

The upper middle class is ruining America - danielam
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-upper-middle-class-is-ruining-america-2015-1

======
animefan
This article made some really good points about the politics of the upper
middle class (who I belong to). The author glosses over certain things like
the real fear of not being able to afford to live in a low crime area (and
yes, crime rates are correlated with demographics, and no, that doesn't make
that fear illegitimate), but this is not central to the article.

I think the article has direct relevance to HN, where many people would like
to protect the high wages of the tech industry, by opposing H-1B visas,
offshoring (not such a big issue now) and campaigns to teach tech more
broadly. People often conveniently forget or ignore market logic, which states
that for the greater good, people should be given every opportunity to move
into higher wage jobs, _even though this will lower the wages of people in
those jobs_. These people often seek refuge in the thoroughly refuted logic of
the far left, which states that even very well paid workers are still being
"exploited" and that competition between workers of any kind is bad, and
instead we should somehow seek to re-arrange the economy so everyone has
access to the bountiful "surplus" that is somehow out of our reach. In
contrast, the author rightly puts people on a spectrum of wealth, and points
out that people far enough along this spectrum need to being arguing that they
should have _less_ not _more_.

~~~
geebee
I understand that there are a lot of different points of view on the H1B.
However, when people talk about "protectionism" around tech jobs, I feel it is
important to point out that tech jobs are already far more open to
international competition than almost all "upper middle class" professions
like law, medicine, or dentistry, and that much of the objection to these
visas is around programs specifically designed to use the immigration to
increase the size of the tech workforce, not immigration in general. This
objection is, in fact, absolutely consistent with support for a more generally
pro-immigration outlook and even the "greater good" you have mentioned. In
fact, I'd say allowing general immigration where immigrants are not obligated
to study tech-specific fields to get into the US, and are free to choose a
profession rather than having to work in a set of pre-defined fields, is far
_more_ pro-immigrant than restrictive tech visas.

Here's how many people who support immigration but are skeptical about the
tech visas see the argument:

Claim: "there is a critical shortage of tech workers, therefore, we must
change our immigration system to favor tech immigrants over other kinds of
immigrants".

The response: "although immigration is generally beneficial, the evidence does
not support claims of a specific tech worker shortage. Therefore, we should
pursue a more general policy of immigration, and allow immigrants to respond
to market signals when they choose a profession, just as free citizens and
residents do".

~~~
animefan
In order to get the most economic benefit (for both the worker and the host
nation) per worker, immigration limits, if they exist, should be based on a
minimum income.

You are right that there is no reason to single out tech. However my claim is
that this is because other professions have been successful in implementing
the harmful protectionism I and the article were referring to. There is not a
critical shortage of tech workers in particular, but high wages indicate a
shortage in general. There are also valid reasons to focus on tech, e.g. tech
skills are more transferable internationally than, for example, law.

------
ZeroGravitas
"Socialism for me, neoliberalism for everyone else" seems a common human
trait. The people described in the article just seem a bit more successful at
it, due to their access to wealth and power.

I've long been fascinated by the negative way unions are described in the US,
while the unions that protect doctors and lawyers from competition aren't even
described as such.

------
lightlyused
Sorry, there is no such thing as the upper middle class. Just another
conservative trying to deflect blame from themselves.

~~~
mikestew
You're just arguing semantics, didn't read the article, or both. The author
defines who he's talking about, and whether or not "upper middle class" exists
isn't the point.

~~~
lightlyused
1\. The premise of the article is wrong to begin with, no one "class" is
"ruining America". 2\. Upper middle class is nothing but a construct that
would better be defined as the "affluent". Those with money, or enough money
that they aren't going to be hurt by a tax increase, but are so conservative
that they think they shouldn't have to pay taxes. 3\. He never defines what is
"best" in this country. 4\. Uses the "National Review" as a source. A known
site or racist articles. 5\. No mention of the Republican plan to deny
President Obama victory on any legislation:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/biden-
mc...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/biden-mcconnell-
decided-to-withhold-all-cooperation-even-before-we-took-
office/2012/08/10/64e9a138-e302-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.html) 6\. No
mention of white privilege. 7\. No mention of conservative efforts to restrict
voting to for minorities and young people. He just mentions that the affluent
vote at " vote at substantially higher rates than those less well-off". This
is a big one, because with this could actually change things, but again no
mention of what conservatives are doing.

Again, the article is a waste of time.

~~~
lani0
so's your comment. the article makes an interesting point, while not riding
the ruts you prescribe

