[augusteo]

The mobility discussion is interesting to me as someone who navigated US immigration.

Moving countries is hard. Not just paperwork hard, but restarting-your-life hard. Credit history, professional networks, understanding how things actually work versus how they officially work.

If the mobility framework makes it meaningfully easier for skilled workers to move between India and Europe, that's significant. Not because of labor economics, but because talented people having more options is generally good for everyone.

The H1B system in the US has created a lot of anxiety and frustration. Competition for that talent pool seems healthy.

[FiniteField]

The rub here is "skilled workers". Just after Brexit, the Boris Johnson Tory government adjusted immigration rules for "skilled" workers, and caused a civilisation-altering number of people (now known as the "Boriswave") to immigrate to the country, mostly from India, Africa, and other less developed areas. It's now known that almost every pay level and skill (or lack thereof) of job was eligible under the new rules, with some countries of origin, like Zimbabwe, having up to 10 dependents per worker on average IIRC. The same story has played out in the US with the "skilled" H1B visa scheme. People have lost all trust in governments to architect immigration laws in the interest of the natives, rather than giving big business carte blanche to import their own replacement workforce who will do any available job for the national minimum wage.

[bombcar]

"Skilled" sounds nice because it sounds like "doctors, educated" but the only real SAFE way to ensure it's actually skilled is make the dollar amounts so high that no company will want to use it to import cheap near-slave labor.

[robocat]

The other thing I've noticed about many immigrants is that they are highly motivated and effective. Gritty doers.

The immigration process filters for particular traits, not just what's on a resume.

[dadadanda]

>The immigration process filters for particular traits, not just what's on a resume

55% of the 1 million Syrians living in Germany are dependent on welfare.

The act of immigrating on its own does not select for anything other than a willingness to relocate.

[robocat]

New Zealand has much stricter filters for immigrants.

Tautologically: good immigrants are great and bad immigrants are terrible. I certainly know a few awful immigrants too.

30% of our population was born overseas. It seems to be working fine for those born here and for the immigrants.

Young New Zealanders emigrate, and existing immigrants get older so NZ has an ongoing need to have more immigrants.

People want to come here so we have the luxury of setting filters. I'm not sure what will happen when other countries start competing harder for the "better" immigrants.

Australia is similar but it has less trouble with losing its young people - it gains a lot of New Zealanders because it is a wealthier country with better weather (but bitier fauna)

[robocat]

> like Zimbabwe, having up to 10 dependents per worker on average IIRC

Some developed countries have terrible demographics and need fresh kids.

I am expecting that sometime soon New Zealand will start accepting unskilled immigrants if they have >2 healthy kids under 10 years old. It wouldn't surprise me if the dept of internal affairs already has a soft rule to encourage that.

At some point many countries with shitty demographics are going to have to start competing to import kids.

[dadadanda]

In the 19th century China enjoyed such an abundance of labour that they felt little need for an industrial revolution. By shovelling labour into developed countries you are depriving them of the impetus to innovate. It will have terrible long term effects.

[mmooss]

> talented people having more options is generally good for everyone

While I support free markets, that argument sounds a bit like the basis of the old 'trickle-down economics' and similar theories such as global free trade: Help the wealthy and the benefits will 'trickle down' to everyone else.

It turns out that if you help the wealthy, then the wealthy benefit. I know that doesn't sound like a surprising result when it's said that way, but the point is that the rest is a convenient fiction the wealthy tell themselves and politicians tell the public, in order to serve themselves.

In the US for example, those policies have led to historic increases in wealth for the few, and stagnated wages for the many. On the other hand, in less well off economies such as China and Brazil, the policies led to historic numbers lifted out of poverty - far more than anything in history. So that's a great result that we absolutely should not ignore or put a stop to. I support free trade.

But if the policy isn't specifically designed to benefit workers in the US, for example, if they are left to get theoretical second or third order theoretical benefits, it won't work for them. It's not 'generally good for everyone' unless it's made that way.

[BonitaPersona]

I don't understand what your point is when comparing how similar policies helped general population prosperity in less-well-off countries to the USA you say only benefiting the wealthy.

What should I be getting out of your argument? Asking in good faith.

For example, that there's more to it than that simple rule, or that once a certain level of general population prosperity is reached it stops working, or that impoverished populations have a culture that better benefits from such policies... ?

[mmooss]

It's complex; there's no simple answer. Why did China's workers, for example, benefit enormously while US workers did not?

I don't know. It might have been good luck: outsourcing low-wage labor will of course benefit low-wage workers in other countries, and China's workers happened to be the beneficiaries. Maybe China's government, with a strong motivation to transform its economy from widespread and deep poverty (at the time, much poorer than anyone in wealthy nations), designed their trade policy to achieve that result. (People will also give simplistic answers that serve their ideologies, which I'm not addressing.)

The US's and China's policies were necessarily different: One country was outsourcing low-wage work (hopefully replacing it with higher-wage work) and the other was trying to get as much low-wage work as possible. One was exporting and the other importing.

My main, general point was that unless US policy is designed specifically to benefit X, it won't. Often leaders try to smooth over difficulties by claiming some second-order or third-order effect will benefit X, but that doesn't happen. In this case, X was US workers, and the policy was designed specifically to benefit corporations (afaik).

[modo_mario]

>I don't understand what your point is when comparing how similar policies helped general population prosperity in less-well-off countries to the USA you say only benefiting the wealthy.

Not him but I'd say it suppresses wage bargaining power in the USA or in this case Europe.

[Espressosaurus]

The US is no longer in competition for that talent pool by its own deliberate actions.

Might we see a European flowering as the US chokes itself into a regional power?

[PlatoIsADisease]

That isn't at all what I'm seeing. I still have people from Europe asking me to sponsor their H1B.

[skinnymuch]

That’s not true. Trump will be gone in a few years. Soft power and destabilizing many countries has done wonders for US hegemony.

[Macha]

The soft power is partly based on the belief that the systems it’s built will constrain the US into acting reasonably (at least from the west’s perspective). The Greenland thing was not shut down on the US side hard enough and that has shattered that. Now Europe has to contend with the fact that the US system won’t rein in a president that goes too far, and so it basically has to be treated like the absolute dictatorships with all the risks of a mad king that goes with that

[skinnymuch]

Does not mean too much coming from Europe when the EU wants to militarize and the institution is closer to absolute dictatorship than democracy. Similar to Canada and Europe talking about colonizing the world with the US yet Greenland is an issue lol.

I should’ve also said that like the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, Israel are very very racist, chauvinist, exceptionalist. That benefits US hegemony.

Something also not brought up much is how many people have colonized minds around the world. Colonized minds don’t largely change because of a temporary brash leader.

[zeroc8]

I believe the damage is done and there will be no going back to the old ways. This time around I'm sensing a real change in attitude. People in Europe are sick and tired of all the US bullshit that's been going on for far too long. It's not just the lunatic in the White House. It's the whole system that's being rejected. The endless greed. The bigotry. The war on everything. Peaceful cooperation and coexistence, that's what we want. I'm for my part quite happy and optimistic about the deal with India and I hope more regions will follow soon.

[skinnymuch]

Europe and the five eyes are far too racist and/or chauvinist for what you’re saying. HN is a great microcosm of liberal (which is western and white) ideals and thinking. You can’t really post about resistance to western hegemony here or in most situations around Americans, Canadians, Europeans.

Something not brought up much is how colonized minds works. Colonized minds don’t suddenly become uncolonized because of a brash leader. Eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviets is a great example of this.

[poncho_romero]

Agreed. See also Mark Carney saying "this is a rupture, not a transition" at Davos. We aren't going back.

[saulpw]

Well said.

[lostlogin]

The soft power stuff has been canned. That has not generated good will, but that act pales compared to kidnapping, threats to invade various places and the destabilising effects of chaos as a leadership strategy.

[skinnymuch]

The US has done those stuff since world war 2 ended. Continuously. Trump has hurt things but if anything bringing up things the US has always done as if it is novel under Trump shows how well US hegemony works and will continue to work.

Another thing no one is bringing up is how colonized minds works. Colonized minds don’t suddenly become uncolonized because of a brash leader.

[Hikikomori]

Trump might be gone but project 2025 will continue. They're now most of the party, his cabinet and they're replacing government employees with loyalists (hiring program was part of it). They're attacking the election system again, maybe it won't work but there's a pretty big chance it will.

[skinnymuch]

Yep. Future leaders aren’t going to be as outwardly crass as Trump and that’s all that matters to racist/chauvinists like Europeans and many liberals.

Something not brought up much/yet is how colonized minds works. Colonized minds don’t suddenly become uncolonized because of a brash leader.

[fooker]

Sure, if they want to pay decent salaries.

But no, you can make 3-4x in the US. That’s not an exaggeration. And before someone says ‘free healthcare’, big-tech employers in the US provide pretty nice insurance for employees that caps maximum out of pocket expenses to about a week of your salary.

EU (except Zurich and London) tech salaries have sort of stagnated to a point that you make about the same in Bangalore, and spend significantly more.

[piperswe]

Conveniently enough, neither Zurich nor London are in the EU anyways!

[fooker]

You’re right, I meant Europe.

But makes me wonder if EU policies are contributing to wage stagnation.

There had been several high profile cases in the US about wage stagnation, so much that tech companies are a bit wary of this topic.

[foldr]

Surely you mean wage suppression (as in e.g. the unlawful agreement between Apple and Google).

[fooker]

They are the same thing.

In silicon valley, you can not afford to underpay good engineers, as they'll move across the street and get a job that pays double after a year.

In most other places, this ecosystem does not exist because it is ridiculously difficult to start and operate a company unless you are part of some conglomerate.

[verzali]

Losing a week of salary is still pretty bad. How many days off do you get? Days that you can actually take without losing the chance for a promotion?

[fooker]

> Losing a week of salary is still pretty bad

Keep in mind the salary is 3-5x for big tech positions with 5+ years of experience. Check levels.fyi if you don’t believe me.

> Days that you can actually take without losing the chance for a promotion?

Europe wins hands down on this. I happen to have a great employer where I have taken 4-5 weeks off a year without issues, but that’s not the norm in the US.

[lawn]

Add free education and childcare to the mix and the difference shrinks quite a bit.

Not to mention the fascism problem of course.

[fooker]

Free education and childcare doesn’t come close to shrinking a 300k USD gap in total compensation. Real number in my case, I looked into moving to Berlin last year.

> Not to mention the fascism problem of course.

Agreed.

The US is going in a terrible direction with this. I hope Europe has learned from history and won’t follow.

[surgical_fire]

I could make 2x-3x if I moved to the US.

Turns out I can live a pretty comfortable life with EU salary. I could afford a house, car, family. Quality of Life is pretty great.

I am not sure if the extra money in the US would be worth it.

[joe_mamba]

>I could afford a house, car, family.

You're in the minority now in EU if you can afford to have those things now. The housing and CoL crunch is real and many industries suffered layoffs. Q3 2025 youth unemployment is around 20-25% in several EU countries including developed ones like Finland, it's no longer an issue just for the less developed southern ones.

>I am not sure if the extra money in the US would be worth it.

Since you already have a house and everything, then yeah it makes no sense for you. But I would do it in a heartbeat if I could.

[fooker]

You are right, going the other way can be tough though.

There are hobbies and interests you can pursue with a tech salary in the US that are somewhat out of reach in Europe without generational wealth.

[lostlogin]

> I hope Europe has learned from history and won’t follow.

France was recently an absolute inspiration in this regard.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrlxn4ngdgo

[lawn]

Most people in the US don't earn SV top salaries, and for most people the difference is not that big (was my point).

[fooker]

Right.

I not talking about average wages, as that has no bearing on whether I would want to live somewhere.

I'll primarily look at what I can make and what my quality of life would be like.

[ponector]

And it's really hard to land a job in Switzerland simply because there is a small market with tendency to offshore everything except high management.

Swissre, UBS and many others all have open positions in Spain/Poland/India, not actually in Switzerland

[MichaelZuo]

Actual formal engineering jobs in Switzerland come with benefits gold plating better than full federal government employees in the USA. And they’re almost as hard to sack.

Nobody gives out positions like that easily to non geniuses. And even for more ordinary very smart candidates, there are enough of them to have a few hoops to jump through.

[idle_zealot]

> But no, you can make 3-4x in the US. That’s not an exaggeration

Eh, we'll see how long that lasts as the transition from financial capital to global pariah progresses. It's quite possible that our labor is extremely overvalued.

[fooker]

Right now it relies on silicon valley's ability to churn out unicorns again and again.

That part seems to be taking an ugly turn nowadays by a bunch of military AI/drone swarm/etc focused startups. I'm guessing that eventually after the Apple/Google model of making money is dead, you'll have to work for Skynet if you want to make money.

[jltsiren]

Those "decent salaries" have caused a lot of trouble in the US. They are probably not that good for the society, even if they attract foreign talent.

There is not much difference in labor share of GDP between the US and the EU. People who work for living get a similar share of the value they create in both blocks on the average (maybe a bit less in the US), but it's less evenly distributed in the US.

Top 10% earners are now responsible for ~50% of consumer spending. That doesn't mean billionaires and capitalists, but upper middle class professionals and other high earners. The economy is great on the average, but most people don't feel it.

[fooker]

> They are probably not that good for the society

I don't disagree, as in an abstract sense inequality is bad for society.

Try to understand why the US has high tech salaries though. It is because the last 40 years have made it pretty easy and convenient to start companies.

Hence, good employees always have great options or can just start their own companies.

[overfeed]

> Try to understand why the US has high tech salaries though. It is because the last 40 years have made it pretty easy and convenient to start companies.

I thought this was because US trade and foreign policy coerced most of the world to open up their markets to high-margin American services via treaties. It's easy to pay high salaries when you're vacuuming money from around the world, and your product (software) has very low marginal cost of replication.

[pjc50]

Does anyone have a detailed explainer on the mobility changes, or is it just not finalized yet?

[alephnerd]

It's an MoU to "discuss" mobility with no commitment to actually decide anything: "[a]dopted as a memorandum of understanding in parallel with the finalisation of the FTA, offers an excellent opportunity for us to cooperate on facilitating labour mobility, supporting skills development and capacity building, and working on skills and qualification frameworks" [0].

Immigration remains under the purview of individual EU member states. And immigration/mobility is out of scope of the actual EU-India FTA deal and the EU-India Defense Pact deal.

Notice how this entire thread got derailed by low karma and newish accounts dogwhistling immigration instead of discussing how the deal expanded European (and India) industrial and chemical exports to India (and Europe) by giving them a tariff rate under that which is Chinese transshipped products via ASEAN get thus making European (and Indian) capital goods cost effective and now includes India as part of ReArm Europe [1] - the EU's defense fund for European and Ukrainian rearmament [2].

Who needs Russian backed farmer disinfo networks [3] when you have anonymous "software engineer" and "OSINT" accounts stirring $hit to try and undermine the EU-India relationship [4]. That said, the deal will go through because the right businesses and unions were mollified over the past 2-3 years building up to this.

[0] - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_...

[1] - https://theprint.in/diplomacy/india-eu-sign-security-defence...

[2] - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7695...

[3] - https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/2025/12/01/putin-permafr...

[4] - https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froi...

[joe_mamba]

> dogwhistling immigration

Where do you see the dogwhistling? Immigration is an actual concern to all working class people in EU who understand the basics of supply and demand of the labor market and housing, and I don't agree with trying to suppress such valid concerns by brooming it under dogwhistling, as blocking discourse on this topic just serves to radicalise people.

Especially in current economic times of mass layoffs of many European industries and high unemployment especially amongst the youth, CoL and housing crunch, it's normal the tax paying locals with voting rights don't want their leaders making them compete with immigrants for the shrinking pool of jobs and housing when they themselves are struggling.

And especially given how the typical government promoted immigration systems often marketed on "solving labor shortage in critical industries" and "bringing in the best and the brightest" have historically been abused by employers to drive down wages and reduce the bargaining power of the locals in working class jobs that had no actual shortage of workers, instead of being exclusive for the "best and the brightest" as they claimed.

So given such precedents, it's perfectly normal that such policies be open to public debate and scrutiny since the public will be the one mostly affected, while the business and asset owning elite is always the sole winner in these cases and the ones pushing for them the most.