5 ms·

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
    The goal is to help industry in a specific manner. Lowering salary costs therefore suppressing wages is an integral part of the goal.