5 ms·

> 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

by 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.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I understand that you are trying to make a point about return on capital, but I dont understand how you are connecting it to the question of H1-B visas and if local benefits to industrial expertise outweigh the downward pressure from labor competition.
    - danans 2y ago
      > I dont understand how you are connecting it to the question of H1-B visas and if local benefits to industrial expertise outweigh the downward pressure from labor competition. Because what you are calling "local benefits to industrial expertise" is ultimately realized in the form of returns on capital. Whether these benefits outweigh the costs is an open question. When the tech industry's growth was very talent constrained as it was in the last few decades, arguably opening labor competition had the effect of increasing overall growth (mainly through new production invention). The list of immigrant technologists who have created new technologies and products - and jobs as a result - could probably fill an encyclopedia. It's unknown whether that type of growth - the kind that creates more and better jobs - will continue, especially given recent developments in AI. If the benefits going forward are largely going to be based on massive increases in labor efficiency, then it's not as clear that the benefits (mostly to capital) outweigh the costs (mostly to labor). Most business models in AI are predicated on replacing people, who are expensive, not making more or better goods. Sure, we'll get some neat robots along the way that actually make stuff, but that will likely be a small fraction of the money to be made. Or perhaps we are at the dawn of a new era of technology which will make more and better jobs. We'll see.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        OK, so you were changing the topic to something else you wanted to talk about. That was not clear to me. I thought you were making a rebuttal to what I was saying.
        danans 2y ago
        Correct, if you look at my comment I was unpacking what the phrase "to help industry" could mean, not rebutting your comment. It's relevant to the original context because what helps industry (in terms of immigration regulation) might or might not help workers in that industry.

by danans 2y ago

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.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I understand that you are trying to make a point about return on capital, but I dont understand how you are connecting it to the question of H1-B visas and if local benefits to industrial expertise outweigh the downward pressure from labor competition.
  - danans 2y ago
    > I dont understand how you are connecting it to the question of H1-B visas and if local benefits to industrial expertise outweigh the downward pressure from labor competition. Because what you are calling "local benefits to industrial expertise" is ultimately realized in the form of returns on capital. Whether these benefits outweigh the costs is an open question. When the tech industry's growth was very talent constrained as it was in the last few decades, arguably opening labor competition had the effect of increasing overall growth (mainly through new production invention). The list of immigrant technologists who have created new technologies and products - and jobs as a result - could probably fill an encyclopedia. It's unknown whether that type of growth - the kind that creates more and better jobs - will continue, especially given recent developments in AI. If the benefits going forward are largely going to be based on massive increases in labor efficiency, then it's not as clear that the benefits (mostly to capital) outweigh the costs (mostly to labor). Most business models in AI are predicated on replacing people, who are expensive, not making more or better goods. Sure, we'll get some neat robots along the way that actually make stuff, but that will likely be a small fraction of the money to be made. Or perhaps we are at the dawn of a new era of technology which will make more and better jobs. We'll see.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      OK, so you were changing the topic to something else you wanted to talk about. That was not clear to me. I thought you were making a rebuttal to what I was saying.
      - danans 2y ago
        Correct, if you look at my comment I was unpacking what the phrase "to help industry" could mean, not rebutting your comment. It's relevant to the original context because what helps industry (in terms of immigration regulation) might or might not help workers in that industry.