To answer your question, I don't have trouble finding or keeping employment. This move will simply drive up my market value. So I'm for it.
I'm very unsure about this, but thinking maybe I should hurry and buy a house if this passes.
The supply is artificially set by law. The fact that they will cost $130K instead of whatever it was before will make it much easier for me to compete with them.
It might also make it economically feasible for US companies to hire US workers who might not have all of the needed skills, and train them. That works for me.
Why would it make a qualified American developer less attractive to Google?
The simple economics you are quoting will argue against protectionism. Even hypothetically assuming it will increase wages it will in turn make it costly to innovate and increase the cost of services for average American consumer.
If Citibank charges $25 monthly fee they might have to charge $30 to make the same money. That generally hurts American consumer just the way American protectionism towards Steel and Sugar industry hurts American consumers while benefiting special interest groups.
For those of us who have taken Econ 101 can tell you that this is even worse for resources such as human mind. The marginal impact on salaries with every additional H1B US taken in next to 0 simply because Job at higher end are not zero sum game. Each extra person helps grow the pie significantly this increasing the salaries even further.
For low value jobs such as a gardener, a cheaper labor will replace the expensive one because having two gardeners does not increase the productivity of the employer by 2X. But for high-end jobs such as say a Doctor, having many doctors would mean more drugs, faster solution to diabetes and cancer.
The reality though is that H-1B has been so completely abused over the past decade to the point that wages for skilled Americans have suffered a serious pushdown effect.
It's not the fault of the workers, and if this goes through we're sad that folks will feel some pain, but it's about time this gets patched up.
You're quite right, of course, and until about a week ago, I would have opposed this change to the law on that basis. But I've had a bellyful of being lectured and name-called by self-righteous billionaires. So now whatever hurts them and helps me, I'm all for.
And although protectionism does hurt a country overall, it helps individuals and companies that are protected from competition. And for this change to the H1B law, I fall into that group. So bring on the protectionism, I say.
Assumption, demand is constant: I'm talking about demand in the economic sense, i.e. The demand curve. The demand curve is left unchanged by this bill. i.e. We still need the same number of software developers, and for any $X/person companies are willing to hire Y number of people.
Assumption, Price Elasticity: For the most part this assumption holds because, fortunately, software companies do seem to be making profits. Implying, they have the means to increase wages.
All in all, this is in the best interest of any person in a profession where many H1-Bs currently hold a position, and whose company is currently profitable.
Globally, sure, but the global supply of labor in any field isn't changed, only the US supply. In many cases, H-1B work isn't extremely location-sensitive, and foreign suppliers are acceptable substitutes to local suppliers.
To the extent this is true in any field, the effect of restricting visa supply is to offshore more work.
See: http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/29/mitra-india-outsourcing-tec...
The wages for IT workers rose insanely in India. In places like Salt Lake (where IBM, CTS and other bigwigs are established) they drove the real estate prices by more than 10x in few years.
The decline started few years back when the cost to outsource was nearly equal to paying an H1b person or hiring a local.
Most tech companies including Apple & Google hardly pay any tax, would you really expect them to pay artificial rates for labor?
That is because I disagree with: "In many cases, H-1B work isn't extremely location-sensitive, and foreign suppliers are acceptable substitutes to local suppliers"
For an H-1B, US companies go out of their way to recruit remote talent, pay legal fees, take on risk, to get a talented worker to come work in the US.
For a significantly reduced cost to employer, they could have recruited that same worker in their country of origin, and pay them for working in their country of origin.
If H-1B work is location in-sensitive as you suggest, why do for-profit companies, take on additional costs, risks, and pay higher wages for the same talent?