Don't focus on the nepotism aspect specifically, but rather that job group in one distinct, identifiable population (my kid or H1Bs) grew at a far higher rate than for the general (not my kids or not H1Bs) employment market, despite the latter experiencing more absolute growth.

▲

C-x_C-f 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I still don't see what the issue is.

Consider two scenarios:

1. H-1Bs get massively reduced over the next five years. Tech sector crisis ensues due to market shocks. Foreign workers decrease. American workers go up by 25% (~2.5M).

2. H-1B numbers stay as is. Tech sector relatively unperturbed. Foreign workers increase by 50% (~1.3M). American workers increase by 30% (~3M).

Wouldn't you argue that 2 is preferable to 1?

(I'm not saying that a crisis will happen if H-1Bs end, I'm just presenting two scenarios with different relative increases that I believe prove my point)

▲

sokoloff 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are you asking if I would prefer a tech market that didn't experience a crisis over one that did and from my answer of "of course I do", believe that proves some unrelated point?

	▲	C-x_C-f 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The relevant variable here is the increase in jobs. The crisis in my example is just some exogenous variable. I'm genuinely trying to understand your point. In my view, if one cared more about difference in relative increases inter-group rather than absolute differences intra-group, then scenario 1 would be preferable.

▲

hilsdev 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I too am capable of semi random number generation