What an absurd strawman. The complaint about H1Bs is that they displace superior local labor with inferior, but cheaper and indentured, foreign labor, while simultaneously changing the demographics of the country against the wishes of its inhabitants.
But what money are they producing with? Who pays them? If native is replaced by an H1B, the same corporation pay. There is no net gain. The native must now find another job or get supported by the government. You are changing employees, not productive tasks, it's just that the corporation gets to keep more profit. If these positions really can't be filled by natives, then HB1s can add to the economic pie.
In the context of widespread DEI, the тАЬother thingsтАЭ the natives end up doing typically amount to underemployment or unemployment. It's a massive, systematic misallocation of human capital. This is known.
But hey at least you pay less for Uber Dildos.
Oh sorry Eugine that was probably woke right of me to say.
That assumes that there a more productive things to do, which often there are not. Also, profits are only passed on in theory. In reality the primary goal of the corporate c-suite is to increase revenues and profit every quarter. That's why a box of breakfast cereal that contains 30 cents of grain and 17 cents of packaging sells for $7.00. They are not abusing the H1B program because they want to give customers lower prices.
This is basic supply and demand, and anyone arguing against it is either ignorant or lying.
BTW, immigrants also buy stuff.
So do welfare recipients, but that doesn't make them an economic positive.
The problem with welfare recipients is that they consume without producing.
The alleged complaint about the H1Bs is that they produce without consuming.
What an absurd strawman. The complaint about H1Bs is that they displace superior local labor with inferior, but cheaper and indentured, foreign labor, while simultaneously changing the demographics of the country against the wishes of its inhabitants.
> The complaint about H1Bs is that they displace superior local labor with inferior,
Sometimes. Well sometimes inferior is good enough.
In any case while we're engaged in Keynesian-style economic reasoning, welfare recipients replace generate more demand for labor by consuming.
But what money are they producing with? Who pays them? If native is replaced by an H1B, the same corporation pay. There is no net gain. The native must now find another job or get supported by the government. You are changing employees, not productive tasks, it's just that the corporation gets to keep more profit. If these positions really can't be filled by natives, then HB1s can add to the economic pie.
> The native must now find another job
And so the native is available for doing more things.
> You are changing employees, not productive tasks, it's just that the corporation gets to keep more profit.
Also passes the savings along in the form of lower prices, including for natives.
In the context of widespread DEI, the тАЬother thingsтАЭ the natives end up doing typically amount to underemployment or unemployment. It's a massive, systematic misallocation of human capital. This is known.
But hey at least you pay less for Uber Dildos.
Oh sorry Eugine that was probably woke right of me to say.
That assumes that there a more productive things to do, which often there are not. Also, profits are only passed on in theory. In reality the primary goal of the corporate c-suite is to increase revenues and profit every quarter. That's why a box of breakfast cereal that contains 30 cents of grain and 17 cents of packaging sells for $7.00. They are not abusing the H1B program because they want to give customers lower prices.