> If you can't afford the labor costs, then your business doesn't get to exist. That's the way the market works. If I could hire people for ten cents an hour, I could start a great software business. I can't. Too bad for me.

Its rather ironic that you advocate for free markets when it suits you but later in your same post you want protectionism. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want it.

> Your statement in general is representative of the race-to-the-bottom thinking I referenced in my earlier post - the idea that we have to do this, or the jobs will go elsewhere, where labor is cheaper. Well, that's how you get savage cuts to labor protections, stagnant wages, and massive corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. What's the endgame, here? Essentially, a global, common market with freedom of movement, a world where democratic governments are entirely subordinate to large corporate interests, a world where wages start plummeting because someone, somewhere, is perfectly willing to program for 5k/year and live in a one-bedroom apartment with five other people, all the while the company involved is getting massive tax breaks lest they start move somewhere else even cheaper.

> No thanks.

Eh? The world is heading towards a global common market, whether you are willing to accept it or not. Do you expect the current imbalance in wealth and development between countries to continue in perpetuity? This imbalance has been the product of some very unique circumstances in world history and will not last for very much longer.

Anyways, the example you give is a strawman. Please find me a qualified developer who will work for that amount anywhere. Critical thinking and creative programming skills are hard to develop for most people and its definitely not that easy to find good developers.

> The reality is that American workers are highly educated and there's a huge amount of social capital and financial capital that will keep businesses operating in the US. If they really wanted to, it's already cheaper open foreign offices and hire locals elsewhere - there's more than just immediate financial considerations already in effect. In a future with more expensive American labor, brilliant US programmers will still be starting their companies in the US, because they already live here. They will hire their friends and alumni from their college in the US. They will hire people those people give references for. They will hire people who live near them.

I completely agree with the huge amount of social and financial capital in the US. But I don't believe its the operating factor in keeping businesses local. One of the main advantages of SF is that it acts as a magnet for talent from all over the world. Cut that off, and you won't have that anymore.

The wiser strategy would be to exploit that capital to continue to build on existing structures and strengthen the position of the US economy to attract the best talent. I must admit I simply don't understand why you want to kill the Golden Goose just because you think maybe possibly protectionism will help you when historically it hasn't.

> Most businesses will not leave the US in the near-term, H1-Bs or no H1-Bs. If they choose to go elsewhere to evade American labor prices and American labor protections, there is a simple solution. They can be forbidden from selling their products and services here. Access to the American market can be predicated on worker wages and benefits. I don't see any other solution that prevents a global corporate oligarchy.

That is protectionism. And it never helps. Sure, you can try it, but when the rest of the world retaliates, suddenly you're cut off from the rest of the world and operating in isolation.