> And $10 is about 1% of your monthly income in your example numbers, meaning it's perfectly fine also for somebody making $10 000 per year.
What on Earth? Ok I'll bite. $70 is about 1% of median monthly income for someone making $80K/yr, meaning it's perfectly fine for somebody with the median US income, by your own logic. Would you pay $70/mo for a search engine?
And no, no one should stop making their products. No idea how you'd come to that conclusion after reading my comment (that said, companies could definitely stand to introduce regional pricing).
We’re talking median annual income of $10,000. I could forgive someone getting paid that not wanting to spend that $10 on an internet search engine instead of food.
I'm not convinced it existed before - not to the extent where it actually harmed people. But you know what will harm people for certain and a lot? "Ending H-1B ASAP". So why end it (let alone make it worse by making H-1B workers significantly more exploitable) instead of increasing the unemployment grace period, making travel less of a gamble, giving the worker more flexibility with work schedule and location?
So erase that worry for them of having to go back to their home countries instead of doing the opposite and kicking them out? Extend the unemployment grace period from 60 days to a year. Make travel easier. Make it so that companies can't exploit them. What does the admin do instead? Introduce an exorbitant fee, making
- travel a gamble on whether you'll be able to re-enter
- a layoff pretty much the end of your ability to stay and work in the US
... in other words, making the workers far, far more exploitable. Make that make sense.
Do you think the European workers were in the right? Is the solution to kick out (let alone slaughter) the Chinese, or is it to make them less exploitable by companies?
Now, with the $100K fee which has turned H-1B workers into indentured servants, they could and will be used for that, sure. But prior to the EO, they had the freedom to leave the country and reenter whenever they'd like to, so long as they were employed or had an offer on hand. Getting laid off wasn't the end of the world. Travelling wasn't a huge risk. Switching employers was relatively stress-free. While still not on par with that of citizens, the leverage and the bargaining power was there, preventing the longer workweeks under worse conditions issue you're referring to. The concern trolls claiming otherwise had no concrete evidence to show for their claims.
I never said it's racist, unsure where you got that from, but it absolutely is scapegoating, when the issue isn't immigrants, who are powerless and cannot fight back, but the admin that's vilifying them while being the actual villain.
Or it’s a way for the less fortunate (geographically) to seek a better future.
They more or less got rid of it last September, yet the job market has only worsened. Scapegoating minorities, whether it be trans people, brown people, Muslims or immigrants, doesn’t work. All it does is destroy lives.
> You give away your bias when it is the other way around.
The ability to focus to the point of obsession or find joy in boring repetitive tasks associated with autism helped before the rise of AI and automation. Now, interpersonal communication and creativity (not in the sense of art but a lack of rigidity in one's thinking) are far more valuable - the things people with autism famously lack.
> And $10 is about 1% of your monthly income in your example numbers, meaning it's perfectly fine also for somebody making $10 000 per year.
What on Earth? Ok I'll bite. $70 is about 1% of median monthly income for someone making $80K/yr, meaning it's perfectly fine for somebody with the median US income, by your own logic. Would you pay $70/mo for a search engine?
And no, no one should stop making their products. No idea how you'd come to that conclusion after reading my comment (that said, companies could definitely stand to introduce regional pricing).