IMO, H1Bs should be given out via action style based on salary where the highest bidders (companies that need to fill the positions) get them. That's the only simple way to make sure they are not trying to replace higher cost US workers with lower cost H1B workers who are beholden to their employers every whim over threat of being kicked out.
You don't. If startups want H1B workers they compete on the same level as everyone else. Special treatment is what creates loopholes and leads us down our current path.
I might previously have argued that H-1Bs were causing a domino effect on the rest of US employment - their complete inability to negotiate higher salaries spilled over into the rest of the industry.
However, I see now that such an argument is shortsighted. There is no evidence outside of my own conjecture to support such a thing and my frustration with my own experiences in the industry is causing me to scapegoat H-1Bs instead of taking an objective look at the problems in our industry. While I still may not agree with H-1Bs, it is because I believe that there are qualified Americans that could take those jobs, not because they're harming our industry as a whole.
- An international student graduates at the top of their class in Stanford in CS, and goes to work for a tech company. What visa do they use?
The correct answer is F1 (OPT) for one year, with OPT STEM extension for 2 extra years, while they apply for H-1B. If they weren't a STEM major, regardless of their actual role, they have a single year to apply for H-1B, with a ~30% chance of success, before being asked to leave the country. Regardless of their qualifications.
We all know the H-1B is susceptible to abuse. But it is also the main feasible channel for any international to work in the United States. (Excluding country-specific visas, transfers.)
But shouldn't qualified H-1B applicants be supportive of immigration reform?
I would, if I had any confidence that it would be done well. As things are, changes almost always end up hurting the applicants. See: the recent flood of RFEs. See: the suspension of H-1B premium processing.
The entire lives and livelihoods of immigrant workers, even exceptionally high-skilled ones, hinge upon delicate archaic bureaucracy and paperwork, not to mention politics (see: the fear of the government unilaterally suspending the OPT STEM extension). Introducing further uncertainty to the process almost always makes things worse, and that's why many of us are nervous about any proposed changes.
I agree that when you look at the total number of H-1Bs being awarded vs the size of the total labor market in sofware engineering, it seems unlikely it is having a massive effect.
And if you look at the massive absusers of the system(Toptal, Wipro etc), that use it to lower pay, I feel as though many of those jobs would have instead been outsourced oversees anyway. So at the very least, for a US perspective, the taxes and consumer spending are still partly captured in the US as opposed to another country.
As someone who worked in the US with a H1-B, in my case it was because you'd not find someone with my particular skill at that point in time. I was also paid more than the employees at the company I was contracted to work at - because of my particular skill and I'd taken a pay cut to move to the US.
This is what the H1-B is/was supposed to be like. It does seem that it has been abused.
> in my case it was because you'd not find someone with my particular skill at that point in time.
That's how the program is sold and it's incredibly easy to game. Require 10 years of Swift experience and suddenly the candidate pool is dry. Generally most, if not all, IT job postings list an unrealistic and fictitious skill set.
> I was also paid more than the employees at the company I was contracted to work at
The cost of a Full-time Employee is usually something like 140-160% of their salary. So a contractor making 120% more than an FTE is still cheaper for the employer.
>That's how the program is sold and it's incredibly easy to game. Require 10 years of Swift experience and suddenly the candidate pool is dry. Generally most, if not all, IT job postings list an unrealistic and fictitious skill set.
Can't such abuse be avoided by requiring the "winning" candidate to show that he indeed has 10 years of Swift experience?
>There is no evidence outside of my own conjecture to support such a thing
Every economist believes in supply and demand curves. If there are any H1Bs being awarded to replaceable programmers (as opposed to specialized programmers with no American counterparts, as was the intended use of the system), then wages are being depressed. It's practically a law of physics.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. A pool of 1000 workers won't necessarily earn less than a pool of 100 workers. With higher specialization, they may well earn far more.
However, this assumes that employment is fluid, and that people are allowed to choose a profession or trade that aligns with market signals and their own personal interests and preferences. In short, every citizen who considers becoming a developer int he valley is also free to become a plumber in Duluth or a lawyer in New York City. Or open a scented candle shop, or a surfboard shaping business.
The point of the H1B visa is to create a system where visa restrictions and sunk costs create a pool of workers who aren't allowed to make those choices, and are limited to a few fields where Silicon Valley CEOs have declared a "shortage".
And, astonishingly, many people talk about this shortage without discussing wages, work conditions, career stability, and the other options available to highly skilled people who can choose other professions (you know, those pesky free folk who just won't become developers in the valley at the rates tech CEOs have decided they should).
The US has a really grim history of creating non-free worker classes in order to undermine free labor markets. This is another installment of it, though the H1-B abuses, clearly documented and really bad, are nonetheless minor compared to some of these historical horrors.
Demand for programmers is nowhere more elastic than HackerNews, where startups are being created to hire programmers. Supply is also pretty elastic on HackerNews, where many people are learning to code for the first time. The front page is usually full of examples of elasticity in both supply and demand.
The lump of labor fallacy is equivalent to believing in inelastic demand. However the supply and demand model doesn't depend on inflexibility: its basic highschool formulation involves supply that increases with price and demand that decreases with price. So, no, I don't think the suppply and demand model requires a fixed demand.
The lump-of-labor fallacy arises when people don't realize that increases in the labor, also cause a increase in labor demand. Hence why wages have been rising constantly, and unemployment being steady, despite America's population growing exponentially in the past 300 years.
Please don’t post misinformation. Exponential growth (population or otherwise) is a tired economic trope. The frontier days are over, please update your views to modern times like the past 70 years or so where growth is much more limited than the frontier days and is fairly linear—probably due to the fact that the economy (especially the USA) is a mature system and you can’t so easily apply unnuanced econ101 generalizations (from the previous century) about the lump of labour fallacy to today’s system.
You incorrectly imply that tech jobs will expand organically in a frontier-like or exponential fashion as happened in the past. That doesn’t actually happen in the tech sector. Tech companies seek to exclude alternative hire options from other STEM fields (engineering, science, etc.) because those alternatives would not be as cost efficient. Instead the tech jobs grow linearly (like most mature industries and systems) and only by the annual cap on visas being granted.
How you can tell that there is no absolute shortage of tech labor is that the number tech jobs never grows beyond the visa cap. If there were a shortage, companies would find more creative ways to exceed the cap limits like the above mentioned alternatives or creating training factories to increase the supply to meet organic needs/demand.
So while this mature system is not necessarily a fixed lump of labour, the mature constraints that apply seem to limit any organic growth to the current regime we find ourselves in. That is to say that companies constrain the tech labour system to their very skewed preferences instead of organic growth, and as a result the economic pie is growing less and less, and there is more and more competition over slice distribution. Incumbents are absolutely in direct competition with foreign labour and there is less overall growth to share equitably. Again, not a fixed lump of labour, but increasingly competitive to the point of very limited growth from within.
The reality that is not going to be well received by people here is that you don't seem to understand that the H1B visa is not some exercise in globalist altruism for foreigners over native people in their own homes; it is a ruse, a scam to masquerade the wealth pillage by the ruling class from their own nature middle and working class, by driving down wages and salaries, while also using it to cover up the reality that they are utterly illegitimate and incompetent rulers that did not adequately mange the country and resources to produce the supply of workers they would have needed to meet the demand domestically.
What that translates to the H1B loving crowd here, is that the second the H1B visa and all the other ponzi scheme tactics are no longer profitable to the ruling elite, like if the cost of an H1B were doubled and tripled, as they should be (e.g., must pay the H1B holder triple what a domestic employee would receive, and tax the employee at double the going tax rate, while also paying a $200,000 employment tax along with $200,000 annual visa maintenance costs), you would not see any H1Bs or any immigration. The ruling class are pillaging the working and middle class USA through a kind of leveraged buyout type of con job where they are getting their own people to finance and support their own pillage. It's why the ruling class is so in support of "immigration" because "immigration" makes the ruling class wealthier and more powerful as a matter of marginal increase through every "immigrant" that is imported to pillage wealth and opportunities from the native population.
But I get it, as long as people here are largely benefiting and getting wealthy from the exploitation, the exploitation is invisible to most. Not even to mention the detrimental effects of skill concentration by extracting and draining the most driven and motivated and educated from their respective countries, whether they are Nicaragua or France. All but the centralizing power are degraded by immigration and no rationalization or delusion will change that reality.
Have you had first experience with H1-B employees?
There definitely is inertia on moving companies for higher wage. However in my experience the public posting of title and salary has lifted net wages as it provides transparency on wages that otherwise would be kept hidden from employees.
Immigrants are what built the US recently (after the real Americans... the native ones). Why close the gates now? Please don't use them (or us; though I'm not in the US) as scapegoats; this is not just.
No one should have a privilege to employment. You and your potential employer shall have the right to associate freely.
They should be seen just as regular competitors [with really hard barriers of entry]. If anything, blame the state agencies for making their lives worse and yours more unpredictable because by the blink of an eye, they can make the market go one direction or another, unjustly.
We should end these artificial barriers. Not blame the victims (that includes not only the immigrants but also locals who can't figure out the real market forces both to plan their careers and to make hiring decisions).
What other artificial employment barriers do you advocate removing? They may not all be just or implemented particularly well, but I think there are some (e.g., child labour, work-health standards, etc.) that make sure the economy is serving society and not the other way around.
I know you're not the parent commenter, but is your issue with the intent of the policy (presumably, to manage immigration) or with the implementation of said policy (via a lottery based system)?
Yes, a preference system similar to the Canadian one, which has a points system based on a variety of factors. Especially factoring in the fields with the most need and also education level (or equivalent experience that is actually verified). That is a more clearer approach than a lottery based one. This is what I would suggest if I was American.
Speaking as a non-American:
I have issues with the intent too, because I am not happy about the fact that this is a country developed by immigrants, yet there is anti-immigrant sentiment. People have to 'prove' themselves to get in, and even there's no guarantee of success there with clear goalposts, and only extra-ordinary ability people (O-1 visa) can get in without much headache. A bit like locking the door behind you IMO.
I want to say that I understand the problems unrestricted immigration will place on the country. However, there is a position that will allow many more immigrants than current immigrant visa system allows for, and we are not close to that.
I believe the reason is that people aren't comfortable possibly having their salaries drop by a small percent. The hypocrisy is what really gets to me though. America is touted as a free market economy, especially by the Republicans who fight for less government intervention in business, yet they're the ones advocating for tighter immigration controls which is the opposite of free market.
Apologies if this seems like a rant. You might not get what I'm trying to convey because you probably not know the feeling of being dealt the shitty hand of being born in a place that isn't a first world country.
I'd disagree on the salaries drop. Imagine if poor immigrants weren't allowed in the US. Bathrooms wouldn't clean itself (maybe in Japan?). What would happen is that many more Americans would be working on entry-level jobs than currently: this is something hard to see because we take what we have for granted, and seeing what we wouldn't have is harder. Another point is that we produce just a couple of things our whole lives, but consume hundred of thousands. The more diverse the knowledge, expertise, and wish to work of people around us, the better we tend to be.
I don't disagree with you, and actually phrased it as a 'possible' situation, not a definite one.
There is also another way of looking at it, that I actually believe, which is that immigrants create more jobs than they take in the long term (not talking generations). If you look at the big startups right now and even the Fortune 500, you'll find that many are founded by first generation immigrants, and a lot more second generation immigrants.
However, your Joe six-pack doesn't see that far, and neither has the long term health of America in mind, because if he did, he would venture out to think more critically. He's worried about what is going to happen to his job a year or two from now. Unfortunately, that affects policy to a greater effect, because that affects who he votes for and what political platform he agrees with.
I'll end this discussion with my opinion that specific immigration policies like the H1-B can hurt avg. salary because they tie the employee to the company. And the company can abuse this by paying a lower wage than market rate.
The solution to this is to allow free movement within companies without fear of being kicked out, and you won't see the abuse everyone brings up when they talk about H1-B. I haven't seen a proper discussion about this on HN. The discussion almost always oscillates between two entirely different topics, one of which is if we should allow immigrants to come in and work at all, and the other topic being how staffing companies abuse the lottery system and inflexibility of the H1-B visa.
What about if we move this discussion to focus on how you fear people from poor countries might have the competency to be your competitor in the job market?
I used to make just USD 5-10 an hour as a senior software engineer before joining a company in another country. I have no sympathy for people who were born in a developed country and feels entitled to get a job I could possibly get just because I wasn't born there. Sure, locals should be valued, but that doesn't mean you should forbid people from outside a geopolitical area to compete with fairness.
Mind your own business instead of tyring to regulate other people businesses through the government as you were a soviet. If you like communism so much and want to have the state control the employement market, why don't you move to North Korea?
Now, instead of trying to show how a heartless libertarian am I, what about if you expose why you think you have a right to force people to hire you instead of letting them choose between you and me?
This type of reaction doesn't reflect on you very well and doesn't generally fit with the HN guidelines to provide substantive discussion while assuming good faith. I'm sorry you were paid poorly. The unfortunate reality is that we are often paid commensurate with our ability to negotiate and not necessarily based on our skill.
With that said, you made an awful lot of assumptions based on a single comment. I am honestly curious about what (if any) regulations you feel are necessary and which you do not.
I'll help make the discussion easier. Trimming the snark out of your comment, it sounds like you'd rather favor a merit-based immigration policy. What do you think is the best way to implement that?
You say my comment doesn't reflect on me very well. Very well, except my comment was exactly trying to make you see you were doing exactly this: you suggested I'd be for using child labor for something [preposterously dangerous like mining arsenic, I guess].
I don't favor a merit-based migration policy. I favor free markets. Free trade or free migration should be the norm. I don't believe in the central government. This isn't something to be 'implemented'. In actually, most the state does is to hinder immigration by those who would provide great value to the society. If you are uneducated and have not much to lose, it doesn't make much difference for you to migrate to somewhere where you will end up with the lower-income jobs, and there is nothing bad with it. You even freed a person born in a wealthier place to go work on something better for themselves. This is how you end up seeing people from some ethnics working as janitors more often than even americans, in the USA. This is good for both the immigrant [who are willing to spend, say, ten years working illegally] and to the local people. However, the people with higher education will likely just go somewhere else (like me) if you don't let them work legally there, then you have something like a brain drain. The only difference is that the brains weren't there in the first place, so you won't notice much what you are losing [1].
My comment was not suggesting you were in favor of child labour. It was merely enumerating a couple examples of labour regulations that, in general, society has been in favor of enforcing, just as some are in favor of enforcing certain immigration policies. I was asking which, if any, you were in favor of; I was asking because, unlike you, I was not bold enough to presume I knew where you stand.
I can tell this discussion is very personal to you but it doesn't help discourse to jump to such conclusions.
The staunchly libertarian stance ironically seems to have some of the same shortfalls as those holding the communist perspective that you railed against. Namely, they only seem to work well in theory rather than practice. There appears to be some pushback in countries where constituents feel they have too loose of an immigration policy. In those cases, many have not felt liberated by the influx of immigration like your comment predicted. So I was curious if you had a nuanced perspective on where the appropriate balance lies.
For those without a nuanced vantage point (to quote HL Mecken), "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." Unfortunately, it seems like there are people on both sides of the debate lacking that understanding.
Why should I as a member of local labour pool support globalizing my own competition? With globalized competition will come global wages, and I outright cannot survive living here on a global wage. 5-10/h doesn't cover food+shelter for me
You don't need to support it. What you don't have a right to do is to try to use the state to prohibit it. If you want to buy local, it's your prerogative, and there is nothing wrong with your choice. However, if your neighbor wants to buy from elsewhere, it's theirs as well, and this is valid for both buying bananas or engineer work.
Are you using "Your neighbour" as a way of saying "another member of your local labour pool"? It isn't obvious to me that there would be anybody rational in the local labour pool who would willingly argue in favour of reducing their earning potential through moving bargaining balance towards capital by globalizing labour competition.
I mean why should ANY worker want to make less and thus have lower standards of living. Just doesn't make much sense to me.
If they live in the United States they have a right to use the state to prohibit it. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances (whether real or perceived).
In the words of the Copley First Amendment Center, "People have the right to appeal to government in favor of or against policies that affect them or in which they feel strongly. This freedom includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation"
I agree with the above comment, people who are complaining against h1b driving wages down, should know that the companies that hire h1bs or any one else at lower salary in general are meant for profit right?. In a country based on capitalism, how could someone force the corporations to spend more than they need to?.
Having said that I strongly think that people usually exaggerate the effects of h1b on wages and employment for natives in general.
If I were a VC I would invest huge in Mexico City talent development. Far more under-trained talent there and same time zone so remote from MC is temporally seamless.
From my experience, it's actually kind of easy to find English speakers here. That's why a lot of US-based tech companies are opening up teams here or recruiting people from here. The government's uncertainty has not affected business for this particular case.
Border town developer here. Indeed, there's a ton of talent in Mexico's border towns (specially in Mexicali and Tijuana), highly qualified and with decent bilingual skills.
This article is comparing the average salary of junior engineers (because H-1B employees tend to be junior, they move off of H-1B into green cards after a few years) with the average salary of software engineers as a whole.
Junior in the industry, or junior to doing work in the US on a visa?
I'm nearly a decade into my career and considering taking up work in the US coming from Canada -- is there a better way of starting work in the US as a dev?
You do realize that this generalization can't possibly be true?
H-1B are reserved for "highly skilled immigrants" carrying out skilled work. You won't find kitchen staff, taxi drivers or librarians on H-1Bs. As a company, junior engineers simply aren't worth the time and effort that comes with sponsoring H-1Bs. Software isn't an "ass in seat" industry - sponsoring juniors simply isn't worth it.
> "You do realize that the "highly skilled" part has been systematically ignored for a couple decades now?"
Is that a fact? "Ignored" by whom, and how exactly?
Applicants must prove they are indeed exceptionally skilled. Sponsoring employers must prove the candidates are skilled. The petitions involve CVs, references from colleagues, diplomas, supporting evidence, interviews, all kinds of proof. Are you saying it's all just bullshit?
Look, we've all met "bad" software engineers. But how much of it is simply subjective judgement? You can't possibly claim those are people coming here on a free pass.
For what it's worth, I've met plenty of mediocre "natives". Maybe it's just the talent pool.
> "It's the employers bending and breaking the rules and regulators not enforcing them"
Those are serious accusations, coming with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
You can't possibly claim rules are being broken at scale when it comes to bringing in skilled migrants into the US. That just rings like xenophobic scaremongering.
>The outsourcing companies argued that the law would apply to them only if the American workers who were displaced by visa holders they hired had originally been their employees, not Disney’s. Judge Presnell was persuaded by that argument, although he did not entirely reject the idea that the Americans were “adversely affected” by being fired.
>>The decision was a broad victory for Disney and its contractors, but Judge Presnell left the former workers a small window to amend their lawsuits and to try again.
The lower court’s decision was based on a literal technicality loophole in the regulation where two companies are involved instead of one. An appeal was left open where a higher court may choose to use more leeway in interpreting the spirit and intent of the law and whether that technicality is skirting the law.
Please don’t post misinformation and straw man arguments instead of the OP’s intent.
H1-B is a form of servitude. As a product manager who lead a team of primarily H1-B engineers at a large bank in DC area, the most challenging thing I saw from my H1-B colleagues was how the H1-B visa essentially forces really talented and amazing engineers from venturing off to more interesting opportunities at smaller companies who do not have the money or legal team to support H1-B employees.
My former colleagues are all limited by their employment opportunities and could really only go to a handful of very very large firms that would sponsor their visa's. It limits their employment opportunities and it limits their mobility.
> And when we compare the job titles to earnings, it appears companies really are simply using the visa program to save a bit of money on contracted tech professionals.
This seems like the lump of labour fallacy being applied here. It's not like there are many devs really struggling to find work in the US. Rather, the opposite program exists: there are almost no software shops that aren't hiring.
Not sure how you jump to “lump of labour fallacy” here when the article was discussing wage suppression. This trope is beyond tired and misused. Please stop spreading misinformation.
one common and huge mistake people make when talking about salary is that people assume these are typical pre-tax US based salaries. in reality the salaries that you see here and those that are posted all over the news are probably the pay given to a contracting firm. sometimes they provide the pay given to the contractors. nobody is making it clear what salary is being referred to. it's most likely the money being paid to a contracting firm. this means that you need divide the number by 1/2 to get the money paid to the contractor. then you need to factor out health insurance, pension, and other expenses related to being a contractor before you can even start comparing it to the salary of a US citizen.
These contractors typically comes from a country that have social programs that will provide them with a pension and medical coverage if they ever get sick or retire. so they can severely undercut their US counterpart who needs to earn more to cover up for the lack of public social programs in the US.
this whole program requires that the h1b visa worker is at the level or above the level of their US counterpart. this creates a very disturbing incentive with regards to the US educational system. the decline of the us public educational system coincides with the advent of this whole program. plus I don't believe there's a limit on student visas which are being abused in the same way to fill academia with cheap foreign labor.
the other thing the program incentivize is over inflating unemployment numbers and other economic indicators. you can't justify the hiring of h1b or the expansion of the program if the unemployment numbers are high. of course the recent low unemployment numbers turned out to be a sham considering how the fed fund rates were lowered and inversion of the yield curve.
H1B visas have their place but all software and IT related positions should not be specialty occupations that are allowed to apply for H1Bs. That would hopefully reduce the abuse.
I'm generally suspicious of the H1-B program, mainly because I don't like programs that empower corporations to decide who is or isn't allowed to enter and work in the United States. That's bad. And I despise programs that allow corporations to determine the circumstances under which would be immigrants are allowed to remain in the US. This highly coercive relationship undermines almost everything that needs to work about a free market economy.
If I don't like a company's technical test, they can decide I won't become an employee. The should not decide that I won't get to live and work in the US. If I don't like a company's mandatory implicit bias training program of, they can decide I will no longer be an employee. I They should not decide that I will no longer be allowed to live in the US and must leave within a few weeks or jeopardize my future right to return. If I don't like my company's donations to the trump administration or position against same sex marriage, I should be able to leave the company without jeopardizing my right to remain in the US. The same goes for raises, telecommuting, open offices. I actually think that some of this gets rammed down our throats because a substantial percentage of software developers are negotiating with an employer who control their application for green cards and can have them deported if they get too uppity.
Ideally, we would have an immigration system that is independent of employer control. All citizens or residents are free and full members of the workforce, free to choose their career and life path according to their own interests and abilities. If someone decides becoming a developer in the Valley isn't a good deal, they can become a plumber in Duluth. You know, like, freedom.
Some people argue that we should award green cards directly. This would solve some of the problems, but it would still allow employers to demand a high sunk cost prior to immigrating. Someone might prefer to be a lawyer, journalist, or scented candle boutique owner, but if we attach immigration rights to studying STEM and perhaps getting a grad degree, the sunk costs do limit life freedom choices. So better would be to simply determine a level of immigration (I'm ok with a high one, I am not shocked by the concept of limits, and I think this issue is orthogonal to whether corporate HR departments or investors control the choice of who is allowed to enter).
Now, on a practical level... I get it. We're all in competition for the world's skilled workers, some types of immigrants do place a burden on government services (elderly people coming from poverty may place costs on the health care system and never pay a dime in). Canada, a country lauded by progressives, clearly favors younger, skilled, educated people fluent in French or English (I'm 48, I'd get zero points for age on their migration skills assessment).
So, as a practical matter, I do think that the US should have a skilled immigration preference, and I do think that this will please corporations and investors and universities. Ok. But watch out. Anyone who has watched the way universities treat grad students in STEM, anyone who has watched how companies abused the H1-B, anyone who has paid attention must know that you absolutely can not trust these organizations to do the right thing.
As a practical matter, there will be limits on people who are at risk of becoming a burden on the state, and preferences for the kind of people Zuckerburg wants to hire and feels he's paying too much for (and a bias against the sort of people who would compete with lawmakers - i.e., foreign lawyers). For example, Obama is a lawyer, and when he came on out to Silicon Valley, he met with CEOs. They're going to work out something nice for everyone at the table. Let's not be naive, an element of this is is what we're going to get.
But whatever the plan is, it is absolutely essential to preserve the personal freedom that underlies all properly functioning labor markets. For now, the H1-B fails that test miserably, absolutely miserably.
Agreed. Letting companies bind workers' abilities to remain in the country they'd like to live in is painfully similar to letting dictatorships bind people into indentured servitude.
There is a big difference though in that H1B workers do have a right of exit from
the US. They can seek employment in their home country or other places with skilled immigration programs.
I’m fairly confident people who read my above comment will see the context for this qualification and know that I see this program as abusive. It does mean a workers right to leave an employer is very limited. It is possible to find a new sponsor and remain the us (though frankly that kind of talk makes me a little ill, the notion that to leave a job a worker needs a new corporation’s permission to remain, and choose from a restricted range of employers and job titles).
But that right of exit does help avoid some of the really horrifying violations of basic human rights that accompanied earlier incarnations of suppression of free labor mobility.
No. Federalism creates most of the problems in the US: drug wars, invasions overseas, absurd military expending, reduced comparative advantages between states, the evil patents system, expensive medical care, etc.
The more concentrated the state apparatus, the more powerful the government and the less free and poor the people are.
--
correction: I meant centralized power, not federalism.
I think you're misunderstanding what Federalism is.
FEDERALISM is the decentralization of the state apparatus - the idea that instead of one massive central government, you reserve certain powers to for the individual local or regional governments (States, in the US parlance)...which is what I believe the comment you're replying to is calling for.
The FEDERAL government is, in the US system, the massive central government, which is what I believe you're railing against.
It seems you think "federalism" means "the national [federal] government has all the power". This is a reasonable intuitive read of the word, but it's the exact opposite of what the word actually means, and your read doesn't make sense in context of the comment you are replying to.
Federalism refers to a system where two or more levels of government share power with explicit powers granted to each: the opposite of concentrating the state apparatus.
