I think the overall effect is going to be a little different than what you imagine. Unless you are imagining a future where people who think a programmer is an "anomalously high-cost peon who types some mumbo-jumbo into some other mumbo-jumbo" [1] suddenly realize they are wrong and develop a profound appreciation of their services.
This is going to play out not too different from what happens when the minimum wage is raised, except at a higher level.
Average person expects: everyone will get paid more. Actual effect: less employment overall in the economy.
Average person expects: companies will be forced to hire local. Actual effect: a more active search for SaaS which doesn't have insurance overheads and doesn't complain to your HR department, and certainly won't threaten to complain to the great Donald when its services are terminated.
Average person expects: much better treatment of programmers by non-programmers. Actual effect: Ah ha ha ha...
Average person expects: much fairer and more equitable distribution of wealth. Actual effect: Because of the reasons mentioned above, even greater distortions, resentment against the ones who have the best paying jobs, the creation of "inside vs outside" class systems, government intervention to "fix" this problem which will make things worse.
Be careful what you wish for...
[1] http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...
1: Overtime exemptions. Management has zero incentive to hire experts and drive labor costs out of projects, which in turn hides those labor costs. You get lots of unpaid OT and tremendous immeasurable technical debt that managers spit-shine and pass onto the next investor or manager.
2: IT employee's can't work freelance due to IRS Tax rules that they are an employee and not a contractor which creates both criminal and civil liabilities for managers. Remember the programmer who crashed his Cessna into an IRS Building? This was why.
3: Anti-Labor market policies. H1B's, allowing silicon valley corps to enter into agreements not to poach each others employee's, and so forth.
Today, the IT market is 10% actual people who can program, architect, manage and in hack in general, 20% maintainers who spit shine the solutions and keep them running, and the remainder are empty bodies in a position who know almost nothing or just barely enough to do their jobs but if you throw anything outside of that very narrow expertise at them they disintegrate. The entire market, from education bodies straight up to the c-level execs and investors, encourage this as high-tech is the new whip used on the working man to run bubble after bubble and make money.
In that environment, the real hackers make decent money but have to be careful to continue progressing their craft. Everyone else has to fuck or be fucked.
Can you cite a source?
I have never heard anything about this. I have known many devs who take on freelance side projects, though obviously it depends on the particulars of their employment contract.
So, not very worried.
Medicare for all certainly seems like one substantive way to address your comment. Can you do an "expectations vs reality" for that one?
Here's a link I found on STEM statistics:
http://dpeaflcio.org/programs-publications/issue-fact-sheets...
Unfortunately I think the phrase about USA political parties, "there are no longer ideologies, only interests" applies.
I don't think it was capitalist values that led to wage dumping, but rather wilful ignorance. Until now, the consensus of the global elites was that open borders are good, and that those who called for controlling immigration were evil in some way. Although I am extremely disturbed by the rise of populist right-wing movements, I am also convinced they have tapped into popular resentment of open borders philosophies that transcends simplistic labelling.
Bernie Sanders is an obvious example of a politician from the Western Left who opposed open borders, but an even more interesting example is the "xenophobic" violence in South Africa.
In the 1990s, for various reasons, South Africa ended up with de facto open borders. People flowed in from the rest of Africa and the Indian subcontinent. The economic collapse of Zimbabwe led to an even bigger inflow of foreigners. Refugees from other African countries often made a bee-line for SA. Employers often hired easily-exploited foreigners in preference to locals, and foreign businessmen were able to out-compete locals by using family members as very low paid labour, and undercutting small businesses run by South Africans in the impoverished townships, and in small towns by doing things like living in their shops. This in a country with extremely high unemployment.
Things came to a head in early 2008 when the first round of "xenophobic violence" erupted, and, since then, there have been sporadic outbreaks. Although the violence is often horrific, and obviously worthy of condemnation, the South African elites have been unwilling to address its causes, instead using words like "xenophobia" and generally deploring those who oppose open borders. These same elites benefited from the cheap labour, and dont bear the costs of uncontrolled immigration.
Although the violence in South Africa, and the rise of racist and bigoted rhetoric in the West is deeply disturbing, and worthy of condemnation, it is wilful blindness to the underlying causes that has lead to such extreme outcomes.
The latter I imagine. The Democratic Party is a firmly neoliberal institution as it is, but they're especially wooed by anything associated with "tech." It's like dangling keys in front of a baby. If corporations claim that they're hiring the best/brightest talent that simply can't be found elsewhere, then who is a mere politician to question that?
This move seems consistent with Trump's and part of the GOP's nationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-international trade ideology. He'll try to sell aspects of it in ways that appeal, but IMO it will have bad consequences for the U.S. and other economies:
First, demonizing foreign companies is a very dangerous trend to start. It's the same thought process as racial and religious prejudice - the outsiders are just one broad stereotype and threatening. Is it coincidence that he chose a country that is different and more foreign to most Americans - i.e., he didn't choose the UK or Australia, or even Germany.
Second, much of SV sells their products, including their technical services, outside the U.S.; if the U.S. becomes hostile to foreign goods and services, why will others continue to buying the same from American companies? If the U.S. abandons free trade in general, why will others pursue it? It also is a blow to global productivity; instead of large productivity benefits of economic specialization, with everyone using best-in-world products and services (again, many of which are American), we all become limited to best-in-our-country.
Third, India in particular is very important to the U.S., economically and strategically. Power comes from wealth and population; since WWII the U.S. has been by far the largest advanced economy in the world (Japan is second, ~40% as big), and thus the leading world power. China and India each have around 4 times the U.S. population and their economies are advancing quickly; if they advance far enough, the U.S. will be to them as the UK is to the U.S.; also the core of world economic activity will be Asia, where the people and wealth are. China is hostile to the U.S. in many ways; India at least is a (somewhat) pluralistic democracy which shares a British heritage with America. The U.S. may need India economically and strategically, and if Indians feel the U.S. is hostile to them as a nation or on a racial basis, it could cause significant damage.
According to the article, the three named companies are the three top recipients of H1B visas. Australia, Germany, and the UK are not mentioned because Australian, German, and UK companies are not among the top H1B abusers. There's no conspiracy here. The over-representation of Indians as H1B programmers has been noted even as far back as the GAO report I posted elsewhere.
> China and India each have around 4 times the U.S. population and their economies are advancing quickly; if they advance far enough, the U.S. will be to them as the UK is to the U.S.; also the core of world economic activity will be Asia, where the people and wealth are.
And much of that economic advancement in China has happened with very protectionist policies, so your argument that the US must promote free trade at the expense of enforcing its own laws and protecting its labor-force in order to maintain its economic strength is a little strange.
> instead of large productivity benefits of economic specialization, with everyone using best-in-world products and services (again, many of which are American), we all become limited to best-in-our-country.
Protectionism rarely means the outright banning of imports, it usually just involves tariffs. And there are plenty of tariffs right now in the US and many other countries and the world isn't falling apart as we're forced to use subpar products. (If anything, the relaxation of trade barriers and lowering of tariffs has resulted in more junk.)
I have very little sympathy with the idea that we have to throw the American labor force under the bus because of nebulous concerns about the distant future. We have corporations exploiting the laws to suppress wages and lay off American workers in favor of H1Bs right now in the present, and we know what to do about it. We don't know how the future is going to play out. In the long run, we are all dead.
> much of that economic advancement in China has happened with very protectionist policies
To a significant degree, China's growth has been due to international trade, importing materials and exporting manufactured goods.
Also, China is a developing economy; they are in a much different situation than the U.S. and different rules apply. Protectionism for the fragile industries and national economies of developing nations is expected and, to a degree, healthy. If developing economies were open to all foreign business, there would be no domestic industries left (they can't compete with businesses capitalized at Western levels, with all the other advantages of advanced economies) and be very vulnerable to the whims of foreign businesses and governments.
> nebulous concerns about the distant future
These aren't nebulous at all, but well-established laws and patterns of economics. It's as predictable as not maintaining your code - we can call the consequences far off and nebulous because they aren't immediate, but really they are entirely predictable.
> we have to throw the American labor force under the bus
I agree completely that that shouldn't happen and isn't necessary. Labor should have a seat at the table when trade is negotiated and we can have both. In fact, it is necessary to have both:
If the U.S. economy contracts or simply doesn't grow as fast, labor suffers the most. If trade with India is cut or doesn't grow as fast, that means fewer jobs for American workers. If global security is undermined, that has very serious impacts on everyone, including the workers who die on the front lines. The CEOs probably will be fine, for the most part.
The fundamental problem, IMHO, is that while free trade is good for aggregate prosperity, we don't live in aggregate; we live as individuals. If the U.S. economy grows 1% because of the efficiency of the international labor pool, but no individual's income grows 1% (except coincidentally); it doesn't help the individual who loses his/her job - their economy contracted 100%. More specifically, capital can move much faster than labor: a factory can be moved from Missouri to Guangdong much faster than the workers in Missouri can move - they can't move to China at all and finding another factory takes time, more than a lifetime for many.
Trade must serve people, as individuals, and must protect them from that economic reality.
This is superficial reasoning. Bastiat taught economists to look beyond this obvious job loss. Protectionism causes MORE job losses than free trade. The number of jobs in an economy are a function of aggregate demand and impacted by fiscal and monetary policy-trade doesn't change it one bit. Trade changes the _nature_ of the jobs, not the number. So the right thing is to allow freedom to trade.
I think American workers are very expensive indeed, even programmers here are largely over-compensated. That is why American companies are moving to other countries to save cost.
Protectionist policy can move some business back to America if other countries want to sell here. But as China soon amounts to the biggest market for many catalogs in the world, I don't think US have too much leverage on this one unless those global companies are willing to lose the Chinese market.