6 ms·

But arguably any labor shortage can be fixed by just having way higher wages. Like if Google is struggling to hire L3 entry level engineers, can't they just of

But arguably any labor shortage can be fixed by just having way higher wages. Like if Google is struggling to hire L3 entry level engineers, can't they just offer $1 million/year salary? Then of course they will get the people they want. To me, the point of H-1B and similar programs isn't "we can't get the individual staff we need". It's rather that at a society-wide level, having more software engineers at an overall lower salary can be more beneficial to the country than fewer engineers at a higher salary. And I feel that the success of Silicon Valley kind of shows this: if we didn't have any immigrants to the US, maybe the salaries would have been higher, but there is simply no chance SV would have reached the scale it has.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> It's rather that at a society-wide level, having more software engineers at an overall lower salary can be more beneficial to the country than fewer engineers at a higher salary. Beneficial to owners of capital in said country. Not so beneficial to non owners of capital (also usually labor sellers) in said country.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  It's not so binary. Economic growth and prosperity does benefit a broad swath of society.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    btw the actual couch used by Marie Antionette is now on display at the San Francisco Legion of Honor.. a very expensive couch! at least a dozen people must have benefited economically from that couch.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      They most certainly did! However, that is a pretty tortured comparison if that was the case. I think I would be harder to make such a cynical zing about the net benefit of allowing 10,000 doctors to immigrate.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        That’s true, but in reality, the US chains the engineers and doctors with the specter of losing their visa and arduous paperwork over their head so that they are coerced into selling their labor at an even lower price.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean there is no net benefit. hundreds of thousands of people are paid market wages on H1B visas and many get green cards. On balance, this is good for consumers and citizens. I feel like people have a gut reaction to injustice and harm where they want to trash the whole system, not realizing that would be an even greater injustice and harm. It is a counterproductive distraction to real change and improvement. It just scratches the emotional itch of moral outrage and superiority.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        I do not want to "trash the whole system", but when I see laws crafted specifically and solely to depress labor prices, it is reasonable to get emotional and feel morally superior. Why else would we give work authorization to a person, but then restrict them to a single employer such as with H1-B? See also lower minimum wages and separate labor standards for poorer Mexican immigrants in agriculture, not to mention the complete lack of requirement for employers to ensure legal work authorization, and complete lack of consequences for employers that employ people without work authorization.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        > Why else would we give work authorization to a person, but then restrict them to a single employer such as with H1-B? H1B visas are not restricted to a single employer. The catch is that the new employer is required to demonstrate the new role is valid for H1B work. This is a control to make sure that H1-B visa holders are not underpaid or doing abusing the system. It is a genuinely tough problem. You could decouple the H1B visa from the employer position, but then you have people entering for one type of work at market rate, and doing any type of work and undercutting salaries. The whole employer requirement is an attempt to protect native workers. Letting H1B workers enter decoupled from a job and salary requirement would be much better for employers. They could pay them minimum wage and hire them into any role they want. Im curious to hear ideas for how it could be structured that is better. Im sure there are options. Maybe the workers themselves could submit the info for change of employment, but I dont know how they would prove the work is at prevailing wage.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    For non-workers the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, while for workers the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. If your income is from owning capital or from real estate value increase or from government benefits, then anything that can reduce the price of things you want to buy is a benefit. This is a large part of the population. If your income is from working and producing goods and services, then getting paid less is a negative that is far worse than the positive from cheaper things. Many people have their foot in both camps. Their main source of income is from their real estate appreciating in value, while working is just a means to pay off the old mortgage so that they soon can get a new cash out by mortgaging at a higher value. It's very much also economic warfare waged by the elderly against the young. The elderly own almost all capital and are interested in increasing it. Keeping the young as poor as possible is excellent for them, so as to keep them from being a threat to their wealth and power.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Workers aren't monolithic. I'll be the first to admit that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for specific workers. NAFTA sucked for autoworkers. H1B visas suck for IT and software workers. I think other types of workers benefit more than the portrait you paint, and not just the capital owners. Unless you are a utilitarian (I'm not), I agree there is a valid debate on how much policy should disadvantage a small group for "the greater good".
      - JAlexoid 2y ago
        > H1B visas suck for IT and software workers. H1b only sucks for short sighted people. Places like India would in any case have more software engineers available, than the US. Moving and hiring best of Indian engineers in the US kept teams operating in the US from being offshored wholesale. Software isn't a car, doesn't require physical transportation. An understaffed team in the US would be worth less than an offshore team with offshoring overhead.
        John_Cena 2y ago
        I am an individual not a corporation, our interest don't align in this manner.
jdietrich 2y ago
>But arguably any labor shortage can be fixed by just having way higher wages. In the long term perhaps, but not in the short term. Bidding wars over an inadequate supply of suitably-skilled labour are good for those workers, but they aren't good for the economy or society as a whole.
gadders 2y ago
>> But arguably any labor shortage can be fixed by just having way higher wages. Yes, like a lot of immigration, it is entirely about wage suppression to benefit owners and shareholders.
bluefirebrand 2y ago
> But arguably any labor shortage can be fixed by just having way higher wages Not even remotely true, outside of unskilled labour work > Like if Google is struggling to hire L3 entry level engineers, can't they just offer $1 million/year salary? They can, but that won't suddenly make more people who are qualified for L3 entry level engineering positions to sprout into existence It may cause people to re-skill to try and chase those positions. It probably will have engineers from their competitors come to work for them But then their competitors are in the same position facing a labour shortage. The shortage hasn't gone away!

lotsofpulp 2y ago

> It's rather that at a society-wide level, having more software engineers at an overall lower salary can be more beneficial to the country than fewer engineers at a higher salary. Beneficial to owners of capital in said country. Not so beneficial to non owners of capital (also usually labor sellers) in said country.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
It's not so binary. Economic growth and prosperity does benefit a broad swath of society.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  btw the actual couch used by Marie Antionette is now on display at the San Francisco Legion of Honor.. a very expensive couch! at least a dozen people must have benefited economically from that couch.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    They most certainly did! However, that is a pretty tortured comparison if that was the case. I think I would be harder to make such a cynical zing about the net benefit of allowing 10,000 doctors to immigrate.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      That’s true, but in reality, the US chains the engineers and doctors with the specter of losing their visa and arduous paperwork over their head so that they are coerced into selling their labor at an even lower price.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I'm the first to admit it isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean there is no net benefit. hundreds of thousands of people are paid market wages on H1B visas and many get green cards. On balance, this is good for consumers and citizens. I feel like people have a gut reaction to injustice and harm where they want to trash the whole system, not realizing that would be an even greater injustice and harm. It is a counterproductive distraction to real change and improvement. It just scratches the emotional itch of moral outrage and superiority.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        I do not want to "trash the whole system", but when I see laws crafted specifically and solely to depress labor prices, it is reasonable to get emotional and feel morally superior. Why else would we give work authorization to a person, but then restrict them to a single employer such as with H1-B? See also lower minimum wages and separate labor standards for poorer Mexican immigrants in agriculture, not to mention the complete lack of requirement for employers to ensure legal work authorization, and complete lack of consequences for employers that employ people without work authorization.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        > Why else would we give work authorization to a person, but then restrict them to a single employer such as with H1-B? H1B visas are not restricted to a single employer. The catch is that the new employer is required to demonstrate the new role is valid for H1B work. This is a control to make sure that H1-B visa holders are not underpaid or doing abusing the system. It is a genuinely tough problem. You could decouple the H1B visa from the employer position, but then you have people entering for one type of work at market rate, and doing any type of work and undercutting salaries. The whole employer requirement is an attempt to protect native workers. Letting H1B workers enter decoupled from a job and salary requirement would be much better for employers. They could pay them minimum wage and hire them into any role they want. Im curious to hear ideas for how it could be structured that is better. Im sure there are options. Maybe the workers themselves could submit the info for change of employment, but I dont know how they would prove the work is at prevailing wage.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  For non-workers the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, while for workers the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. If your income is from owning capital or from real estate value increase or from government benefits, then anything that can reduce the price of things you want to buy is a benefit. This is a large part of the population. If your income is from working and producing goods and services, then getting paid less is a negative that is far worse than the positive from cheaper things. Many people have their foot in both camps. Their main source of income is from their real estate appreciating in value, while working is just a means to pay off the old mortgage so that they soon can get a new cash out by mortgaging at a higher value. It's very much also economic warfare waged by the elderly against the young. The elderly own almost all capital and are interested in increasing it. Keeping the young as poor as possible is excellent for them, so as to keep them from being a threat to their wealth and power.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Workers aren't monolithic. I'll be the first to admit that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for specific workers. NAFTA sucked for autoworkers. H1B visas suck for IT and software workers. I think other types of workers benefit more than the portrait you paint, and not just the capital owners. Unless you are a utilitarian (I'm not), I agree there is a valid debate on how much policy should disadvantage a small group for "the greater good".
    - JAlexoid 2y ago
      > H1B visas suck for IT and software workers. H1b only sucks for short sighted people. Places like India would in any case have more software engineers available, than the US. Moving and hiring best of Indian engineers in the US kept teams operating in the US from being offshored wholesale. Software isn't a car, doesn't require physical transportation. An understaffed team in the US would be worth less than an offshore team with offshoring overhead.
      - John_Cena 2y ago
        I am an individual not a corporation, our interest don't align in this manner.

jdietrich 2y ago

>But arguably any labor shortage can be fixed by just having way higher wages. In the long term perhaps, but not in the short term. Bidding wars over an inadequate supply of suitably-skilled labour are good for those workers, but they aren't good for the economy or society as a whole.

gadders 2y ago

>> But arguably any labor shortage can be fixed by just having way higher wages. Yes, like a lot of immigration, it is entirely about wage suppression to benefit owners and shareholders.

bluefirebrand 2y ago

> But arguably any labor shortage can be fixed by just having way higher wages Not even remotely true, outside of unskilled labour work > Like if Google is struggling to hire L3 entry level engineers, can't they just offer $1 million/year salary? They can, but that won't suddenly make more people who are qualified for L3 entry level engineering positions to sprout into existence It may cause people to re-skill to try and chase those positions. It probably will have engineers from their competitors come to work for them But then their competitors are in the same position facing a labour shortage. The shortage hasn't gone away!