4 ms·

At this point I just don't understand your argument. You seem to imply that there is some "correct" supply of engineers, and anything that increases the supply

by baddox 10y ago

At this point I just don't understand your argument. You seem to imply that there is some "correct" supply of engineers, and anything that increases the supply above that is "suppressing wages." That would mean that scholarships for engineering schools, programs for encouraging engineering careers, all forms of immigration, and even internal population growth, would all be things that can "suppress wages."

humanrebar 10y ago
It seems to me that H1B supporters are the ones saying there is a correct supply of engineers and that the U.S. is below that threshold. I'm arguing that the supply is more fungible than that, especially in the long run and especially given a floating price point, and that changing the laws and regulations to solve challenges in particular business models is basically an indirect form of lobbying for special interests.
Arizhel 10y ago
Actually, all those things are things that suppress wages. Think about it: WHY do we need programs to encourage engineering careers? Do we have programs to encourage people to go into law or medicine? Why not? Well those professions don't seem to have a shortage of people willing to work hard to get into those schools. So why does engineering have such a shortage? These programs assume that there's something wrong with young people, or with the culture, causing them to avoid these careers. Maybe, instead, there's something wrong with the careers themselves, and the employers, which cause people to avoid them. So why are we, as a society, subsidizing these rich companies to help them get more workers? If these companies really need these workers so badly, maybe they should foot the bill to recruit people into the profession and then train them (I mean their entire college costs here). If an employer isn't willing to pay $100k for a kid to go through college, who otherwise isn't willing to take that risk himself, then why should the rest of us try to brainwash that kid to do it, or help fund a scholarship for him?

by baddox 10y ago

humanrebar 10y ago

It seems to me that H1B supporters are the ones saying there is a correct supply of engineers and that the U.S. is below that threshold. I'm arguing that the supply is more fungible than that, especially in the long run and especially given a floating price point, and that changing the laws and regulations to solve challenges in particular business models is basically an indirect form of lobbying for special interests.

Arizhel 10y ago

Actually, all those things are things that suppress wages. Think about it: WHY do we need programs to encourage engineering careers? Do we have programs to encourage people to go into law or medicine? Why not? Well those professions don't seem to have a shortage of people willing to work hard to get into those schools. So why does engineering have such a shortage? These programs assume that there's something wrong with young people, or with the culture, causing them to avoid these careers. Maybe, instead, there's something wrong with the careers themselves, and the employers, which cause people to avoid them. So why are we, as a society, subsidizing these rich companies to help them get more workers? If these companies really need these workers so badly, maybe they should foot the bill to recruit people into the profession and then train them (I mean their entire college costs here). If an employer isn't willing to pay $100k for a kid to go through college, who otherwise isn't willing to take that risk himself, then why should the rest of us try to brainwash that kid to do it, or help fund a scholarship for him?