| ▲ | danny_codes 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
> The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections. A valid critique of how globalism was implemented in the US. However, this concern could be heavily ameliorated by policy. For example, making US companies using foreign labor adhere to the same labor standards they must adhere to domestically. Perhaps a reason you’re baffled is because you are thinking only of domestic labor instead of global labor. Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | heyjamesknight 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis. This is an insanely modern take on "pro-labor" movements, especially in the US. Traditionally, pro-labor has been 100% focused on local labor. If you told your average union member that being "pro-labor" meant closing their factories and offshoring their jobs they'd laugh (or more likely, spit) in your face. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | DrewADesign 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> making US companies using foreign labor adhere to the same labor standards they must adhere to domestically. There are already rules in place but no real enforcement. Large software companies save a fortune making workers compete with workers from countries that have dramatically lower cost of living, entirely circumventing the market constraints that favor workers. In hiring the people the H1B was designed for, 100k is nothing. > Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis. This is a disingenuous argument. Allowing companies to pocket a huge amount of money that would have gone to the people they laid off to hire H1Bs with common skill sets is not pro labor by any measure. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||