3 ms·

Very interesting argument. While the "serfdom" aspect of this is definitely morally repugnant, the most optimistic interpretation I can see for the H1B program

by xaa 9y ago

Very interesting argument. While the "serfdom" aspect of this is definitely morally repugnant, the most optimistic interpretation I can see for the H1B program is that it is supposedly a way to encourage or select for immigrants with high economic value. It absolutely does distort the market, but if we are under a political constraint that we can only have X immigrants per year, it does make sense to take the ones that will be working in high-wage sectors, if we are out to maximize GDP. > It will also ensure that the price of lemons will never reflect the opportunity cost, so the market signals that would bring prices back into equilibrium Hm, I'm not sure. It seems like restricted immigration would basically move the supply curve for lemons to the right by decreasing cost of wages for lemons (only). Then because avocados are competing for the same land, avocado supply curve will move left. The result will be more lemons at a lower price and less avocados at a higher price, but they will both still be in "equilibrium". In either case, the rate of return per unit land should be equal for both avocados and lemons, yes? It seems the main effect of interest to us would be that wages for avocado-growing employees would be higher and lemon-growing employees lower under a restricted immigration policy vs an unlimited one. So, back to reality, I have never thought about the fact that H1Bs are actually good for everyone else's wages (outside the affected sectors) compared to unrestricted immigration. If we concerned about "fairness", we could note that it might therefore also be more morally sound to restrict immigration to high-wage jobs because it would actually compress wage inequality and the low-wage natives would benefit. The losers in this scenario are high-skill natives and low-skill foreigners.

geebee 9y ago
Yes, your last point is astute. Sandwich shop owners, for instance, benefit from the presence of more people here to buy sandwiches but who are prohibited by visa restrictions from entering the sandwich shop business. In theory, we all benefit from more immigration. Yes, some of the immigrants will compete directly with us for jobs and customers, but others will provide us with services and be clients and customers. Again, in theory, the increased economies of scale leave everyone better off. The thing is, job-specific immigration restrictions don't allow the market to work properly. If immigration forces people to be programmers, then homegrown programmers will be disproportionally affected by immigration. Sorry for no cite, but I did read a study suggesting that programmers are one of the few educated groups in the US whose wages may have diminished because of immigration. I don't think this would have happened had immigration been "free", because immigrants would be able to respond to market signals and spread into the general workforce in the way I described above. So I don't "blame" immigration per se, I blame the highly coercive nature of the program. As to high vs low skill... yes, this would impact high skill workers more, but I think the distortions would would be manageable as long as we kept the definition of "high skill" very general. I think the H1B visa is too narrowly defined, and too dominated by high tech, to qualify as the more general "high skill" approach that would avoid these kinds of market distortions. [1] I find some merit to this, but I do believe there are costs associated with very high levels of immigration that are often left out of this kind of analysis.
- xaa 9y ago
  > ...leave everyone better off. Oh, my. If you had said "average GDP per capita" or "total real GDP" or even "many people" better off, OK. Free immigration is very much like free trade: it makes the system as a whole more efficient, but there definitely are winners and losers in the process. In the limiting case of 1 immigrant, employees in that immigrant's field lose (slightly), and everyone else wins, including that immigrant's employer. So, in my view, these things should be controlled in such a way to try to make sure the winners aren't people already winning and vice-versa. But not to the point of cutting off our nose to spite our face; there is this tradeoff between equity and efficiency. > If immigration forces people to be programmers, then homegrown programmers will be disproportionally affected by immigration...I don't think this would have happened had immigration been "free" Well, I agree, and this is pretty close to a tautology. As the "high-skill natives" in an H1B field, we're the primary losers from the policy, whereas most people benefit. I'm coming at this from the assumption that there is some number of immigrants per year, X, that society is willing to tolerate. Would we prefer X Albert Einsteins or X random people? You are arguing that the former would cause a market distortion; maybe true, but still preferable, I'd say. And I think that it doesn't really matter whether immigrants are enslaved to a particular company, or whether they're simply selected for a particular set of skills. If you allow only programmer immigrants, most of them will program, whether or not they're required to, because their alternative is unskilled labor. > I think the H1B visa is too narrowly defined I agree, but that's the power of lobbying for you. Actually I'm not in programming per se, but science (with computing aspects). Tons of H1Bs here for science as well. It would make more sense if it were defined by salary rather than field, although may be hard to implement.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - geebee 9y ago
    Interesting points. I generally agree, though I'll expand on it a bit anyway. For starters, yes, I agree that "everyone better off" isn't the right way to put this. Not much to discuss there, I agree for the reasons you've outlined. Your second part, though, about the filter. While I would prefer a system that allows programmer immigrants to leave the field and enter other fields if they choose to, this freedom has limited value if immigrants are forced to make heavy up front investments in STEM education as a condition of entering the US. Agreed, If you only allow programmer immigrants, it's likely that most of them will continue to program. This is particularly true if the sunk cost is heavy. For instance, there's a lot of talk of "stapling a green card" to every MS or PhD in a STEM field. While this would leave immigrants free to pursue other fields after getting their degrees, it requires immigrants to make a huge up front investment in a STEM education. For example, imagine if we said "there's a shortage of lawyers, therefore, we will staple a green card to all law degrees earned by international students. But of course, these students are free to pursue whatever path they wish after they receive their law degree and pass the bar." That's better than not allowing it, but we'd have forced everyone to go through a $150,000+ law degree as a cost of coming to the US, as well as giving up 3 years of their life. Options are now considerably more limited. It's a similar thing for STEM degrees. I read a study of the value add of a MS degree, and it turns out that engineering and STEM MS degrees, while valuable compared to arts and humanities MA degrees, really don't pay like JDs or MBAs, or various Medical MS degrees (let alone MD degrees). In short, it's rational to avoid getting an MS in a STEM field, because pay and working conditions aren't as good as the options highly talented students can find in other fields. If these workers were really as critical and hard to find as businesses claim, they'd be paid as well as MBA, Medical MD/MS, and JD holders. However there's a big difference in the equation once someone has already been forced to obtain one of these degrees as a condition of living and working in the US. It may be more rational to get a JD or MBA instead of an MS in Engineering, but it may not be rational to get one once you've put the years and effort into getting that MS. At that point, it may be more rational to just work as an engineer. This is why I oppose efforts to allow corporations to control the conditions under which immigrants are allowed to come to the US. It's not enough to grant a green card once that person is hired, because it still allows corporations to force immigrants into a high up front cost. As you've said, though, that's the power of lobbying. I enjoy discussing and debating this on HN, but large powerful corporations are likely to get their way. I have no illusions about ever changing this. Probably the real take-away/lesson is that if you have the freedom to choose your job path, you might want to avoid the ones corporations can force immigrants into. Ironically, in other words, if you hear corporations talking about a "shortage" in a field, it may be rational to avoid that field if you're a citizen with freedom to choose your job and educational path. One area where I may disagree with you a bit is on the Einstein thing. I consider this a bit of a red herring. There aren't 80,000+ Einsteins coming into the country every year, and there isn't much disagreement that we should allow in all the "Einsteins". Even ardent opponents of the H1B visa absolutely agree that there are a few thousand individuals who should be allowed in. This tends to be around he EB-1 visa, which again, really isn't controversial.

by xaa 9y ago

geebee 9y ago

Yes, your last point is astute. Sandwich shop owners, for instance, benefit from the presence of more people here to buy sandwiches but who are prohibited by visa restrictions from entering the sandwich shop business. In theory, we all benefit from more immigration. Yes, some of the immigrants will compete directly with us for jobs and customers, but others will provide us with services and be clients and customers. Again, in theory, the increased economies of scale leave everyone better off. The thing is, job-specific immigration restrictions don't allow the market to work properly. If immigration forces people to be programmers, then homegrown programmers will be disproportionally affected by immigration. Sorry for no cite, but I did read a study suggesting that programmers are one of the few educated groups in the US whose wages may have diminished because of immigration. I don't think this would have happened had immigration been "free", because immigrants would be able to respond to market signals and spread into the general workforce in the way I described above. So I don't "blame" immigration per se, I blame the highly coercive nature of the program. As to high vs low skill... yes, this would impact high skill workers more, but I think the distortions would would be manageable as long as we kept the definition of "high skill" very general. I think the H1B visa is too narrowly defined, and too dominated by high tech, to qualify as the more general "high skill" approach that would avoid these kinds of market distortions. [1] I find some merit to this, but I do believe there are costs associated with very high levels of immigration that are often left out of this kind of analysis.

xaa 9y ago
> ...leave everyone better off. Oh, my. If you had said "average GDP per capita" or "total real GDP" or even "many people" better off, OK. Free immigration is very much like free trade: it makes the system as a whole more efficient, but there definitely are winners and losers in the process. In the limiting case of 1 immigrant, employees in that immigrant's field lose (slightly), and everyone else wins, including that immigrant's employer. So, in my view, these things should be controlled in such a way to try to make sure the winners aren't people already winning and vice-versa. But not to the point of cutting off our nose to spite our face; there is this tradeoff between equity and efficiency. > If immigration forces people to be programmers, then homegrown programmers will be disproportionally affected by immigration...I don't think this would have happened had immigration been "free" Well, I agree, and this is pretty close to a tautology. As the "high-skill natives" in an H1B field, we're the primary losers from the policy, whereas most people benefit. I'm coming at this from the assumption that there is some number of immigrants per year, X, that society is willing to tolerate. Would we prefer X Albert Einsteins or X random people? You are arguing that the former would cause a market distortion; maybe true, but still preferable, I'd say. And I think that it doesn't really matter whether immigrants are enslaved to a particular company, or whether they're simply selected for a particular set of skills. If you allow only programmer immigrants, most of them will program, whether or not they're required to, because their alternative is unskilled labor. > I think the H1B visa is too narrowly defined I agree, but that's the power of lobbying for you. Actually I'm not in programming per se, but science (with computing aspects). Tons of H1Bs here for science as well. It would make more sense if it were defined by salary rather than field, although may be hard to implement.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- geebee 9y ago
  Interesting points. I generally agree, though I'll expand on it a bit anyway. For starters, yes, I agree that "everyone better off" isn't the right way to put this. Not much to discuss there, I agree for the reasons you've outlined. Your second part, though, about the filter. While I would prefer a system that allows programmer immigrants to leave the field and enter other fields if they choose to, this freedom has limited value if immigrants are forced to make heavy up front investments in STEM education as a condition of entering the US. Agreed, If you only allow programmer immigrants, it's likely that most of them will continue to program. This is particularly true if the sunk cost is heavy. For instance, there's a lot of talk of "stapling a green card" to every MS or PhD in a STEM field. While this would leave immigrants free to pursue other fields after getting their degrees, it requires immigrants to make a huge up front investment in a STEM education. For example, imagine if we said "there's a shortage of lawyers, therefore, we will staple a green card to all law degrees earned by international students. But of course, these students are free to pursue whatever path they wish after they receive their law degree and pass the bar." That's better than not allowing it, but we'd have forced everyone to go through a $150,000+ law degree as a cost of coming to the US, as well as giving up 3 years of their life. Options are now considerably more limited. It's a similar thing for STEM degrees. I read a study of the value add of a MS degree, and it turns out that engineering and STEM MS degrees, while valuable compared to arts and humanities MA degrees, really don't pay like JDs or MBAs, or various Medical MS degrees (let alone MD degrees). In short, it's rational to avoid getting an MS in a STEM field, because pay and working conditions aren't as good as the options highly talented students can find in other fields. If these workers were really as critical and hard to find as businesses claim, they'd be paid as well as MBA, Medical MD/MS, and JD holders. However there's a big difference in the equation once someone has already been forced to obtain one of these degrees as a condition of living and working in the US. It may be more rational to get a JD or MBA instead of an MS in Engineering, but it may not be rational to get one once you've put the years and effort into getting that MS. At that point, it may be more rational to just work as an engineer. This is why I oppose efforts to allow corporations to control the conditions under which immigrants are allowed to come to the US. It's not enough to grant a green card once that person is hired, because it still allows corporations to force immigrants into a high up front cost. As you've said, though, that's the power of lobbying. I enjoy discussing and debating this on HN, but large powerful corporations are likely to get their way. I have no illusions about ever changing this. Probably the real take-away/lesson is that if you have the freedom to choose your job path, you might want to avoid the ones corporations can force immigrants into. Ironically, in other words, if you hear corporations talking about a "shortage" in a field, it may be rational to avoid that field if you're a citizen with freedom to choose your job and educational path. One area where I may disagree with you a bit is on the Einstein thing. I consider this a bit of a red herring. There aren't 80,000+ Einsteins coming into the country every year, and there isn't much disagreement that we should allow in all the "Einsteins". Even ardent opponents of the H1B visa absolutely agree that there are a few thousand individuals who should be allowed in. This tends to be around he EB-1 visa, which again, really isn't controversial.