Obama likely to expand a foreign-student pipeline the high-tech industry loves
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
There is no STEM shortage; tons and tons of STEM workers work outside their field because they can't get a (typically very competitive) job in their field. If there were a STEM shortage, STEM wages would be skyrocketing, which they are not. Many people with PhDs in the sciences are underemployed and underpaid.
More STEM workers means lower pressure for wages to rise, thus saving money for companies in addition to allowing them to be more picky about who they hire. Increasing the pool of STEM workers is an easy way to please the tech companies (who appear to be coming into their own as political juggernauts) and seeming to make progress on "immigration reform" while circumspectly fucking over the employees of the most advanced sector of the economy in the name of progress.
[0] Indentured Servant is probably an exaggeration: but google sure has a lot of hits: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=h1b+indentured+servant
Well, there are 2 limits: you have to work in your field of study (we won't be taking over your precious Art History, or English job :-)). And you have to be working full time.
I don't know about the OPT thing, but H1B situations vary[1]. If Obama and his advisers can change the law such that no tech person can be entrapped by the H1B visa shenanigans described in the article I linked, I see no problem here.
1. "Even immigration experts have trouble sorting out how the brokers manage to game the system. From 2000 through 2013, at least $29.7m was illegally withheld from about 4,400 tech workers here on H-1B visas, US Department of Labor documents show." --- http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/28/-sp-jobs-brok...
Also, even within the context of abstract humanist principles, immigration isn't wholly positive. My family and I are immigrants to the U.S. It's been great for us, not so great for the country we came from that sees all its bright and ambitious people leave never to return.
Governments exist because having them tends to lead to better decision-making than the alternative. That's all it requires. Nobody is proposing that anarchy would better serve anyone.
Why are you standing in the way of it?
Remittances alone are on the order of half a trillion per year, much higher than all foreign aid combined. And lots of people do return when they're older and richer.
No one wants their advantages whittled away, regardless of whether it helps other people or not. This is simple self-preservation. It is a type of selfishness, yes, but I personally don't consider it a dishonorable type of selfishness.
I think the idea is that there are some advantages that aren't considered good for society. For some historical examples: "regardless of your potential or the quality of your work, you were born to a nobleman/peasant so you'll be a nobleman/peasant". For a more modern example: "regardless of your potential or the quality of your work, you were born in country X so we will erect barriers to prevent you from reaching your productivity potential".
By contrast, "you have an advantage because you are much more productive at this task than that guy[0]" is an advantage that's decidedly not arbitrary, since choosing you means less wasted potential and more wealth for society at large. This is the kind of advantage that can't really be removed without ending up in some sort of Harrison Bergeron type situation, where you pull high-achievers down instead of removing unnecessary impediments to low-achievers (thus increasing total achievement).
The distinction between these two types of advantages should be obvious: fostering the "unfair" advantages benefits nobody but the people being arbitrarily protected, and allowing the "fair" ones is good for pretty much everyone.
> This is simple self-preservation.
We're not monkeys. Presumably we should have the ability to understand whether an advantage is just or not. To use a dramatic example: by your stated logic, it's not "dishonorable" to fight for segregation or for limiting opportunity based on race (if one is in the favored race). Do you really believe that, or is there some unexpressed nuance in your view that would somehow exclude the race-based example but not the country-of-birth example?
[0]Yes, I realize that this is dependent on similarly arbitrary factors like who you were born to (and thus what your education was like), but that's an upstream problem.
If you find a group of peasants better than local peasants at task X you can import them and the locals will either move to do task X elsewhere, accept lower salaries or switch to task Y.
Task Y can pay less and make a lot of pissed off cynics. Task Y may be harmful to society at large, like crime or Wall St quant voodoo. Wall St attracts quants because A students were promised respectable jobs, but because of STEM oversupply or whatever, many of those jobs pay 30K.
So you can't force one narrow interest, superior performance at task X, without consequences. Everything must be done in moderation, even it means inferior quality X. Task Y may destroy all the productivity gains of task X, like middle management, crashing economy for 3 years, etc.
True, but we are often driven by biological influences that cannot altogether be considered "reason".
>> it's not "dishonorable" to fight for segregation or for limiting opportunity based on race
Fighting for advantages, being the disadvantaged, is simply the other side of the coin, behaviorally, from the advantaged holding on to their advantages.
Example. Individual A : Master's of CS from Stanford, Passed interviews, Java, SQL, Hadoop, JSF - Requested salary - 115k
Individual B : PhD Student at Stanford, Passed interviews, Java, SQL - Requested salary - 95k
Job requirements: Java, SQL, Hadoop, JSF
What would you decide on as the hiring manager, you have a limited amount of funds per year and need to meet a deadline. You know A is more qualified, but B is 20k cheaper. As a manger if time permits you will select B since he is cheaper and can acquire the skills needed in his spare time from his fellow engineers or from online materials. In making this decision B has the advantage due to price manipulation, and you allowing him to work even though he in under qualified.
Some might say this scenario is unrealistic but both candidates are using their salary to improve their lives, it just so happens B takes a lot less money (due to being born in a poorer country) to improve his life then A. Typically what you will see in the valley is B living in an apartment with 4 or 5 other people for 3 to 4 years periodically sending his money to his mother country. He can then start a company easily in that new country with his capital, meanwhile A plans to raise a family locally.
Much of this is happening right now http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Bod... Google, Facebook, Linkedin, Everyone does this in the valley.
In this market, at least, I don't think these choices are very common.
Also, we already have competition on a global scale, and most people don't complain about that. Read any thread on Ask HN about becoming a freelancer, and it's always acknowledged that you're competing with devs who bill $10/hr but no one is expressing rage towards them.
The tech industry is not unionized. If all we're asking is that in our home country we're not facing unfair competition from non-citizens, I think that's fair. And personally, I'd be happy to see much higher levels of immigration as long as it's spread uniformly across industries and that those people be made full citizens.
The tech companies would absolutely love it if they could get away with paying their workers as little as the developing countries do; decreasing wages results in increased profits, which are the only thing that matter to them.
I don't see a reason why we have to abide by their greed when we have so much to lose and nothing to gain.
You're essentially advocating to favors one set of people over another set of people. Which the line between two sets being drawn by luck.
Except for those foreigners who get much higher salaries than at home, plus their whole families and communities thanks to remittances.
In any case, I don't see why should I pay for someone else's discrimination.
I believe what you perceive as issues is just the fact that you're expecting people to argue it as a simple policy, while I believe that it's an ethical question. That said, I'll suggest that three shorts posts is a rather small sample to psychoanalyze someone.
No one said freedom and equality were easy. The privalaged lose their advantages.
more offer+equal demand === lower salaries.
Sadly, here on HN there is little discussion of how the tech industry could focus more on making this a better world. Even more sadly, the deeper discussions that do surface here quickly get booted off the front page because they are "controversial".
(and of course this will get downvoted)
That requirement is pretty much impossible to clear if you wasn't born in the US (and hence your relatives isn't US citizen). So for all practical purposes, you might as well codify it.
For private sector job, however, there seems to be no difference in motivation between a citizen and a non citizen in working for the organization (we're there to make some $$$ and keep on with our lives). So yes, I'd love to see the damn requirement get removed :-).
Once we have a global governmental organization of some kind that can provide open immigration globally we can revisit this.
US domiciles' desire for protectionism is understandable. But it cannot be couched in language of fairness and equity.
In a truly meritocratic society, one cannot claim competitive advantage based on where they were born. The objective of legal immigration is to help companies hire the best talent, irrespective of nationality. OPT folks must have an American education. So, part of your tax payer money has gone to subsidize their education, either through NIH/NSF/DoD grants or, via the X % of a State University's total grant outlay that comes from the state. It is truly a win-win situation. Regarding 'lower pressure for wages to rise': you are not competing with people of your own country, but in reality with the world. So if someone from China or India can earn 10x more, even if it depresses wages when they immigrate to a richer society, it is still fair. The companies are looking for good talent + low costs, so instead of moving the division to India or China, they hire top Chinese / Indian talent educated in the US.
This is radical stuff. No, the objective of legal immigration is to help Americans. The objective of the federal government is to serve Americans. It's not clear at all that flooding the American labor market with foreign nationals is good for Americans.
What this would do is not further a meritocracy but change the supply/demand equation in way that like others have pointed out, resembles a race to the bottom.
For example despite relatively higher number of tech employees Silicon valley engineers earn lot more than engineers pretty much everywhere else.
Even if there is a relative drop in wages, everyone wins because lower wages eventually drive the prices of services provided by these people. For example if Google's salary expenditure reduces it might also reduce advertising prices almost everyone else.
[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com/outsourcing-statistics-by-coun...
To be frank, I tried this for C++, and found that 'engineers' in India sucked and the competent ones cost almost the same as in the USA (70k/80k).
On the flip side I was able to find a really cheap graphics/publishing workflow (they clean MS word documents) but with 5x margins on our product, I didn't care nearly as much if we/I was paying people in India half the wages.
In truth, I think there are highly skilled jobs that can't be outsourced or rather have an even playing field.
Why would they when they have better choices?
If you are a tech company you are foolish to not take advantage of the OPT program. Unfortunately it has a negative feedback loop on actually getting enough qualified and trained citizens in to these positions. It basically drives up the cost of such an education displacing citizens from the classroom. However, from the tech industry point of view it's a positive feedback loop.
One little anecdote on something I thought was pretty telling and a bit funny was when I recently heard an interview with Joe Kennedy where a member of the business community asked him about his thoughts on immigration reform. He gave a pretty canned response about hard working people, family ties, deserving a chance etc. Before he could finish the person asking the question chimed in '...and what about H1Bs?" and it was as if somebody snapped their fingers and Joe Kennedy stood up straight, changed to a more serious tone and replied very quickly with 'Oh yes, we MUST expand the H1B program'.
It's a 100% possibility that I have this wrong but I see two groups who this helps. The first group is foreigners who live in the US and the second group is big businesses who can most likely hire lower wage workers.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for improving the STEM sectors in the US but I just feel like it might be a little more useful to invest in our own schools and our own workers instead of invest in foreigners living in the US. Can someone explain what I am missing or what I don't understand?
A vast majority of these foreign workers become huge net positives for the US economy. The economy doesn't work like you seem to think it does; there aren't some set number of jobs that need to be divided up amongst all the people. These imported workers take a job, yes, but they also a new consumer of goods and services.
They're called Billionaires Without Borders. And it sickens me to see them feign interest in diversity and globalization, when really they're looking for cheaper Tech labor, because heaven forbid capitalism from ever working in the american employees favor.
Even if you think that allowing more foreign workers is a good thing in principle, you have to consider that the implementation as it stands is quite a bit messier than that. Plenty of these workers are hired by consulting companies that base their business on hiring foreign experts and exploiting them, paying them less than market rate and restricting their mobility and freedom.
Obviously, this isn't a net positive for society or the job market.
To protect US citizens there are laws in place. That however can be chipped away piece by piece. If tech companies had their way that would end.
There is a real concern about the (at least perceived) decline in the US standard of living for low/middle income folks, that is not necessarily anti-immigrant. You can't deny, immigrants built the country. However, America is going to have to deal with this problem of preserving the very ability of its citizens to be upwardly mobile. I'm not sure how much of the fear is real, but its out there.
The reasons and successes of the past does not necessarily guarantee success by following the same pattern today. Saying something was good before doesn't provide a free pass from questions on the validity of repeating policies of the past.
Not that I'm stating an opinion on the matter one way or another, but I would say the question is valid and your answer comes across as dismissive.
it improves gene/social/economical makeup of American society first and foremost. Best and brightest young people is the best thing one can import.
Take just one very simple aspect - society needs infrastructure and resources committed for 20 years for 5 kids to get one successful college graduation bound educated young person. Out of the rest 4 some will during next 60 years of their life become a net negative like go to prison, unemployment, spawn next generation of low-productive members of society (cue in opening of "Idiocracy" :), etc... Or you can just "magically" import exactly that 1 bright and healthy 20 year old leaving the other 4 and the related 5 x 20 years expenditures to another country :)
Excuse me, sir, what is the hell that you are doing in all other countries then? If you want to be world's police, then better take care of all world's citizens.
It helps the universities too.
There is no need for tech companies to mine youthful, foreign, easily exploited labor pools ("pipelines") when plenty of well trained, well qualified, and seasoned professionals exist that they refuse to hire.
It's unfortunate, but it looks as though the US government is eagerly trashing the future of the citizenry for the sake of the wills of their political donors.
Does anyone know of other countries where its very easy to move and start working as a foreigner?