We have large swaths of underemployed Americans but it costs companies too much to recondition them, so they prefer new bodies over training the domestic workforce.

This should be an opportunity for the likes of YC to double down on extending their know how to American women, American minorities and other underprivileged Americans, but instead they bemoan how a few foreigners are affected all the while ignoring how those same countries might treat not only foreigners, but their own minorities.

That said, it's absurd to focus on individual identity groups. All who are willing to work and develop the necessary skills required by the market are deserving of employment irrespective of their demographic identity.

I'll give you the often conservative advice:

Tough luck? pull yourself up by your own boot straps! Go to school. Go back to school. Work hard, and interview with Google/Amazon/Microsoft again.

And stop perpetuating the idea that you are at a disadvantage because of immigrants and refugees. If you end up with a job at Apple or eBay or Expedia btw, remember that your livelihood was made possible because of the hard work of immigrants and refugees.

Xiaomi, tencent, alibaba. Not fist to market. All doing well. All done with a very predominant domestic labor force.

My point, is it's not do much the foreigner, or even the local, but the opportunities made available by your domestic economy.

They can move, but not easily. It'd be easier to just open satellite offices.

There will be specific Americans who benefit less than specific immigrants, but the net effect of immigration has pretty much always been a benefit to the economy.

Why should we put the interests of specific Americans ahead of the interests of Americans overall?

But with re Americans over other Americans, yes, it makes sense to handicap underprivileged Americans. Give them a leg up on education, training, tax breaks, etc. before we even begin to think of how we can benefit foreigners.

Yes, I'm saying that it doesn't accomplish the stated goal. Restrictive immigration policy is worse than a more welcoming policy when you consider the impact on all existing Americans. Immigration is the better policy for Americans, it's just that the benefit is spread out across more people than the downside, so it is easy to think otherwise.

As far as retraining and such, we should seek to design such things so that they are highly available and are beneficial to the United States as a whole regardless of whether you train an immigrant or a first, second, third, or fourth (or fifth or sixth or seventh) generation American.

W/re training. America is responsible for training our own, I don't think we should think we should off load that job to say Canada, and in the same way people's home countries should be responsible for their own citizens wellbeing and development. We cannot be responsible for nor absorb the deficiencies by other countries with respect to their own citizens, in effect subsidizing malgovernance.

So yes, you are wrong, both about the impact of immigration here and the impact of closed borders elsewhere.

With the training I see it as a utilitarian issue. If training someone is a net benefit to the US I don't care where they were born. I certainly don't want to leave the benefit sitting on the table just because they weren't born here.

But often not per worker-hour.

[1] https://loc.gov/law/help/points-based-immigration/index.php

Well, tell that to the Native Americans, who were nearly exterminated by immigration.

> Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works.

First of all, that's not how every other country works, then besides that America is mostly empty space and Americans will benefit from the system before foreigners because they have been there longer, have more starting capital (which is the biggest lever you can have) and tend to know the rules better so they can be worked to their advantage.

Early America lacked a lot of skilled laborers. England was opposed to allowing skilled workers to emigrate to the US for fear of the US competing with England. The preferred the US to provide them with cheap agricultural goods in exchange for high-priced steel, tools, and weapons.

It wasn't until the mid 1800s that the US began work on the first steel mill because they couldn't get the expertise necessary to build one. At the time, Britain produced about half of all steel consumed in the world, once the US finally imported the skills necessary to produce steel, Britain's share of the global plunged by half.

I'm certain this story can be repeated for many more industries throughout history, from chemistry, rockets, medicine, and technology. So yes, America has always needed immigrants.

The people that needed the skilled laborers were immigrants themselves.

By the way, the very best way to stop immigration is to make other countries wealthy.

The growth the US economy throughout its history was driven heavily by immigration.

The Native Americans had an economy too.

> The growth the US economy throughout its history was driven heavily by immigration.

Yes, because of the increase in demand for goods by those immigrants who brought their money/gold/silver if they had it but very little in terms of goods, and if they didn't have anything they immediately went to work in order to make ends meet.

Immigration is good for the economy, which is exactly the conclusion I want you to reach but from the increased demand point of view rather than from the myth that the majority of immigrants in the past were skilled labor (they were rather, on the whole immigrating because of a bleak outlook on their situation in their home countries due to religious persecution or outright poverty, the skilled craftsmen were making good money back where they lived and were much more free in their choices to emigrate or not and contributed only a very small number to the total stream of immigrants).

The Native Americans had an economy, yes. But the economy was much, much bigger after immigration. That's my entire point: immigration fueled economic growth in America.

Skilled labor (and investment capital) played a major part. From horticulturalist to provide plants for early agriculture, to carpenters and ship builders in Boston (and later steel and tools makers), to the physicists and engineers fleeing Europe during the World Wars, to the technology people today. All of these people contributed to the technological growth and dominance of the US.

If none of these immigrants were skilled, the US would look more like China or India than it does.

We're going to have to differ on that.

> The Native Americans had an economy, yes. But the economy was much, much bigger after immigration.

But native Americans did not necessarily benefit from that larger economy, in fact, in a very measurable way did the opposite. Mostly because the immigrants were exactly that which the current ones are unjustly accused of (being murderous bastards).

The one thing the Native Americans weren't saying was 'these Europeans are here because of our jobs'.

> That's my entire point: immigration fueled economic growth in America.

But for a different reason than the one you keep harping on.

It grew because of their capital and consumption.

> Skilled labor (and investment capital) played a major part.

Less than you think or wish to believe, but since you're somewhat stuck on this I'll just let it go.

If you feel open minded I encourage you to read this:

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

And not to just cherry pick the bits that fit your narrative.

> From horticulturalist to provide plants for early agriculture, to carpenters and ship builders in Boston (and later steel and tools makers), to the physicists and engineers fleeing Europe during the World Wars, to the technology people today. All of these people contributed to the technological growth and dominance of the US.

That they did. But - again - they are not the predominant factor. In fact the employers needed the immigrants (so immigrants needing other immigrants) mostly for 'dumb' labor (hence also the import of many slaves from Africa and indentured people from Europe).

> If none of these immigrants were skilled, the US would look more like China or India than it does.

No, the US would look more like England, which in fact it does.

Side note, but every time I see someone online accusing someone else of being "intentionally obtuse" I stop reading immediately. You know nothing of the intentions of a stranger who's obviously willing to openly discuss an issue with you.

Though, I agree obtuse is probably a poor choice of wording, perhaps I should have said persnickety.

Or maybe just debate in a way such that the strength of your argument is not dependent on your choice of insult?

Intention can be inferred; when the stranger is being intentionally obtuse, they aren't being "open".

*Obtuse - Synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless;

Needless to say, I have no patience for those kinds of insults.

> Intention can be inferred

Sure. And when you're talking to strangers, your inferences of intention will be wrong more often than not.

"You're intentionally avoiding my question" - objective statement, not an insult and can be discussed further.

"You're intentionally being a dumbass" - subjective statement, an insult and a non-sequitur

Hopefully you can see the difference.

I think that's right, but without using the insult "stupid", it says the same thing. But an insult has no content, where as this does i.e "you are misunderstanding on purpose"

A constructive criticism can be 'insulting', but this isn't the same as a pure insult.

> "You're intentionally avoiding my question" - objective statement, not an insult and can be discussed further.

Is this not the same as "you're being intentionally obtuse"?

> "You're intentionally being a dumbass" - subjective statement, an insult and a non-sequitur

Because it uses the word "dumbass", which is an insulting label rather than a description of behaviour. But " intentionally obtuse" is a description of behaviour also, and is also as objective as "avoiding my question" in context.

It's only a non-sequitur if you misunderstand what it means in context. I think "you're being intentionally obtuse" would be fairly clear in context?

Those synonyms are from a dictionary, and they are all insults.

So I have to conclude that either:

- You have a radically different definition of "obtuse" which you somehow consider a non-insult and which is non-standard usage

- You're intentionally beating around the bush in order to avoid admitting to understand the difference between an insult and a constructive criticism :)

These are just my two hypothesis, but if you have others, I'd love to hear them.

The definition:

1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"

> So I have to conclude..

hypothesis three: your argument wrt synonyms is incorrect. People may dislike being called "obtuse" but it is not, by standard, an insult.

  Sure, the Native Americans would have gotten along fine with bows and horses

2. On HN, flagging a comment like yours is a much more appropriate response than downvote. Maybe once you've had enough of our comments removed you'll start to understand the etiquette around here, but there's easier ways to fit in.