7 ms·

I've seen many kinds of H1B employment. People with excellent skills and experience being paid competitive wages, people with reasonable skills being exploited

by nullc 14y ago

I've seen many kinds of H1B employment. People with excellent skills and experience being paid competitive wages, people with reasonable skills being exploited at low wages at the clear expense of locals, and people who were hardly qualified to warm a seat being pulled in to pad up some contract as cheaply as possible. As usually when you paint with broad strokes you cover some dissimilar surfaces. But at the core the employment market is about supply and demand. Increases in supply relative to some demand decreases what a rational party will pay. It doesn't matter how kind, qualified, equally paid, etc. The increase in supply weakens the employees negotiating position. Are the employees entitled to the 'artificial' supply limitation created by national boundaries? Is it socially beneficial to reduce those barriers? Do increases in supply protect the industry and leave all employees better off in the long run and cause little harm because the demand is already so great? What policy decisions can mitigate the harm and maximize the benefits? These are interesting questions. But I don't think there is any real room to question if H1B's— no matter how well managed— harm employees short to medium term financial interests.

netcan 14y ago
I definitely think that the instinct in increased supply = lower prices is a good starting point. But, there's some danger in overly simple economic thinking, especially when we talk about labour markets. For example, you would think that around a hub of science & engineering universities* there would be an oversupply of engineers. Someplace where there aren't many engineering schools would be the place with the highest salaries. That's clearly not the case. Demand for some professions (like doctors) is fairly fixed. For other things it appears to spring up around supply. *This assumes that the universities are not themselves a market reaction.
Nursie 14y ago
"Are the employees entitled to the 'artificial' supply limitation created by national boundaries?" That's a very complex question. If you're talking about importing people then there is one set of answers, and if you're talking about outsourcing there's another. Personally I think we should be more worried about the outsourcing. At least the people who come to the country in question and live there have similar costs, similar employment law and become part of the local economy. Where outsourcing happens there's no chance of competition at all because there's no such thing as health and safety in a lot of places.
- geebee 14y ago
  "Are the employees entitled to the 'artificial' supply limitation created by national boundaries?" I agree, this is a good question, but I do think that you can answer "no" while still disagreeing with the premise of the H1B program. Another way to frame this would be. "Should the 'artificial' supply limitations created by national boundaries be enforced evenly across all sectors of the workforce?" I'm actually ok with a "no" to this answer, though my answer would be "no, but proceed with caution." I support a points program to emphasize skilled immigration, so clearly I am willing to bend on the "even enforcement" to favor certain types of workers. However, like I said, do this with caution. I think that as the magnitude increases and the target narrows, you increase the possibility of a bad market distortion. To some extent, I do think we've done this in the US - we have created a situation that deters young Americans from entering this field. I think that the most innovative countries will succeed because they have both managed to attract the top talent from around the world while maintaining a strong pipeline of talent from their own population. If you lock out top talent from overseas, you're doomed. If your entire strategy depends on convincing talent from overseas to stay, you're doomed.
  - akiselev 14y ago
    It seems to me that the H1-B was more a response to young Americans not entering various fields than the other way around. In machining, for example, companies all over the country from automotive to aerospace to medical to mom and pop machine shops are having trouble finding skilled workers. As many as 50-70% of respondents in major industry surveys are saying that a skilled worker shortage is a major problem for growth and expansion. [1] A shortage of talent isn't just a problem in the software industry, it's becoming endemic to engineering. For example, there are a few dozen electrical engineering consultants that do most of the hardware work for many of SV's startups (including ones such as SpaceX) and I've heard stats (that I don't have official data for on hand) like Mexico City universities are graduating more mechE's than the entirety of the US and anecdotally, it's becoming very difficult to find talented hardware engineer in any industry (most of the non-software startups I know of are 25-50% immigrants). The H1-B Visas are critical for experienced and knowledgeable workers and if you artificially limit the supply (which is already the case), you have cases such as foreigners coming to the US, getting their BS/MS/PhD, just to be kicked out of the country a month later. Meanwhile, employers can't get the skilled workers that they need. IBM's abuse of the H1-B is kind of irrelevant, as they're not even in the top 10 of H1-B employers [2] [1] http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/Research/Skills-Gap-in-Manufacturing/Skills-Gap-in-Manufacturing.aspx http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/Research/Skills-Gap... [2] http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/prevailing_wage_determination.pdf http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/prevailing_wage_d...
rayiner 14y ago
A country is a community. Multinational companies don't want people to believe that, but it's true. A community is entitled to control its membership. An H-1B is not just a contract between employer and employee. It is a contract between a foreigner and a community. We the community agree to make that person one of us. To educate his or her children at the public expense. To allow him or her to affect our elections. To protect him or her in case of war. To extend our limited social safety net in case he or she falls on hard times. We should not be strong-armed into taking on these obligations. We need to expand our community, but in an organized way that benefits the whole, not just in whatever way benefits multinational organizations that increasingly seem to see themselves as outside the community.
- blinkingled 14y ago
  H1-B VISA has a limit of 6 years. H1-Bs get no social security benefits even though they pay social security taxes just like anyone else. Their children do not educate for free - they pay local, federal and city taxes just like anyone else. They aren't allowed to vote. You are thinking immigrants not H1-Bs. Due to severe shortage of immigrant VISAs and due to MNCs not filing Green Cards for most H1-Bs - there is a small percentage of total H1-Bs that actually end up staying and becoming citizens.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I'm talking immigration generally, not just H1-B. But even in the context of H1-B: If an H1-B needs emergency treatment, hospitals won't turn them away because of their H1-B status. That's part of our social safety net. Education is paid via property taxes. Most H1-B's do not own their homes and thus do not pay property taxes. In any case, nobody who is living here six years is covering the cost of a child's education. It costs $15-20k per year to educate a child in most states. Very few people pay that much in property taxes per year. The system depends on long-term commitments--you pay property taxes during many years when you don't have kids, then get the benefit for the years your kids are in school. My point is not to try and make distinctions about whether the average H1-B contributes enough to the tax base. I'm sure they do. But that's not the point. My point is that with any given H1-B, the community takes certain obligations to that person. It's not just a matter between the employer and the immigrant.
darkarmani 14y ago
> Are the employees entitled to the 'artificial' supply limitation created by national boundaries? It's not caused by boundaries, but by immigration policies. Open up immigration and it won't matter that there are boundaries.
eru 14y ago
Please take into account that not only does the supply of labour increase, but those people earn money that they will either spend or invest. Thus increasing the demand for labour as well.

by nullc 14y ago

netcan 14y ago

I definitely think that the instinct in increased supply = lower prices is a good starting point. But, there's some danger in overly simple economic thinking, especially when we talk about labour markets. For example, you would think that around a hub of science & engineering universities* there would be an oversupply of engineers. Someplace where there aren't many engineering schools would be the place with the highest salaries. That's clearly not the case. Demand for some professions (like doctors) is fairly fixed. For other things it appears to spring up around supply. *This assumes that the universities are not themselves a market reaction.

Nursie 14y ago

"Are the employees entitled to the 'artificial' supply limitation created by national boundaries?" That's a very complex question. If you're talking about importing people then there is one set of answers, and if you're talking about outsourcing there's another. Personally I think we should be more worried about the outsourcing. At least the people who come to the country in question and live there have similar costs, similar employment law and become part of the local economy. Where outsourcing happens there's no chance of competition at all because there's no such thing as health and safety in a lot of places.

geebee 14y ago
"Are the employees entitled to the 'artificial' supply limitation created by national boundaries?" I agree, this is a good question, but I do think that you can answer "no" while still disagreeing with the premise of the H1B program. Another way to frame this would be. "Should the 'artificial' supply limitations created by national boundaries be enforced evenly across all sectors of the workforce?" I'm actually ok with a "no" to this answer, though my answer would be "no, but proceed with caution." I support a points program to emphasize skilled immigration, so clearly I am willing to bend on the "even enforcement" to favor certain types of workers. However, like I said, do this with caution. I think that as the magnitude increases and the target narrows, you increase the possibility of a bad market distortion. To some extent, I do think we've done this in the US - we have created a situation that deters young Americans from entering this field. I think that the most innovative countries will succeed because they have both managed to attract the top talent from around the world while maintaining a strong pipeline of talent from their own population. If you lock out top talent from overseas, you're doomed. If your entire strategy depends on convincing talent from overseas to stay, you're doomed.
- akiselev 14y ago
  It seems to me that the H1-B was more a response to young Americans not entering various fields than the other way around. In machining, for example, companies all over the country from automotive to aerospace to medical to mom and pop machine shops are having trouble finding skilled workers. As many as 50-70% of respondents in major industry surveys are saying that a skilled worker shortage is a major problem for growth and expansion. [1] A shortage of talent isn't just a problem in the software industry, it's becoming endemic to engineering. For example, there are a few dozen electrical engineering consultants that do most of the hardware work for many of SV's startups (including ones such as SpaceX) and I've heard stats (that I don't have official data for on hand) like Mexico City universities are graduating more mechE's than the entirety of the US and anecdotally, it's becoming very difficult to find talented hardware engineer in any industry (most of the non-software startups I know of are 25-50% immigrants). The H1-B Visas are critical for experienced and knowledgeable workers and if you artificially limit the supply (which is already the case), you have cases such as foreigners coming to the US, getting their BS/MS/PhD, just to be kicked out of the country a month later. Meanwhile, employers can't get the skilled workers that they need. IBM's abuse of the H1-B is kind of irrelevant, as they're not even in the top 10 of H1-B employers [2] [1] http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/Research/Skills-Gap-in-Manufacturing/Skills-Gap-in-Manufacturing.aspx http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/Research/Skills-Gap... [2] http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/prevailing_wage_determination.pdf http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/prevailing_wage_d...

rayiner 14y ago

A country is a community. Multinational companies don't want people to believe that, but it's true. A community is entitled to control its membership. An H-1B is not just a contract between employer and employee. It is a contract between a foreigner and a community. We the community agree to make that person one of us. To educate his or her children at the public expense. To allow him or her to affect our elections. To protect him or her in case of war. To extend our limited social safety net in case he or she falls on hard times. We should not be strong-armed into taking on these obligations. We need to expand our community, but in an organized way that benefits the whole, not just in whatever way benefits multinational organizations that increasingly seem to see themselves as outside the community.

blinkingled 14y ago
H1-B VISA has a limit of 6 years. H1-Bs get no social security benefits even though they pay social security taxes just like anyone else. Their children do not educate for free - they pay local, federal and city taxes just like anyone else. They aren't allowed to vote. You are thinking immigrants not H1-Bs. Due to severe shortage of immigrant VISAs and due to MNCs not filing Green Cards for most H1-Bs - there is a small percentage of total H1-Bs that actually end up staying and becoming citizens.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'm talking immigration generally, not just H1-B. But even in the context of H1-B: If an H1-B needs emergency treatment, hospitals won't turn them away because of their H1-B status. That's part of our social safety net. Education is paid via property taxes. Most H1-B's do not own their homes and thus do not pay property taxes. In any case, nobody who is living here six years is covering the cost of a child's education. It costs $15-20k per year to educate a child in most states. Very few people pay that much in property taxes per year. The system depends on long-term commitments--you pay property taxes during many years when you don't have kids, then get the benefit for the years your kids are in school. My point is not to try and make distinctions about whether the average H1-B contributes enough to the tax base. I'm sure they do. But that's not the point. My point is that with any given H1-B, the community takes certain obligations to that person. It's not just a matter between the employer and the immigrant.

darkarmani 14y ago

> Are the employees entitled to the 'artificial' supply limitation created by national boundaries? It's not caused by boundaries, but by immigration policies. Open up immigration and it won't matter that there are boundaries.

eru 14y ago

Please take into account that not only does the supply of labour increase, but those people earn money that they will either spend or invest. Thus increasing the demand for labour as well.