"As an Academy member I could publish such a paper without any review (this is no longer true, a sad commentary on aspects of science publishing and the promotion of originality)."
National Academy members still get to pick the reviewers (if they choose to go that route rather than regular submisssion), and the review is not blind. The reviews themselves are not public, but the identities of the reviewers are made public once the paper is out. So members can't just say whatever sh*t they want (and you can imagine some do), but still a highly unusual process.
Too late now to edit my original comment, but I should have added that I was talking very specifically about the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (as was Hopfield).
Everyone's first thought when they read something is whatever the social norms say you're supposed to think (peer review = good, publishing without peer review = not science somehow?), but shouldn't you stop and wonder why the esteemed scientist wrote that line instead of just dismissing it? Otherwise you are only chiming in to enforce a norm that everyone already knows about, which is pointless.
One of the really refreshing things about reading older research is how there used to be all these papers which are just stray thoughts that this or that scientist had, sometimes just a few paragraphs of response to some other paper, or a random mathematical observation that might mean nothing. It feels very healthy. Of course there were far fewer scientists then; if this was allowed today it might be just too crowded to be useful; back then everyone mostly knew about everyone else and it was more based on reputation. But dang it must have been in a nice to have such an unrestricted flow of ideas.
Today the notion of a paper is that it is at least ostensibly "correct" and able to be used as a source of truth: cited in other papers, maybe referred to in policy or legal settings, etc. But it seems like this wasn't always the case, at least in physics and math which are the fields I've spent a lot of time on. From reading old papers you get the impression that they really used to be more about just sharing ideas, and that people wouldn't publish a bad paper because it would be embarrassing to do so, rather than because it was double- and triple-checked by reviewers.
We still have lots of stray thoughts, responses and observations, now they just happen on blog posts, on social media and in other non-peer-reviewed venues. The Internet has driven the cost of publishing to 0, and peer review is the only thing left that makes academic publishing qualitatively different. If anything, publishing your thoughts online is better than publishing a traditional paper in every single way except for peer review.
Well, publishing online also has a reach problem. The nice thing about journals is that they consolidate all the material on a subject. Arxiv does this for some fields (and I guess similar aggregators in other fields) but really it is nice to have the thoughts still be _curated_, like a magazine, without necessarily being to a citeable/publishable standard.
>shouldn't you stop and wonder why the esteemed scientist wrote that line instead of just dismissing it?
I go to forums like Hacker News and Reddit and regularly see software engineers who are outraged about having to have their code reviewed and even more outraged about actually having to implement feedback from their reviewers rather than receiving a rubber stamp.
I go to work and see the effects on product, team, and world of what would happen if those coders were allowed to bypass supervision.
So no, even someone who is intelligent and good at what they do should have peer review.
You are talking about something different than I am. I'm not saying you should have un-peer-reviewed major research. But there are other types of communication that are useful but do not need to be rigorously vetted. (not that peer review is all that good at the vetting anyway)
Im not a scientist and do not know how these things work out, but wouldn't it be possible for scientist to simply publish their papers online without peer review if that is what they want?
The only for work to have an impact is if it gets exposure. Publishing in journals got you an audience, but that audience is gatekept by peer review, which has its problems.
So sure, you could publish but the chance of having an impact was low. Thankfully that's changed a bit with arxiv.
Nothing stops them, some people do do that. Two examples that come to mind are Aella's research on fetishes[1] and Scott Alexander's research on birth order effects[2]. But you don't get academic credibility by publishing online without peer review, and it's much harder to get university funding.
Very true and it's wonderful. But only a thing in some fields, as I understand it. In the past that was the role that a lot of papers played but the conflation of publications and citations with career advancement messes that all up.
Why is it not okay to discriminate on the basis of your skin color at birth but okay to discriminate on the basis of which side of a border you were born in? Surely, there would a lot of outrage in HN if someone said - "Granted that H1-Black visas should ostensibly be filled only for positions where it is difficult to find qualified whites"?
I suppose it depends on whether or not you consider it morally acceptable for a country to prioritize the prosperity of its own citizens over that of non-citizens.
Why is it morally acceptable for a country to prioritize the prosperity of its own citizens, but not for whites to prioritize the prosperity of fellow whites?
You cannot change your skin color, you can change your citizenship though. And it's not just America, you'll run into these restrictions in every country, often times more strict.
> You cannot change your skin color, you can change your citizenship though.
Not on your own. You need to find a country willing to accept you as a citizen. For the vast majority of people in the world, the only countries that would accept them are those where they would be worse off. So the countries that do (successfully) prioritize prosperity of their citizens also effectively lock out most people from elsewhere. The trickle of immigration is just that, a trickle - it is deliberately constrained with various rules and requirements, and it would be a much bigger stream if anyone who wanted to change their citizenship could apply (even if you filtered out, say, people with criminal records and such).
Can you elaborate on why you think that isn't true?
Imagine I'm a cab driver in Pakistan and want to become a cab driver in the US. Can you point me to what form I would fill out in order to apply for a visa?
I'm having trouble understanding which level of abstraction you're trying to discuss.
Are you arguing that two human attributes in particular, race and birthplace, should for some reason be subject to the same level of discrimination in hiring?
Or are you asking a more abstract question? I.e., given any human attribute ${attrib}, what are the principles a government should use when deciding if ${attrib} is a legally protected class?
I'm just engaging in common-sense ethical reasoning. It seems wrong to require that all whites employ a much higher bar for hiring blacks. And, I have the same intuition about requiring all Americans employ a much higher bar for hiring foreigners.
Also, I think there is a big difference between allowing discrimination (which is only wrong if you belong to a protected class) and requiring discrimination, which is pretty much always wrong.
So its one thing to argue about whether employers should be allowed to discriminate against foreigners (or blacks). There are some good arguments on both sides. But I don't think there are any good arguments in favor of requiring that employers discriminate against foreigners (or blacks).
Yet mysteriously, every country in the world does this (discriminates against foreigners) to some extent, and has for recorded history. If you can't figure out why, perhaps you shouldn't be talking about policy, in the same way you shouldn't delete code you don't understand.
Although I don't necessarily agree with what GP is saying, it seems to be spreading ignorance to say "if you can't figure out why [then I'm not going tell you] and you shouldn't be talking about it". Instead of alluding to a mysterious reason, which you insist one ought to understand to talk about policy, why don't you tell us what the reason is?
Might doesn't make morally right but it can make factually correct.
Two parties disagree and eventually one says to the other "if you don't stop it I'll make you stop it."
This is a truth claim that can be honestly verified through physical struggle. If they win, then their might did make them factually correct. If the other side was mightier than the other side proved themselves correct when they said "no you won't."
No?
Edit: human beings since forever have never stopped warring with each other over stuff. It's almost like our M.O. is Argumentum ad hominem, ad baculum, ad infinitum - "argument by beating a man with a stick for eternity"
That's a reasonable argument; we should think it through to the conclusion. In a more general form the argument is:
Given that certain forms of discrimination are unacceptable, why is okay for any group to discriminate against any other group? Why is it ok for a nation to enforce borders, a company to keep the proceeds of a new idea to themselves, or for a wealthy family to favor their own children?
Many people have asked that and tried to create systems that forbid such discrimination. Unfortunately the result is always disaster. It's simply so counter to human nature that it cannot be imposed without a totalitarian government and the problems that come with totalitarianism are far worse than the problems of inequality that come with freedom.
But perhaps a moral person should still seek to follow such a policy of their own volition? That might be viable, if dealing only with other people who follow a similar policy. But how many people are willing to work for such a system, rather than merely using "equality" as an argument only when it serves their own self interests? How many are willing to make the sacrifice when it's their turn to do the dirty job, to work hard without keeping the proceeds, to share their home with strangers, to fight criminals and tyrants with nothing to gain for themselves?
That's an empirical question and many experiments have been conducted on communes, kibbutzim, ashrams, etc. Experience has shown that the answer is: far too few to make such a system viable. Even voluntary societies of this type are plagued by freeloaders and cliques, and must impose borders to prevent being overrun by outsiders.
So while it certainly seems like a good moral position, and has seemed so to many, many people throughout history, it simply fails to work in practice, over and over and over again.
because countries look out for their citizens. not everyone in the world. Why not ship the entire population of india and china and all of africa into the US? im sure they'd all like jobs and by your logic they are entitled to it over the citizens of the US.
> Why is it not okay to discriminate on the basis of your skin color at birth but okay to discriminate on the basis of which side of a border you were born in?
Same reason you take care of your own kids first. Would that imply that you are discriminating against kids that aren't yours?
I also spent about 10 minutes reading the relevant section of that review. Agree with your assessment. The measure is 'number of cookies eaten' broken down by whether or not the person was a randomly chosen leader and their gender. For men, the number of cookies eaten was about the same for leaders and non-leaders. For women, leaders ate about 1.35 cookies on average and non-leaders about 0.8 cookies. I don't much care for significance testing, but it would be nice to know the number of participants and the variance in the measure. The researcher characterizes this as 'in almost every instance' the leader ate the extra cookie to some publications, and as 2/3rds of the time the leader ate the extra cookie to NPR.
Sort of like, "As a white person, white people are more important to me."?
Do you think it is permissible for your town to pass a law that requires your neighborhood coffee shop to preferentially hire a barista from your town?
Let me quote the parable of Sam and Marvin by the philosopher Michael Huemer to explain why I don't think your reasoning works.
"Sam coercively prevented Marvin from reaching the local marketplace, on the grounds that doing so was necessary to prevent his daughter from having to pay a higher than normal price for her bread. This action seems unjustified. Would Sam succeed in defending his behavior if he pointed out that, as a father, he has special obligations to his daughter, and that these imply that he must give greater weight to her interests than to the interests of non-family members? Certainly the premise is true—if anything, parents have even stronger and clearer duties to protect the interests of their offspring than a government has to protect its citizens’ interests. But this does not negate the rights of non-family members not to be subjected to harmful coercion. One’s special duties to one’s offspring imply that, if one must choose between giving food to one’s own child and giving food to a non-family member, one should generally give the food to one’s own child. But they do not imply that one may use force to stop non-family members from obtaining food, in order to procure modest economic advantages for one’s own children."
Your view seems to be that some communities are allowed to prevent outsiders from working in the jurisdiction of those communities in order to accrue modest economic advantages for community members. It seems like communities that share local resources and markets do have this property and communities that share skin pigmentation do not.
Why?
Typically people belong to multiple communities, say family, city, state, world. What kinds of actions are permissible in order to secure modest economic advantages to each of the these communities? What if there is a dispute between the various jurisdictions. What if the "world community" votes overwhelmingly in favor of open borders? What if a NYC block (which is certainly a community that shares local resources and markets) votes to ban black people from living/working there? Why is this wrong but the American community banning Indians from working in America not?
"What's wrong with caring about your fellow taxpaying citizens who's vote might affect you more than someone that's possibly displacing them?"
? H1B holders pay as much tax as citizens do (more, in fact, given they cannot benefit off Social Security, but still have to contribute to it). AND they don't get to vote.
They (and their families) haven't been paying taxes into the community their entire working lives like the natives have. The argument is that the people who have been contributing to the society more and for longer should get to see some benefits from the system before someone who has contributed literally nothing to your community shows up. That's why out of state students pay way more for tuition than in-state students at public universities.
Even if you have some wacky reason for disagreeing with this logic, then take the taxes out of it. What's wrong with caring about your fellow citizens who's vote might affect your more than someone that's possibly displacing them?
Um, I guess thank you for defining my reasoning as wacky. Turns out, I agree with your logic, but want to point out that it doesn't lead to the conclusion that you support.
1. Do you like the fact that out-of-state/country students pay more for tuition (thus subsidizing the education of the good native people)?
2. If so, do you like the fact that H1B pay taxes (thus subsidizing Social Security for the good native people)? The H1B is term-limited to 6 years, and people need to leave the country if they no longer work (or pay taxes). So the do NOT benefit indefinitely at the expense of the community who have been long-term tax payers. With respect to tax, the H1B is totally a pay-to-pay (a little bit pay-extra-to-play, even) visa.
[Edit: We already established that H1B holders can NOT vote. So they cannot affect your community of long-term tax-paying natives in that manner].
I don't have any problem with you caring more for your fellow citizens. I encourage you to do that. I just don't want you to prevent your other fellow citizens from hiring me if they want to because I will displace people you care about.
I don't think everyone is equal. I just think that everyone has certain negative rights that you must respect. For instance, you are not allowed to murder a stranger just because it accrues modest economic advantages to your family members.
But they do it in the business world all the time and everyone seems to be ok with it. Startup world's dream is to become a monopoly which means some miserable people out there.
It's not about being white, it's about living in the same social and economic communities. You really do not understand why a person might care more about what happens to their literal neighbor than someone half way across the world?
From where I am sitting, you are using race as a way to be deliberately inflammatory. Not a good look.
I can see how, in this example, using race doesn't really serve to clarify the issue. I definitely understand why a person might care more about their neighbor. In fact, I care more about my neighbors (or my family members). However, that doesn't relieve me of my duty to respect the negative rights of others. For instance, I'm not allowed to murder someone halfway across the world because it benefits my family members. Likewise, I am arguing that I am not allowed to prevent X from hiring Y because my daughter would like the job.
Suppose we lived in an America in which if a black person wanted to work in the tech industry they had to get a special license from the federal government called the H-1Black license. Nobody here on HN would then be discussing if companies were abusing the H-1Black system or whether H-1Black workers were being paid less than the going market rate.
A minimally decent person would notice that the obviously correct thing to do would be to remove the requirement that blacks get an H-1Black license before being allowed to work. The ethical intuition that leads to this conclusion, I think, is that one shouldn't be discriminated against based on one's circumstances at birth. Everybody (at least on HN) seems to agree that if an employer is willing to hire me, third parties (i.e. other people who also wanted the same job) shouldn't be allowed to prevent the employer from hiring me just because I was born the wrong race or the wrong gender. But people seem to think that if I were born on the wrong side of the border then its totally fine for third parties to demand preferential treatment.
Can someone explain the logic to me? Why is it not okay to discriminate on the basis of race or gender but okay to discriminate on the basis of citizenship/country of birth? Would it be okay if NYC started requiring people outside New York to obtain a highly scarce license to be able to work in NYC? Could whites start requiring non-whites to obtain a license?
Right, if you assume away the legitimacy of national borders and nations' right to determine admittance and membership, than any immigration restriction whatsoever looks pretty atrocious (including H1Bs).
FWIW, the same assumption would eliminate your ability to object when a foreign army wants to peacefully enter on the pretense of just wanting a better life.
And if you assume away the legitimacy of property rights, you look pretty atrocious turning away the homeless from your property.
I don't think it's hard to see why national and property borders might be not objectionable, but blanket racial job restrictions would be.
I don't give away my right to object when a black army moves into my neighborhood on the pretense of just wanting a better life. And yet I do demand strong evidence that this is a likely scenario before essentially banning black people from my neighborhood.
The correct analogy is not that you're being forced to accept a homeless person into your property. Its that if I want to accept a homeless person into my property, you shouldn't be allowed to prevent me from doing so. Unless you make a convincing case that they're going to invade you. Which I don't think you have.
>I don't give away my right to object when a black army moves into my neighborhood on the pretense of just wanting a better life. And yet I do demand strong evidence that this is a likely scenario before essentially banning black people from my neighborhood.
People moving into your neighborhood to conduct a violent overthrow is not a risk because the national borders have already filtered out people who could draw in a bottomless resources from a foreign power. And you can in fact form neighborhood orgs that restrict who can move there. If anything, you have fewer rights to filter it by race than in an ancap world.
>The correct analogy is not that you're being forced to accept a homeless person into your property. Its that if I want to accept a homeless person into my property, you shouldn't be allowed to prevent me from doing so. Unless you make a convincing case that they're going to invade you. Which I don't think you have.
Sure, admittance to your neighborhood is not admittance to any one person's house. But it is admittance to the public part of it and whoever lets them in. Allowing a foreign army to fill up your country without impediment until their first overt acts is still pretty questionable. But then, once you see why an "immigration policy" against that attack vector is justified, you have to accept the whole regime necessary for trivial permutations of that plan, like rate throttling, a requirement to assimilate, etc.
Other people you live with don't want to accept a homeless person into the home.
And, you are part of a social contract between these other people you live with (e.g. your countrymen) where you can't just override them.
If you had your own country where nobody else lived, where you had no social contract with anyone, it would be fine for you to let anyone in (of course, you wouldn't have a country for long).
Other white people in my neighborhood don't want to accept a black person into the neighborhood. And, I am part of a social contract between these other people I live with (e.g. by fellow neighbors) where I can't just override them.
If you respond by saying that the social contract of the country (which bans discrimination based on race) supercedes the social contract of my neighborhood then I'll say that the social contract of the world supercedes even that.
Except... there is no social contract of the world, and never has been.
You're imagining a global social contract because it makes you feel good. Pure wishful thinking.
In reality, nobody in India or Africa believes they have any responsibility to you in the slightest. They would gladly loot everything you have without the slightest concern for your rights. So it is with perhaps 85% of the world population (e.g. the part outside the West). If they feel themselves to have no responsibility for you whatever, there is no contract, because contracts have two sides.
I'll take the bait..
> Why is it not okay to discriminate on the basis of race or gender but okay to discriminate on the basis of citizenship/country of birth?
Because, a country and it's city, and infrastructure have been built by money spent on by a bunch of people who paid taxes. For a another country, person to come in enjoy the infrastructure, make money and compete with the ones who paid for the infrastructure is unfair by design.
I am somewhat sympathetic to this argument but only with the following revisions.
An adult foreigner coming to the US has, if anything, better fiscal implications for the US than the children of American citizens since children need are very likely a net fiscal negative for say the first 18 years of their lives. New Americans, whether they are formed by birth, or by immigration enjoy the existing infrastructure without having paid for it.
If you say that American parents have already paid taxes on behalf of their children then I'll say that American employers have already paid taxes on behalf of their foreign employees. I'm fine with having a consistent 'entry fee' for all new Americans as long as said entry fee applies uniformly to both children of Americans and foreigners who wish to immigrate.
People expect their government to protect them from people of other nations in matters of physical and economic security. h1-B workers at Tata etc drive down wages.
Globally, labor isn't scarce. If there were a true global labor pool, wages in USA would be further depressed.
People have no intrinsic right to immigrate into the country of their choice (they do have a right to leave their country if another will take them, however..)
This is funny/ridiculous, after all US and the West was busy shoving Globalization down everyone else's throats just few decades ago and now every wants to reverse Globalization. This should be a case study, which I know won't ever happen!
It's not going to get a case study because it's been extensively studied already.
An easy to understand introduction is to look at the Stolper Samuelson theorem.
This isn't a recent development. It precedes the existence of the United States as a nation. Textiles in the U.K., mill workers. It's been done before.
Protectionism is often just a straight subsidy from whichever society is being protectionist to the members which are being protected.
Or, as people on the Internet are prone to saying: if you can't compete, legislate. If you're somehow losing your job to Infosys, you can't be that good. Real loss for society occurs when a good candidate can't get into the US because Wipro took all the visas.
I did not understand a word you said, the western nations shoved down globalization by force or threats during the start of 2000 and the very same nations are now "banning visas", I guess now they know how it feels. Divine retribution, the circle would be complete if Scotland would breakway from UK.
I was over summarising because I didn't want to write a long comment. It looks like I did a poor job responding as a result and wrote the sort of comment I can't stand.
Anyway, my point was that protectionism and free trade have been fighting a war for centuries. It is not true that this won't be studied. It will and has been. Because it's nothing special and new. This is garden variety protectionism.
Whites expect other whites to protect them from people of other colors in matters of physical and economic security. H-1Black workers drive down white wages.
Blacks have no intrinsic right to move into the white neighborhood of their choice (they do have the right to leave their ghetto if another will take them, however..)
However, the US government can decide who is eligible to work in the country, just like it can decide who is eligible for legal residence, citizenship, etc.
Yes. And I am looking for an answer that couldn't then be used to argue that it's also ethical to encourage White companies to hire Whites.
And I'm not even asking that you don't "encourage" American companies to hire Americans. I'm simply asking that you don't ban (or make it extremely difficult) American companies who do want to hire non-Americans from doing so.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that you don't understand the concept of incorporation. In exchange for certain benefits bestowed by the government (limited liability, corporate tax rates, implied protection of physical assets by police, firefighters, armed forces, etc.), a company must follow some policies and laws, one of which could certainly be "hire Americans."
As to your "White company" question, I'm just going to guess that you haven't heard of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution...
Creating a business in America and therefore being a part of the American economy means prioritizing America in your business interests. If you are against that (e.g. willing to undercut American wages by hiring cheaper foreigners), then you should be penalized.
If businesses were free to reap America's rewards without contributing to America's "costs", then America's economy would (continue to) crumble as businesses (continue to) exploit that loophole.
Think of it as a "If you want to use America's resources to thrive, then you should contribute to America's economy" tax.
God is watching--do you honestly see why that policy exists? Or can you still not fathom why the policy is a good idea? Your "white" counterexample is non-nonsensical, primarily because of the Equal Protection clause of the constitution--it has always been illegal/unethical to make a racial distinction...surely this is something you've known since high school gov.
You're completely ignoring the substance of my question. Of course I understand that the US constitution doesn't allow racial discrimination. Surely its the case that racial discrimination is inherently bad and THEREFORE the US constitution prohibits it. Do you really want to hold the position that racial discrimination is bad BECAUSE the US constitution prohibits it?
You seem to ascribe very special moral rights to this particular association of people that we call democratic states. Why is the USG allowed to ban foreigners from coming to the US if they undercut American wages? Is New York State allowed to ban people from NJ from working in NYC by a majority vote (or a super-majority vote)? Again, I'm not asking whether the US constitution allows this - I know that it doesn't. The question is regarding ethics not law.
> Why is the USG allowed to ban foreigners from coming to the US if they undercut American wages?
It's in the interest of a nation to implement rules that boost its economy. Wanting foreigners to prosper over your own countrymen is akin to betraying your country. How is this ethical point even a question?
But wanting blacks to prosper over your fellow whites is surely not akin to betraying your race?
Your argument proves too much. Surely, you agree that its not okay to murder a foreigner if it boosts your country's economy. But you do think its okay to prevent your fellow American from hiring an Indian if it boosts America's economy. Why?
Note that I'm not arguing that you should be required to hire an Indian. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be allowed to prevent Bill Gates from hiring an Indian just because said Indian will do your job for half the money.
? Needing a work visa is fairly universal thing what does it have to do with discrimination? If US citizen wants to work in EU, Canada, India or whatever other country they too need a work visa.
There's plenty of similar discrimination going on already in trades in professions. Essentially, doctors or unionized skilled workers prefer to give openings in their profession to their kin. With "discrimination" based on nationality it's the same thing, except that you're giving preferential treatment to your fellow Americans. It's not hard to see why given that, as an American, you and most/all of people you care about (family, friends) are likely Americans as well. It's just taking care of people who are important in your life.
(I'm not arguing for or against, because your question is to explain the logic to you)
I believe the logic comes down to the highest constitution you bind yourself to.
By birth we are bound to our country of birth's constitution and once we become an adult we have the ability to renounce that constitution and apply to be bound by another countries constitution.
Jeeze, way to compare apples to oranges. Ultimately this is not a debate of discrimination (which you seem to be trying to shoe-horn into the conversation), it's a debate about exploitation. The argument is about the abuse of a well-intentioned program to exploit workers in other nations that are not protected by systems in the US and are thus, cheaper. I would argue that most people consider H1B-abuse and immigration reform distinct, yet related, discussions. It is possible to oppose the H1B program yet support immigration reform.
Your house is for your family, including children who have never done anything to earn it. Why can't other people come in, eat your food, watch your TV, and sleep in your bed? Why should other people, or other children, not have the same rights to your home as your children do, just because of the circumstances of their birth?
II
So, you can see that "one shouldn't be discriminated against based on one's circumstances at birth" is not actually a universal principle at all. It's a general goal, but must be tempered by other concerns.
In this it's like honesty - as a general goal, we should try to be honest. But being 100% honest every moment would be foolish and harmful. Morality is more complex than applying simplistic rules without exception.
III
People have communities which they care about more than other, more distant communities. Your family, then your neighborhood, your city, your province/state, your country, humanity, all of life. You can mix in your tribe (if you have one), language group, class, race, sports team fans, or whatever else you like in there. The point is that an eternal part of human life, since our earliest beginnings, has been to form concentric in-groups with loyalty and concern falling off as you move away from the self.
Why? Since other people are loyal to you the same way, that creates the possibility of a mutual structure - a tight family with strong loyalty in both directions, then a country of people with good mutual loyalty, then a world of humans who care about each other somewhat. We all benefit from this, and it's also sustainable.
If you want to be suicidally moral, you can start treating every human as well as you treat yourself. In some sense, I'd applaud you. But what you're doing won't last and won't have a long-term impact on humanity. You'll rapidly exhaust yourself as you give away your resources while nobody gives anything to you. In the end, your behavior will be wiped out by unstoppable Darwinian forces.
If you want to be sustainably moral, you need to set up loyalty and care that runs reasonably symmetrically across relations, so it can be maintained that way.
Because morality is not absolutes. It is a negotiation between Darwinian principles and our desire to be more than apes, murdering and raping and pumping out as many kids as we can. You cannot ignore either side of this fundamental tension.
I agree than one has greater positive obligations towards one's community, with the degree of obligation decreasing with the size of the community. However, one also has certain negative obligations against strangers. For instance, there is a strong presumption in favor of a stranger's right to not be killed by you. This is just a presumption which can be over-ridden say in self-defense.
Similarly two strangers have the presumptive right to associate with each other (as employer-employee or tenant-landlord). Do you agree that there is such a presumption? If there is, what if your view is the needed to overcome this presumption?
I find very little to disagree with in what you say. All I ask for is a presumption in favor of allowing a willing foreigner to work for a willing employer. And I think that small harms like reduction in wages from say 100k/year to 60k/year is not sufficient to override that presumption especially since for the foreigner, the opportunity to work in the US often translates to a 5-fold increase in their income.
A simple solution for the consulting companies would be a rule requiring all employers to have at least 51% of their domestic staff be Native-Americans. That would ruin the whacked out business model of the body shops and return to a fair playing field for Native-Americans in their own country.
"That kind of work is degrading even for the engineers who don't get any raises, are overworked and have very few benefits. But this is how things are."
My sister recently completed a coding boot-camp in NYC but had to go back to India to work as a software developer at a startup for $12,000 / year. She would LOVE to be 'degraded' by a 65k-70k job.
It depends. 12k in India is a good salary in most cities whereas 65k in New York won't even enable you to rent a studio apartment.
My last salary in India was around 15k a year and when I moved here I was initially getting 65k during probation period. Despite NC being a rather cheap place I immediately saw my relative spending power (eating out, etc) go down. The only good thing is that electronics are cheaper compared to wage levels.
"As an Academy member I could publish such a paper without any review (this is no longer true, a sad commentary on aspects of science publishing and the promotion of originality)."