How is it not?
It's sounds to me like the Congresscritters are throwing a few bones to the select few.
Just the opposite is true. When one segment of labor, such as IT, gets extra salary (larger than available elsewhere), that segment is subsidized by all Americans: (i) stock owners, which includes majority of the population, especially retirees, because the prices of stocks are lower due to lower profit; and (ii) consumers, who pay higher prices due to extra costs passed to them by employers.
What is so just or fair for one, small part of Americans to demand subsidy from the rest of us?
Here's a fer instance: Right now in Oregon, there are no unemployed cabinet makers or finishers. So to meet the demand one has to A. Raise their wage rates and "take" from another shop or B. Find a newbie and invest one's time in training them. C. Slip a politician a few bucks and get an 'import'?
If there are no unemployed cabinet makers, it means that the demand for them, not cabinets, is equal to or exceed supply. If it is equal, the markets have taken care of demand and supply. If the demand exceeds supply, the profits of cabinet makers will increase, which will (i) attract additional cabinet makers and (ii) imports. In either case, the market will take care of supply and demand.
Now, what the h-ll does this question have to do with anything written before on this thread?
'Just the opposite is true. When one segment of labor, such as IT, gets extra salary (larger than available elsewhere), that segment is subsidized by all Americans: (i) stock owners, which includes majority of the population, especially retirees, because the prices of stocks are lower due to lower profit; and (ii) consumers, who pay higher prices due to extra costs passed to them by employers.'
By golly you're right. Just think of what the profits would be if we allowed slavery!