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.
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...
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.
I think the points about NIMBYism and fake environmentalism of the liberal upper middle class are quite insightful. It really would benefit the environment to have a higher population density in places like the bay area.
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.
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".
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.
"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.
11 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 39.4 ms ] threadAgain, the article is a waste of time.
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.
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".
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.
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.