[yummyfajitas]

I'm a techie too. But unlike the author of this piece, I have a little bit of perspective.

For tech, Romney is probably marginally better than Obama. But I'm not even going to bother justifying this statement - it's irrelevant. Neither politician will have any significant effect on the tech community, and even if they did, it's a minor issue.

Lets focus on a major issue: >500k people just like me (drug users) are sitting in jail right now for no good reason. For those who are unfamiliar, sitting in jail is far worse than being unemployed or having marginally fewer pinterest clones.

Another major issue is the fact that millions of people from the poorest places on earth (I'm not talking about wealthy nations like Mexico here) could be lifted from poverty. The vast majority (i.e., >95%) of India lives in what would be considered dire poverty in the US. Upper class individuals in the poshest suburbs of Mumbai suffer living conditions comparable to the poorest housing projects in the US. All we need to do to lift them from poverty is allow them to enter the US and provide us cheap medical services, clean our houses and the like.

So yeah, one of the politicians is marginally better than the other on an issue that neither of them have much control over. Why do we even care?

[siculars]

So politicians have no control over domestic tech policy but can affect change in India by allowing their poor into the US to provide us cheap medical services? What sense does that make? You, sir, are clearly on drugs.

[yummyfajitas]

I don't expect US politicians to affect change in India at all. I expect them to change the lives of the individuals they allow into the US.

The Indian upper class (doctors, nurses, developers) are poor by US standards. They can become wealthy simply by allowing them to change location. This would benefit us too, as would allowing the poor to come over and sell us cheap house cleaning or dosa preparation services.

Another example: there are about 90k Somalians in the US, mostly refugees from Somalia's earlier troubles. Assuming they have a GDP per capita half the US average, Somalian Americans have a GDP of about $2B. That's about 1/3 the GDP of all of Somalia (approx $6B, pop 10M).

Do you really believe the JOBS Act (the only concrete action the OP attributes to Obama) even comes remotely close to having such an effect?

[angersock]

We've got plenty of work to do here without worrying about fixing the rest of the world--consider parts of Appalachia, the homeless in our own cities, and so forth. And yes, this also means military adventures abroad need to stop.

Also, if I haven't misread your post, you seem to imply that we should be bringing in these folks as cheap labor to "elevate" them...there's something vaguely off-putting about that remark.

[yummyfajitas]

Also, if I haven't misread your post, you seem to imply that we should be bringing in these folks as cheap labor to "elevate" them...there's something vaguely off-putting about that remark.

That's because you are viewing it through the lens of status rather than economics. I'm not proposing to raise anyone's status, I'm simply proposing to give them the opportunity to earn for themselves 24/7 running water and electricity, decent housing, schools for their children (where the teachers actually show up), etc.

I'm also not proposing fixing the rest of the world. I'm proposing helping millions of people at a net benefit to ourselves.

Are you seriously arguing that making a few wealthy Appalachians even wealthier is a bigger issue than making millions of poor people wealthy and the rest of us even wealthier?

[angersock]

We've got hundreds of thousands--if not millions--here in the United States that need the same sort of help, and that they ought be prioritized before we reach out to help others.

On a related note, are you familiar with Lifeboat Ethics ( http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_et... )? It's an interesting issue I'd run across in a ethics course a few years ago--seems relevant here.

[tptacek]

Chris is telling you that compared to the lives of a huge number of South/Southeast Asians, even those living "below poverty" in the US are wealthy; by and large, the American poor can expect electricity, running water, shelter, some form of nourishment, and even school for their children. The poorest people in India have none of this.

From another vantage point, as a health economist recently said: vis a vis access to health care, you're better off as a homeless person in the United States in 2012 than President Dwight Eisenhower was during his term of office. Meanwhile, the rural poor of Asia are probably still nowhere nearly as well off as Ike was. They still die of polio.

[angersock]

Right, that part I parsed without issue.

I'd rather see no homeless people on the street (a decently-sized problem in my part of the US) than more homeless people who are still better off than they would be in their old nation.

I'm unconvinced that there exists some sort of moral imperative that we need to seek the suggested path instead of working towards only temporary frictional unemployment and better care for everyone currently in our nation.

[tptacek]

Which way are you taking your reasoning here? If it's moral reasoning, then surely it's better to take a deal that creates a net benefit to our economy in exchange for giving hundreds of thousands of people running water, electricity, and schools for their children. If it's rational reasoning, surely it's better to take whichever deals provide a net benefit to our economy.

[yummyfajitas]

The only "help" I'm proposing is that we allow people to live and work in the US for willing employers.

I don't favor prioritizing the millions of people in the US who already suffer the problem of not being allowed to live and work here - illegal immigrants have already demonstrated a willingness to break our laws.

[angersock]

Wait wait wait... you don't favor helping out the illegal immigrants who are already here with not being allowed to live and work? Because they immigrated without dealing with the broken system?

But we need to bring in still more people who by definition are a worse fit to our country? What?

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm rather baffled by your stance. Illegals are often victims of arbitrary laws, much like recreational drug users.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion in email further if you'd like.

[tptacek]

I don't agree with a lot of what Chris says, but the logic he's using is pretty clear.

There are millions of willing potential immigrants living terrible lives in dire rural poverty without access to running water, antibiotics, or electricity, for whom lives in the United States mowing lawns and cleaning bathrooms would be a dramatic step forwards in quality of life, and an immeasurable improvement for the prospects of their children.

Therefore, it makes sense for us to simultaneously improve millions of lives and staff millions of menial jobs with low-cost labor, as it's a win-win for both sides: a net benefit to our economy, and a gigantic quality of life boost for the laborers.

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of thousands of people already residing in the United States who came here illegally. We have virtually no signals on the suitability of most potential immigrants to life in the US, but the one signal we have from illegal immigrants is "willingness to break the law".

I do not agree with this point for a variety of reasons but it is not a hard point to understand.