As most of us are native-born workers, we tend to view things in terms of rights. We have a right to social security, unemployment checks, social welfare etc. Therefore, in times of distress (if you can ever call living in the United States "distressed") we scrutinize what is variable, visible and easily quantifiable.
-Salary and wage.
It can be argued (perhaps by nativist union groups such as the AFL-CIO) that foreign-born H1B visas take up certain jobs that native-born workers could have access to. But let's also consider that H1B's are not given access to social funds that native-born workers have.
In other words, we import highly intelligent workers and don't provide them with many public benefits (besides things such as public schooling for their children, maintained highways, public toilets etc.).
If anything, America has the long-end of the straw.
also: poor conditions in "third world" countries (as many of you have described them) are largely the effect of colonialism. The colonial power often treats the colony as a resource (perhaps for labor, as well?), with development a secondary, tertiary, or even non-priority. And although we'd all hate to believe it, the United States has been a colonial power. (Puerto Rico, Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii, and that doesn't include military bases world-wide) We've used that position to harvest cane for export, import cheap farm labor, and leverage as a military base. To say that these countries would not be as well off without western influence is highly speculative and has a hint of Kipling's "White man's burden."
In summary, the United States has contributed to the lower standard of living elsewhere in the world, has taken advantage of labor in the past, and currently employs a system that brings in the world's best talent at discounted cost.
Slashdot Mirror
As most of us are native-born workers, we tend to view things in terms of rights. We have a right to social security, unemployment checks, social welfare etc. Therefore, in times of distress (if you can ever call living in the United States "distressed") we scrutinize what is variable, visible and easily quantifiable. -Salary and wage. It can be argued (perhaps by nativist union groups such as the AFL-CIO) that foreign-born H1B visas take up certain jobs that native-born workers could have access to. But let's also consider that H1B's are not given access to social funds that native-born workers have. In other words, we import highly intelligent workers and don't provide them with many public benefits (besides things such as public schooling for their children, maintained highways, public toilets etc.). If anything, America has the long-end of the straw. also: poor conditions in "third world" countries (as many of you have described them) are largely the effect of colonialism. The colonial power often treats the colony as a resource (perhaps for labor, as well?), with development a secondary, tertiary, or even non-priority. And although we'd all hate to believe it, the United States has been a colonial power. (Puerto Rico, Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii, and that doesn't include military bases world-wide) We've used that position to harvest cane for export, import cheap farm labor, and leverage as a military base. To say that these countries would not be as well off without western influence is highly speculative and has a hint of Kipling's "White man's burden." In summary, the United States has contributed to the lower standard of living elsewhere in the world, has taken advantage of labor in the past, and currently employs a system that brings in the world's best talent at discounted cost.