I’m all for reverting that part of the tax code, but only on the condition that it’s inapplicable to H-1B visa or foreign worker salaries/payments, provided that employer pays local taxes in those countries for those roles.
Keep good paying jobs in the USA. If we need immigrant labor, give them Green Cards instead of precarity.
"If we need immigrant labor, give them Green Cards instead of precarity."
This is counter-intuitive but absolutely the right answer. Giving immigrant employees full bargaining power will murder H1B mills. And no waiting periods in precarious limbo either. If you want an immigrant worker, they automatically get all bargaining power as an American and then you make your decision based on the market forces.
> Keep good paying jobs in the USA. If we need immigrant labor, give them Green Cards instead of precarity.
I'm all for giving more people a faster path to a green card if they want it.
But should a person really have to get permanent resident status to have a decent job here? If someone wants to work for a few years in the tech industry in the US but expects that they may want to go back to their home country (or another country), and if they and their employer pay the appropriate taxes, what's wrong with that? Similarly, if I as an American citizen wanted to work abroad for some period without having pre-decided to become a permanent resident ... why is that harmful?
That’s the neat part of the Permanent Residency (Green) card: you don’t have to stay forever. What that change does is destroy outsourcing and H1B visa mills by forcing employers to hire domestically first, and actually go through the process of sponsoring an immigrant’s Green Card if they want to hire cheaper foreign labor.
It does not deter expats, it protects them from exploitation and abuse by employers.
Sure, and a hunting license doesn't require you to shoot anything but it would be weird to oblige you to get one if you don't have an intention of hunting?
If green cards are easier to get, then the people that want them, and who you seem interested in protecting from abuse and exploitation can choose to apply for them -- great! It would have this effect even if you don't require every employee to have a permanent residence rights.
If you create the requirement where only someone with permanent resident status can be hired, but you don't make green cards actually easier to get, then you've just put in some protectionist/nativist barrier.
But if someone doesn't necessarily want to be a permanent resident, but does meet some other work visa, and an employer wants to hire them, you're just creating an extra bureaucratic obstacle for them, and claiming that it's for their benefit.
The entire point of a work visa is enforced precarity for the benefit of the employer at the expense of the worker. I do not know how to make that concept any clearer.
If an employer wants someone to work in Country A, then they should be hiring domestically first; if they cannot find someone in Country A and want to hire someone from Country B, then that job is necessary enough that a Permanent Residency permit should be a non-issue for the employer and employee alike.
It really is that simple. If a job cannot be done on domestic wages then it’s not a job that needs doing in the first place.
Exactly this. If the aim is to bring back physical manufacturing, bring back software "manufacturing" as well.
> provided that employer pays local taxes in those countries for those roles.
This was phrased a bit confusingly, at least to me. Can you explain?
It’s a double taxation thing. If the employer is paying taxes abroad (as in, a net positive payment to that country’s tax collection agency), then we should absolutely give them the IRS break on labor here; if they’re not paying taxes abroad, then they’re taxed on said labor here.
The idea is to reduce offshoring as a means of dodging tax liability for multinational firms. If they want the tax cut here, they gotta pay up everywhere else they do business.
> if they’re not paying taxes abroad, then they’re taxed on said labor here.
Ah I see. You mean if the effective tax rate for a worker in some country is 20% but the effective rate in the US would have been 30% they have to pay the difference in the US? Interesting idea but if the salaries overseas are much lower, how much revenue will that extra 10% raise anyway? More likely the worker would fall into a lower US tax bracket.
I wouldn't mind seeing something like that for corporate profits actually.
The whole point is leverage/precarity.
I make said argument fully aware of the point of such schemes. It’s why I suggested, “You know, this is a good opportunity to rebalance the scales somewhat by utilizing a shared goal to extract reasonable concessions.”
My point is the entire point of them is to extract unreasonable concessions.
The math has only shifted even more favorably for extracting even more unreasonable concessions too.
Or do you think there is a sudden lack of Indian H1B applicants? Or that tech workers suddenly have more political power than they previously did?
I think any idiot with two functioning neurons can see the ruling class of India is trying to pull the same strategy China used to take manufacturing: consistently undercut foreign wages, centralizing knowledge and power before turning it on their customers and extracting wealth and power from countries or organizations that outsourced to them in the first place. I think it’s less a matter of who has more or less power, and more that there is an opportunity here for reconciliation in a way that most sides benefit to some significant degree.
* Foreign workers in the USA have more earning potential under such a compromise, allowing them to send more money home or bring family members abroad
* Foreign workers abroad see less exploitation and have more impact on domestic policies and industry
* Domestic workers see a slowing or reversal of outsourcing, increasing wages and job prospects
* Corporate leaders hold off another over-centralization of power by another hostile state, retaining agency and profits for themselves.
“The math” is not the be-all-end-all of things, for if it were we would have never lowered taxes as low as we did, enacted debilitatingly unsustainable defined-benefits programs like many pensions and Social Security, or handed out corporate subsidies as if money was free. “The math” paints a clear outcome of the current path that harms the collective peoples of multiple countries just so a handful of monied-classes can reap most of the rewards for themselves.
Stop relying solely on short-term data with limited constraints, or big data patterns absent context. Do some critical thinking and path predictions, and these sorts of answers become pretty glaringly obvious, as does the ability for a unique compromise to head things off now instead of a full-on hostile protectionist agenda if this is left unresolved.
The framing of your quote seems to think that people who are clearly not in charge, are the ones in charge that can do something about it eh?
Or, frankly, that if the people who are not currently in charge were put in charge, something different would be happening.
It seems rather silly, frankly.
> Keep good paying jobs in the USA
Uh oh!
> give them Green Cards instead of precarity
Oh, right, yes! :D You had me for a minute.
If we’re being honest, every country should want to preserve high paying jobs for its citizens. Citizens that get paid well have more spending money, which drives domestic economic growth, which creates more jobs…you get the idea.
Outsourcing and exploitative visas are a negative feedback loop that shrinks the actual economy vis a vis stagnant or decreasing wages and higher employment precarity. To have a healthy domestic economy, domestic employment must be prioritized.
I think if we're letting people work, they should have a fair, clear, and realistic path to citizenship. Plenty of space in the USA.