In the same way that California allowing workers from other states. Some industries already have state-specific licensing requirements, maybe the software industry should too, to keep the riff-raff from flyover country from lowering their wages.

There is no doubt that the software engineering discipline is plagued by passionless amateurs. I welcome the next dot-com collapse, as only those who love their craft will remain, while the rest chase the next gravy train.

>I welcome the next dot-com collapse, as only those who love their craft will remain

No you don't. It's painful for the good ones too.

I'll admit my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Allowing competition between whites and negroes (by ending Jim Crow, Davis Bacon and similar laws) also encourages a race to the bottom. Do you have any principled reason for opposing those laws?

(Note: I'm not calling you "racist" - that's a slur that has lost all meaning these days. I'm taking a policy I'm pretty sure you oppose and asking you for a principled reason why you oppose it.)

Perhaps this ideology has been lost these days, but I believe a country has an obligation to provide services and a high quality of life to its citizens (aka taxpayers) before anyone else. Importing employees to fill roles (which local workers could do) cannibalises the taxpayer-funded foundations on which these companies were built.

H1-B's pay taxes to the state and the federal government too.

The Jim Crow laws were a government favoring some of its citizens over other citizens, whereas these laws favor citizens over foreigners. In my opinion, it is a country's duty to place its own people first, but in the end it's up to the electorate.

This is favoring some of its citizens (certain classes of workers) over other citizens (buyers in general, workers affected by reciprocal changes by other countries, etc).

Those are secondary effects, and it is very much debatable who they favour. I would argue reducing the labour pool gives workers a stronger bargaining position, and thus better wages, reducing the rising income inequality.

That would only be true if it gave better wages to people below the median. If you give better wages to people above the median, you increase inequality.

Median? Why not average? Is it because the vast majority of wealth is held by the absurdly rich, and using the median allows you to largerly ignore that?

It doesn't really matter - median household income is $72k while median is $56k.

According to pretty much any commonly used definition of inequality, giving more money to >$100k/year software engineers will increase inequality.

"giving more money to ... will increase inequality."

You're defining "income inequality" as only in relation to the median or average income. That is too simple to make any sense. By that model, I could have 1000 people making $1/hr, 10 people making $10/hr, and 1 person making $2000/hr. This puts the average at $3/hr. And so you say protecting the $10/hr people's salaries from being artificially suppressed increases income inequality because you've arbitrarily defined the line at the average income.

Also, you're ignoring where the money is coming from, so any math in your mental model is flawed. I would hope this discussion isn't about creating money and giving it to >$100k/year engineers, but rather the business owners with capital paying market rates instead of having a way to suppress skilled labor salaries by exploiting weaker economies and tethering foreign employees for upwards of 9 years before they can finally correct their salary and working conditions (hint: I've worked with a few people who have been exploited like this).

This whole us-vs-them scam of pitting everyone in the middle and lower class against themselves that the media/business/etc. has been doing (probably for longer than I've been alive) is amazingly effective...

Most people want and value many of the same things and greatly outnumber our overlords, but somehow we're always pointing the finger at each other ("you're just lazy", "you're just racist", "a true <blank> would/wouldn't <blank>", "check your privilege", etc.). And all the while, the powers that be siphon away money and power and continue to set the stage in their favor.

In my opinion, it's a race's duty to place it's own people first. (Not actually my opinion, but for the sake of argument...)

What principle makes your favored accident of birth ok to discriminate on, but not mine?

So, according to your philosophy, I could go to Saudi Arabia and claim an oil well?

What is your principle? Anarchism, world government, no borders? I honestly do not understand your point.

> So, according to your philosophy, I could go to Saudi Arabia and claim an oil well?

No, but you should be given a fair chance to arrive legally and legally buy land and legally search for oil. Not just take something that belongs to others, which is a violation of property rights.

He is basically trying to bring out the point that an accident of birth should not be the basis for discrimination. He is doing that by making analogies that are uncomfortable rather than stating it outright. That is his point :).

Why should a people be forced to put up their ancestral lands on the international market for exploitation by others? Because otherwise the West will bomb them?

No, because they in turn, should be given access to purchase your ancestral lands, if they are on their market.

You are unfortunately re-framing the question as some sort of property grab like the parent. Let me repeat: I do NOT condone anyone usurping property by force. My point is to illustrate the principle of making it available on a global market in a reciprocal way.

The fact that the institutions you are born under (like government) are real and race isn't (http://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6943461/race-social-construct-...).

Are you suggesting India become the 51st state of America?

All your reasons why race isn't real is simply because legal/cultural definitions of it can change dependent on legal and social norms.

So can the idea of "Americanness" - either laws around citizenship/work permission/etc, or cultural/social norms around this.

I'll take a stab: the world is fundamentally unfair to a certain extent...but we want to reduce that. In a perfect world, there should be no restrictions on immigration. However, we live in a world with vast inequalities and differences in culture, wealth etc. So while nationalism is unfair we live with it for now. Racism is analogous, but it concerned people within the US border, governed by US law, already part of US society, and its important for the fairness within the country and society that it be eliminated (not to mention that minorities did protest against institutional racism....and they could not be deported as they are US citizens).

American = has citizenship. Conferred by the very real US citizenship and immigration service.

That isn't a particularly unclear definition.

The US has had clear definitions of race in the past - e.g. "1/16 or more". If we adopt such a definition, will you drop your objections to legalized racism? If not, why not?

It's ok, we've discussed this before. I don't expect anything other than evasion of the core philosophical issue.

The point I made very clearly before is the same as the one I made now.

If you are a US citizen, subject to US laws enforced by the very real institution of the US government which you live under, the US government owes you a living.

If you are, say, a Mongolian citizen, the US government doesn't owe you a living.

Your opinion was apparently that the US owes Mongolian citizens the same thing it owes US citizens, because... reasons.

If you are of any particular race that is an irrelevance. An irrelevance you keep bringing up because you are obsessed with race to a point that is frankly disturbing.

Government and race are certainly both social constructs.

This is an anti-science position.

Good question. I would say, collective ownership. A country can be thought of as 'owned' by its people, with the rules of ownership agreed upon by the owners themselves (everyone owns an equal share -> 1 person 1 vote, ownership may not be transfered, but is given upon being born in the country or to an owner, and so on). This way, a country reduces to property. Should not the owners of property be free to manage it in their own favour?

In that case, I suppose it's reasonable for a historically white suburb (with all white owners) to create rules for themselves that keep blacks out?

That way, a municipality reduces to property. Should not the owners of property be free to manage it in their own favor?

It is not. Nothing in the thought experiment implies the laws of the country are not superior to those of the municipality. And as those laws require the country to treat all its citizens equaly and/or explicitly forbid discrimination, a municiaplity could not legally create such rules.

This is not a hypothetical - the collective ownership way of thinking applies just fine to the US, where such discrimination was ruled illegal.

Sure, but why stop the collective ownership at the border? Why not have everyone have a share of the whole world?

What is the fundamental difference that makes "municipality : country" nonanalogous to "country : world"?

We don't have a world government.

Do you need anything more than government should be enacting the will of its citizens?

Seems to me that's the most principled stance one can take.