Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/moz
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
tldr (tim reilly) pfp
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
Vitriol on X against Sriram’s appointment has so far led to what seems to me a very positive outcome: Sacks and Elon have publicly stood up for putting meritocracy over nationalism when it comes to solving the most critical problems facing the US and the world. A very silver lining to an idiotic cloud.
5 replies
3 recasts
32 reactions
amc pfp
amc
@amc
Is it actually about solving the world’s most critical problems or about squeezing out some more profit to line their pockets?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
tldr (tim reilly) pfp
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
It doesn't always feel easy for me to discern people's true intentions. But I also think that, in capitalism, when the selfish intention is aimed toward producing more – as it seems in this case – then unadmirable intentions can still be capable of producing public goods.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
amc pfp
amc
@amc
I think the H1-B debate is one of the more interesting ones taking place atm My issue is do the workers that come over on H1-B distort the labor market, and/or are employers incentivized to hire H1-B vs American workers? I don’t have enough information to put together an all encompassing viewpoint 100’s of thousands of white collar tech jobs have been lost over the last few years. My thought it that a productivity increase by the company does not make up for the ever dwindling middle class of America
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
res ipsa ☺︎ pfp
res ipsa ☺︎
@resipsa
both. the H1B ties you to one employer. if you’re unhappy you can’t leave until you find another employer who would take it over. the H1B runs out seven years after you first got it and you’d have to get a green card sponsored by an employer before it lapses or leave. the green card process is give-or-take two years and you can’t leave the company once it starts or else the green card application fails. the current structure is inherently anti-competition. it doesn’t incentivize employers to be good employers, which then affects everybody else. it’s indentured servitude for people who want to stay. if it’s really a matter of merit we would unchain them.
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
amc pfp
amc
@amc
After learning more about the program and then seeing the jobs that are listed it’s clearly a form of indentured servitude. Insane that corporations can get a slip from the government that says no problem, go find someone who will work for 50% less (distorting wages) and by the way you can hang citizenship over their head. I’m all for more legal immigration, but definitely not the type that strictly benefits corporations at the expense of workers
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
tldr (tim reilly) pfp
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
This is an interesting layer to the whole topic that I didn't know about. But the version of the question people are debating right now is still worth asking. Namely, whether the US should be open to giving work and citizenship to people from around the world who want it (Meritocracy). Or, to not do this in order to theoretically protect a class of American workers (Nationalism). I think the right answer here is Meritocracy. And then, once we decide that, we should make that Meritocracy work better for all the people involved not just the corporations.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
amc pfp
amc
@amc
My big issue is that this does not appear to be a meritocracy nor is it the .1% (1%, whatever the appropriate figure for truly gifted people) Below is how Tesla uses H1B, they couldn’t find any citizens for these (seemingly entry level) roles? To me it seems like a loophole to get a ~50% discount on wages and an employee whose citizenship is tied to their employment I’m all for an immigration policy that is grounded in meritocracy. Let’s bring truly great talent to America while not suppressing wages and denying young talented people an opportunity
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
res ipsa ☺︎ pfp
res ipsa ☺︎
@resipsa
i think this gets at the heart of the nationalist vs. meritocracy debate— whether a citizen should have priority over a job. more often than not when an interviewer interviews someone they don’t know or understand the interviewee’s immigration status. they’re making the yes/no decision by merit. a pay band had already long been set for the role. i at least take the argument that market wages could be lower because H1B provides a market that will bear— H1B workers aren’t just motivated by money; in some cases their circumstances can feel existential to them. but in any event, the question we are asking is what does meritocracy mean to us. can an immigrant who is good enough for the job have the job, or do they also have to be lightyears better (99.9% better as you alluded to) than their American competition to have the job.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction