One of the most salient aspects of Sowell and why he’s so rational compared to so many others is his defining characteristic is asking “what is the tradeoff”. It’s the defining characteristic of modern conservatism, what do we get for x, what are the benefits and what are the costs. In this aspect we are now faced with in the current zeitgeist is “what is the tradeoff of H1Bs”. Why are corporations so hell bent on H1B, what are the ramifications, and who does it benefit? This has been the delineation between morality, reason, and practice. I’m posting this as food for thought. Who benefits and at what cost?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
Hmm, Do you know of any historical examples of this?
Most governments don't want to do this. Particularly within Democracies or Empires, where governments need mass populations for raw power. I think that Japan did this for a while. I think there was another Asian Tiger country that had something like this (maybe Singapore?). I think there were some South American countries that also were very selective in the past. The situation is very contextual. It's like, if you're country doesn't need farmers, then you shouldn't import them. If it needs lumberjacks, then only import those, and only the good ones, from places that were already good. For poor countries this might be easier because the skill gaps are way more obvious: "No one in the country can weld". Not only do you then need foreign labor to weld, but you need the foreigner to teach people how to weld.
It could be possible that it's more common in the Feudal era where guilds existed and lords may have requested people with specific talents, but I can't think of a name off the top of my head.
No worries, was just wondering if you knew, since I have never heard of it before.
Regarding the guilds, yes I can see them working like that, within a country since the culture difference would be minor enough.