Hacker News Reader

Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

The order itself is ridiculous election year pandering. It imagines we are suddenly in an "age of AI" and that it's clueless meddling is required to establish an industry that already exists and to prevent algorithmic dark patterns that are already entrenched from forming.

It then sets every federal agency out on a quest to identify and then create a plan to ameliorate all the "scary AI boogey men" sci-fi fever dreams that have been associated with the deployment of a technology that doesn't even actually exist yet.

And, of course, more H1-B visas, because.. you know.. we wouldn't want to be "left behind."

[0]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...

View on HN

Edit: I read H1-B as a generalization for “skilled immigration” - I now see that people have issues with the H1-B program, specifically.

The H1-B thing is kind of a non-sequitur. I think anyone involved in tech (software, hardware, anything) should be wildly in favor of massive H1-B increases, AI-related or not.

The U.S. has the opportunity to cement itself as the center of the world as far as technological progress from now into eternity. Why wouldn’t we take every brilliant immigrant we can get?

If you’re a software developer and you are afraid for your job/wages, I get that intuitively; but how many times do we have to learn the lesson that “more people making software leads to more software jobs”

Oh hell no. H1B isn’t there to bring in the best and brightest; those workers would qualify for skilled worker visas. It’s there for low-skill workers, who are set up to be abused by corporations under the threat of deportation, while replacing American workers.

The US doesn’t need to “cement itself” as anything. Thanks, but no thanks. Ironically, your kind of attitude is the same one that gave rise to the insane, populist politics of the last few years and has done more harm to immigrants than any other single policy.

There are only 30,000 skilled worker visas issued per year. There are additionally 65,000 H1B visas issued, with an additional 20,000 issued to folks with a masters or higher from a US university.

H1-B is specifically for specialized occupations and generally requires a minimum of a bachelor’s degree and specialized skills in demand. It is, in fact, called the H1-B Specialty Occupations Visa.

I suspect you’re thinking of the Diversity Visa program, which offers a lottery of 55,000 visas annually to anyone (except for some eye brow raising exceptions).

There are also other programs like migrant worker programs that allow unskilled labor into the country for a limited time to fill seasonal work gaps.

I came under h1b (technically tn first and then transfer) and definitely did not feel like I fell into the “abuse” category - was well-compensated and switched through several employers. Was not underpaid afaik and at no point did I feel like I was at risk of deportation (very easy job mobility). Granted there are problems/abuses with h1b and some people have difficulty getting hired by someone other than their sponsor, but the description you’ve laid out is one-sided and does not feel like a complete picture.

> those workers would qualify for skilled worker visas.

H1B is a skilled worker visa so I’m not sure what the complaint here is.

It sounds like a lot of complaints you have are with well documented abuses of the program by consulting firms and the government’s lack of cracking down on that.

anecdotal. and you're either single or from a place where spouses are nothing but housewives

Huh? I am single but H1b spouses can get work authorization under h-4, no? Care you elaborate your comment?

> The U.S. has the opportunity to cement itself as the center of the world as far as technological progress from now into eternity.

I don't accept this premise and I don't think serves as a reasonable excuse for government interference in labor markets. Even if you do accept this, then the solution sacrifices long-term labor stability for short-term labor monopolization.

Either way, I don't see this as a positive outcome, and I regret every administrations attempt to expand the program using any excuse that happens across their desks.

> but how many times do we have to learn the lesson that “more people making software leads to more software jobs”

The connection between this outcome and increased H1-B visas for mostly _corporate sponsors_ is sketchy, at best.

Why do you see giving more visas as a government interference in labor markets?

In my view it's the opposite, a perfectly free labor market would be one where anyone can apply to a job. Restricting immigration by denying visas is a government interference in the market. So more visas means less interference.

(Note: I'm not claiming anything about whether it's a good idea or not).

Because without it US companies would have to negotiate and come to terms with US workers.

The government is already interfering with the labor market by denying work visas to many US-educated students, limiting number of employment based green cards, handing out diversity visas through random lottery, and in general dictating who should or should not be eligible for work permits.

Not trying to speak for GP but I think they would probably tell you that what you're talking about is also an interference and should go away as well :)

Yes that should definitely stop and companies should find ways to incentivize US workers instead. I know that’s a crazy idea…

a) There has been no change to H1B visa intake since 1990.

b) There is no evidence that H1B visas have caused labor instability in the IT market.

> There is no evidence that H1B visas have caused labor instability in the IT market.

Lmao. It’s self evident that the IT market, exemplified by the wealthiest tech corps, is literally dominated by foreign workers. The argument for unskilled labor (Americans don’t want those jobs) can’t even be dishonestly argued here. It’s government policy allowing US workers to be sidelined in favor of foreign ones.

H1-B increases are a band-aid at best. They are a shitty, substandard substitute for an actual, proper, modern working visa system.

The US should be giving more freedom to existing H1-B holders so they aren't indentured to the companies that employ them for 10+ years, at H1-B minimum salary, while waiting for them to generously sponsor their green card. Make H1-B not tied to employment so companies stop abusing them.

> I think anyone involved in tech (software, hardware, anything) should be wildly in favor of massive H1-B increases, AI-related or not.

Luckily you don’t control the thoughts of others. US companies should hire US citizens and if there isn’t enough supply we should be enacting policies to fix that issue not continuing to allow US citizens to work “unskilled” labor for pennies while we brain drain other nations and create an upper class of non-citizens.

> I think anyone involved in tech (software, hardware, anything) should be wildly in favor of massive H1-B increases, AI-related or not.

Not if you like high wages, and you want them to stay that way.

My final paragraph addresses that, but to expand:

Devs have been worried about offshoring/immigrants replacing them/lowering their wages for decades.

The only outcome we have ever observed from having more people building software is that dramatically more software jobs have become possible and in-demand.

Also, and I understand why you might not make this argument, but let’s be honest: software engineering wages are extraordinarily high. Slowing or even reversing that growth by small amounts on average would still leave millions of extremely well-paid jobs.

Except we have no control to compare to.

Software is eating the world after all. Seems likely that demand would be high anyway. Perhaps if there were no H1Bs, entry level grads would make $250k, with the average senior dev making $750k+.

That… seems objectively like a bad situation for the world. It would be way, way harder to make software if you had to pay people that much.

Very very scary to think about. We must import as many immigrants as possible to make sure it doesn't happen.

Why are you talking about "importing" immigrants like they're a bulk commodity and not people with hopes and dreams? My brother is an immigrant to the US - nobody imported him (unless you count his American wife), he moved because he wanted to. Hell, I'd _love_ to move to US but the immigration system for skilled workers is beyond fucked.

until you are 40 years old

I’m 40, and feel like I’m more in-demand than ever.

YMMV, I guess.

I've worked with loads of 40+ developers, even a few 70+.

you are in the EU, wager?

No, the UK. And the company with the oldest demographic was an American company based out of Seattle. The second oldest was another American company HQ'd in Portland.

you found a 100 year old turtle and then claim that everything with four legs outlives a human then, metaphorically?

I'm genuinely a bit confused here, you haven't worked with middle-aged and older developers? I don't think I've ever worked anywhere without someone at least in their 40s, including the startup I'm at now. Almost everyone in tech during the dot-com boom is at least middle aged now.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36771929

There's way too much work to do in the AI space and - even worldwide - not enough skilled people by far.

The danger, IMHO, isn't wage dilution anyway (that one can be counteracted by politics) - it is that sensitive knowledge will make its way back to China and other current or potentially hostile nations, and it would not be the first time either that this happens.

You have sources for the fact that there isn't enough people? My interviewing experience suggests otherwise. They would be relaxing requirements like in office only and pay would go up. They're just as picky as any other company.

a) The election is in 2024 and this isn't a top 10 issue for voters.

b) It is inarguable that we are in an age of AI.

c) There are legitimate concerns with AI that shouldn't be blindly waved away as "boogey man". Especially with what we have been seeing in Ukraine with their use of autonomous and remotely controlled drones. Adding an AI layer into the mix needs to be regulated.

d) Number of H1B visas are set by Congress not the President.

> The election is in 2024 and this isn't a top 10 issue for voters.

How many days from today until that election day?

> It is inarguable that we are in an age of AI.

We have companies hawking large language models. It's entirely arguable that we are in an "age of AI." You're about to be in an age of "no more easy CMOS gains." The intersection between these two points is going to be interesting.

> There are legitimate concerns with AI that shouldn't be blindly waved away as "boogey man"

This is why we have courts and a legislature with committee powers. I do not believe that an eager top down federal agency approach is going to solve real problems without creating more encumbrances than it's worth.

This is also why it's pandering. Look at the list of issues they bring up, those most definitely rank with voters.

> Number of H1B visas are set by Congress not the President.

Well then it's potentially even a bigger problem. They're going to change prioritization for those applicants against a limited pool.

I mean, giving out H1-B visas, if it does nothing else to help the US, takes skilled people away from other countries, including plenty of them from hostile countries. The brain drain is real, and can be used strategically if the US leadership is competent enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com