4 ms·

I think this interpretation of the data rests on a misunderstanding of how a firm conceives of headcount. You saw this a lot during Covid layoffs when the press

I think this interpretation of the data rests on a misunderstanding of how a firm conceives of headcount. You saw this a lot during Covid layoffs when the press tried to point out the contradiction between hiring X number of people at the same time as firing Y number of people. Wasn't the firm just staying in place? Yet, in fact, the firm had planned to hire Z people that year, a number much greater than X, greater still than X+Y, and likely greater than Z_t-1, i.e. the number hired the previous year. A firm's headcount is a dynamic value that is reflective of a rate of growth: its headcount is going up by x% each year, ideally linear growth or at least not a higher rate of growth than revenues or free cash flow. It requires an accounting perspective on the inflows and outflows of an ongoing process and not just a small slice of data. If you just look at that firm's hiring and firing in a particular year, subtracting the one from the other, you would appear to have shown that the firm was more or less simply replacing the other with the one. Yet, the main question for actually measuring the (firm and investor expected) impact of AI is whether that rate of headcount growth has changed without the stock price going down. That is, is it now proposed by management and accepted by investors that the firm will henceforth require less human labor in order to deliver on the present expected value of future free cash flow. You cannot infer anything about this question from the data shown. There certainly is a separate question of whether a firm has changed its source of new hires, but that also isn't reflected in the data, which just shows approved visas against layoffs. For this, you would need to look at net hires year after year and prove that a growing percent thereof are H1-Bs.

huijzer 1y ago
> It requires an accounting perspective on the inflows and outflows of an ongoing process and not just a small slice of data. Correct, but we don't have that information so we have to rely on a best guess. We're not dealing with code here where everything is known exactly. > Yet, the main question for actually measuring the (firm and investor expected) impact of AI is whether that rate of headcount growth has changed without the stock price going down. Stock price is not necessarily a proxy for headcount either. Some companies have much lower headcounts per stock price (for example, Nvidia). > That is, is it now proposed by management and accepted by investors that the firm will henceforth require less human labor in order to deliver on the present expected value of future free cash flow. You are just talking without thinking now are you? It makes no sense. Human labor and free cash flow are probably correlated, but one isn't a proxy for the other. First you relate stock price to headcount and then you say "that is" and then you suddenly relate cash flow to headcount. Cash flow and stock price are correlated per industry, but it's also a very loose one. > You cannot infer anything about this question from the data shown. False. I only need to infer a tiny bit in order to falsify your extremely strong claim. > For this, you would need to look at net hires year after year and prove that a growing percent thereof are H1-Bs. Yes, this is something concrete that I can agree on. But how would you prove that given that we don't have access to that data?
- rv3392 1y ago
  > Yes, this is something concrete that I can agree on. But how would you prove that given that we don't have access to that data? Without that data you can't really draw any conclusion can you? For all we know companies are hiring a higher percentage of American workers now. All we know from the data shown is that companies are hiring some new H1-B holders and retaining a lot of existing H1-B holders.
  - huijzer 1y ago
    > Without that data you can't really draw any conclusion can you? We're not dealing with software here. It's not black and white. We can try to make best guesses and then try to support it by evidence or reject it by evidence. A theory that is presented is that H1-B appear to replace US workers, but you are encouraged to provide another theory by using evidence. > All we know from the data shown is that companies are hiring some new H1-B holders and retaining a lot of existing H1-B holders. And why do you think that's not suitable evidence for the given theory? Another possible point of data that seems to point in the same direction could be the US Employment-Population Ratio, which, apart from some ups and downs, seems to have been steadily going down since 2000 [1]. More specifically, California's unemployment rate seems to go up since 2021 [2]. But these two data sources are way more broad than just big tech of course. [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO [2]: https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/top-statistics.html https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/top-statistics.html
    - agentcoops 1y ago
      Of course it’s not black and white: it’s the very fact that there are so many possible explanations of the current changes that makes pretending data supports a given explanation more than another when it doesn’t so misleading. There’s no doubt that offshoring and H1-B hiring is an important trend — as it has been since the 1990s, NAFTA etc. We don’t need this article to tell us that. The difficult question is whether AI is actually introducing a new dynamic into the situation. The article suggests it isn’t. All I’m arguing is that, whether or not the conclusion is ultimately true, the data presented does not shed light on this important question.
DebtDeflation 1y ago
What you describe is certainly possible, but it's not what's happening. You can go on Blind, Fishbowl, any work related subreddit, etc. and hear the same story over and over and over - "My company replaced half my department with H1Bs or simply moved it to an offshore center in India, and then on the next earnings call announced that they had replaced all those jobs with AI". There's a reason why "AI = Actually Indians" is a meme everywhere on the internet, and it isn't racism, it's just people observing the reality around them.
- agentcoops 1y ago
  I’m not describing what’s happening right now — I’m saying the data shown in the article is insufficient to ground what it claims. The testimony you mention better supports the argument, but also is insufficient to show that this shift to H1-B is not in addition to a reduction of overall projected headcount due to AI.
  - DebtDeflation 1y ago
    Multiple things can be true at once. Some jobs have been eliminated by AI. The H1B system is being abused by employers. Offshoring has replaced more American jobs than H1Bs. Corporations are lying to investors about the impact of AI on their headcount. All of the above are true.
    - jiveturkey 1y ago
      Again, however, the data in the article does not show that. The article is attempting to argue this point with facts (hard data), while not presenting said hard data. It's especially egregious because of the naming of specific companies.
      - ethanwillis 1y ago
        Why is it especially egregious to name companies?
jeremyjh 1y ago
Without knowing how many beneficiaries were approved in prior years we don't even know if there is a net increase in H1Bs. They have to be renewed every few years.

huijzer 1y ago

> It requires an accounting perspective on the inflows and outflows of an ongoing process and not just a small slice of data. Correct, but we don't have that information so we have to rely on a best guess. We're not dealing with code here where everything is known exactly. > Yet, the main question for actually measuring the (firm and investor expected) impact of AI is whether that rate of headcount growth has changed without the stock price going down. Stock price is not necessarily a proxy for headcount either. Some companies have much lower headcounts per stock price (for example, Nvidia). > That is, is it now proposed by management and accepted by investors that the firm will henceforth require less human labor in order to deliver on the present expected value of future free cash flow. You are just talking without thinking now are you? It makes no sense. Human labor and free cash flow are probably correlated, but one isn't a proxy for the other. First you relate stock price to headcount and then you say "that is" and then you suddenly relate cash flow to headcount. Cash flow and stock price are correlated per industry, but it's also a very loose one. > You cannot infer anything about this question from the data shown. False. I only need to infer a tiny bit in order to falsify your extremely strong claim. > For this, you would need to look at net hires year after year and prove that a growing percent thereof are H1-Bs. Yes, this is something concrete that I can agree on. But how would you prove that given that we don't have access to that data?

rv3392 1y ago
> Yes, this is something concrete that I can agree on. But how would you prove that given that we don't have access to that data? Without that data you can't really draw any conclusion can you? For all we know companies are hiring a higher percentage of American workers now. All we know from the data shown is that companies are hiring some new H1-B holders and retaining a lot of existing H1-B holders.
- huijzer 1y ago
  > Without that data you can't really draw any conclusion can you? We're not dealing with software here. It's not black and white. We can try to make best guesses and then try to support it by evidence or reject it by evidence. A theory that is presented is that H1-B appear to replace US workers, but you are encouraged to provide another theory by using evidence. > All we know from the data shown is that companies are hiring some new H1-B holders and retaining a lot of existing H1-B holders. And why do you think that's not suitable evidence for the given theory? Another possible point of data that seems to point in the same direction could be the US Employment-Population Ratio, which, apart from some ups and downs, seems to have been steadily going down since 2000 [1]. More specifically, California's unemployment rate seems to go up since 2021 [2]. But these two data sources are way more broad than just big tech of course. [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO [2]: https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/top-statistics.html https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/top-statistics.html
  - agentcoops 1y ago
    Of course it’s not black and white: it’s the very fact that there are so many possible explanations of the current changes that makes pretending data supports a given explanation more than another when it doesn’t so misleading. There’s no doubt that offshoring and H1-B hiring is an important trend — as it has been since the 1990s, NAFTA etc. We don’t need this article to tell us that. The difficult question is whether AI is actually introducing a new dynamic into the situation. The article suggests it isn’t. All I’m arguing is that, whether or not the conclusion is ultimately true, the data presented does not shed light on this important question.

DebtDeflation 1y ago

What you describe is certainly possible, but it's not what's happening. You can go on Blind, Fishbowl, any work related subreddit, etc. and hear the same story over and over and over - "My company replaced half my department with H1Bs or simply moved it to an offshore center in India, and then on the next earnings call announced that they had replaced all those jobs with AI". There's a reason why "AI = Actually Indians" is a meme everywhere on the internet, and it isn't racism, it's just people observing the reality around them.

agentcoops 1y ago
I’m not describing what’s happening right now — I’m saying the data shown in the article is insufficient to ground what it claims. The testimony you mention better supports the argument, but also is insufficient to show that this shift to H1-B is not in addition to a reduction of overall projected headcount due to AI.
- DebtDeflation 1y ago
  Multiple things can be true at once. Some jobs have been eliminated by AI. The H1B system is being abused by employers. Offshoring has replaced more American jobs than H1Bs. Corporations are lying to investors about the impact of AI on their headcount. All of the above are true.
  - jiveturkey 1y ago
    Again, however, the data in the article does not show that. The article is attempting to argue this point with facts (hard data), while not presenting said hard data. It's especially egregious because of the naming of specific companies.
    - ethanwillis 1y ago
      Why is it especially egregious to name companies?

jeremyjh 1y ago

Without knowing how many beneficiaries were approved in prior years we don't even know if there is a net increase in H1Bs. They have to be renewed every few years.