4 ms·

I feel like this whole issue could be solved short order if we agreed that not being able to find qualified applicants at a given fixed price does not a shortag

by Spivak 2y ago

I feel like this whole issue could be solved short order if we agreed that not being able to find qualified applicants at a given fixed price does not a shortage make. It's the same with the "fast food shortage," I bet the shortage would dry up real fast at $50/hr so all we're really doing is haggling over price. If in order to hire a H1-B at a salary of x you had to offer US workers 2x with say a $100k floor on x then I bet Americans would show up.

sunshowers 2y ago
[flagged]
- LPisGood 2y ago
  It seems to me that there is a dichotomy between that or allowing companies to continue to snub US workers for vulnerable foreign labor. Maybe you could escape the dichotomy by requiring H1-B workers to be in the 5% paid employees at a company or something.
  - sunshowers 2y ago
    No, what needs to happen is to give workers mobility. H1B workers are preferentially hired at some firms because of their lack of mobility — they're easier to abuse than other workers. Addressing that would let everyone be on an equal footing and share the benefits of agglomeration (immigration increases supply and demand!) It would also be far more just and equitable.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Parents idea is better.
    - LPisGood 2y ago
      I think from a US citizen perspective, you don’t want to be equitable with people on a Visa program, because the low COL areas where many of the people on H1-B visas come from inherently makes them more willing to accept less than their US counterparts.
BurningFrog 2y ago
On a market with free pricing there are, pretty much by definition, no shortages or surpluses. Instead prices go up or down until supply and demand meet. So talking about "shortages" in this context doesn't really make sense to me. Yet that's the terminology in this field, and the resulting confusion is unavoidable.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  A shortage is a situation, where the market cannot bring high prices down by increasing the supply. For example, if software engineers earn more than equally demanding roles in other engineering fields and the situation persists long enough, there is a shortage of software engineers.
  - lastiteration 2y ago
    Who decides if the price is high or low? That should be the market. High salaries -> more people decide to pursue it as a career -> more competition -> lower salaries. They are trying to force salaries down quicker
- cherryteastain 2y ago
  > On a market with free pricing there are, pretty much by definition, no shortages or surpluses. Remember the "chip shortage" all throughout the pandemic? It's not like the whole world switched to a Soviet style command economy between 2020 and 2022 yet we still had it.
  - whaleofatw2022 2y ago
    "Free market" folks tend to ignore the ladder-pulls and existing regulations that make it a non-free market.
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    That's an interesting case! ChatGPT mentions some factors for why suppliers didn't just raise prices until the demand met the supply: 1. The industry often has long term contracts that fixes prices months or years in advance. 2. Even without such contracts, the value of stable, long-term relationships with major customers made suppliers keep prices stable. 3. Governments intervened to prevent "price gouging" for favored industries, and even without such intervention, perceived price gouging can be more damaging long term than is made up for by near term profits. So you're right that there was a real shortage for a time. But note my original caveat: "On a market with free pricing". Unfree pricing (contracts/regulation) was one factor. But PR considerations, which I admit I didn't think of, was also a factor. So I learned something here!
eru 2y ago
> I feel like this whole issue could be solved short order if we agreed that not being able to find qualified applicants at a given fixed price does not a shortage make. It could be solved by realising that letting immigrants in, especially highly skilled ones, is good for the country (and for the immigrants!), independent of anything like a 'skills shortage'.
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
So then call the H1-B program what it is - a way for US tech companies to depress wages to the point that you can't afford to live the US, unless it's a bunch of H-1B holders living together in a house share. The same goes for offshoring for jobs. Lovely for shareholders and the CEO's bonus, but not so great for US residents having to compete with them who are paying US cost of living, not Indian/etc overseas cost of living. It'd be nice if the US government would pass laws benefiting its own citizens/residents rather than corporations.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  It's racist to prefer citizens over non-citizens though. The US government should pass laws benefiting all people of the world equally.
  - gmueckl 2y ago
    It's nationalist, not racist. Passports and border controls are the practical foundation of all nationalism.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
    Huh? There are US citizens of all sorts of ethnic/racial backgrounds. Preferring US citizens over outsourcing is patriotic, not racist. It's also being a good corporate citizen - supporting the country/people you are gaining your profits from.
  - nirav72 2y ago
    not sure if your comment was an attempt at sarcasm and I just missed it. In case it wasn't - it's not racist for country to look after its own economic interest or the interest of its own citizens.
  - mianos 2y ago
    Governments exist to take care of their own citizens—that’s their main job. Citizens pay taxes, follow the laws, and contribute to the country, so it makes sense for a government to prioritize their needs. That’s not racist; it’s just how countries work. If a government tried to treat everyone in the world the same, it wouldn’t be able to meet the needs of its own people. Things like healthcare, schools, and public services are paid for by citizens, so they have to come first. Also, preferring citizens isn’t about race. Citizenship is something anyone can earn, no matter where they’re from. Calling it racist mixes up two very different things. It's hard not to break the rules in replying to something like this.

by Spivak 2y ago

sunshowers 2y ago

[flagged]

LPisGood 2y ago
It seems to me that there is a dichotomy between that or allowing companies to continue to snub US workers for vulnerable foreign labor. Maybe you could escape the dichotomy by requiring H1-B workers to be in the 5% paid employees at a company or something.
- sunshowers 2y ago
  No, what needs to happen is to give workers mobility. H1B workers are preferentially hired at some firms because of their lack of mobility — they're easier to abuse than other workers. Addressing that would let everyone be on an equal footing and share the benefits of agglomeration (immigration increases supply and demand!) It would also be far more just and equitable.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Parents idea is better.
  - LPisGood 2y ago
    I think from a US citizen perspective, you don’t want to be equitable with people on a Visa program, because the low COL areas where many of the people on H1-B visas come from inherently makes them more willing to accept less than their US counterparts.

BurningFrog 2y ago

On a market with free pricing there are, pretty much by definition, no shortages or surpluses. Instead prices go up or down until supply and demand meet. So talking about "shortages" in this context doesn't really make sense to me. Yet that's the terminology in this field, and the resulting confusion is unavoidable.

jltsiren 2y ago
A shortage is a situation, where the market cannot bring high prices down by increasing the supply. For example, if software engineers earn more than equally demanding roles in other engineering fields and the situation persists long enough, there is a shortage of software engineers.
- lastiteration 2y ago
  Who decides if the price is high or low? That should be the market. High salaries -> more people decide to pursue it as a career -> more competition -> lower salaries. They are trying to force salaries down quicker
cherryteastain 2y ago
> On a market with free pricing there are, pretty much by definition, no shortages or surpluses. Remember the "chip shortage" all throughout the pandemic? It's not like the whole world switched to a Soviet style command economy between 2020 and 2022 yet we still had it.
- whaleofatw2022 2y ago
  "Free market" folks tend to ignore the ladder-pulls and existing regulations that make it a non-free market.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  That's an interesting case! ChatGPT mentions some factors for why suppliers didn't just raise prices until the demand met the supply: 1. The industry often has long term contracts that fixes prices months or years in advance. 2. Even without such contracts, the value of stable, long-term relationships with major customers made suppliers keep prices stable. 3. Governments intervened to prevent "price gouging" for favored industries, and even without such intervention, perceived price gouging can be more damaging long term than is made up for by near term profits. So you're right that there was a real shortage for a time. But note my original caveat: "On a market with free pricing". Unfree pricing (contracts/regulation) was one factor. But PR considerations, which I admit I didn't think of, was also a factor. So I learned something here!

eru 2y ago

> I feel like this whole issue could be solved short order if we agreed that not being able to find qualified applicants at a given fixed price does not a shortage make. It could be solved by realising that letting immigrants in, especially highly skilled ones, is good for the country (and for the immigrants!), independent of anything like a 'skills shortage'.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

So then call the H1-B program what it is - a way for US tech companies to depress wages to the point that you can't afford to live the US, unless it's a bunch of H-1B holders living together in a house share. The same goes for offshoring for jobs. Lovely for shareholders and the CEO's bonus, but not so great for US residents having to compete with them who are paying US cost of living, not Indian/etc overseas cost of living. It'd be nice if the US government would pass laws benefiting its own citizens/residents rather than corporations.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
It's racist to prefer citizens over non-citizens though. The US government should pass laws benefiting all people of the world equally.
- gmueckl 2y ago
  It's nationalist, not racist. Passports and border controls are the practical foundation of all nationalism.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  Huh? There are US citizens of all sorts of ethnic/racial backgrounds. Preferring US citizens over outsourcing is patriotic, not racist. It's also being a good corporate citizen - supporting the country/people you are gaining your profits from.
- nirav72 2y ago
  not sure if your comment was an attempt at sarcasm and I just missed it. In case it wasn't - it's not racist for country to look after its own economic interest or the interest of its own citizens.
- mianos 2y ago
  Governments exist to take care of their own citizens—that’s their main job. Citizens pay taxes, follow the laws, and contribute to the country, so it makes sense for a government to prioritize their needs. That’s not racist; it’s just how countries work. If a government tried to treat everyone in the world the same, it wouldn’t be able to meet the needs of its own people. Things like healthcare, schools, and public services are paid for by citizens, so they have to come first. Also, preferring citizens isn’t about race. Citizenship is something anyone can earn, no matter where they’re from. Calling it racist mixes up two very different things. It's hard not to break the rules in replying to something like this.