To keep all of that money you just enumerated flowing in the local economy.

Do we need to make the rich richer or allow locals affordability?

Me buying food from restaurant would make the owner richer, but would also employ more people at the restaurant.

The scarcity issue is valid when the resource is limited. In case of US, I was not aware of food scarcity. Even housing is more due to policies than actual land scarcity.

Economic activity does have positive feeback. Yes, some people get unfairly rich - but the solution is not to stop the activity, instead try to get the rich pay their fair share of contribution to the country.

Why are we relegating locals to menial restaurant jobs? Why not have programs to get them trained and into higher earning jobs?

A local working a restaurant will often need to take advantage of welfare. If instead we funneled the locals to higher paying jobs, we would be better off. We're supposed to look after our own citizens, afterall --that's the whole point of electing a government.

> Me buying food from restaurant would make the owner richer, but would also employ more people at the restaurant

What of one of the employees at the restaurant had your job, and they bought food there? Or are you declaring only you can do your job?

FWIW the "international" folks I work with hardly spend any money in the US. Most of it is saved and spent or invested during 2-month annual visits to homeland.

Your logic is incorrect, you are thinking that a "international" folk buying a TV is what they mean. But that's not correct. Paying income taxes, paying tax on cars, paying tax on gas, paying rent, these matter a lot more to the government then you buying an iphone from the apple store in the mall versus one in "international country".

Sure. Any other body hired in their place would still pay taxes PLUS more likely spend more money locally thus boosting local economy.

That's probably just your company. In Silicon Valley, "international" folks spend a lot of money on buying houses (multiple of them sometimes), cars, home improvement, going out to restaurants, etc.

Absolutely anecdotal, but in the Silicon Valley I know, I rarely see coworkers participating in skiing/surfing/hiking/US travel. Hell, even dining out outside of free-food campus is a tough sell.

As for buying multiple houses, I'm sure the wider population is happy with foreigners buying rental properties.

Sorry but there is no competition for health care in US. US basically has no health care. Unless of course you buy it (i.e. pay the fraudulent companies to give you false sense of security and leave you alone in the worst moment of your life)

> Remote workers in India don't compete for housing, energy, health care, education, and food

You’re talking about an immigrant population that is notably net tax paying, better educated and less unemployed than population.

As for your list: housing is a political choice; residential energy use is increasingly a rounding error; nationally, we’re closing hospitals and schools more than finding them constrained; and we’re a major food (and energy) exporter.

If a mansion is surrounded by a slum is society better off? In India the answer is yes but in america we see slums as a failure.

> If a mansion is surrounded by a slum is society better off?

Who is in the mansion and who is in the slum?

Irrelevant

The government exists for the general welfare and and economic system that subsidizes idleness because the disingenuous say "look over there, its a net positive" while ignoring the externalized cost borne by the taxpayer is just theft from the taxpayer.

> Irrelevant

You made an analogy!

> system that subsidizes idleness

You’ve genuinely lost me. What does this have to do with this thread?

Displacement is a taxpayer funded externality. Companies are not entitled to taxpayer dollars just because theyre too cheap to hire american.

> Companies are not entitled to taxpayer dollars

Green cards? Companies pay for these applications. The applicants pay taxes. For this particular group, they're notoriously net tax payers.

As for idleness, if you lose your job your lose your visa and–I think–your green-card application.

There are legitimate complaints about all of this. These aren't among them.

In America we see homeless zombies running around the richest neighborhoods. Thats the definition of success here.