[pm90]

> If you can't afford the labor costs, then your business doesn't get to exist. That's the way the market works. If I could hire people for ten cents an hour, I could start a great software business. I can't. Too bad for me.

Its rather ironic that you advocate for free markets when it suits you but later in your same post you want protectionism. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want it.

> Your statement in general is representative of the race-to-the-bottom thinking I referenced in my earlier post - the idea that we have to do this, or the jobs will go elsewhere, where labor is cheaper. Well, that's how you get savage cuts to labor protections, stagnant wages, and massive corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. What's the endgame, here? Essentially, a global, common market with freedom of movement, a world where democratic governments are entirely subordinate to large corporate interests, a world where wages start plummeting because someone, somewhere, is perfectly willing to program for 5k/year and live in a one-bedroom apartment with five other people, all the while the company involved is getting massive tax breaks lest they start move somewhere else even cheaper.

> No thanks.

Eh? The world is heading towards a global common market, whether you are willing to accept it or not. Do you expect the current imbalance in wealth and development between countries to continue in perpetuity? This imbalance has been the product of some very unique circumstances in world history and will not last for very much longer.

Anyways, the example you give is a strawman. Please find me a qualified developer who will work for that amount anywhere. Critical thinking and creative programming skills are hard to develop for most people and its definitely not that easy to find good developers.

> The reality is that American workers are highly educated and there's a huge amount of social capital and financial capital that will keep businesses operating in the US. If they really wanted to, it's already cheaper open foreign offices and hire locals elsewhere - there's more than just immediate financial considerations already in effect. In a future with more expensive American labor, brilliant US programmers will still be starting their companies in the US, because they already live here. They will hire their friends and alumni from their college in the US. They will hire people those people give references for. They will hire people who live near them.

I completely agree with the huge amount of social and financial capital in the US. But I don't believe its the operating factor in keeping businesses local. One of the main advantages of SF is that it acts as a magnet for talent from all over the world. Cut that off, and you won't have that anymore.

The wiser strategy would be to exploit that capital to continue to build on existing structures and strengthen the position of the US economy to attract the best talent. I must admit I simply don't understand why you want to kill the Golden Goose just because you think maybe possibly protectionism will help you when historically it hasn't.

> Most businesses will not leave the US in the near-term, H1-Bs or no H1-Bs. If they choose to go elsewhere to evade American labor prices and American labor protections, there is a simple solution. They can be forbidden from selling their products and services here. Access to the American market can be predicated on worker wages and benefits. I don't see any other solution that prevents a global corporate oligarchy.

That is protectionism. And it never helps. Sure, you can try it, but when the rest of the world retaliates, suddenly you're cut off from the rest of the world and operating in isolation.

[dangjc]

Smart protectionism does help. It's how Japan, South Korea, and now China have developed advanced manufacturing industries where free traders would have told them to specialize in what they did best at the time like grow rice. We need to look more holistically at free trade.

[Amezarak]

> Its rather ironic that you advocate for free markets when it suits you but later in your same post you want protectionism. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want it.

I'm for free markets where they work, and against free markets where they don't. I do not care whether free markets exist or not. I care about whatever improves the lives of people. When free markets help that cause, I am for them. When they do not, I am against them. Free markets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They are a tool. If a hammer will help me drive in a nail, I'll use a hammer, but I don't care about hammers in themselves.

I don't see anything ironic about this position.

>Eh? The world is heading towards a global common market, whether you are willing to accept it or not.

That is a decision that's entirely up to the people of the world. It is not some kind of fatal inevitability. Corporate interests in the West have been pushing strongly for it, but there are plenty of examples of powerful economies controverting this thesis, and, to all appearances, plan to do so for the indefinite future. Of course, recently, we see on top of this where previously pro-common market economies are withdrawing from that ideal - the UK with Brexit, the US from the TPP, and the immigration debate in both countries.

> Anyways, the example you give is a strawman. Please find me a qualified developer who will work for that amount anywhere. Critical thinking and creative programming skills are hard to develop for most people and its definitely not that easy to find good developers.

Good programmers are all over the place. Of course, everyone wants to hire the very best programmers, which are by definition limited, but good, productive programmers exist in tremendous numbers all over the world, including in very poor countries where five grand is a lot of money.

On top of that, considering the direction the world is going in (automation of manufacturing and services), and the continual cheerleading of STEM and programming in particular as a profession, we can only expect the number of good programmers to increase.

> I must admit I simply don't understand why you want to kill the Golden Goose just because you think maybe possibly protectionism will help you when historically it hasn't.

Because, frankly, the "Golden Goose" has absolutely zilch to do with H1-B visas. There are a lot of tremendously talented H1-B developers, absolutely. But the number of H1-B developers that are tremendously more talented than unemployed and flyover-country US programmers is approximately nada. (But only approximately. A real H1-B visa that worked only for unique talent might be worthwhile.)

In addition, you're quite simply wrong. Protectionism sometimes hurts. Free trade sometimes helps. Protectionism sometimes helps. Free trade sometimes hurts. Sometimes, a little protectionism ameliorates severe short-term pain and turns it into mild long-term pain. Pragmatism should always be preferred to free-market ideology or protectionist ideology.

> Sure, you can try it, but when the rest of the world retaliates, suddenly you're cut off from the rest of the world and operating in isolation.

People like to paint these doomsday pictures of protectionism, where all the rest of the world cuts you off. The reality is there is plenty of protectionism being engaged in already by the free-market West and nobody cares. Let alone the degree of protectionism engaged in by countries like China, which is presently nurturing multitudes of multi-billion dollar businesses without any kind of horrible punishment.