This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That is....cheap. Even Portugal asks $300k for a golden visa.
I like something like $300k over-a-period-of-time ~= $100k down-payment + 10% extra annual tax based on your income for 5 years. The person can either naturalize at the 5 year point or keep the green-card without the extra tax. The $100k keeps the entry bar high enough, that anyone who gets it is likely to be conscientious. At the same time, it is low enough that anyone who is highly motivated can save that much over the 20s, to make the move before they're 30.
Personally, I would consider it.
It's worth noting that at least for the US, a program already exists with similar time terms, but the price is more like a million dollars and creating 10 jobs. There may be others I don't recall.
More options
Context Copy link
This is delusional for even the 99th percentile of talent from most of Eastern Europe. Starting salaries in high value professions are just to low. The only people below 30 you'll get that way are people draining their entire family network of funds and a few lucky entrepreneurs, who might not be able to replicate their luck in the US.
Also, why wait till they are 30 (and thus, in many cultures, married with children)? Just take them young and tax them for 10 years. For the immigrant, this tax will not make a huge difference, because if they drained their family network dry before leaving, they will be expected to send large amounts of money back anyway.
Student visas (F1) are the dominant way for top professionals to arrive in the US. After school, you get 3 years extension to work in the US, in after which you're expected to get another visa or leave.
I am assuming that the individual studied in the US, got a job for 3 years, and saved up enough in that time for this $100k downpayment,
More options
Context Copy link
If they have to pay in cash, yes. But if they can borrow the money, $100,000 for a person with 99th percentile talent working in a high value profession in America is cheap. And if you're an American employer looking for such talent, $100,000 that actually has to be paid back even if the employee jumps ship is dirt cheap.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd flip the sign on the tax: $100k down payment, and $40k - (10% of your taxes) per year. If you're paying $400k in tax, you get in for just the down payment. If your taxes are only $10k, then you pay an additional $39k per year.
You want to encourage (and select for) taxable work as much as possible.
In my experience, immigrants move from low-risk-guaranteed-income streams to riskier ventures once they get a Green Card. If a new green card holder is expected to pay $40k every year, it restores the golden handcuffs. This means they may pivot by moving cities, changing professions or trying to start a business. This may involve a serous amount of income insecurity.
A $40k fee adds fresh insecurity, that defeats the purpose of a green card. If a Green card can be revoked anytime, it is not a green card. It is a visa.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link