you sure are big into regulation to set the rules of the game. why don't you let the market sort itself out?
Wow, that's an interesting reading of this thread. I thought I was responding to the hypothetical idea that nobody would repair cars if we didn't have a state-mandated dealer system. Apparently not.
I think you find that it will settle to exactly where it is now. Aside from some high end boutiques, all the OEMs will sell through a dealer network.
I think that's somewhat true, but I also think that what the dealers will look like will be somewhat different. They'll end up competing with the few OEMs (like Tesla) that control their buying experience, and frankly, the buying experience through those operations is superior. There's not a human on earth who enjoys dealing with car dealers, so as soon as any cracks in the system show, they'll have to change their ways. They definitely won't go away (for reasons you mentioned), but they'll probably start looking more like retailers and less like the hellscapes they currently are. Toyota will be saying, "We have to compete with Tesla on price and quality, but we also have to deal with the hit that comes from a miserable buying experience." The threat that Toyota will start selling directly will definitely put pressure on Toyota dealers to up their game.
And the car buying process continues to get easier and more transparent.
I think this will be the game changer. I bought 2 of my last 3 cars through CarsDirect. Reasonable straightforward price that's easy to check, no negotiation or games. My last car was delivered to me at my office with the paperwork. If I had to guess, I'd say we're going to move more and more toward that model and the only people who haggle at the dealer are going to be the real sharks who aren't profitable to haggle with. Once that starts to happen, the incentive for having a staff of professional hagglers goes away. Eventually, I expect prices will normalize and dealers will have to differentiate on other factors.
Which is faulty logic if applied to its conclusion. If we're all guilty then we'll all be locked away in some prison somewhere, and you don't "rule" someone in prison.
No, if we're all guilty then we could be locked away in some prison somewhere, but for the benevolent lenience of our watchers. So long as you don't piss them off. That's the point.
If the law worked the way you suggest (everybody who commits a crime is automatically caught and impartially sentenced according to the law), things would be fine. Bad laws would be taken off the books and we'd all be safe and happy. The problem arises when you can make something illegal and then only charge people some of the time.
What you said is actually a misconception of H1-B visa that is very common for those who do not really know much about the visa. A H1-B holder CAN change his/her employer at any time while holding a visa without the need to let the current employer know.
I'm aware of this, but they still do need to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor an H1-B, which is a hurdle that a US worker doesn't have. It still puts H1-B employees at a competitive disadvantage, and in a tight job market, that advantage can be huge.
Also, auctioning the visa will create another issue later on. If you think that big companies/corporations will not find a way to work around the system, you have too much trust on them.
How would they abuse it, specifically? This is a really straightforward economic question: What would a giant company do to mess up this particular market for everybody else that they don't do with every other market?
Besides, how would small companies (which is the main idea in TFA) compete with bigger companies/corporations for the visa price anyway?
The same way they compete with bigger companies for everything else you buy. With money. Microsoft and Google are huge, but they don't hire all of the employees or buy up all of the computers. They acquire what makes economic sense for them to acquire. Smaller companies do the same.
Another issue with your idea is that it would result in most if not all of the H1-B holders would be in technology.
A couple of things: First, that's not necessarily the case. It's very easy to create "classes" of visas for different industries if that's an important problem to solve. That would provide even clearer information on where the shortages are. Second, if the purpose of the H1-B program is to bring in valuable employees in industries where there is a real shortage, there's not a very good economic argument for bringing them in for low-wage jobs.
TFA is actually talking about how big companies/corporations abuse the visa, NOT about what's wrong with the visa.
There are a bunch of problems with the visa, and they're largely tied to how easy it is to abuse. The key ones are:
1) A lottery system assigns a valuable resource randomly instead of buy actual value. A lucky bonehead can get a visa when an incredibly valuable genius doesn't, which defeats the whole point.
2) The whole job description / prevailing wage system is total nonsense and easily gamed.
3) Whether there's a "shortage" of workers or not is entirely up to debate instead of actual pricing data.
4) Employees on a visa are at a competitive disadvantage because it's harder for them to change jobs, depressing wages.
All of those problems go away automatically (or are at least mitigated, as in ) without any additional regulation (and with the removal of a ton of existing red tape) if you just let companies and people buy and sell visa slots. We don't set a up lottery and bureaucracy up to allocate corn or rice. There's really no need to do it with work visas.
"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed." -- Robin, The Boy Wonder