hwstar

We should keep the system in place that we have at the US federal level, but add initiative, referendum, and recall. This allows the citizens to "correct" the legislators, and allows more controversial laws to be passed which legislatures typically avoid.

The only problem I see with this is keeping the moneyed special interests at bay.

The "Opulent Minorities" rights should be balanced with mob rule. Unfortunately in the US today, the Opulent Minority decides the laws for the rest of us, unless there is nearly unanimous dissent.

If I weren't in San Diego and in SV or SF instead, I'd move to another city like Los Angeles, or where I am now. Most other US states allow noncompetes. I won't sign a noncompete so unless they'll let me work without one, I won't be working outside of California.

Additionally, California labor laws are more employee friendly when compared to other states.

I know this limits my choices as businesses are leaving California due to the employee-friendly labor laws and the high cost of housing, but I'm semi-retired anyway so it doesn't matter to me. I can be choosy when it comes to taking a job.

Ideal Scenario--

People win:

The constitution and the tax laws are changed to promote redistribution.

Capitalists Win:

Things continue as they are.

Most likely Scenario--

Regional and Civil Wars are fought over the extreme income inequality.

People Win: Laws and the constitution are subjected to root and branch reform. Capitalists are thrown in jail or executed.

Capitalists win: A world wide totalitarian government set up by the capitalists.

Most dystopian scenario--

People Win: The common folk won't care about the 8th amendment to the US constitution when dealing with the Capitalists.

Capitalists Win: capitalists will use weapons of mass destruction or mass extermination against the commoners.

Exactly.

It's not really an argument to keep them out. We should let them in when real demand is there. Right now, its a race to the bottom in this country due to job market manipulation by business.

Also I'm all for letting Indian entrepreneurs into the country because they will create jobs.

Is should be slightly more expensive to bring in immigrants because one of the governments missions voters expect is to ensure that there is a job market where there are good well-paying jobs, not a market where it is flooded with immigrants that have driven down wages. Having American citizens and green card holders idled or having to work in a lower paying job is not a true free market because only the employers are benefiting.

Once the domestic pool of potential employers has dried up, then employers will bring in the slightly more expensive foreign labor.

Google in a hypothetical case would then offer a lower salary to cover the visa cost, and/or deem it too much trouble to bring the H-1B on board. This leaves the H-1B worker operating in a suboptimal market. The issue of visa fees does not confront the H-1B employee, only the employer which sponsored them in the first place. Besides it should cost slighly more to bring in an H-1B than current parket rates. Maybe then more natives would be hired.

Maybe you should have paid them as much as what they would make at Google then. Having to compete on salary,benefits, and working environment is the true meaning of an open and free market, not a rigged market as the current H-1B system is.

H-1B coupled with employment at will is why companies prefer to import workers to the US instead of opening offices in the low wage countries.