Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Can someone explain to me why H1Bs are problematic? They are an immigrant workforce just like the people who cross the border illegally. Yes, immigrants, by increasing supply do have a depressing effect on wages, but, in a global economy, don't we also believe in a global workforce?

People seem to have a problem with H1Bs, but people are happy to enjoy the benefits of cheap fruit and vegetables possible with labor of (illegal) immigrants --farmers, even descendants of immigrants oppose amnesty because that would result in the help actually getting legal jobs which pay more. But here, in the case of H1Bs, people seem to have a strong dislike for them. They are just people looking for jobs like anyone else.

Is the implicit argument we should have a different system to allow a greater supply of tech immigrants but with a more flexible visa, maybe even grant residency status thus eliminating this kind of soft exploitation?

View on HN

"don't we also believe in a global workforce?"

Evidently not, as foreign doctors aren't allowed to immigrate to the US and practice medicine without first going through a costly and onerous relicensing program. As it stands, all foreign doctors, even from first-world nations with statistically better health outcomes than the US like Germany or Japan are all deemed unqualified to practice medicine in the US: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long-slog...

The real question is why programmers should be singled out for this kind of treatment when US doctors are the highest paid in the world, price-per-procedure is the highest in the world, and medical bills remain the number one cause of bankruptcy.

Further, a global workforce is only one component of free trade. What about a global retail market? Did you know that there is presently a federal law barring the re-importation of prescription drugs from nations where they're sold for pennies on the dollar? That form of free trade is bad for the bottom line of big corporations, so it is illegal.

You are quite right. People don't care if uneducated or undereducated immigrants come in to the country --except for a few "nationalists". But over all people don't care or actively support immigration, which is a good thing -bettering people's prospects in life.

However, it is quite evident that professionals are _against_ immigration of other professionals because that directly threatens their professional stability.

So, we know immigration, on the whole is good. We know that immigration from poor countries allows those people to better their lives -at the expense of undereducated (blue collar) locals. But professionals don't quite care, actually, we prefer this since it makes products and services cheaper for us. But once the immigration threatens our lifestyles, then on, no, immigration is bad it drives down wages, it threatens quality of work, it allows exploitation and so on. When push comes to shove, we're all protectionists of varying degrees.

Huh? Medical professionals, lawyers, accountants, actuaries, etc. are all license-based professions. There is a very good reason for this, because a big part of the job is about adhering to important laws, regulations, ethics, etc. A big reason for the non-reciprocity (US-trained doctors cannot practice in many other countries, for example) is that these laws and regulations are not universal. There are some reciprocity arrangements in place, but given how bureaucratic the licensing system is, it is just hard.

You don't have any justification for making programming a license-based profession. You wouldn't want that even if you are an American citizen. It makes things significantly harder and more arbitrary when you have licensing requirements (just look at how hard each of USMLE, CPA, bar, CFA, etc. are, even for US citizens). Engineers, for example, can be licensed, but apart from public contracts in civil, mechanical, or electrical engineering, few employers care if you are a 'P.E.'

Lots of people don't believe in a global economy either, and the idea of a global workforce comes at a very bad time.

The last few years, I've lived and worked in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Wilmington. All are shadows of their former shells, hollowed out by deindustrialization. What little remains is threatened by automation. Proponents of technology, and of globalization in capital and labor tell me that it will lead to greater prosperity for everyone. New, better jobs will replace the ones that are lost. We're waiting.

Lots of people say they are for immigrants' rights, but they really aren't in practice. There are ideological forces which on the one hand welcome immigrants into 1st world economies, but then are against globalization --meanwhile, both forces work toward one goal, economically --to bring economic parity, long term. Those forces do cause disruption. On the one hand you have the ebb of some industries here but they are expanding and benefiting destitute people elsewhere in the world. So the middle class is saying, they believe they had a "right" of a middle class lifestyle, moreso than people in other parts of thew world.

We can argue if we think there should be 7 billion people who consume goods at the same rate as Americans, Japanese and Europeans, but so long as we accept an integrated world where we want emigration and immigration and further neo liberal economics, this is the progression we are looking at.

When people bemoan the hollowing out of industries while at the same time saying they support peoples in the third world, something is not right. They are lamenting the loss of their jobs but those jobs are being transferred to second and third world economies helping to build them.

What do we do about the people who aren't able to retool for more skilled jobs? It's an open question. Some day something will have to give. Either we figure out a way to manage that or society will suffer the consequences of inattention.

> ...don't we also believe in a global workforce?

Tell that to the national governments that make it difficult for me, as an American, to move to their countries. We've got tons of treaties that require free movement of goods and capital but, very interestingly, I think, few that deal with the movement of people (labor) and almost none that make it an easy process (I realize there are zones where this is possible, such as in the EU, I'm speaking as an American).

> Is the implicit argument we should have a different system to allow a greater supply of tech immigrants but with a more flexible visa, maybe even grant residency status thus eliminating this kind of soft exploitation?

I, personally, would prefer a system of multi-lateral "free labor" agreements. If the US wants to let in workers from country A, then those workers should be 100% free to come to the US and work, no strings attached, no industry preferences, nothing. BUT, the same should also be true for US workers who wish to go to country A, otherwise, no deal.

This would create a truly more fluid workforce and, unlike with H1B, would benefit everyone instead of a few big companies and the handful of workers they bring in each year (while hurting everyone else).

We have ~this the other way around: the Dutch American Friendship Treaty allows US citizens to come to Holland and start a business (freelancer is Okay). You need 4.5K capital, sustained, and it renews every 2 years.

I would love it if the US could reciprocate :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAFT_%28treaty%29

That is very interesting, I didn't know about it. I feel like the capital requirement still means that it isn't for "labor" though. For instance, can people using that program get jobs? I wish my country, and others, would lower these sorts of barriers and let people go wherever they can be successful and happy.

I'm not sure, I suspect it's only a residency permit, not a work permit. Never investigated it further.

You can, however, become a freelancer. Not the same, but close enough. If this were not just US->NL but US<->NL, that would be swell.

>Can someone explain to me why H1Bs are problematic?

Did you read the article? Here are the subtitles from the article and the first line of the referenced article: - Lower wages - H-1B is not a bridge to permanent immigration - H-1B is not about skills or skills gap

"Information technology workers at Southern California Edison (SCE) are being laid off and replaced by workers from India."

Yes, I understand that. But that can be said about any immigrant workforce. Immigrants increase the pool of locally available workers, but, it appears, people welcome the benefits of immigration till the benefits (cheaper products and services) take away (threaten income) from them.

In other words, would we care if Bangladeshis or Siberian Russians displaced Walmart, or farm workers? Probably not. We'd say, yay, more and cheaper products... but as soon as that workforce threatens tech --uh-oh, no, we can't have that. Immigration bad.

Well, yes lots of Americans do care who comes into the country and from where and there is nothing wrong with that. Lots of people also don't buy the cheapest meat, cheapest coffee, cheapest clothing, etc.

   Lots of people also don't buy the cheapest meat, cheapest coffee, cheapest clothing, etc.

But most people do :)

They are not immigrants with the rights of immigrants. It is absurd that a winner of green card lottery has more rights on the labor market than a skilled person brought to US to fill a skill gap

>In other words, would we care if Bangladeshis or Siberian Russians displaced Walmart, or farm workers? Probably not. We'd say, yay, more and cheaper products... but as soon as that workforce threatens tech --uh-oh, no, we can't have that. Immigration bad.

Is that suspect? I'm neither for nor against immigration in principle: I'm just seeking to optimize outcomes for me and my in-group.

We have a bias against people acting in their own interests when they have a public trust to act for the good of all. An ethical governor would ignore the fact that his family lives in a certain town when trying to decide where to put the new state prison.

But citizens of a country are under no such trust. It may not make Mexicans particularly happy that we have a giant fence down south, but this is not a betrayal. Foreign nationals are fellow human beings and it's great if I can help them, but I'm not under obligation to do so at the cost of my own or my neighbor's economic well-being.

The problem with H1B is that you are serf to your sponsor. If H1B was instead work visa that once you enter the US, you are free to work for 10 years the situation would have been different.

You are free to move on a H1B as long as you find a new employer willing to sponsor it - Bonus: you don't even need to go through the procedure again with USCIS

>Bonus: you don't even need to go through the procedure again with USCIS Wrong.

Not right, but not entirely wrong either.

The process for an internal, expedited H1b transfer is significantly simpler than an H1b from scratch.

> in a global economy, don't we also believe in a global workforce

So open the borders and let anyone who wants to come in come in and work any job they want - let them vote as well.

Until that happens, I have a problem with this.

The simplest fix would be to give more rights to H1B workers. Assuming the workers are smart enough to work towards their personal self-interest, they'd then switch to places with higher wages for the same job or better work conditions. I can't see how it can ever be OK for my lead to make less money than I did just because he happens to be on a visa.

There's nothing wrong in hiring immigrants. There is however something wrong where virtually every other profession has protection, but programmers don't. So wages will be lower compared to other professions, making it a job where skilled people might want to avoid even though they enjoy it.

You either immigration for every profession or non at all. Not screwing one profession in particular.

Yes, but that would only work if you were forced by technological limitations and law to hire an expensive programmer locally.

The issue I have is not with Immigration, it is with the H1-B System. Because of the limited supply of H1-B's and the nature of them to tie the visa holder to an employer with the carrot of a green card (some day), is ripe for abuse by suppressing wages, which appears to be exactly what is happening. The supply of H1-B's is not necessarily the problem, it is the nature that they tie them to a particular employer. The offer of a "green card" some day, has value or acts as a bonus that citizens cannot compete with, so H1-B's salaries can be lower because the promise of a green card has value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com