The government made this change for effects at scale, not for effect at individuals. All kinds of countercases are going to emerge and for myself, were I king for a day, this isn't an act I would have cast. But, I do think it's important to remember, the aim is to stop people coming.
In short, no matter how much shareholder value you make now, the goal is to advantage a domestic person into the role. If a company wants you enough, it has to cast fetters of gold to make it happen and if that excludes, that's by design.
I am sorry, because I hate this, but I see this message as confirming the policy is doing what this government wants it to do. The millions Jason made, the government wanted made by a native son.
The question "can they weave the same magic" isn't being asked or answered.
sparkie•2h ago
Policy changes wouldn't be needed if the existing policy weren't exploitable for cheaper labour. For every brilliant individual there are dozens of mediocre individuals. The policy is intended to stop the latter and not the former.
Whether it's the right policy of course is questionable, and we could debate the details all day, but something needed changing to give domestic workers the advantage, because they've been disadvantaged by the H-1B programme for years now.
Disclaimer: I'm a UK citizen, not from US, but I still applaud these changes even though it would make it much more difficult, if not impossible for me to get a job in the US. We have similar problems here - perhaps much worse even - and not just for skilled jobs but more so for unskilled labour. Standard of living in the UK is degrading at a rapid rate, and uncontrolled immigration is a leading factor in that. Governments only care about GDP, but it's GDP per capita that matters, and that is in decline.
ggm•2h ago
I think the economics here are not that reductive. Yes, American domestic workers were displaced. And, lots of other Americans made a lot of money in their Roth, and got to buy cheaper goods and services. Doesn't help the unemployment problem. Did help everyone else.
The same pressures are visible in Germany. Merkel responded to business need for 1.5m more workers. The overwhelming majority are productive and enough are visibly not, and different she's ignited a racist backlash. Nobody has managed to convince me the 1.5m body count wasn't needed.
America has always grown economically through immigration. It's also always been painful.
sparkie•1h ago
As you mentioned earlier though, the issue isn't immigration per se, but the scale of it, which has been accelerating even though its been obvious for some time that we're already beyond the point at which it is beneficial to economy or society in other ways. The backlash is inevitable - it doesn't benefit the lives or ordinary folk. It must be scaled back, but if governments aren't willing to remedy that, they'll invite in a populist government which will turn the needle the other way, as has happened in the US.
Turning the needle the other way will also likely to be detrimental to the economy in the long term, but the insistence on labelling ordinary people with legitimate concerns as "racist" so as to ignore them is what has created the political division, absence of any centrist politics, and rise of extremism on both sides.
The remedy is to scale back the rate of immigration, not cut it out entirely.
ggm•2h ago
In short, no matter how much shareholder value you make now, the goal is to advantage a domestic person into the role. If a company wants you enough, it has to cast fetters of gold to make it happen and if that excludes, that's by design.
I am sorry, because I hate this, but I see this message as confirming the policy is doing what this government wants it to do. The millions Jason made, the government wanted made by a native son.
The question "can they weave the same magic" isn't being asked or answered.
sparkie•2h ago
Whether it's the right policy of course is questionable, and we could debate the details all day, but something needed changing to give domestic workers the advantage, because they've been disadvantaged by the H-1B programme for years now.
Disclaimer: I'm a UK citizen, not from US, but I still applaud these changes even though it would make it much more difficult, if not impossible for me to get a job in the US. We have similar problems here - perhaps much worse even - and not just for skilled jobs but more so for unskilled labour. Standard of living in the UK is degrading at a rapid rate, and uncontrolled immigration is a leading factor in that. Governments only care about GDP, but it's GDP per capita that matters, and that is in decline.
ggm•2h ago
The same pressures are visible in Germany. Merkel responded to business need for 1.5m more workers. The overwhelming majority are productive and enough are visibly not, and different she's ignited a racist backlash. Nobody has managed to convince me the 1.5m body count wasn't needed.
America has always grown economically through immigration. It's also always been painful.
sparkie•1h ago
Turning the needle the other way will also likely to be detrimental to the economy in the long term, but the insistence on labelling ordinary people with legitimate concerns as "racist" so as to ignore them is what has created the political division, absence of any centrist politics, and rise of extremism on both sides.
The remedy is to scale back the rate of immigration, not cut it out entirely.