7 ms·

They’re not overreacting. My analysis of employee-level U.S. Census Bureau data and qualitative interviews show that U.S. tech workers over age 40 have good rea

They’re not overreacting. My analysis of employee-level U.S. Census Bureau data and qualitative interviews show that U.S. tech workers over age 40 have good reasons to be concerned about how globalization affects their career longevity. In addition to competing with greater numbers of skilled foreign workers, older tech workers are now also more likely than younger workers to lose their jobs when technical work moves overseas. All that said, it would be a mistake to rein in U.S. immigration policy. Here’s why. The largest and most prominent visa category for employment-based immigration to the United States is what’s known as the H-1B visa. Some 90% of H-1B visa recipients are individuals under age 40.7 Typically, economists analyze the effects of immigration through an apples-to-apples comparison of immigrants and nonimmigrants in the same general age and education bracket who are looking for employment. However, peer displacement doesn’t appear in that data set because the salary differences between workers with H-1B visas and domestic employees of similar ages and skills are minimal (in part due to a law requiring companies to pay an H-1B worker the “prevailing wage” for the position). I don't see how it follows that adjusting the US immigration policy is a "mistake". Isn't the increased supply of workers putting downward price pressure on salaries? Even if H1B requires a prevailing wage, that wage will go down to meet the increased supply of talent that additional developers bring.

noego 8y ago
The rest of the article is behind a paywall. Presumably they have justified their earlier statement. Your reasoning sounds reasonable, but it falls for the lump of labor fallacy. Having more smart and talented people makes our society better off, not worse. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/opinion/lumps-of-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/opinion/lumps-of-labor.ht...
- malvosenior 8y ago
  That might be the case but that NYT opinion article didn't cite any research to back up its assertions. It's pretty hard to imagine how more developers wouldn't lower salaries though. I say this as someone who's done a lot of hiring. It's really hard to find good people and they can command a premium (fair market wage). Being able to hire H1Bs helps hiring managers but I don't think it helps developer salaries at all.
  - noego 8y ago
    The "NYT opinion article" is written by a Nobel prize winner, and he's describing the opinion that most economists hold towards the lump of labor fallacy. If you're curious to learn more, there's plenty that come up in a simple Google search. > It's pretty hard to imagine how more developers wouldn't lower salaries though This is the textbook definition of the lump of labor fallacy.
    - krapht 8y ago
      I mean, it's also not the case that labor markets are immune to supply and demand. As always, the answer is somewhere in the middle.
      - noego 8y ago
        The whole point of the "lump of labor fallacy" is that growing the workforce will increase both the supply and demand. This is why unemployment is comparable across 1900 and 2000 America, despite the population exploding. The answer isn't always somewhere in the middle. If someone tries to convince you that the Earth is flat or that climate change isn't happening, I would hope that you will lend more credence to the experts instead of believing the answer is somewhere in the middle.
        krapht 8y ago
        Utility is maximized for society as a whole when the workforce grows. However, my utility is not equal to society's. In fact, selfishly speaking, I would be better off if h1b was shut down, licensure roles introduced, etc etc.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      As someone who's hired many people on H1B visas, I strongly disagree. There was always local talent that could do the job I needed, I just didn't have budget for them. If hiring an H1B worker wasn't an option, the company would have had to pony up for the more expensive developer. H1Bs also distort the market because getting a sponsored visa is a huge deal for a lot of people. Yes they may make slightly less than market but they have the ability to come to the US legally and have all of the paperwork filled by the hiring company (and legal support). As another commenter mentioned, they're also locked into your company and can't quit without leaving the country. Another win for hiring managers. None of this is good for local talent though. It's absolutely naive to believe that the supply of labor has no impact on its cost.
- amacdona 8y ago
  I'm on the SMR editorial team — we've removed the paywall on this, so you should have access to the full article now.
throwawaystale 8y ago
A related effect is that almost all H-1B's count as "diverse" in HR statistics. If so, then currently there would be intense pressure to hire the H-1B candidate over a citizen, even if the former required a higher salary. I have some skin in this game. I was rejected at Google for mysterious reasons after passing the all-day and hiring committee. No way to know, but I am indeed pale, male, and stale (and a citizen). If you look at Google's own diversity reports, their fraction of people like me has falling like a stone for several years now.
- killerdhmo 8y ago
  Wow, a troubling rationale. They’ve doubled in size in the last five years, your rejection, and an increase in diversity do not equate to not hiring white people. They just didn’t hire you. I’d find it concerning to jump at anti-immigrant rhetoric so quickly.
  - throwawaystale 8y ago
    Both I and my wife are second generation immigrants. I have no issues with immigrants at all, and I've worked my entire career besides H-1Bs and other PRs. If you had asked me five years ago, I'd have expressed a (somewhat naive) wish that we just drop national borders altogether, for the purposes of immigration. (I'm a bit more sanguine these days.) I wasn't aware that Google was still growing that fast. That makes the reduction in the proportion of non-diverse employees a little more credible. On the other hand, it makes the sibling poster's thought (headcount reduction) a little less credible. Obviously, they didn't hire me, and in the end, I have no idea why. They probably barely know why themselves.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jarsin 8y ago
  No comments on your take on why they did not hire you but just curious who can override the hiring committee at google? Seems weird they go through so much trouble hiring and it still comes down to one person giving their ok?

noego 8y ago

The rest of the article is behind a paywall. Presumably they have justified their earlier statement. Your reasoning sounds reasonable, but it falls for the lump of labor fallacy. Having more smart and talented people makes our society better off, not worse. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/opinion/lumps-of-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/opinion/lumps-of-labor.ht...

malvosenior 8y ago
That might be the case but that NYT opinion article didn't cite any research to back up its assertions. It's pretty hard to imagine how more developers wouldn't lower salaries though. I say this as someone who's done a lot of hiring. It's really hard to find good people and they can command a premium (fair market wage). Being able to hire H1Bs helps hiring managers but I don't think it helps developer salaries at all.
- noego 8y ago
  The "NYT opinion article" is written by a Nobel prize winner, and he's describing the opinion that most economists hold towards the lump of labor fallacy. If you're curious to learn more, there's plenty that come up in a simple Google search. > It's pretty hard to imagine how more developers wouldn't lower salaries though This is the textbook definition of the lump of labor fallacy.
  - krapht 8y ago
    I mean, it's also not the case that labor markets are immune to supply and demand. As always, the answer is somewhere in the middle.
    - noego 8y ago
      The whole point of the "lump of labor fallacy" is that growing the workforce will increase both the supply and demand. This is why unemployment is comparable across 1900 and 2000 America, despite the population exploding. The answer isn't always somewhere in the middle. If someone tries to convince you that the Earth is flat or that climate change isn't happening, I would hope that you will lend more credence to the experts instead of believing the answer is somewhere in the middle.
      - krapht 8y ago
        Utility is maximized for society as a whole when the workforce grows. However, my utility is not equal to society's. In fact, selfishly speaking, I would be better off if h1b was shut down, licensure roles introduced, etc etc.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    As someone who's hired many people on H1B visas, I strongly disagree. There was always local talent that could do the job I needed, I just didn't have budget for them. If hiring an H1B worker wasn't an option, the company would have had to pony up for the more expensive developer. H1Bs also distort the market because getting a sponsored visa is a huge deal for a lot of people. Yes they may make slightly less than market but they have the ability to come to the US legally and have all of the paperwork filled by the hiring company (and legal support). As another commenter mentioned, they're also locked into your company and can't quit without leaving the country. Another win for hiring managers. None of this is good for local talent though. It's absolutely naive to believe that the supply of labor has no impact on its cost.
amacdona 8y ago
I'm on the SMR editorial team — we've removed the paywall on this, so you should have access to the full article now.

throwawaystale 8y ago

A related effect is that almost all H-1B's count as "diverse" in HR statistics. If so, then currently there would be intense pressure to hire the H-1B candidate over a citizen, even if the former required a higher salary. I have some skin in this game. I was rejected at Google for mysterious reasons after passing the all-day and hiring committee. No way to know, but I am indeed pale, male, and stale (and a citizen). If you look at Google's own diversity reports, their fraction of people like me has falling like a stone for several years now.

killerdhmo 8y ago
Wow, a troubling rationale. They’ve doubled in size in the last five years, your rejection, and an increase in diversity do not equate to not hiring white people. They just didn’t hire you. I’d find it concerning to jump at anti-immigrant rhetoric so quickly.
- throwawaystale 8y ago
  Both I and my wife are second generation immigrants. I have no issues with immigrants at all, and I've worked my entire career besides H-1Bs and other PRs. If you had asked me five years ago, I'd have expressed a (somewhat naive) wish that we just drop national borders altogether, for the purposes of immigration. (I'm a bit more sanguine these days.) I wasn't aware that Google was still growing that fast. That makes the reduction in the proportion of non-diverse employees a little more credible. On the other hand, it makes the sibling poster's thought (headcount reduction) a little less credible. Obviously, they didn't hire me, and in the end, I have no idea why. They probably barely know why themselves.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jarsin 8y ago
No comments on your take on why they did not hire you but just curious who can override the hiring committee at google? Seems weird they go through so much trouble hiring and it still comes down to one person giving their ok?