4 ms·

nonsense. The point of a visa system is to expand the domestic labor pool.

by flurben 6y ago

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
This is bad for the local workers. Smaller labor pool = higer wages.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > This is bad for the local workers. This is short sighted. If an expert is brought in from overseas to do something that local people can't do, then it can create additional employment opportunities on projects and development that would not have been possible without their expertise. That's the point of the visa.
  - flurben 6y ago
    Well that is the original stated legislative intent, for "jobs local people can't do." But in reality, this was never an enforced requirement. It is very common for expensive americans to be fired and replaced with a cheaper holder of an h1b.
    - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
      A minimum wage, set as (eg.) 1.5x avearage wage in that sector in that state would be a good requirement for getting a visa. That would make companies offer more (1.1, 1.2 ... 1.499x average) and get local workers, and if they're still, even with a higher wage, unable to get a worker, they'd get one with an H1B visa.
      - flurben 6y ago
        That is far too low, and far too bureaucratic and far too easy to game. It should simply be a fixed number of visas allocated to the highest wage applicants, like an auction, end of story.
  - Frost1x 6y ago
    I've worked in quite a few fairly sophisticated technical environments, have many friends working in professional positions who have discussed the issue (from engineering, to academia, to medicine), and I've yet to encounter this situation where a unicorn from another country is the only option for a skill in the entire country with a population of over 300 million. What I often do see instead are situations where local markets seeking a skill can't or don't want to compete with the labor rates needed for to attract or contract the skills they desire. They instead have to look for more leveraged labor abroad to pass their desired cost savings onto who is willing to accept living in undesired locations, working at below market rates to escape even less desirable situations, etc. Obviously, this is anecdotal. I'm sure the case does arise where you actually need some highly specialized labor abroad but nothing near the labor pools the H1B program allows. If there are labor supply shortages, you shouldn't need to artificially inflate the market with labor through visa programs. Raise compensation and let the markets adjust to attract talent. This sort of competition is what's forced on the labor market while businesses, yet again, avoid competition when it's against their interests. If you truly need international labor you should absolutely be required to pay near the top of market rates for the talent is truly that rare. If businesses aren't willing to pay above market rates this talent, it must not be so critical or rare. This should prevent the case of manipulating labor markets under the guise of projected artificial scarcity. I have nothing against immigration, let people move to this country if they so desire and seek opportunity but let them do so without being leveraged by a business holding their citizenship, freedoms, and future hope of prosperity hostage while suppressing local wages, all to make a quick buck.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > Raise compensation and let the markets adjust to attract talent. But this can take decades. If Google wants to start a large new compiler project, them opening a job position with a high salary isn't going to convince anyone to go away and do a PhD in compilers, and if it does they wouldn't be available for five years. If Google want to build a compiler now and they aren't able to hire anyone locally with the skills, what do you want them to do? Abandon the project? That's not great for the US economy is it?
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  No, larger labor pool = higher wages, for two reasons: 1. Being able to hire more people means that local companies can grow bigger and take on more work 2. Merely having more bodies in the economy increases demand for goods in that economy Rural American towns have extremely tight labor pools and can barely sustain minimum wage.
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    Don't you currently have relatively high unemployment? And how is staying at minimum wage (instead of raising them, to get people from elsewhere to move in) good for local workers? Don't you have a bunch of cities with unbelievably high cost of living (SF, NY,...), where people come (and sometimes live in tents), just because there are no jobs for them in "rural american towns"?
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of-free-movement-would-be-78-trillion-richer https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of... In this article, The Economist covers a study credibly suggesting that a world of free movement would be richer to the tune of $78 trillion a year, suggesting that affected by the competition would do better figuring out how to get a cut of the take. With these kinds of numbers, immigration by default is the only platform that makes sense. The added economic output could do more than fix the highest budget deficits on record; we could be looking at paying off the national debt, free healthcare, and money left over. You're concerned about negative consequences? We can work something out. Instead, we fret that this is "bad for local workers", condemning the would-be immigrant and our own nation to linger in mediocrity.
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    World of free movement, would make anybody remotly compent move to one of the huge cities, while the rest of the world would either empty out, or fail horribly with people left over, who are unable to leave. I lived in a country where the biggest export was the (young, competent) workforce.... I still live here, but the country doesn't exist anymore.
  - jmatthews 6y ago
    The purpose of the franchise (nation) is to serve it's people, not optimize revenue.
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      You can use the revenue to serve your people!
jacobr1 6y ago
The point of any given set of rules is to balance both objectives: expand the domestic labor pool, but also avoid undercutting local labor. As with any political process, the incentives and power-block dynamics shift the line over time in different directions.
- sushshshsh 6y ago
  If the goal was to expand domestic labor, why don't companies just hire and train domestic labor?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

nonsense. The point of a visa system is to expand the domestic labor pool.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago

This is bad for the local workers. Smaller labor pool = higer wages.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chrisseaton 6y ago
> This is bad for the local workers. This is short sighted. If an expert is brought in from overseas to do something that local people can't do, then it can create additional employment opportunities on projects and development that would not have been possible without their expertise. That's the point of the visa.
- flurben 6y ago
  Well that is the original stated legislative intent, for "jobs local people can't do." But in reality, this was never an enforced requirement. It is very common for expensive americans to be fired and replaced with a cheaper holder of an h1b.
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    A minimum wage, set as (eg.) 1.5x avearage wage in that sector in that state would be a good requirement for getting a visa. That would make companies offer more (1.1, 1.2 ... 1.499x average) and get local workers, and if they're still, even with a higher wage, unable to get a worker, they'd get one with an H1B visa.
    - flurben 6y ago
      That is far too low, and far too bureaucratic and far too easy to game. It should simply be a fixed number of visas allocated to the highest wage applicants, like an auction, end of story.
- Frost1x 6y ago
  I've worked in quite a few fairly sophisticated technical environments, have many friends working in professional positions who have discussed the issue (from engineering, to academia, to medicine), and I've yet to encounter this situation where a unicorn from another country is the only option for a skill in the entire country with a population of over 300 million. What I often do see instead are situations where local markets seeking a skill can't or don't want to compete with the labor rates needed for to attract or contract the skills they desire. They instead have to look for more leveraged labor abroad to pass their desired cost savings onto who is willing to accept living in undesired locations, working at below market rates to escape even less desirable situations, etc. Obviously, this is anecdotal. I'm sure the case does arise where you actually need some highly specialized labor abroad but nothing near the labor pools the H1B program allows. If there are labor supply shortages, you shouldn't need to artificially inflate the market with labor through visa programs. Raise compensation and let the markets adjust to attract talent. This sort of competition is what's forced on the labor market while businesses, yet again, avoid competition when it's against their interests. If you truly need international labor you should absolutely be required to pay near the top of market rates for the talent is truly that rare. If businesses aren't willing to pay above market rates this talent, it must not be so critical or rare. This should prevent the case of manipulating labor markets under the guise of projected artificial scarcity. I have nothing against immigration, let people move to this country if they so desire and seek opportunity but let them do so without being leveraged by a business holding their citizenship, freedoms, and future hope of prosperity hostage while suppressing local wages, all to make a quick buck.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Raise compensation and let the markets adjust to attract talent. But this can take decades. If Google wants to start a large new compiler project, them opening a job position with a high salary isn't going to convince anyone to go away and do a PhD in compilers, and if it does they wouldn't be available for five years. If Google want to build a compiler now and they aren't able to hire anyone locally with the skills, what do you want them to do? Abandon the project? That's not great for the US economy is it?
kmeisthax 6y ago
No, larger labor pool = higher wages, for two reasons: 1. Being able to hire more people means that local companies can grow bigger and take on more work 2. Merely having more bodies in the economy increases demand for goods in that economy Rural American towns have extremely tight labor pools and can barely sustain minimum wage.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  Don't you currently have relatively high unemployment? And how is staying at minimum wage (instead of raising them, to get people from elsewhere to move in) good for local workers? Don't you have a bunch of cities with unbelievably high cost of living (SF, NY,...), where people come (and sometimes live in tents), just because there are no jobs for them in "rural american towns"?
fennecfoxen 6y ago
https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of-free-movement-would-be-78-trillion-richer https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of... In this article, The Economist covers a study credibly suggesting that a world of free movement would be richer to the tune of $78 trillion a year, suggesting that affected by the competition would do better figuring out how to get a cut of the take. With these kinds of numbers, immigration by default is the only platform that makes sense. The added economic output could do more than fix the highest budget deficits on record; we could be looking at paying off the national debt, free healthcare, and money left over. You're concerned about negative consequences? We can work something out. Instead, we fret that this is "bad for local workers", condemning the would-be immigrant and our own nation to linger in mediocrity.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  World of free movement, would make anybody remotly compent move to one of the huge cities, while the rest of the world would either empty out, or fail horribly with people left over, who are unable to leave. I lived in a country where the biggest export was the (young, competent) workforce.... I still live here, but the country doesn't exist anymore.
- jmatthews 6y ago
  The purpose of the franchise (nation) is to serve it's people, not optimize revenue.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    You can use the revenue to serve your people!

jacobr1 6y ago

The point of any given set of rules is to balance both objectives: expand the domestic labor pool, but also avoid undercutting local labor. As with any political process, the incentives and power-block dynamics shift the line over time in different directions.

sushshshsh 6y ago
If the goal was to expand domestic labor, why don't companies just hire and train domestic labor?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]