Hacker News Reader

Oftentimes, foreign citizens working in the US are not able to freely participate in the job market. If they can't freely move from job to job (as US workers can), then they will be paid less money. If they want to be in the US badly enough, this will still be their best option. Everyone wins except the local worker who is now competing with an indentured servant.

[0] Indentured Servant is probably an exaggeration: but google sure has a lot of hits: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=h1b+indentured+servant

Most visas (in particular, the OPT in question and the H1B) allow very easy work-permit transfer to other employers. So the wage decrease won't apply here.

>>Most visas (in particular, the OPT in question and the H1B) allow very easy work-permit transfer to other employers.

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...

One of the issues with the H1B is that if the worker loses their job, they only have a month to find another one or face being deported.

The OPT is pretty much a green card in term of mobility. Except the fact that it expires, there're not other limitation to it: you can self employed (freelancing), do a startup, take any job you want.

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.

("It's a bit sad..." seems passive-aggressive to me, but I give you the benefit of the doubt here)

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 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.

"We're not monkeys."

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.

Here's some more oversimplification.

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.

Heck, why have any immigration controls at all? Why have citizenship requirements for any job, up to and including President?

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but I will assume that it's not and I will bite anyway: because the President necessary put the good of the US States over everything else, including his own family (if necessary), "unquestionable loyalty to the US", basically.

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 :-).

Why indeed.

How many countries place no restrictions on non-citizens being able to enter and work for long terms?

China...well, I have to re-get a new working visa every year, but its pretty automatic. The fact that citizenship or long term resident permits are not possible makes this more common.

The free market favors the wealth of corporations at the detriment of individual people.

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.

Your point is well taken, but that doesn't seems to be what the GP was saying.

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.

nothing to gain.

Except for those foreigners who get much higher salaries than at home, plus their whole families and communities thanks to remittances.

Do you have any disposable income? You can pick somebody who did not get approved for H1B and send some money to his family each month. You don't need to wait for him to get a job in SV. Start now.

I make $15k/year in a western country, how much disposable income do you think I have?

In any case, I don't see why should I pay for someone else's discrimination.

But we can easily reverse that. What about the local that now has to accept lower wages at home, which also affects their whole families and communities?

What about them?

I can see from this response and the other you made, you're not really willing to discuss this in any objective manner. It seems you have issues that go deeper than just this simple discussion. I hope you manage to work them out and good luck to you.

Nope, no issues, just disagreement. The other post was simply responding to tone; not very mature, I admit, but I find that line of reasoning dishonest.

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.

Fair statement.

They also have lower costs so their lower wages go further. They might be slightly worse off on the balance, but it's outweighed by the benefits those lower costs bring to everyone else. It also frees them up for other pursuits. It's really no different from any other technological advancement that put people out of work.

Your argument in favor of eased immigration to the US is that foreigners will benefit?

Yes. Just like the argument for democracy is that peasants will benefit (at possible cost to nobles). Just like the arument for racial desegregation is that black people will benefit (while possibly inconveniencing white people).

No one said freedom and equality were easy. The privalaged lose their advantages.

> It's a bit sad that you see competition on a global scale as "being fucked over".

more offer+equal demand === lower salaries.

I have little sympathy for high tech workers complaining about lower salaries when in fact they are probably in the top 20% if not 10% of the earners in the country.

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)

By that logic, tech workers should also demand legally capping the number of new graduates; they provide "more offer" too.

Worked out pretty well for the medical profession

It did, but at the cost of everyone else.

People are not worried about individuals of equal skill taking their jobs, but those of lesser skills.

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.

A PhD student at Stanford wanting only $95K?!? I would be extremely suspicious; is B going to be happy with the job and not leave within a year?

In this market, at least, I don't think these choices are very common.

"This market" won't be "this market" after this new plan is place.

Why? At the high-end, it is already an international market for talent. Where visas are hard to come by, the choice is not often to increase salaries to hire more Americans, but where should we open that new office: Berlin, Bangalore, Singapore, or Beijing? Couple that with a horrible American tax policy that makes repatriating income earned abroad expensive, and doing R&D outside of the US is quite appealing (not only can you find more talent, but you don't have to bring money back to the US to pay for that talent).

If the politicians want to reform the citizenship process, I'm all for that. As it stands, becoming a US citizen is extremely difficult. But what they tend to do is carve out visas to help particular corporations which floods particular labor markets with workers who are often exploited to take low wages.

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.

People are entitled to their self-interest, and it is in peoples' self-interest to avoid the race to the bottom that results from globalization. Furthermore, governments exist to serve their specific constituents, not to hew to abstract humanist principles.

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.

Why are people entitled to self interest? Why aren't people entitled to group interest?

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.

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.

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.

A race to the bottom means a race towards efficiency. This is a net benefit to society. Sure, selfish people might stand in its way, and if you sympathize with them, that's your choice, but don't pretend it's something admirable.

Global "efficiency" is a net negative for every single person reading this.

Why are you standing in the way of it?

I care about people who are not reading this.

That's not the question. The question is why are you standing in their way?

Perhaps I've misunderstood your position. I think we should decrease the amount we stand in the way of foreigners who want to work in this country.

"Efficiency" usually just means more of the wealth of society accumulating to capital holders. Nothing admirable about that.

Why not? The alternative isn't a more equal distribution of wealth, it's less total wealth.

As long as we're going to maintain the fiction of national borders, it would be nice to do so in a way that doesn't consistently fuck over the lower rungs of society in favor of the politically connected.

Once we have a global governmental organization of some kind that can provide open immigration globally we can revisit this.

Yes? How is that selfish? You commit to a life here, you take on student debt, you study for years under the promise that your government is looking out for you above others.