Simple as that. There is a social contract that exists and that holds together the civic tissue of this country. Of course, some companies are going to try cheating it. That's fine, it is the reason we also have law enforcement agencies.
In the case of UCSF, a public University that almost exclusively relies on public funding to survive. I think people have an overwhelming amount of reasons to be pissed off.
Engineering talent (in US and other countries) is also a byproduct of that society's investment into educating its children. Arguably graduate education is also funded by tax payer money in these countries. So when US firms hire an engineer from India or China, they essentially are getting an engineer without funding his education.
> There is a social contract that exists and that holds together the civic tissue of this country. Of course, some companies are going to try cheating it.
Seeking merit (searching for a person who can do the job at a competitive price point) is not cheating. If UCSF does not offer good courses at great prices someone else will. That someone else could very well be a Indian or a Chinese university.
Alternative view to that is that any entity seeking public funds should be frugal with those funds.
Would you accept a tax and tuition increase to double (or triple, or quadruple) everyone's pay at UCSF?
The 15 lac/year requirement doesn't even apply to ethnic chefs and language teachers.
("15 lac" is 15 lakh is 1.5 million rupees, which is around $22,500 at the moment.)
"to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
If you're going to advocate policies that reduce the compensation middle class workers can receive, don't be shocked when they vote for a candidate promising to stop free trade agreements. A government exists to protect the quality of life of its citizens.
Do you know what the current population of the US is compared to 100 years ago? And yet, we're much better off now.
Economics is not a zero sum game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Here are a few companies founded by immigrants or their children:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-per...
It is almost universally the case that when someone says "economists think X" they actually refer to a group of academics belonging to a specific school of thought which defends that particular position. Not that scholarly consensus does not matter, just a reminder that in certain fields those questions become so highly ideological that you simply cannot treat them as a math question on which you can definitely rule one thesis or another.
Opinions like this is what caused Brexit to occur, and what will probably get Donald Trump elected.
Since it's a positive sum game, you could share the gains with the few people who lose out from immigration or trade, or automation (which is probably more important than the others) and still have some left over.
Or yeah, you could get all protectionist and watch the economy whither.
And if it does whither, that's a choice the US citizenry might be satisfied with.
Right, it'd take a while.
[1] http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president
Are you 12?
The rent is taken from domestic consumers.
In much the same way, Jim Crow/Davis Bacon/similar laws are also a form of rent seeking.
To you they are funny brown people who pull "our" wages down. To me, they are simply Kadambari, Ankur or even "that drunk lady from Bar Stock Exchange last night". Your faceless economic threat is for me a nice lady who loves her dog or the new office boy who is surprised when a firang speaks Hindi.
Perhaps that does warp my opinion.