Breitbart of being "white nationalist" and pointed to a specific article. That article, in fact, warned about segregationist tendencies being increasingly mainstream in the US, which is correct. Since you are evidently ignorant of the history, I also pointed out that it wasn't conservatives or libertarians that have been responsible for segregationist tendencies, but progressives; given the close historical connections between progressivism and fascism, that also is hardly surprising.
The way forward is to reject failed progressive policies and adopt a more traditionally liberal approach towards the problems of minorities, namely voluntary assimilation and integration regardless of race or ethnicity, motivated by economic self-interest.
You seriously don't realize how infantile and ridiculous it is of you as a white American to refer to black Republicans as "Uncle Toms"?
And how is that different from the ideology of the American left, namely that each ethnic minority should live in "their own communities, populated by their own people, and governed by their own values"? The racism and segregationist tendencies in US politics and government originates from progressives, not conservatives.
Actual conservatives and liberals, in contrast, do not believe that government should promote multiculturalism; instead, the goal of government policies should be to encourage people to integrate into a single, mainstream culture, regardless of race or ethnicity.
No, you misinterpret that. You simply argue like an ignorant 14 year old, which is why people talk to you like that.
Bullshit.
Yes, Master, we will all vote for wealthy white Democrats in the future, Master, because you have told us so, and as a straight white male, you are obviously in possession of superior intelligence, Master!
A browser nobody uses written in a language nobody uses.
You are so out of touch with reality. Europe's massive deforestation and desertification over the last few centuries means that it is strongly dependent on the Americas for carbon capture. And European air quality sucks https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea... As you can see from that map, that pollution is home-made; it doesn't come from the US, China, or Russia.
So, go ahead and build that wall, then suffocate in your own pollution and filth.
The Swedish government, like many other governments in Europe and the US, is so out of touch with the people that they are driving voters into the arms of right wing extremists; the "Sweden Democrats" have gone from a non-entity to the second strongest party in Sweden in just a few years.
Yes, that is what good, rational analysis does: it strips away irrelevant data and focuses on the important facts.
I didn't say it was "statistical noise", I said it was "noise". That is, it isn't caused by statistical sampling, it is caused by unknown factors, specifically unknown factors other than racism.
I unsubscribed from the NYT long before I stopped being a progressive.
I don't think that any newspaper or magazine is "credible".
True: the left frequently uses facts to attack opponents, while the right frequently and deliberately ignores facts and instead insists on the application of principles and values. For example, the left likes to use facts about disparate outcomes while the right insists that applying a principle of equality before the law is what our politics should be based on, regardless of outcome.
The left insists on a scientific, rational, utilitarian approach to government, while libertarians, conservatives, and Christians unapologetically and rationally reject such an approach to government.
Terms like "progressive", "liberal", "conservative", etc. have meanings in political science and history that differ from their literal meanings
In fact, it is quite common for political movements to adopt terms that try to make themselves more appealing. But in actual fact, US liberalism is quite illiberal, socialism is quite anti-social, progressivism doesn't aim for progress, conservatism often pines for a non-existent past, etc.
Just about the only term that is fairly accurate is "fascism", which refers to the "binding together" of the individuals into a strong society (similar to what progressives believe).
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this change would be a win-win for both workers and corporations. It would lessen competition from cheap foreign labor with American workers, and it would also improve the allocation of valuable foreign workers to US corporations.
That's ancient history. For many years, you have been able to easily change jobs on an H-1B. Your current employer won't even find out until you start with your new employer.
The "walling off" is a given: there is only a fixed number of H-1Bs issued.
That's not Trump's decision. What he is suggesting is allocating this scarce resource to more valuable immigrants, instead of wasting this scarce resource on low value immigrants. And the way he is considering doing that is via what effectively amounts to an auction. That makes the market more efficient and doesn't affect the scarcity at all.
There is nothing "artificial" about it; the wages are higher because the people are worth it.
If the US had a limit on car imports and then changed policies to allow more BMWs and fewer Yugos, that wouldn't "artificially inflate the price of cars", it simply means that the average price of the import goes up because people buy nicer cars.
I tend to agree. We'll have to see how well it works in politics. It's not unprecedented.
Seriously? You are taking an explicit warning against the dangers of the possible appeal to large groups of voters of white nationalism as supporting white nationalism? An opinion piece written by a self-described "radical progressive liberal" whose ethnicity is a mix of English-Pakistani-Slovenian? That's the damning accusation of white nationalism against Breitbart? And in support you link to a WaPo article written by a privileged WASPish sports reporter who is obviously every bit as thick as you are?
Obviously, your grandfather didn't fly for Stalin; obviously you are a pampered, ignorant North American, and that's why you didn't get my reference. Stalin and communist regimes loved accusing (actual) liberals of being fascists. Hitler loved talking about how racist US society was. Your unfounded accusations of fascism and racism against the US simply place you firmly in the ideological tradition of the extreme left and the extreme right, who love to mislabel themselves as liberals, but actually despise liberal democracy.
Actually, the biggest group of voters, and the decisive group, was voters like me, who didn't vote for either of these clowns.
And if you think we're just waiting for women in vagina outfits to progsplain social justice to us, or Berkeley radicals to set our cars on fire, you are sadly mistaken.
This time I stayed home. Next time, I may well vote Republican, since the aftermath of this election has shown just how irrational, intolerant, and undemocratic progressives and Democrats have become. I think I'm hardly alone. Democrats are pissing people off left and right.
There is occasionally racism in the North too. You'll never eliminate private racial discrimination. What we can do is demand that people have the same rights before the law, nothing more and nothing less.