3 ms·

As an american, I'm really surprised at the quality of responses here which are mostly skeptical of H-1B immigration benefits but then I see full throated suppo

by part3 8y ago

As an american, I'm really surprised at the quality of responses here which are mostly skeptical of H-1B immigration benefits but then I see full throated support to low skilled immigration. Is this because I'm from a flyover state and can see the first hand damage low skilled immigration causes and most here are ignoring that?

mdorazio 8y ago
I like to think of it this way: the H1B program is well-intentioned, but has been hijacked to a large degree by outsourcing companies and corporations just looking to cut costs to the detriment of American workers. There are companies using the program in a good way, but there are also a lot using it in a bad way so you get a mix of opinions in comment threads like this one. On the low-skill immigration side, it can be a good thing when immigrants come to areas with plenty of jobs and act as supplementary labor rather than as direct competition. For example, in some urban centers, immigrants make up a large portion of nannies because working parents need help raising kids, but local residents often don't want to do that kind of work. The net result is more productive parents and an immigrant labor pool fulfilling a needed role. On the other hand, in flyover states you tend to have a different set of labor supply and demand situations and low skill immigrants can be detrimental. Most HN commenters are yuppies rather than rural residents, so you get more emphasis on immigration being a good thing.
- part3 8y ago
  > immigrants make up a large portion of nannies Those jobs would go to citizens if they weren't taken up by immigrants. Sure, the salary requirements would increase, but isn't that literally the rallying cry of politics right now? To pay people more? So I have trouble squaring this: we want more low skilled immigrants, we don't want to build a wall or any deterrant actually but we need to cap and reduce high skilled immigration? Meanwhile, we need to lobby for more destructive policies that will reduce the flyover states voting power?
  - mdorazio 8y ago
    That's highly debatable. Nannies only make sense if you pay your nanny significantly less than your own after-tax salary. If the price is too high, one parent just stops working because doing otherwise is foolish financially and because "I'm spending all my money to pay a stranger to raise my kids." So if immigrants were not available for the work and salaries rose accordingly, a significant number of parents would leave the workforce and lower overall productivity in the local economy. That's what I mean by supplementary labor. Your last comment is assuming complete lack of nuance in common opinions. You need to add some qualifiers to make it accurate. Something like this: We want more low skilled immigrants where they supplement rather than compete with local labor, ... we need to revise the program for highly-skilled immigration without necessarily reducing overall number of immigrants since it has been abused by multiple companies. I'm not sure what you're referring to on your last point. Flyover states and rural communities in general are rather overrepresented in politics today [1]. Most debate on this issue I'm aware of is focused on returning to parity in representation. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-app...

by part3 8y ago

mdorazio 8y ago

I like to think of it this way: the H1B program is well-intentioned, but has been hijacked to a large degree by outsourcing companies and corporations just looking to cut costs to the detriment of American workers. There are companies using the program in a good way, but there are also a lot using it in a bad way so you get a mix of opinions in comment threads like this one. On the low-skill immigration side, it can be a good thing when immigrants come to areas with plenty of jobs and act as supplementary labor rather than as direct competition. For example, in some urban centers, immigrants make up a large portion of nannies because working parents need help raising kids, but local residents often don't want to do that kind of work. The net result is more productive parents and an immigrant labor pool fulfilling a needed role. On the other hand, in flyover states you tend to have a different set of labor supply and demand situations and low skill immigrants can be detrimental. Most HN commenters are yuppies rather than rural residents, so you get more emphasis on immigration being a good thing.

part3 8y ago
> immigrants make up a large portion of nannies Those jobs would go to citizens if they weren't taken up by immigrants. Sure, the salary requirements would increase, but isn't that literally the rallying cry of politics right now? To pay people more? So I have trouble squaring this: we want more low skilled immigrants, we don't want to build a wall or any deterrant actually but we need to cap and reduce high skilled immigration? Meanwhile, we need to lobby for more destructive policies that will reduce the flyover states voting power?
- mdorazio 8y ago
  That's highly debatable. Nannies only make sense if you pay your nanny significantly less than your own after-tax salary. If the price is too high, one parent just stops working because doing otherwise is foolish financially and because "I'm spending all my money to pay a stranger to raise my kids." So if immigrants were not available for the work and salaries rose accordingly, a significant number of parents would leave the workforce and lower overall productivity in the local economy. That's what I mean by supplementary labor. Your last comment is assuming complete lack of nuance in common opinions. You need to add some qualifiers to make it accurate. Something like this: We want more low skilled immigrants where they supplement rather than compete with local labor, ... we need to revise the program for highly-skilled immigration without necessarily reducing overall number of immigrants since it has been abused by multiple companies. I'm not sure what you're referring to on your last point. Flyover states and rural communities in general are rather overrepresented in politics today [1]. Most debate on this issue I'm aware of is focused on returning to parity in representation. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-app...