JD Vance: "You might try hiring Americans."

12 pointsposted 19 hours ago
by SilverElfin
(twitter.com)

32 Comments

jleyank

17 hours ago

I didn't think there's a surplus of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals in the US (or any country). Partially due to the expense of training and partially due to resistance from the (self-)licensing organization unwilling to kill their future income. I'm also not sure there's a surplus of PhD's in the chemistry or biology areas to feed places like biotech, pharm, academia and related startups. To satisfy such positions, people are looking at 12 + 5 + 2 post HS education.

And then there's the scut work nobody seems to want to do - somebody has to pick in the fields, shred those chickens, ... And Connor and Maddie never seem to be interested in jobs at this level.

Will the governments step in to prevent companies from offshoring? Will people pay more at Walmart?

SilverElfin

17 hours ago

I’ve seen numerous accounts on Twitter that push visa bans - often far right supremacist accounts - that are also pushing to denaturalize existing citizens who were previously immigrants, and yes, to ban or heavily tax offshoring.

akagusu

16 hours ago

My usual question: why this was flagged?

rvz

19 hours ago

If you really want to hire the "best and brightest" it should be worth paying the 100K fee to bring that 'talent' into the US if that equivalent skill can't be found in the US.

Instead these companies will just layoff Americans and relocate their tech offices in the one country (India) that takes up more than 75% of the H1B pool. (I wonder why?)

Is the 75% of that pool really the most elite "best and brightest" such that it warrants not hiring a US citizen? Or is the true reason that the purchasing power of a US employee is far higher than a H1B from India as long as they're cheap and can be overworked since rebelling means deportation which you can't do to a US citizen?

Those preaching "best and brightest" were also the same ones offshoring their critical technologies and secrets overseas to the low quality engineers just to cuts costs. What it actually does it causes billion dollar problems.

SilverElfin

19 hours ago

JD Vance responded to a lawsuit about the new $100,000 H1B visa fee imposed by the Trump administration with a condescending, aggressive reply on Twitter. It’s surprising to see this because JD Vance has been positioned as the tech industry / tech billionaire’s candidate. With immigrants founding half the Fortune 500 and leading many large companies and innovating in AI (like the attention paper), it seems like a huge mistake to encourage isolationist America First ideology. Worse, anti immigrant rhetoric is now encouraging racism and supremacist ideology in the mainstream. I wonder if JD Vance will regret this movement given he has a mixed race family.

tsoukase

7 hours ago

I imagine blocking new immigrant talent favors existing mega corps, because it avoids founding any new Google or a similar competitive startup. While the corp is able to sacrifice a 20-day salary for a dedicated new bright employee. Or subtract the sum from his future salary.

jmlavwh

15 hours ago

America First is not isolationist ("America Only" would be isolationist).

collingreen

10 hours ago

This reads about as good faith as "all lives matter" being shouted in the faces of people at "black lives matter" protests.

I'd love to be wrong on this but so far there has been a lot of egregious isolationist behavior that doesn't match up with something I would personally support as "America First". A truly good faith policy of non-isolationist, non-hate-based "America First" would come down hard on falsely imprisoning us citizens, destroying us soft power, abusing us allies, manic tarrifs (even without the billions in insider trading happening around them), blatant corruption, selling pardons, and the massive waste and diversion of us tax money. These things hurt America; honest shepherds don't cover up for wolves in the flock.

I think most us folks would support the idea that our government should help our country as the number one priority. It would be nice if all we debated was which policies to use and on which timescales to focus.

Ironically, the current "America first" approach you're trying to gaslight about is actually putting a bad taste in folks' mouths and hurting any honest cause wanting to push this forward.

brazukadev

18 hours ago

I don't have a dog in this fight but one can definitely be pro tech and favor the local workforce.

toomuchtodo

19 hours ago

[flagged]

SilverElfin

19 hours ago

What is he right about?

toomuchtodo

19 hours ago

Hire Americans first before importing more immigrant workers. When America reaches full employment (which we are a long way from as of this comment), feel free to tap other countries. If you are in US public office, and advocating for or fighting for more immigration while American workers are desperate for work, you should be run out of office, at a minimum. Your duty is to the citizens you represent, not corporations, not foreign workers, and certainly not a small population of the wealthy who receive the gains from increased shareholder value from imported immigrant workers.

derektank

19 hours ago

We are at full employment. The federal reserve estimates the natural rate of unemployment at being between 3.8 and 4.5 percent. Currently, unemployment is 4.4%

toomuchtodo

19 hours ago

We are not, based on corporations laying off workers to reset wages downward, offshoring to India and LATAM, and it taking 6-12 months for workers to find jobs. Large US companies are making every effort to disempower workers, and they should be provided no advantages in acquiring talent when it exists domestically.

Layoff announcements top 1.1 million this year, the most since 2020 pandemic, Challenger says - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/04/layoff-announcements-this-ye... - December 4th, 2025

The Fed can't help America's young tech workers who are struggling to find a job - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45705212 - October 2025

Millions of Workers Are Left Out of the 'Low-Hire, Low-Fire' US Job Market - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45414795 - September 2025

Transcript of Chair Powell’s Press Conference - https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCprescon... - September 17th, 2025

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45308049 (citations)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE

https://layoffs.fyi/

EDIT: @SilverElfin: I remain supportive of the idea of issuing O-1 visas to exceptional talent, if exceptional ability and achievement can be proven in an objective manner. A degree or credential does not make one exceptional (imho).

derektank

19 hours ago

Labor reallocation occurs even during periods of full employment. Companies lose market share to rivals, businesses decide to spend money on capital expenditures that automate away existing roles, etc. If your goal is to stop immigration until layoffs cease to exist, you’re essentially calling for a permanent moratorium.

toomuchtodo

19 hours ago

I am calling for a temporary moratorium for issuing new worker visas based on the current economic macro and existing immigrant worker base in the US companies can pick from, yes. I support the current $100k H-1B fee, in perpetuity. The domestic workforce exists, it is a choice to not pick from the domestic labor pool. Choices have consequences.

SilverElfin

18 hours ago

The domestic workforce exists, but the skilled workers are employed already. There is unemployment in America at low skill levels where companies don’t want to hire those workers at any price. It isn’t a viable choice if you are an employer and have spent time hiring. Most companies are definitely willing if it was a choice.

toomuchtodo

18 hours ago

Please prove this assertion with citations. There is robust evidence skilled workers are underemployed or unemployed for substantial periods of time. If you cannot prove this assertion, please do not assert it as fact.

SilverElfin

17 hours ago

I don’t think there are good studies on this. What’s the robust evidence you’re referring to? Does it use good definitions for “skilled”? Does it prove that specific unemployed workers would have been employed by the specific employers who hired an immigrant?

SilverElfin

19 hours ago

I noticed you said “large companies”. Does that mean you think small companies or startups should get different treatment?

user

19 hours ago

[deleted]

enraged_camel

19 hours ago

I've always respected your writing, but will have to disagree.

The first line of your 'about me' section says: "Always Systems Thinking". However, I don't believe you are thinking in terms of systems here. You are thinking in a single-loop fashion, by treating immigration as a one-way input (i.e. more workers -> fewer jobs for Americans) and as the gate for a massively multi-input system.

You said we should wait for full employment first. The issue with that logic is that full employment isn't a finish line you reach and then "unlock" other labor sources. Even a hot economy has frictional unemployment, skills mismatch, geographic mismatch, and people moving between jobs. Using full employment as a policy trigger sounds clean but doesn't map to how labor markets actually function. Empirically, the US is not a long way away from full employment: we're at 4.4% unemployment (or were, as of September 2025) and JOLTS showed 7.7 job openings in October. That's a cooled market, but not mass desperation across the board.

Jobs are not a fixed pie either. In a closed, fixed-input model (which is what underlies your thinking), adding foreign workers could mechanically reduce citizens' chances. But real economies are endogenous: Immigrants aren't just labor supply; they are also demand. They pay rent, they buy groceries, they need childcare, cars, you name it. That demand supports additional hiring. In addition, immigration can relieve bottleneck in sectors such as healthcare (which is suffering greatly at the moment, especially in rural areas), construction, logistics, agriculture, elder care, and so on. This is why high-quality syntheses generally find small aggregate impacts on native employment and wages, not the large scale negative effects the "hire Americans first" framing implies.

A major National Academies consensus report [1] concluded that the long-run impact of hiring immigrants on wages and employment of native-born workers overall is very small, if not non-existent. And any negative impacts are most likely from prior immigrants or native-born high school dropouts. The report found that immigration as a whole has a positive impact on long-run economic growth. Many meta-analyses [2][3] have found similar results.

The solution is not to restrict foreign workers, but to protect wages and working conditions by strictly enforcing labor standards and preventing exploitative hiring (across both the foreign and native labor forces), and to use targeted immigration that addresses genuine bottlenecks. Using a single unemployment threshold is not logical because labor markets are segmented and dynamic.

[1] https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-CNSTAT-13-... [2] https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/2044/the-impact-of-immig... [3] https://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2025/wp2025-07.pdf

toomuchtodo

19 hours ago

Appreciate the kind words. I respect the disagreement, I simply feel we are out of better options at this point in the timeline and cycle. It is not the best option, it is the least worst option when there are few options.

> The solution is not to restrict foreign workers, but to protect wages and working conditions by strictly enforcing labor standards and preventing exploitative hiring (across both the foreign and native labor forces), and to use targeted immigration that addresses genuine bottlenecks. Using a single unemployment threshold is not logical because labor markets are segmented and dynamic.

I strongly agree. But that is not on offer at the moment, only restricting immigration. It is a suboptimal mechanism, but still a mechanism available. If what you propose becomes possible, certainly, I would have a different policy opinion based on system inputs and probable outcomes. Systems thinking. I am an aggressive supporter of worker rights and labor protections, having seen first hand what corporations will do to workers (with workers having zero recourse), and I am willing to support substantial economic impairment to the US economy or individual corporations if that is required.

We do not need an underclass or immigrant labor to do the work you enumerate (healthcare, construction, agriculture, childcare); we need living wages and strong worker protections for domestic workers first. There is no shortage of labor, only companies and a nation unwilling to pay living wages and provide reasonable working conditions, and that should be forced to change by any means necessary. If, in the short term, a component of that is constraining the immigration pipeline (to reduce labor supply), I support that if it is the only mechanism available.

Can I be pro worker and pro immigrant? I can be, under the assumption of prioritizing domestic workers first (as a nation state should, that is its job, to protect its citizens), then immigrant workers with the same wage and working condition protections, up to the jobs available in the economy (+- to account for dynamics). Economic growth gains go primarily to the top 10% of the US by wealth, who hold 93% of US equities, so I do not value economic growth as a KPI to optimize for.

enraged_camel

17 hours ago

>> I am willing to support substantial economic impairment to the US economy

Okay, but people who hold these types of sentiments are usually financially secure and/or have relatively strong job prospects. You do realize, I hope, that the type of economic downturn that would result from a complete cessation of immigrant labor would greatly hurt the very people whose interests you want to protect and improve.

toomuchtodo

17 hours ago

I realize that nothing will change until something breaks, and that the status quo is unsustainable. I believe this aligns in some amount with populist sentiment in the US. It's an unfortunate game of chicken because capitalists gonna capitalist until they run out of options. No one gives up power willingly, right? You can only put fear in or control people who have something to lose.

enraged_camel

17 hours ago

>> It's an unfortunate game of chicken because capitalists gonna capitalist until they run out of options.

If your argument is that when immigration is restricted, capitalists will run out of options and will have to raise wages and improve conditions, I'd say that is simply wrong, for which there are several reasons.

First, they can off-shore, like they have been doing for decades. Second, if labor becomes tight, companies accelerate automation and workflow restructuring - which destroys jobs rather than improving conditions for remaining workers. Third, when labor is scarce, large firms typically consolidate, which lowers the competitive pressure to raise wages, since monopsonies and oligopolies neutralize the bargaining power gains of a tight labor market. And lastly, capital does not need to keep growing headcount: if labor is too expensive, firms simply grow more slowly, invest less and try to extract more from existing workers - which is the opposite of working condition improvements we all want.

Fundamentally, the reality is that capitalists will never run out of options, unless capitalism itself is abolished and wealth and property are confiscated. The reason for this is simple: under capitalism, capital is structurally mobile, whereas labor is structurally immobile. This creates a massive power asymmetry. Capital can always reconfigure itself to avoid rising labor costs. Restricting immigration does not force capital to yield. Only changing the rules of capital-labor power does. And you cannot do that by relying only on one lever (immigration). Not only is that the weakest lever, but also, you need a complete restructuring of society, including the way the economy is organized and how the government works across all levels.

I'm generally supportive of the populist sentiment, but the desired outcomes will only be possible with prolonged effort that will likely span decades. Gimmicks like $100k fees for H1-B visas will be massively counterproductive, as they ultimately harm, not help, the people whose interests need to be protected.

SilverElfin

19 hours ago

That doesn’t seem right. You would just not have any immigrants at all, because full employment is not possible, and many companies will move elsewhere or shutdown if they cannot get the right talent here. And then people will wonder why there are so few employers. Running a business is already very difficult and risky. It just wouldn’t be worth it for many employers.

Also the reality is that a lot of American workers are simply not employable in the industry they want to be in. It’s not a question of cost - H1B visa workers are paid slightly more on average. The most important American companies - like big tech - pay immigrant workers the same as anyone else.

And to be honest I don’t think training is an issue. For example there are thousands of unemployed engineers who have a degree - but still aren’t fundamentally skilled enough for most companies to want to hire them. Many of those people are blaming immigrants for their unemployment but I don’t think they’re correct.

I do agree that it’s ideal to support the current residents. But I just don’t think it’s realistic to see every single one of them employed in the best jobs. Maybe the best we can do is improve our investments in education?

krapp

19 hours ago

>Your duty is to the citizens you represent, not corporations, not foreign workers, and certainly not a small population of the wealthy who receive the gains from increased shareholder value from imported immigrant workers.

We're a capitalist society, "the business of America is business" as Reagan said. The first duty of a capitalist government is to the capitalist class and corporate sector. Preferring less expensive foreign labor with fewer rights over domestic is simply practicing good capitalism. Until Americans are willing to work sweatshop hours for sweatshop wages without even the meager labor rights and social safety net they have, they simply aren't worth the investment.

If you want socialism just say you want socialism.

collingreen

10 hours ago

I appreciate the honest capitalist-as-government take here because of how grisly a view it is in a pure form - essentially the claim is that government is neither for nor by the governed and it should only be used as a tool to further the interests dictated by the capital holders.

Personally I dont think this is anywhere near right or ideal - letting the movement of capital in free (as in speech not free as in beer) markets dictate what is produced by the economy at large has nothing to do with if a government should enact the will of its people or protect them. One is how and why governments exist (ie, democracy vs monarchy vs theocracy, etc) and one is how to plan an economy (capitalism vs various versions of a planned economy).

tl;dr - where government derives its power isn't the same as how an economy should decide what to make. Conflating the two is a way to hand-wave away a lot of harm done by unchecked greed.

toomuchtodo

19 hours ago

> A recent survey by the Cato Institute and YouGov paints a troubling picture: 62 percent of Americans aged 18–29 say they hold a “favorable view” of socialism, and 34 percent say the same of communism.

Big fan of socialism, so I'm in good company at the moment. Are we a capitalist society? TBD based on the death rate (~2M of the 55+ population die every year in the US, ~5k/day; 31% of US wealth is held by those 70+), and if these values mentioned above stick as these folks age. I admit its hard to predict outcomes of electorate turnover over time, but we're directionally headed in the right direction imho.

60% of Americans cannot meet their basic needs on their income, half a million Americans go bankrupt every year from medical debt, and ~750k are homeless as of this comment; I'm of the opinion capitalism has failed and change is required, but I understand other opinions will differ based on some combination of lack of data, lived experience, mental models, etc.

https://www.cato.org/blog/young-americans-socialism-too-much...

https://www.cato.org/blog/81-say-they-cant-afford-pay-higher...

https://www.apolloacademy.com/31-percent-of-wealth-owned-by-...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/baby-boomers-now-gobbled-near...