Take note fellow engineers: There is an effort from our industry, our government and our educational institutions to bring in more foreign students and keep them here. They are cheaper than you and will always be younger than you.
If we had solid immigration programs that gave an easier route to permanent residency and didn't make work visa applicants indentured to their employer foreign engineers would be demanding higher salaries and the wage gape would reduce. The current system makes it easy to kick out foreigners so they know their savings are going back to their home country so they don't care as much. Also, they can't play the job market because their visa status is largely tied to their employer.
If we introduced some simple policy reform (and overhauled the H-1 program) the whole foreigners cutting wages issue would go away.
As always, I encourage everyone here to first politely call, and barring that, politically rage against their elected representatives to enact the change they want to see.
I do my part daily. Please do yours.
A great display of the human condition for pursuing self interest. (Hey I think it's rational to take both these positions at once too)
So when you talk about that I should be selfless for the workers around the world that want my job, I pretty much know what side of the table you stand on. You are either A. A foreign worker B. an employer or C. have some broader social agenda
So stop criticizing workers for wanting to protect their self interest because everyone has their own agenda they want to forward
edit: changed it to be less rude
Second, if you oppose immigration on the grounds that it increases supply, lowers prices, and thus reduces wages for tech workers, do you oppose everything else that does that? Should we educate fewer tech workers? Should we do fewer things to spot underutilized tech talent? Should we have fewer remote-friendly offices, so that we can constrict the market down to only those people who are willing to live in tech hubs? Where do you draw the line?
Did you read the parent comment? It generalized that every engineer that opposes immigration is doing it because they are selfish and are only interested in money.
Also you call it that I am claiming they are shilling when I was in reality pointing out that everyone has bias and you should understand your own before criticizing others.
>Second, if you oppose immigration on the grounds that it increases supply, lowers prices, and thus reduces wages for tech workers, do you oppose everything else that does that? Should we educate fewer tech workers? Should we do fewer things to spot underutilized tech talent? Should we have fewer remote-friendly offices, so that we can constrict the market down to only those people who are willing to live in tech hubs? Where do you draw the line?
The line will clearly be arbitrary. We as a country need to decide how much certain jobs are worth and design our immigration policy around it. Unchecked immigration of unskilled labor is killing the lower and middle class and driving wages into the ground. If Americans can't find jobs it's time to ease up on immigration. Likewise if companies like Disney are laying off entire divisions to hire cheaper foreign workers then maybe H-1B visas should be reduced.
I personally think the USG should always prioritize the welfare of Americans (including recent immigrants) over foreign workers.
As for the rest of it:
The reality is that the market's pressure to increase supply in response to extreme demand will swamp any protectionist policies we come up with. There may be no job in the world more portable than software development. We can import labor to fill the gap and enjoy the tax revenue, or we can watch more and more of world's development work be performed overseas.
I don't love our immigration policy today (this is one of the very few places where I'm a libertarian; I think we should just auction visas off), but I don't think excluding immigrants is going to help us in the long term.
Now another argument in favor of immigration is that it brings down the costs of good for everybody. Chicken will be cheaper of course when you have people working for 5 dollars an hour to produce it. Well the reality is that only 5 to 6% of the cost of producing chicken comes from wages. I'm sure if we looked at the software industry we would have the same finding.
Now what is the cost of targeting a specific field for immigration? For native workers the loss in wages is half a trillion dollars. The immigrants create a 50 billion dollar surplus. Almost all of the increase in GDP from immigrants comes from their wages at 2,053.8 billion out of the 2,104.0 billion total increase in GDP from immigrants.
So American citizens see a 50 billion dollar net increase in GDP (that is relevant to them) from increased immigration. (page 9 in the link below)
So we are taking half a trillion dollars from targeted workers for a 50 billion dollar increase to the overall population.
The 50 billion dollar surplus seems like a lot thinking as a normal person but 50 billion is nothing when talking about GDP. So from what I see, the only purpose targeted immigration at a specific field serves is to divert money from workers to employers
In the same chart on page 9 it shows that the surplus is received by the native businesses that benefit from the cheaper workers.
also consider this, do we want to create an america where we have a clear divide between workers and owners because we constantly artificially inflate the supply of workers using immigration?
also I think it's a little hypocritical that we aren't bringing in other white collar workers, we should have A-1B for attorneys and B-1Bs for bankers, I'm sure people in other countries will clamor to learn american law and finance for a chance to come here
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03-16-16%20Bo...
The other option is if there is in fact a skills shortage, we encourage our businesses to train people already in the country first. Our education system is excellent contrary to popular belief and we have plenty of unemployed and underemployed people that have demonstrated their ability to learn new skills so why not go to them first?
Instead the path right now is some very unknown foreign college -> non competitive masters program (USC, UTDallas, UFla are common) for an F1 visa -> employee hires on OPT for 3 years of "training" -> apply for H-1B for the ones that show any promise.
So we are optimizing a system that takes students from education systems that consistently rank at the bottom globally, put them in mediocre masters programs for 2 years, train them for 3 years and we finally have something usable? Please.
Having a bias is the same thing as having an opinion. We are each free to have our own opinions and preferences. Disagreeing is part of this, and even if we disagree about our own preferences, I hope that we can empathize with where the other party is coming from and what the basis of their opinion is. To have an opinion is not to be a hypocrite, to borrow your words.
What I do find to be self-contradictory, is when many Bay Area tech workers support protectionism for their own interests (immigration) but oppose protectionism that oppose their own interests (housing development). There is a glaring lack of empathy for why someone could reasonably and justifiably hold an anti development position (anyone who opposes development is automatically a NIMBY, just as you pointed out that I have generalized all tech workers who oppose immigration to be doing so out of their personal self interest -- which is a gross simplification that I apologize for making). Similarly, when they demand empathy for their housing plight, they do not share the same empathy for their fellow engineers who similarly want to have access to greener pastures. But despite the lack of consistency, I can understand why they would take each of their positions.
My suggestion may go against your preference since it wont always help your engineer friends but I think dynamic targeted immigration at jobs that are suffering from worker shortage is the solution. What we have now is a disaster though, a long lasting law targeting fields that may not even need the increased supply in workers anymore.
I personally have nothing against immigrants, the people I have met are in general amazing. But I have my own interests to take care of before I can consider others.
Also H-1Bs target IT in general but is the sort of IT that disney laid off really facing a labor shortage?
>What I do find to be self-contradictory, is when many Bay Area tech workers support protectionism for their own interests (immigration) but oppose protectionism that oppose their own interests (housing development).
I'm not from the bay area so I don't know the fine details of the housing market but are you talking about engineers supporting building more apartments? Also if they are acting in a hypocritical way you would be right to call them out on it.
People are people. Xenophobia just happens to be the discrimination that this community accepts.
I'm sure you're following these threads. They're filled with xenophobia. For example, in an article covering similar material currently on the front page, the top comment calls H1Bs "scabs", and it is unquestioned. Contrast this with when someone criticizes some feminist policy on these boards; they're called out pretty quickly. Being thought of as "sexist" is taboo in SV; being a "xenophobe" is just patriotic.
This is just one of many "communities" I frequent. HN is very self-righteous about the level of conversation and discourse here. For the most part, it's pretty good. But introduce the right topic, and you'll quickly realize that the people here can stoop pretty low.
Your claim about SV is also far from true, in my observation; the opposite is much closer to true. Generalizations about HN and SV often go hand in hand, and that's another fallacy: they're two worlds that overlap less than you'd think, and also conflict.
---
Edit: a later name for this Maxwell's Demon analogy is the 'notice-dislike' bias: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
More on 'demons' here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
The "STEM shortage" is pure fantasy. The US should only take in the very best people, those who end up hired by top companies at competitive salaries, and give them permanent residency quickly. The people who come in with low salaries to replace American workers, like in the Disney case, should never have been given an H1B. That sort of abuse is going to end up bringing down the entire program.
Accusation of bigotry are just a means of controlling the conversation using taboos.
You realize some of those fellow engineers are Chinese, right? And Indian, British, Canadian, Brazilian...
What makes you any more deserving of work?
If they are not, you have little to worry about. If they are, they deserve your job.
If the company makes a mistake, that is, they think they need a cheap inexperienced guy when in fact they need a 100% American-born-and-raised engineer, that company will be outcompeted by the ones who better know what they need.
no.[0]
It's purely a money thing. I don't fault our industry, I do fault our government for bending over backward for them. Besides, I'd rather our industry and government focus on filling those classrooms with Americans and hiring Americans first. But it's a self fulfilling prophecy and I just want to start a conversation because I think that this "career" may not be the best if you are at all capable.
[0] http://www.epi.org/publication/bp356-foreign-students-best-b...
From looking at international rankings it looks like the domestic educational problems are more in the middle and high-school level. The Universities are doing great.
If it's the professors all hope is lost, since future professors will be taught by the people who are currently dropping the ball.
We may have quality teaching, but we are not educating ourselves.
It's also possible that the reason the top Universities are at the top is that the top foreign students want to go there. That means giving Americans more preferential treatment may "break the spell" so to speak.
While there might be some consumer preference to a "we hire americans" and "made in america", I think that typically loses to things like price and quality, and if a business is seeking maximum profit, they're not going to limit themselves when it comes to hiring
I guess the tragedy as mentioned in this article is that universities are businesses and international students are more profitable
Now while I believe we live in a global economy, and everyone deserves to work, eat and have healthcare I can fully appreciate why people are upset at the government for assisting these programs to grow.
But, other viewpoints might well be adopted when it comes to labor.
The government does constrain companies in other domains. Companies are subjected to pollution laws, tax laws, building codes/regulations/approvals, higher utility rates, incorporation fees, and industry specific rules (look at pharmaceutical companies and health insurers).
But, if the government requires companies to commit to training and giving hiring preference to the existing local employee base over people from outside the country (people who can't and don't vote in US elections) -- is that indefensible?
But it certainly seems unfair because it makes a feedback loop that keeps people who are in most need of jobs from getting those jobs, even in the hypothetical case where they are more cheap, more competent, or at least less incompetent than they are cheap.
It's not hard to imagine situations where someone who is the most competent person for a job would not get the job because someone who needs the job more should get it.
And, come to think of it, the government would probably be involved in the definition of "need" too. So that's a new regulation I guess. Elected lawmakers would be subjected to the will of the voters on that issue too.
Of course if your landscaper is better at the job you shouldn't feel obligated to hire the Congolese person just so he doesn't starve.