4 ms·

You are mixing up purpose and effect. The purpose is to provide more and cheaper STEM workers. The effect is downward pressure on wages. Phrased differently, t

You are mixing up purpose and effect. The purpose is to provide more and cheaper STEM workers. The effect is downward pressure on wages. Phrased differently, the goal is to help industry, not hurt workers. Hurting some workers is an acceptable cost, not the goal. One idea is that having a thriving industrial ecosystem helps those same workers more than the downward pressure.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
As somebody who does not live and work in the US, it seems plausible to me that the H1B system helps prevent other countries from obtaining similar talent hubs as Sillicon Valley. A lot of the talent is in the US, which attracts more companies, which attracts more talent, which means it's easier to go to the US and work there and start companies there than to do it anywhere else.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  There’s also the easier financing, but yes - I’m sure the outcome is dominated by the network effect of having denser talent. That’s one of the reasons Silicon Valley is so hard to replicate elsewhere.
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  it's not really the goal, but there are many cases of people denied visas going back and having huge success
tssva 2y ago
If the purpose is cheaper STEM workers than downward pressure on wages is a goal and not just an effect.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  The goal isnt to hurt workers for its own sake. The goal is to help industry. If harm was the goal, something like a STEM worker tax or cutting R&D tax incentives would be easier.
  - danans 2y ago
    > If harm was the goal, something like a STEM worker tax or cutting R&D tax incentives would be easier These would affect all STEM workers equivalently. The H1-B program, whatever one thinks of its merits, hurts domestic STEM workers and helps immigrant STEM workers. Perhaps the result is that the overall opportunities are greater because the larger talent pool results in more companies being formed. That depends a lot on how mature the industry is, and whether technological trends like generative AI will replace large swaths or STEM workers altogether.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    This argument is kind of “I’m going to extract all your blood, but it’s not to kill you, but to increase my profits”. You can’t really separate the two sides of the same coin.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I think you can exactly separate them. One is the goal, and the other is the effect. Im not extracting all your blood for the fun of it, or to kill you. profit is the motivation. Saying the motivation is to kill you is simply not correct. It is a byproduct.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        You can't achieve the goal without the unpleasant side effect, then you can't really separate them. Can we honestly say these hires are paid exactly the same their American counterparts would be willing to accept?
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        If you shovel shit all day to make money to eat, can you tell me which part is the motivation? Im not sure why this is confusing. One part is the motivation, the other isnt.
  - tssva 2y ago
danans 2y ago
> phrased differently, the goal is to help industry, not hurt workers. hurting some workers is an acceptable cost, not the goal. The phrase "help industry" has many dimensions. The simplest of course is that by increasing labor supply and suppressing wages it increases profit margins, rewarding shareholders. Another important function is that by having more workers overall in the US, it increases the productivity of the domestic industry itself, due to increased competition for jobs driving up the productivity of the average worker. This in turn makes the industry more competitive vs its equivalents in other countries. The average worker (whether permanent resident or temporary/H1B) who doesn't have significant investments likely doesn't receive much of those productivity gains, since they mostly go to capital owners. Long term, it boosts returns to capital while capping returns to labor, the same trend noted by Thomas Piketty some years back.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think there long term impacts are so clear or cynical. the question is less about productivity, but network effect, number of jobs, and quality of jobs.
  - danans 2y ago
    > I dont think there long term impacts are so clear or cynical The economic impacts I described are looking backwards, not forward, and the data is pretty clear that long term returns on capital swamp the returns on labor (especially since the 1970s). STEM workers have been somewhat insulated from that due to the industries they work in growing in the past few decades faster than the labor supply. It's anyone's guess whether or not either trend will continue into the future. > the question is less about productivity, but network effect, number of jobs, and quality of jobs. I'd argue productivity and returns to capital are almost everything when it comes to what informs immigration policy from an economic lens. "Network effect" is a mechanism, not an outcome, and outcome metrics like "quality of job" or even "quality of life afforded by a job" are not a concern of such policies. On average, they might improve, or they might get worse, but productivity and returns on capital will always go up, whether they require workers or not.
cibyr 2y ago
The purpose of a system is what it does.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  This is an insane sentiment. It's interesting that I've heard a few times in this thread. I wonder where this logical failure comes from. If I rock it explodes killing all of the astronauts, was that the purpose of the rocket and the mission? If I crash my car on my way to the store, is that the purpose of leaving my house?

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

As somebody who does not live and work in the US, it seems plausible to me that the H1B system helps prevent other countries from obtaining similar talent hubs as Sillicon Valley. A lot of the talent is in the US, which attracts more companies, which attracts more talent, which means it's easier to go to the US and work there and start companies there than to do it anywhere else.

rbanffy 2y ago
There’s also the easier financing, but yes - I’m sure the outcome is dominated by the network effect of having denser talent. That’s one of the reasons Silicon Valley is so hard to replicate elsewhere.
JackYoustra 2y ago
it's not really the goal, but there are many cases of people denied visas going back and having huge success

tssva 2y ago

If the purpose is cheaper STEM workers than downward pressure on wages is a goal and not just an effect.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
The goal isnt to hurt workers for its own sake. The goal is to help industry. If harm was the goal, something like a STEM worker tax or cutting R&D tax incentives would be easier.
- danans 2y ago
  > If harm was the goal, something like a STEM worker tax or cutting R&D tax incentives would be easier These would affect all STEM workers equivalently. The H1-B program, whatever one thinks of its merits, hurts domestic STEM workers and helps immigrant STEM workers. Perhaps the result is that the overall opportunities are greater because the larger talent pool results in more companies being formed. That depends a lot on how mature the industry is, and whether technological trends like generative AI will replace large swaths or STEM workers altogether.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  This argument is kind of “I’m going to extract all your blood, but it’s not to kill you, but to increase my profits”. You can’t really separate the two sides of the same coin.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think you can exactly separate them. One is the goal, and the other is the effect. Im not extracting all your blood for the fun of it, or to kill you. profit is the motivation. Saying the motivation is to kill you is simply not correct. It is a byproduct.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      You can't achieve the goal without the unpleasant side effect, then you can't really separate them. Can we honestly say these hires are paid exactly the same their American counterparts would be willing to accept?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        If you shovel shit all day to make money to eat, can you tell me which part is the motivation? Im not sure why this is confusing. One part is the motivation, the other isnt.
- tssva 2y ago

danans 2y ago

> phrased differently, the goal is to help industry, not hurt workers. hurting some workers is an acceptable cost, not the goal. The phrase "help industry" has many dimensions. The simplest of course is that by increasing labor supply and suppressing wages it increases profit margins, rewarding shareholders. Another important function is that by having more workers overall in the US, it increases the productivity of the domestic industry itself, due to increased competition for jobs driving up the productivity of the average worker. This in turn makes the industry more competitive vs its equivalents in other countries. The average worker (whether permanent resident or temporary/H1B) who doesn't have significant investments likely doesn't receive much of those productivity gains, since they mostly go to capital owners. Long term, it boosts returns to capital while capping returns to labor, the same trend noted by Thomas Piketty some years back.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont think there long term impacts are so clear or cynical. the question is less about productivity, but network effect, number of jobs, and quality of jobs.
- danans 2y ago
  > I dont think there long term impacts are so clear or cynical The economic impacts I described are looking backwards, not forward, and the data is pretty clear that long term returns on capital swamp the returns on labor (especially since the 1970s). STEM workers have been somewhat insulated from that due to the industries they work in growing in the past few decades faster than the labor supply. It's anyone's guess whether or not either trend will continue into the future. > the question is less about productivity, but network effect, number of jobs, and quality of jobs. I'd argue productivity and returns to capital are almost everything when it comes to what informs immigration policy from an economic lens. "Network effect" is a mechanism, not an outcome, and outcome metrics like "quality of job" or even "quality of life afforded by a job" are not a concern of such policies. On average, they might improve, or they might get worse, but productivity and returns on capital will always go up, whether they require workers or not.

cibyr 2y ago

The purpose of a system is what it does.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
This is an insane sentiment. It's interesting that I've heard a few times in this thread. I wonder where this logical failure comes from. If I rock it explodes killing all of the astronauts, was that the purpose of the rocket and the mission? If I crash my car on my way to the store, is that the purpose of leaving my house?