3 ms·

I'm dumbfounded that some people think high-skilled immigration is negative sum. It is so glaringly positive sum. Another country invested 20 years to train a

I'm dumbfounded that some people think high-skilled immigration is negative sum. It is so glaringly positive sum. Another country invested 20 years to train a 130 IQ person from birth to tertiary educated. And then the US gets to skim the top 0.1% off that expensive process without paying a dime. These immigrants then generate consumption, scientific discoveries and found companies in their prime working years, which boosts the local country's power, economy, job opportunities and prosperity. They take 1 job but create 2, but the 2 is hidden behind layers of indirection (scientific discoveries, consumption, etc) so dumb people can't see the positive sum reality for what it is. Anti-immigrant sentiment is a profound misunderstanding of the global value that these immigrants create, even if they locally compete for a specific job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy There's a reason Eastern Europe and East Asia are struggling. There's a reason China and South Korea have probably peaked. There's a reason Hungary will continue to be a shit place to live. It isn't because of too much immigration. It's because of too little. The US, since its founding, has been a country of immigrants. It's a necessary condition behind its prosperity and strength.

bdangubic 2y ago
there is a huge difference between being “anti-immigration” and critiquing H1B program which is what we are doing here… a very very huge difference :) I am an immigrant so 1,000,000% not anti-immigration, everyone around me besides native americans is also an immigrant. I am also former H1B-er. the program is deeply flawed and is used for exploitation more than anything else
- energy123 2y ago
  There is not such a big difference in the median critique. There are scarce voices -- perhaps yours -- saying we should reform H1B to make it easier for immigrants to change jobs or obtain passports or acquire the visa in the first place, which Vivek has been very clear on from the beginning that this is his intention. But the large majority of voices on social media are using this as an opportunity to sling broadly anti-immigration and nativist catchphrases, framing the H1B as a zero sum contest between the immigrant and the local. It's factually the opposite of the truth. Even if H1B doesn't get any reforms, it's better than nothing for both the immigrant and the US, but that would not be the impression you would get from the avalanche of people committed to the Lump of Labor fallacy.
xpl 2y ago
Nobody here is anti-immigration. The reality is that the H1B program is being used not to bring in individuals with 130+ IQ, but essentially anyone with a bachelor's degree, which can be easily obtained from diploma mills. In some third-world countries, you can even buy your degree outright. For the top 0.1%, there are O1 visas, as well as EB1 and EB2-NIW visas — the latter two don't even require an employer and can be self-sponsored. Plus, they grant you a green card, unlike the H1B, which ties you to an employer. However, to qualify for these visas, you need to demonstrate that you're genuinely valuable to the U.S. They are designed for top-tier entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists, and artists with a verifiable track record. These visas can also be gamed, but it's much harder than with the H1B program.
- kelipso 2y ago
  I seriously doubt anyone in the above list got in through the O1 visa.
- energy123 2y ago
  If H1B immigrants generates more tax revenue and contribute more on average than locals, largely because of gems like Sundar Pichai that couldn't make the bureaucratic credentialist hurdle of the O1, then what's the problem? It should be expanded and reformed, not contracted and reformed. If you're concerned about degree mills then reform that aspect while expanding the net intake.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bfrog 2y ago
    Sundar Pichai a gem? What? Are we using the same Google?
    - leosanchez 2y ago
      He might be referring to his work on Google Chrome
  - 2y ago
arresin 2y ago
> a 130 IQ person I’m not so sure this is the average H1-B.
Sam713 2y ago
I don’t think a rational person can deny the value of skilled immigration, but the context in which immigration exists in the US is not a simple dichotomy between net benefit/loss. Wealth inequality has followed a trend of concentrating towards the top over many decades. (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-...), exacerbated by events such as 2008 recession and Covid. Even with increased productivity, salaries have not always kept pace with inflation or cost of living in many US cities (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/wealth-disparities-in-civil-rights/americas-vast-pay-inequality-is-a-story-of-unequal-power/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...). Not only do US workers already have to compete with offshoring (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/10/15/the-globalization-and-offshoring-of-us-jobs-have-hit-americans-hard/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/10/15/the-global...) which is now impacting formerly safe white collar jobs like accounting and engineering, education costs in the US are also some of the highest in the world, raising the barrier to entry and putting domestic workers at a competitive disadvantage against global markets (https://www.statista.com/statistics/238733/expenditure-on-education-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/238733/expenditure-on-ed... ). HN obviously tends to skew towards tech and Silicon Valley; an industry and location that has been somewhat insulated from these effects, but its a very real struggle for many people throughout the US across varied fields from finance and accounting, to medicine and engineering. It is in this environment in which the current H1B debate exists. While there may be a net benefit to the US economy overall from skilled immigration, much of that benefit (similar to higher productivity) tends to increasingly be enjoyed at the top socioeconomic level. The “layers of indirection” are in many cases owned and controlled by corporations through IP law, patents, copyright, non-compete and NDAs, and other legal mechanisms, which can delay their benefit to society at large, and create further perverse incentives if not regulated fairly. And while globalization as a root cause might be inevitable, it can certainly be managed through regulation in a way that more equitably distributes the benefits. It can also be manipulated by regulatory capture to enable corporations to lower costs and increase profits at the expense of US labor. There are many examples of this occurring before now. Any sound policy change regarding the H1B visa program needs to take all benefits/risks into account, and I personally would like to see a little more nuance from the incoming executive administration in this regard. Folks like Musk and Ramaswamy have a lot of profit to gain from importing cheaper skilled labor, with a higher degree of control over domestic employees vs those located overseas. I also have a hard time believing any corporate executives would have predominately altruistic intentions, and there is an obvious conflict of interest in them being involved in any policy decisions that impact their balance sheets. I realize this doesn’t negate a net positive benefit, but when that benefit is largely realized by a select few through regulatory capture, and is easily abused, it’s not anti-immigrant to criticize policy implementation.
paulmendoza 2y ago
The problem is that a lot of the H1B people being brought in to fill jobs Americans could do aren’t the top 0.1%. Far from it. No one is against bringing the top 0.1% here.

bdangubic 2y ago

there is a huge difference between being “anti-immigration” and critiquing H1B program which is what we are doing here… a very very huge difference :) I am an immigrant so 1,000,000% not anti-immigration, everyone around me besides native americans is also an immigrant. I am also former H1B-er. the program is deeply flawed and is used for exploitation more than anything else

energy123 2y ago
There is not such a big difference in the median critique. There are scarce voices -- perhaps yours -- saying we should reform H1B to make it easier for immigrants to change jobs or obtain passports or acquire the visa in the first place, which Vivek has been very clear on from the beginning that this is his intention. But the large majority of voices on social media are using this as an opportunity to sling broadly anti-immigration and nativist catchphrases, framing the H1B as a zero sum contest between the immigrant and the local. It's factually the opposite of the truth. Even if H1B doesn't get any reforms, it's better than nothing for both the immigrant and the US, but that would not be the impression you would get from the avalanche of people committed to the Lump of Labor fallacy.

xpl 2y ago

Nobody here is anti-immigration. The reality is that the H1B program is being used not to bring in individuals with 130+ IQ, but essentially anyone with a bachelor's degree, which can be easily obtained from diploma mills. In some third-world countries, you can even buy your degree outright. For the top 0.1%, there are O1 visas, as well as EB1 and EB2-NIW visas — the latter two don't even require an employer and can be self-sponsored. Plus, they grant you a green card, unlike the H1B, which ties you to an employer. However, to qualify for these visas, you need to demonstrate that you're genuinely valuable to the U.S. They are designed for top-tier entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists, and artists with a verifiable track record. These visas can also be gamed, but it's much harder than with the H1B program.

kelipso 2y ago
I seriously doubt anyone in the above list got in through the O1 visa.
energy123 2y ago
If H1B immigrants generates more tax revenue and contribute more on average than locals, largely because of gems like Sundar Pichai that couldn't make the bureaucratic credentialist hurdle of the O1, then what's the problem? It should be expanded and reformed, not contracted and reformed. If you're concerned about degree mills then reform that aspect while expanding the net intake.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bfrog 2y ago
  Sundar Pichai a gem? What? Are we using the same Google?
  - leosanchez 2y ago
    He might be referring to his work on Google Chrome
- 2y ago

arresin 2y ago

> a 130 IQ person I’m not so sure this is the average H1-B.

Sam713 2y ago

I don’t think a rational person can deny the value of skilled immigration, but the context in which immigration exists in the US is not a simple dichotomy between net benefit/loss. Wealth inequality has followed a trend of concentrating towards the top over many decades. (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-...), exacerbated by events such as 2008 recession and Covid. Even with increased productivity, salaries have not always kept pace with inflation or cost of living in many US cities (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/wealth-disparities-in-civil-rights/americas-vast-pay-inequality-is-a-story-of-unequal-power/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...). Not only do US workers already have to compete with offshoring (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/10/15/the-globalization-and-offshoring-of-us-jobs-have-hit-americans-hard/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/10/15/the-global...) which is now impacting formerly safe white collar jobs like accounting and engineering, education costs in the US are also some of the highest in the world, raising the barrier to entry and putting domestic workers at a competitive disadvantage against global markets (https://www.statista.com/statistics/238733/expenditure-on-education-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/238733/expenditure-on-ed... ). HN obviously tends to skew towards tech and Silicon Valley; an industry and location that has been somewhat insulated from these effects, but its a very real struggle for many people throughout the US across varied fields from finance and accounting, to medicine and engineering. It is in this environment in which the current H1B debate exists. While there may be a net benefit to the US economy overall from skilled immigration, much of that benefit (similar to higher productivity) tends to increasingly be enjoyed at the top socioeconomic level. The “layers of indirection” are in many cases owned and controlled by corporations through IP law, patents, copyright, non-compete and NDAs, and other legal mechanisms, which can delay their benefit to society at large, and create further perverse incentives if not regulated fairly. And while globalization as a root cause might be inevitable, it can certainly be managed through regulation in a way that more equitably distributes the benefits. It can also be manipulated by regulatory capture to enable corporations to lower costs and increase profits at the expense of US labor. There are many examples of this occurring before now. Any sound policy change regarding the H1B visa program needs to take all benefits/risks into account, and I personally would like to see a little more nuance from the incoming executive administration in this regard. Folks like Musk and Ramaswamy have a lot of profit to gain from importing cheaper skilled labor, with a higher degree of control over domestic employees vs those located overseas. I also have a hard time believing any corporate executives would have predominately altruistic intentions, and there is an obvious conflict of interest in them being involved in any policy decisions that impact their balance sheets. I realize this doesn’t negate a net positive benefit, but when that benefit is largely realized by a select few through regulatory capture, and is easily abused, it’s not anti-immigrant to criticize policy implementation.

paulmendoza 2y ago

The problem is that a lot of the H1B people being brought in to fill jobs Americans could do aren’t the top 0.1%. Far from it. No one is against bringing the top 0.1% here.