I don't think your first question is valid to the immigration question. Every big company I have worked for simply opens a large office in India (or wherever) when they want to diversity their talent pool or business market. You can hire the best in the world and put them into a corporate office space owned by the company without bringing them into the US.

That's true to some extent, but it's not the same. Immigrants working in the U.S. at headquarters will have a different relationship with the rest of your team than people in a remote office 12 timezones away.

If you don't want your teams to be segregated by nationality then you will want people working in same place.

The corollary is - should US immigration policy be purposed to maximize Apple or Google stock value?

I was talking more about maximizing tax revenue for the US.

Same question. Should immigration policy, or government policy in general be purposed towards maximizing tax revenue? Surely that topic can't be ignored completely, but should it be the driving force of policy?

If you ask the same question, you'll get the same answer. Yes, why not?

Well, I didn't actually get an answer the first time. As to why not, because when I think about the role of government, maximizing tax revenue seems like it would be pretty low on the list of priorities.

Yes. It would be too simple to say we must focus on just one single priority.

The US has a big list of priorities: increasing GDP, protecting the environment, protecting laborers, providing medical care, protecting civil rights, enhancing tax revenue, taking care of the elderly, fighting wars, stopping disease outbreaks, curing cancer, exploring the solar system, patrolling the border, educating children, feeding everyone -- the list goes on and on.

All these arguments are about rebalancing and reordering these priorities.

Another perspective: does a global company like Apple or Google want to hire just from the cheapest in the US, or the cheapest in the world?

If they wanted cheap, why would they put their HQs in Silicon Valley?

Google has an office in freaking Paris. It's not like international hires choose Silicon Valley over Paris because they're enamored with overpriced suburban living. It's just because they need to be at the HQ for better career advancement.

oh man. so great. the other side of the same coin.

Should the US government cater only to multinational corporations? Even when doing so leads to a declining quality of life for its citizens?

Every American's quality of life will go down when the next generation of tech companies that dominate the world economy come out of China and not the US because they can attract better people.

Can you explain that more? Does quality of life go down in every country which doesn't "attract better people?"

Did quality of life go up in China because it "attracted better people" or were there other reasons?

One of the things your comment made me think about is the US citizens I know who have relocated to other "less developed" countries in order to make their quality of life go _up_.

Does the quality of life for people in Japan go down because Google is headquartered in the US?

As a US resident, would my quality of life go down if Microsoft were headquartered in India, Facebook in Singapore, Google in Denmark, and Apple in Japan?

It all seems rather complicated and murky.

Chinese companies may attract better people, but people who live outside of China don't find China attractive.