Great for shareholders, not great for workers. Who has the most exposure to gains from productivity growth? Not most Americans. Making America more productive and richer only matters if the gains from that are taxed to provide broadly for its citizens.

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/when-comparing-wages...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling_of_wages_from_produ...

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-visual-breakdown-of-who-o...

▲

joules77 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nothing is permanent. Once upon a time investors loved the Steel magnates and Railway tycoons. Today its these tech companies.

But by themselves they don't solve structural problems.

For example - On the Housing front, Tech has made construction and design more efficient, but housing costs keep skyrocketing due to demand vs supply, zoning laws, speculative investing etc

On the Medical front it has given us all kinds of advances but cost of healthcare in the U.S., keeps rising due to high admin costs, expensive pharma drugs, and private systems that maximize profit etc.

On the Edu front, everyone has free access to infinite info but costs to educate and certify anyone's skill and knowledge is keeps jumping.

So Tech is not causing any great structural changes. It doesn't live up to its hype.

The system is just rebalancing. By its self.

▲

SilverElfin 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A stronger economy also leads to strength in currency which benefits most Americans. Also most Americans can choose to invest in tech companies to benefit from the H1B program as shareholders. They also just benefit from the existence of these products and services.

▲

toomuchtodo 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Sixty percent of Americans cannot afford a basic quality of life on their income in the US [1] [2]. They cannot "choose to invest in tech companies." They barely have enough cashflow to survive, let alone seek exposure to securities. They need their wages to go up, full stop. A stronger currency is actually a curse, not a benefit, for the American people. If the US cannot borrow inexpensively anymore due to currency weakness, it would rein in tax cuts for the wealthy [3] and spending almost $1T/year (and roughly the same for debt service) on a military unnecessarily [4] funded with debt. It would also make US exports more attractive.

Amazon, Citi, JP Morgan Chase, FAANG, Walmart, Tesla, Oracle and the other usual suspects will be fine if the H-1B program is materially impaired [5] [6].

Most Americans are not benefiting from this system, and so, there is little value in protecting it in my opinion. If another country or company invents the next big thing, copy it. "You can just do things." China has almost mastered reusable space vehicles, for example, no SpaceX required. India can use Zoho instead of Microsoft today if they wish [7] (and probably should).

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cost-of-living-income-quality-o...

[2] https://lisep.org/mql

[3] https://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbo-estimates-3-trillion-debt-hou...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...

[5] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/04/what-we-k...

[6] https://www.pewresearch.org/?attachment_id=201754

[7] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45361713

▲

SilverElfin 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re assuming the talent exists locally. It doesn’t. Companies aren’t doing H1B for savings. This is a myth.

> A stronger currency is actually a curse, not a benefit

It’s more purchasing power.

	▲	toomuchtodo 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> You’re assuming the talent exists locally. It doesn’t. Companies aren’t doing H1B for savings. This is a myth. The evidence shows this is false. If it wasn't for cost savings, companies could eat the $100k one time H-1B fee (lifetime employee generated revenue - lifetime total employee costs). I am asking you to prove the assertion that the talent does not exist domestically within the US. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > It’s more purchasing power. This is less necessary forward looking with global decoupling and de-globalization. Citations, again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45305623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42454509
	▲	oatsandsugar 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		if you don't tariff imports lol