3 ms·

> An actual shortage would, by definition, mean that, at least in the short term, no amount of price pressure would meet the need, because of a supply constrain

> An actual shortage would, by definition, mean that, at least in the short term, no amount of price pressure would meet the need, because of a supply constraint that prevents response to price level changes. There are over a million Arabic speakers in the US, hundreds of thousands of whom are legally able to do the work. I strongly suspect that a number sufficient to handle the city of Detroit's translation needs could be brought in at under (likely far under) the rates proposed above. Having done translation work myself, I can say the pay is often startlingly low! In the unlikely case that weren't possible, the necessary salary would exceed the H1B qualifying threshold, and translators could be imported to do the work. What exactly are you arguing here? In what situation would a shortage truly require importing labor at low wages? As they are now, H1Bs suppress wages, especially immigrant wages.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> There are over a million Arabic speakers in the US, hundreds of thousands of whom are legally able to do the work. I strongly suspect that a number sufficient to handle the city of Detroit's translation needs That's an argument that there is not an actual shortage (which, I suspect, is correct), not that an actual shortage could be addressed by bidding higher with wages (which it could not, by definition.) > What exactly are you arguing here? Your incorrect statement about an actual shortage being addressable by bidding higher with wages. > In what situation would a shortage truly require importing labor at low wages? I wasn't arguing that would occur, but since you ask, a sudden supply constraint or demand surge (perhaps from a debilitating epidemic that spreads particularly well in conditions associated with a particular job) in an essential, common, but not completely unskilled job might require that to avoid massive economic disruption. > As they are now, H1Bs suppress wages, especially immigrant wages. I'm not sure I agree with the “especially” part, but, yes, I've said elsewhere in the thread that that is what H-1Bs do, and by design even if it's not the sales pitch.
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  The thing with H-1B visas is they tie the immigrant employee to a specific employer, thus giving the employees little ability to negotiate for raises. It also results in H-1B visa holding immigrants being paid significantly less for their contributions. In contrast, adrr's suggestion above to "stack rank h1b applicants by salary instead of using a lottery system" would result in a system where H-1B holding immigrants are well-paid and "shortages" result in rising wages over time. Re: sudden shocks, I agree with you. Market pricing will tend to fix imbalances over time (barring extreme regulation or other distortions), but it does take time. In a truly extraordinary situation such as you suggest where huge swaths of the population are suddenly dead or incapacitated, you'd have a reasonable argument against market pricing. I don't believe the H-1B was ever intended for such catastrophic scenarios, though.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> There are over a million Arabic speakers in the US, hundreds of thousands of whom are legally able to do the work. I strongly suspect that a number sufficient to handle the city of Detroit's translation needs That's an argument that there is not an actual shortage (which, I suspect, is correct), not that an actual shortage could be addressed by bidding higher with wages (which it could not, by definition.) > What exactly are you arguing here? Your incorrect statement about an actual shortage being addressable by bidding higher with wages. > In what situation would a shortage truly require importing labor at low wages? I wasn't arguing that would occur, but since you ask, a sudden supply constraint or demand surge (perhaps from a debilitating epidemic that spreads particularly well in conditions associated with a particular job) in an essential, common, but not completely unskilled job might require that to avoid massive economic disruption. > As they are now, H1Bs suppress wages, especially immigrant wages. I'm not sure I agree with the “especially” part, but, yes, I've said elsewhere in the thread that that is what H-1Bs do, and by design even if it's not the sales pitch.

AlchemistCamp 6y ago
The thing with H-1B visas is they tie the immigrant employee to a specific employer, thus giving the employees little ability to negotiate for raises. It also results in H-1B visa holding immigrants being paid significantly less for their contributions. In contrast, adrr's suggestion above to "stack rank h1b applicants by salary instead of using a lottery system" would result in a system where H-1B holding immigrants are well-paid and "shortages" result in rising wages over time. Re: sudden shocks, I agree with you. Market pricing will tend to fix imbalances over time (barring extreme regulation or other distortions), but it does take time. In a truly extraordinary situation such as you suggest where huge swaths of the population are suddenly dead or incapacitated, you'd have a reasonable argument against market pricing. I don't believe the H-1B was ever intended for such catastrophic scenarios, though.