It is like consulting/offshoring business: one competent person, with 10 underlings who can add 80 billable hours a day. That's what happened to trades too: one really competent with many underlings.
I'd love to see the cost of living go down. Unemployment raises fast; the cost of living goes down very slow, and it will take a few generations. That's why the underclass will go through a lot of pain.
US workers are left with almost no systemic power to fight corporate exploitation, which creates a brutal race to the bottom. That's the structural context I was pointing out. But let’s be clear: turning that frustration into killing Chinese workers is never acceptable. The issue isn't the foreign workforce; it's a broken system that exploits everyone.
So, when foreigners want to come to the US to work, these foreigners find the working conditions (say, 996 of today) is better than working for the corporate and the government exploiters in their home countries.
Indian bureaucracy exists to enrich themselves for their next ten generations. The bureaucracy itself promotes, recruits incompetents. There is no way to reform such a bureaucracy.
The whole system needs to be dismantled while an alternative system gets built; given the nature of Indian politics (freebies/jobs/reservations to certain groups; monthly stipends to certain groups by borrowing money while at the same time looting public funds), it is impossible.
Why not both? It is a feedback loop. When the US allowed railroad/mine workers from China, it is true that Chinese labor wanted a better future and that capitalists want to use Chinese labor to suppress American wages. For instance, look at the animosity towards Chinese workers in Wyoming by European workers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Springs_massacre
Thanks to Indian constitution and other laws, incompetence is heavily praised and promoted. Go to any public high/elementary schools, go to any private colleges, it is rampant. It has taken three generations to produce these bad results. Of course, I am not saying that students are dumb. It is just that many smart kids in villages if given an opportunity, will leave India in a heart beat because they don't see a bright future for their future kids.
Stipulative definition is all about fixing the reference. Or if we want to use the talk of meaning, it is abou the extension/denotation. If 100 people fix the reference of the word 'consciousness' to 100 different things, it just means that these people are engaging in philosophical discussions without having any object level theories (theories from neuroscience, etc).
If 10 different scientists who work at the object level, using the same word but with a different reference, then we have 10 different theories about different phenomena. This is what we need today: more research, not philosophical discussions.
One can build scientific theories without rigorously defining terms: a stipulative definition is enough.
Best example is Darwin's "Origin of Species"; here, Darwin didn't rigorously define "species": 'No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species.'
Many in the social sciences fetishize definitions, operating under the false notion that formulating a precise definition is the primary goal of inquiry. In reality, a robust scientific theory is a structured set of hypotheses; when combined with auxiliary theories, it derives a specific set of testable consequences.
Even within this framework, one must remain vigilant against ad hoc explanations. An ad hoc explanation fails to provide genuine systemic insight because it is engineered solely to fit the target phenomenon; it eliminates the explanatory gap by simply re-stating or absorbing the explanandum without offering any independent predictive or falsifiable power.
Eliminativism fails to 'save the phenomena.' It is one thing for a new theory to discard the theoretical entities of an old framework--in other words, to eliminate the explanans. It is quite another thing entirely to eliminate the explanandum, the very phenomenon we set out to explain.
The authors of this paper have not studied what historians and philosophers of science have written. They just use 'induction', 'validity', etc. They reinvent the wheel. They write "Of course the validity of that induction depends on a host of other assumptions.". Duhem-Quine thesis is better than this way of formulation, as the latter doesn't use 'validity'.
If authors ever come to this forum, please read Duhem-Quine thesis, over/under determination, inference to the best explanation, Goodman's paradox, also how various theories in philosophy of sciences: from Popper to Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan, etc.