All Episodes
Dec. 28, 2024 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
08:13
Is the H-1B Good for America?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
right?
What is the most sinister reason for the H-1B?
I'm sure you know.
I'm sure you know.
I'm not going to tease you if you don't, but...
So, the purpose of a system, as everyone knows, is what it does.
So, the purpose of this is not to close a temporary gap in what's being produced by the educational system and what is required by business.
Because it wouldn't go on for 75 years, almost otherwise, right?
Americans in the world as a whole are kind of problematic.
If the world as a whole wants to have massive increases in government power, Americans and the American society is kind of a problem, which is why a lot of people view the 1950s in America with a peculiar sort of supernatural horror.
Because that's a baby boom, right?
Americans of all ethnicities were having massive amounts of babies, and that was considered, that's why it's got this reputation as one of the worst, most repressive, awful times in human history.
Anyway.
Back when the black marriage rate was 80%.
80%.
80%.
Blacks were married at the rate of 80%.
Incredible.
So, Americans having a lot of babies is kind of a problem for the powers that be who want to expand government control, because Americans are, you know, one of the most foundationally liberty-minded and independent-minded people, not just across the world as it is, but In history as a whole.
So, what do you want to do?
Well, you want to try and lower the birth rate of people who are liberty-minded because that way the values don't get transmitted down and the patriotism doesn't get transmitted down.
So, what you want to do is you want to set up a system where the native-born Americans, again, of every race, ethnicity, creed, and color, the native-born Americans have fewer kids.
What's the best way to have the native-born Americans have fewer kids?
Deny them job opportunities.
Because if you don't get a job, you can't really start a family.
So, I don't think...
Because the purpose of the system is what it does.
It's constantly displacing Americans.
It's another reason why the manufacturing jobs were sent overseas.
I mean, you can say that there are economic reasons, but in general, the economic reasons for all of that are paid for by society as a whole, which we'll get into that in a sec.
But the manufacturing jobs are sent overseas so that native-born Americans, again, of every race, color, creed, and ethnicity, native-born Americans will have fewer children if they can't get jobs.
So trying to deny jobs to people whose lineage is America is a great way And the other thing too, let's say that you want to implement a bunch of censorship in your tech company.
Let's say you just want to do an end run around the First Amendment and implement a lot of censorship.
Is it more likely that your native-born American patriotic First Amendment-infused workforce is going to be totally fine with all that censorship?
Or if you bring people in from outside the culture where there's no real history of this kind of free speech stuff, are they going to be more likely to implement what you want with no pushback?
Because if you hire people who are incredibly grateful to be here and who they need your approval in order to stay, like if you fire them, then they have to leave, right?
Then you get a huge amount of power over them and you can order them to do all kinds of sketchy stuff, in my view, and what can they say?
The problem is if you have an empowered workforce, Then it's kind of tough to implement bad things.
Like, one of the main reasons why all the manufacturing went overseas from what is now called the Rust Belt, but used to be the industrial heart of America, is because massive amounts of unionization that had keeping competitors and what are called scabs, like replacement workers, out of the mix.
So manufacturing went to go overseas.
Now, what should normally have happened is the unions would have been broken and they would have had...
It's fine.
To me, obviously, unions are great.
Completely voluntary unions are fantastic, right?
Because you do want, I mean, there are bad bosses out there who underpay people and you want to have the right of collective bargaining.
However, when unions get the power to prevent anybody else from doing the job, then that's too much power.
It's too much power for the bosses if the people can't collectively organize, and it's too much power for the unions if bosses can't hire replacement workers, because sometimes union demands Are outlandish and outrageous.
I mean, the problem of exploitation is not confined to one particular economic class.
Only the wealthy, only the capitalists, only the owners, only the CEO, only the board members, only the top, they're the only ones who are corrupt.
The workers are noble and kind and wonderful and like all the managers are devils and all the workers are angels.
No, the workers can be devils, the managers can be devils, the managers can be angels and the workers...
So, you can't have too much power on any side and the government is all about giving too much power to one side or the other of a negotiation to buy votes.
So, when unions have the power to exclude replacement workers, then the factory owners are held completely hostage and will start looking for other alternatives to produce their goods like going overseas and things like that, right?
So normally what would happen is if worker demands in America are too high, then people will start moving stuff overseas and then people will go like, holy crap, our industrial base is being hollowed out, so we'd better lower our demands,
we'd better lower our requirements, we have to be willing to work for less because, let's say you've got to take a 25% pay cut to compete with workers overseas, well then you take that 25% pay cut because 75% of your pay Clearly, it's better than 0% of your pay.
But, of course, that didn't happen.
The workers' wage didn't happen, both for legislative and regulatory reasons and also because of the welfare state, unemployment insurance, welfare state, and let's not forget the peninsula, right?
The disability peninsula...
Is people who, I mean, I remember being out in California many years ago.
I was on a bus with my daughter.
We were going to a cactus garden.
And there was this guy who was heading to the beach to go surfing.
And he says, yeah, you know, I'm like, it's a pretty sweet life on disability.
He told me all about the disability and how he worked it and how it all worked.
And I'm like, What are you on disability for?
Back issues.
Yet you surf.
Well, you know, it helps keep my back limber.
Whatever.
Like, it was just...
And again, that's anecdotal and all of that, but...
So, the wages didn't adjust.
In the same way that when towns lose...
I saw this up north when I worked up north, right?
When I worked up north, you would see these towns full of, like, 500 or 1,000 people.
Everyone was kind of depressed.
They all recognized it was a lonely armpit ass end of the universe.
And...
They stayed, right?
They should be ghost towns, right?
If the mine shuts down, everyone should leave.
But people don't leave because of welfare, because of disability, because of old age pensions and whatever you can sort of milk the system, right?
So you end up with these pockets.
And then when you have these pockets of unemployment, then you end up with people who have lives with no purpose, lives with their little future, they get depressed, they go on crime sprees, they do a lot of drugs, they have out-of-wedlock sex, a lot of single mothers, and it just...
Right?
Just completely...
Right?
So...
Americans are a thorn in the side of the powers that be.
So if you can figure out a situation wherein you can deny them jobs, and you have to have a welfare state for that, right?
Because otherwise people will rebel.
Export Selection