3 ms·

>...which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone This is a common misconception about the H1B program. In order to be approved for sponsorship, the

by bduerst 10y ago

>...which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone This is a common misconception about the H1B program. In order to be approved for sponsorship, the immigrant needs to be paid more than citizens who are for working the same job in the same area. If you're going to propose that "loosening" the restrictions means removing this one rule, then you're only creating your own hypothetical problems. Ideally as long as the prevailing wage rule is in place and enforcement (like in this article) works, then there shouldn't be a need for artificial restrictions like the lottery - and you won't have wages being driven down.

unclebucknasty 10y ago
>the immigrant needs to be paid more than citizens Not exactly: "You must be paid at least the actual or prevailing wage for your occupation, whichever is higher." [0] See [1] for info in your area, and you'll understand the potential for taking some latitude with this rule. >If you're going to propose that "loosening" the restrictions means removing this one rule... Not sure who is proposing loosening this one rule. My point to the GP was only that removing or significantly loosening the sponsorship rule would not lead to an increase in wages for all, as he/she claimed. [0] https://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty-occupation/understanding-h-1b-requirements https://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty-occupati... [1] http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx
- bduerst 10y ago
  The point still stands that the immigrants are getting paid at least what citizens are getting paid, which means wages are not going to get driven down.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    No. The point doesn't still stand. It never stood. All else held constant, increased labor supply means lower wages for all. So, the prevailing wage goes down for everyone. Sure, companies have to pay everyone equally, so everyone just gets paid less. It's simple supply and demand. I think some are taking these simple statements of fact as some sort of anti-immigrant rant or advocacy of the current H1-B policy. It's not. But, if you want to fix it, you first have to understand it.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      It is a pretty simple supply and demand curve, but again you're intentionally ignoring the facts about prevailing wage (PW) and operating under the same misconception. H1B visas are only increasing supply for jobs that pay above the PW, not "all" jobs. That means that there is not additional supply for below PW jobs. If anything, the PW goes up because of the increased liquidity for supplying above average wages. This problem you're trying to fabricate is precisely what the PW rule successfully prevents. The question I think needs answering is why are you still trying to make this a problem? Who are you trying to convince - me or yourself? Edit: I seem to have hit a nerve - You've replied three different times to the same thing and are incoherent at this point. I guess you're still trying to convince yourself there's a problem?
      - unclebucknasty 10y ago
        >the problem is you're still operating under the same misconception that all demand is met by H1B supply (which is false) >H1B visas are only approved for the average or above average job wage >Hence wages are not going to go down because there is no supply for below-average wages. Wow. This is pretty tortured logic. OK, what I am saying is that when you increase the supply of workers in an industry, the wages in that industry will go down. Whether it's a high or low wage industry, the wages will go lower. Until now, I haven't been speaking to the impact on wages in other industries, however, I fail to see how decreased wages in one industry would not lead to a decrease in the overall cross-industry wage average. It's simple math. In fact, the impact of higher wage earners losing a percentage of their income would have an outsized deleterious effect on overall wages vs. lower wage workers losing that same percentage. EDIT: You've updated your comment three or four times, and you seem to be contorting a bit. So, I will just leave my comment as-is along with the quotes from one of your previous revisions.
      - unclebucknasty 10y ago
        >The question I think needs answering is why are you still trying to make this a problem? Who are you trying to convince - me or yourself You've been twisting, contorting, and re-editing ferociously in your war on basic economic theory. And now, I'm making your misunderstanding of supply and demand a problem? Oy vey.

by bduerst 10y ago

unclebucknasty 10y ago

>the immigrant needs to be paid more than citizens Not exactly: "You must be paid at least the actual or prevailing wage for your occupation, whichever is higher." [0] See [1] for info in your area, and you'll understand the potential for taking some latitude with this rule. >If you're going to propose that "loosening" the restrictions means removing this one rule... Not sure who is proposing loosening this one rule. My point to the GP was only that removing or significantly loosening the sponsorship rule would not lead to an increase in wages for all, as he/she claimed. [0] https://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty-occupation/understanding-h-1b-requirements https://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty-occupati... [1] http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx

bduerst 10y ago
The point still stands that the immigrants are getting paid at least what citizens are getting paid, which means wages are not going to get driven down.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  No. The point doesn't still stand. It never stood. All else held constant, increased labor supply means lower wages for all. So, the prevailing wage goes down for everyone. Sure, companies have to pay everyone equally, so everyone just gets paid less. It's simple supply and demand. I think some are taking these simple statements of fact as some sort of anti-immigrant rant or advocacy of the current H1-B policy. It's not. But, if you want to fix it, you first have to understand it.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    It is a pretty simple supply and demand curve, but again you're intentionally ignoring the facts about prevailing wage (PW) and operating under the same misconception. H1B visas are only increasing supply for jobs that pay above the PW, not "all" jobs. That means that there is not additional supply for below PW jobs. If anything, the PW goes up because of the increased liquidity for supplying above average wages. This problem you're trying to fabricate is precisely what the PW rule successfully prevents. The question I think needs answering is why are you still trying to make this a problem? Who are you trying to convince - me or yourself? Edit: I seem to have hit a nerve - You've replied three different times to the same thing and are incoherent at this point. I guess you're still trying to convince yourself there's a problem?
    - unclebucknasty 10y ago
      >the problem is you're still operating under the same misconception that all demand is met by H1B supply (which is false) >H1B visas are only approved for the average or above average job wage >Hence wages are not going to go down because there is no supply for below-average wages. Wow. This is pretty tortured logic. OK, what I am saying is that when you increase the supply of workers in an industry, the wages in that industry will go down. Whether it's a high or low wage industry, the wages will go lower. Until now, I haven't been speaking to the impact on wages in other industries, however, I fail to see how decreased wages in one industry would not lead to a decrease in the overall cross-industry wage average. It's simple math. In fact, the impact of higher wage earners losing a percentage of their income would have an outsized deleterious effect on overall wages vs. lower wage workers losing that same percentage. EDIT: You've updated your comment three or four times, and you seem to be contorting a bit. So, I will just leave my comment as-is along with the quotes from one of your previous revisions.
    - unclebucknasty 10y ago
      >The question I think needs answering is why are you still trying to make this a problem? Who are you trying to convince - me or yourself You've been twisting, contorting, and re-editing ferociously in your war on basic economic theory. And now, I'm making your misunderstanding of supply and demand a problem? Oy vey.