5 ms·

"It seems to me that the H1-B was more a response to young Americans not entering various fields than the other way around." I think it may be a self-reinforci

by geebee 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." I think it may be a self-reinforcing cycle. A short term "shortage" may prompt the visa program, but this may suppress the increase in wages that would attract more US citizens to the field. Which can lead to greater shortages, more visas, and so forth. Enough iterations of this process and you get exactly what you have described - a "shortage" that is endemic to the entire field. While I appreciate your response, I do think you weaken your argument by talking about shortages without discussing wages. The argument that someone tried to pay "market rate" doesn't resonate much with me either - if there's a shortage, you'd expect wages to go up, sometimes dramatically. I see no reason for the government to step in and prevent this. We also probably disagree about "artificially" limiting the supply. Most of what we call "engineering" in the US is not subject to regulatory capture, like law or medicine. Anyone can hang out a shingle as a software developer. And by creating very specific visa programs for STEM fields while leaving other fields controlled either by regulatory capture or the simple requirement of current US residency rights while vastly expanding the pool of engineers through visa programs, we may be "artificially" increasing the supply of STEM workers relative to the rest of the workforce. Lastly, I agree with you that it makes no sense to kick people who have gotten degrees in the US out of the country. Terrible idea. But we should ask why US citizens have abandoned these fields to the degree that they have. Some people will claim that it is educational failures, especially in math and science. However, keep in mind that the RAND institute conducted a large study and concluded that Americans are avoiding graduate degrees in STEM fields largely because these fields have fallen badly behind the pay and stability of other careers - in short, the "shortage" is a very rational response to market conditions. http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html This is why I'm favor of general skilled immigration programs, but I'm very skeptical of public policy based on an assumed shortage of STEM workers. Overall, I don't think the evidence supports the claims of a shortage.

akiselev 14y ago
I don't think that the shortage was by any means short term. The 80s and 90s saw many many baby boomers start to retire, especially in the manufacturing and industrial fields, while vocational and STEM education paths became less and less popular with the younger generations. This also coincided with free trade "reform" and the beginnings of the outsourcing wave, which was very tech/industrial heavy and thus lowered labor wages here for competitiveness (whether or not it was necessary). Wages also vary extremely drastically, even across proximate geographies. I.e., in LA starting software dev positions were at $45-50k a year while in SV they are $70-80k. Having lived in both areas, the difference in cost of living is NOT that big. While engineering itself may not be subject to much regulation, the H1-B process is. It is the equivalent of extraordinary ability but with a lower barrier to entry based on market needs instead of publications. As such it is very carefully regulated. As for "artificially" increasing supply... that's a weird way to put it. America is built on the backs of immigrants and having maximum quotas for the immigration of the highest skilled ones does not seem like artificially increasing the supply. The reality is that 90%+ of the world would gladly take a salary 30-50% lower than an American just to live here and the H1-B hinders such under cutting. As far as engineering falling badly behind other fields... I don't see it. The Bay Area is obviously not representative but I don't know of a single engineer (not software) who is unemployed or has trouble finding consulting gigs for ridiculous $100+ an hour rates. Outside of the Bay, most of the employed engineers that I know are older and pretty much irrelevant skill wise. Machinists who know nothing about 5-axis or high speed machining, electrical engineers who can't do high frequency design required by so much of our tech now adays, mechEs who don't have much experience with design for manufacturing, etc.
- geebee 14y ago
  "America is built on the backs of immigrants and having maximum quotas for the immigration of the highest skilled ones does not seem like artificially increasing the supply." I mean artificially increasing the supply relative to other professions. If we "staple a green card to every STEM degree" but not other degrees, we will increase the supply of STEM workers relative to lawyers, MBAs, finance majors, and so forth. And trust me, those guys bill more than $100 an hour. Those guys will make that "ridiculous" rate look very reasonable. I would actually support a specific emphasis on STEM workers if there were evidence of a shortage, but there isn't. Like you, I know people doing pretty well, but that's not going to override the conclusions of a careful study by the RAND institute, or other surveys that show that wages are not increasing anywhere the rate you'd expect. Just to be clear - I am not opposed to general immigration or skilled immigration. Immigrants will come to the US, many will be skilled, and some of the skilled will be skilled in STEM fields. However, I'd need to see more evidence of a shortage before I'd support specifically tinkering with the immigration system to get a higher percentage of STEM workers relative to other types of skilled workers.
  - akiselev 14y ago
    Just as a side note: the green card is by no means stapled. It's an immensely difficult upward battle, with an emotional and financial expense the likes of which most domestic workers never go through. The H1-B is not selective for a specific set of professions per se, it's selective for professions requiring expertise and at least a bachelors degree. Official USCIS requirements: "-Bachelor’s or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum entry requirement for the position The degree requirement for the job is common to the industry or the job is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree -The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position -The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree." [1] This begs the argument about allowing in only educated immigrants vs everyone which is a dangerous emotional slippery slope so I won't get into it. For the purposes of the H1-B, pretty much any position even remotely requiring an education can qualify so it's not artificially increasing the supply of one over another. It's just that few companies need foreign MBAs or lawyers in America (as domestic employees) and other professions such as doctors require American certification before becoming eligible. As for the shortage, the data shows that there is none (or at least I have no statistical evidence otherwise). However, when it comes to excellence, there is a huge difference between a mediocre engineer (or lawyer, doctor, w.e) and a great one. The reason Russians, Germans, Jews, etc. have been so prevalent in science in the US is because the best from these countries get to actually immigrate here. (Not totally true but close enough). Americans don't need to compete on wage, they need to compete on competency and that's like asking a community college class to compete with a class from MIT. There will be geniuses in the CC class more often than not but MIT selects for genius (or grades) and will have a higher concentration. This is one reason why we have quotas in the first place (part of the historically rooted fear of foreigners in throughout US history). Edit: [1] http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73566811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=73566811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b... Edit2: To clarify the above comment about competing based on competency, I'm talking mostly about legitimate uses of the H1-B. There is obviously cases of abuse, but from my experience I think those are in the minority.

by geebee 14y ago

akiselev 14y ago

I don't think that the shortage was by any means short term. The 80s and 90s saw many many baby boomers start to retire, especially in the manufacturing and industrial fields, while vocational and STEM education paths became less and less popular with the younger generations. This also coincided with free trade "reform" and the beginnings of the outsourcing wave, which was very tech/industrial heavy and thus lowered labor wages here for competitiveness (whether or not it was necessary). Wages also vary extremely drastically, even across proximate geographies. I.e., in LA starting software dev positions were at $45-50k a year while in SV they are $70-80k. Having lived in both areas, the difference in cost of living is NOT that big. While engineering itself may not be subject to much regulation, the H1-B process is. It is the equivalent of extraordinary ability but with a lower barrier to entry based on market needs instead of publications. As such it is very carefully regulated. As for "artificially" increasing supply... that's a weird way to put it. America is built on the backs of immigrants and having maximum quotas for the immigration of the highest skilled ones does not seem like artificially increasing the supply. The reality is that 90%+ of the world would gladly take a salary 30-50% lower than an American just to live here and the H1-B hinders such under cutting. As far as engineering falling badly behind other fields... I don't see it. The Bay Area is obviously not representative but I don't know of a single engineer (not software) who is unemployed or has trouble finding consulting gigs for ridiculous $100+ an hour rates. Outside of the Bay, most of the employed engineers that I know are older and pretty much irrelevant skill wise. Machinists who know nothing about 5-axis or high speed machining, electrical engineers who can't do high frequency design required by so much of our tech now adays, mechEs who don't have much experience with design for manufacturing, etc.

geebee 14y ago
"America is built on the backs of immigrants and having maximum quotas for the immigration of the highest skilled ones does not seem like artificially increasing the supply." I mean artificially increasing the supply relative to other professions. If we "staple a green card to every STEM degree" but not other degrees, we will increase the supply of STEM workers relative to lawyers, MBAs, finance majors, and so forth. And trust me, those guys bill more than $100 an hour. Those guys will make that "ridiculous" rate look very reasonable. I would actually support a specific emphasis on STEM workers if there were evidence of a shortage, but there isn't. Like you, I know people doing pretty well, but that's not going to override the conclusions of a careful study by the RAND institute, or other surveys that show that wages are not increasing anywhere the rate you'd expect. Just to be clear - I am not opposed to general immigration or skilled immigration. Immigrants will come to the US, many will be skilled, and some of the skilled will be skilled in STEM fields. However, I'd need to see more evidence of a shortage before I'd support specifically tinkering with the immigration system to get a higher percentage of STEM workers relative to other types of skilled workers.
- akiselev 14y ago
  Just as a side note: the green card is by no means stapled. It's an immensely difficult upward battle, with an emotional and financial expense the likes of which most domestic workers never go through. The H1-B is not selective for a specific set of professions per se, it's selective for professions requiring expertise and at least a bachelors degree. Official USCIS requirements: "-Bachelor’s or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum entry requirement for the position The degree requirement for the job is common to the industry or the job is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree -The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position -The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree." [1] This begs the argument about allowing in only educated immigrants vs everyone which is a dangerous emotional slippery slope so I won't get into it. For the purposes of the H1-B, pretty much any position even remotely requiring an education can qualify so it's not artificially increasing the supply of one over another. It's just that few companies need foreign MBAs or lawyers in America (as domestic employees) and other professions such as doctors require American certification before becoming eligible. As for the shortage, the data shows that there is none (or at least I have no statistical evidence otherwise). However, when it comes to excellence, there is a huge difference between a mediocre engineer (or lawyer, doctor, w.e) and a great one. The reason Russians, Germans, Jews, etc. have been so prevalent in science in the US is because the best from these countries get to actually immigrate here. (Not totally true but close enough). Americans don't need to compete on wage, they need to compete on competency and that's like asking a community college class to compete with a class from MIT. There will be geniuses in the CC class more often than not but MIT selects for genius (or grades) and will have a higher concentration. This is one reason why we have quotas in the first place (part of the historically rooted fear of foreigners in throughout US history). Edit: [1] http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73566811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=73566811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b... Edit2: To clarify the above comment about competing based on competency, I'm talking mostly about legitimate uses of the H1-B. There is obviously cases of abuse, but from my experience I think those are in the minority.