curiousllama

Bipartisan consensus means "at this moment, neither party opposes this policy"

It is indeed fragile since, as you point out, it only takes one party (or in Rs case, one person) to eliminate the consensus. Consensus comes and goes.

And yet, it's notable when through the chaos, both parties have consistently maintained lockstep agreement for 30 years.

A lot of these weird actions actually build on long-simmering disagreements. Which is weird - like if a state governor got drunk and tried to shut down immigration enforcement.

Is this a legitimate policy decision? Maybe - but it sure reads like the ranting of a drunk.

Yea, the technical details of visa policy do not exactly seem like the focus here - though they should be.

> "If companies like Infosys or Cognizant are taking "slots" that could be filled by people like those H1Bs, then I'd consider that a big problem."

It's hard to get data, but this is precisely what appears to me to be happening.

There's a limited number of slots by country. These companies specifically target those slots. I've worked with these folks (who are wonderful people, to be clear), and also had multiple friends with very niche, in-demand skills need to leave the country.

I don't have the data, but at a micro level, the system does appear to simply be set up backwards.

> "We're looking for foreign-sounding names."

NAL but that's like a question you'd get on an HR training test. Yes, that's illegal, regardless of motive.

100% happens. Microsoft is for sure an offender, but the biggest offenders are companies like Infosys, Cognizant, Accenture, and IBM (among others).

There's a whole business model of US-citizen managers, H1B front-line employees, and offshore support staff. They flood the H1B lottery, crowding out (imo) more deserving high-skill folks. Was really insane to see.

IMO, going after sketchy practices like this is a MUCH better approach than reducing the volume of H1B employees.

You appear to be making the assertion that any economic exchange taken by two adults with full information is morally acceptable. Is that correct?

If so, would you accept the following as moral actions?

Financial adviser charging substantially above-market fees to recent widows, who lack experience in finance (All information is available, but not understood)

Selling heroin outside of a drug rehab clinic (All information available & understood, but under compromising circumstances)

The top 10% of spenders account for 49% of US consumer spending. They're not completely brainless; they're targeting rich people.

NAL, but looks like they're alleging something like negligence & deception. Addictiveness is just the mechanism of harm, so doesn't require a strict general case: just actual harm and the prior knowledge thereof.

So like the general argument is "company X was causing material harm, knew they were causing harm, and actively decided to continue causing harm while covering it up."

It'd be similar to suing someone who sold a dangerous toy under the label "safe for all ages". The lawyers don't need to ban specific features (sharp edges, fast motors, etc.). They just have to argue the way it's put together harms kids, the company knew about it, and they kept lying about it anyway.

The remediations could therefore be case-specific. They don't need to ban infinite scroll in general, just ban Meta from applying it to their products, since it's known to be harmful in that context.

> does it have to be answered in general?

100% yes. Remember, this is somewhat adversarial: Meta increases its products addictiveness year by year. Banning individual practices fails if the rate of that growth exceeds the impact of point solutions.

Yea, that's his point. The gold standard neither prevents nor encourages inequality, except inasmuch as it limits policy flexibility (which, similarly, could be used to promote or limit inequality).

NAL, but have worked in this. Griggs is a bit more complicated than that, and its progeny modify application anyway.

The TLDR is that arbitrary tests are permissible if there's no disparate impact. Tests with disparate impact are permissible iff they are not arbitrary (i.e., "directly" assess job responsibilities).

So, for example, Leetcode may have disparate impact, but it's "direct" enough to be permissible. On the other hand, most "AI Assessments" are actually so badly implemented that they're effectively random - and a coin flip won't have disparate impact.

How long would it take an aggressive company to expand production capacity? I always thought it takes a few years, at minimum, for even established players to stand up new fabs