5 ms·

I posted a couple of links in a comment below. A summary is available here: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engi... http://www.usatoday

• jbooth 17y ago
  In my opinion, yes, it does make sense. Our system isn't producing enough engineers because many of those with the smarts for it go the finance or MBA route instead. The classes are easier and it seems to generate higher income, so why not, right? So, we can change some of those systemic factors, which I'm all in favor of but in the short term, creating new Americans who may look a little different and have a funny last name will do more to increase the number of American engineers than not doing so. Regarding the too-easy dismissal of this concern as xenophobia, I'll only say that I've met a bunch of people who are for immigration reform in general, but once you talk about H-1B or a similar program, all of a sudden that program's a ripoff which helps the corporations at the expense of the little guy by increasing labor supply. So, what, it was ok to import garden workers but we can't import tech workers? (not aimed at you, aimed at my strawman which I have indeed heard from several otherwise liberal people). Anyways, yeah, once you advocate reducing immigration for the express purpose of not unduly expanding the labor pool, I'm going to call it "dey took our jawbs" -- if that makes the person uncomfortable, they should argue from a different position :)
  • geebee 17y ago
    My problem with the short term solution is that it interferes with the market correction that could bring more Americans back into engineering. If engineering is more difficult and pays less, than you'd expect a shortage. Markets will correct this shortage naturally, since bidding wars will emerge for the smaller number of qualified engineers, wages will rise, and people who would otherwise do law or medicine would look at engineering with more interest. Unfortunately, if you allow industry-specific immigration (or worse, guest worker) programs, this market correction will never occur. This is a big part of why many people who are not opposed to immigration in general take a very dim view of the H1B (keep in mind that Milton Friedman (not exactly a guy who advocates "reducing immigration for the express purpose of not unduly expanding the labor pool" was a critic of the H1B program for this very reason). It's not that it expands the labor pool, it's that it does it in a very uneven way. You're essentially saying "we'll let you in here to do engineering, but not to do, say, law." This amounts to a government program designed to discourage Americans from studying engineering and get them into law school instead. While most fields aren't nearly as closed off to "new Americans who may look a little different and have a funny last name" as law is, there mere absence of a widespread visa program can have a similar effect. So you'd also expect this program to encourage Americans who might otherwise have studied engineering to become real estate agents, mortgage brokers, nurses, and physical therapists. I don't like to hear people say "dey took our jawbs", but I think it's very legitimate to ask "why did the government set up a system where engineering (and a few other) jobs were the only ones they were allowed to take?" Especially when independent, objective research like the RAND study suggests that engineering isn't experiencing any kind of labor shortage. BTW, there is one final factor here, which may explain what is going on. Many jobs are lucrative to the person doing them without producing much wealth. Engineering is generally the opposite - produces great amounts of wealth, but not always lucrative for the practitioner. To over simplify, a tax lawyer who saves a client a million doesn't produce a million in wealth, but he'll be paid by his client as if he had. An engineer generally does produce this wealth. So society, in general, has more interest in producing engineers than individuals have in becoming engineers. So I suppose the US has decided to resolve this by seeing if we can lure away someone else's engineers. That way, we can be lawyers, real estate agents, and so forth, and still have someone producing the wealth that the rest of us get to divvy up. As long as you ban those new people from taking anything other than an engineering job, and you don't mind watching Americans abandon the field in large numbers, should be fine, right? Well, wait until we can't get engineers from overseas, and need to suddenly revive a profession that we essentially destroyed through policy. I actually think this could end very badly, which is often the case with the unintended consequences that occur when you regulate markets unevenly. I think that in the long run, these programs could create a severe shortage that will be very damaging.
• philwelch 17y ago
  Increased immigration by entrepreneurs won't remedy a shortage of engineers so much as it'll remedy a shortage of engineering jobs, though. Maybe unrestricted immigration of talented people isn't the best thing (though I would still argue it is) but importing tons of immigrants to found rather than to be employed can't take up any jobs that were there previously.