3 ms·

"Google and Facebook (etc) are paying them great salaries, equal to what they pay US employees (even though the expenses are higher with visa and relocation cos

by geebee 14y ago

"Google and Facebook (etc) are paying them great salaries, equal to what they pay US employees (even though the expenses are higher with visa and relocation costs)." Is there a possibility, though, that what they pay US employees is influenced by the ability to grant visas to non-citizen workers? In that sense, the program could still suppress wages.

pbiggar 14y ago
Undoubtably. If you run out of good talent, then the price of talent goes up. If you increase the pool of good talent, then it stabilizes. However, I believe (and the point of the H1B program is) that being able to hire great people is a competitive advantage of US companies, and is more important than increasing salaries of existing employees (to the economy).
- geebee 14y ago
  This raises another question, though - why is it more important to do this in high tech than other fields? Nobel economist Milton Friedman scoffs at the idea of the government stocking a farm system for the likes of Microsoft and Intel. "There is no doubt," he says, "that the [H-1B] program is a benefit to their employers, enabling them to get workers at a lower wage, and to that extent, it is a subsidy." http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/72848/H_1B_Is_Just_Another_Gov_t._Subsidy http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/72848/H_1B_Is_Just_An... So why subsidize Microsoft and Intel rather than other sectors of the economy? Why specifically attach green cards to graduate STEM degrees? Much of the objection here isn't to liberalized immigration or bringing great people in general, it's about tailoring our immigration system to increase the size of the STEM workforce, when the evidence does not support the notion that there is any shortage. Also, keep in mind, there are long term dangers to restricting the domestic pipeline of talent into these fields. A sudden and massive increase in the size of a specific sector of the workforce through immigration will increase the pool of good talent in the short term, as the existing domestic workforce will not have had time to adjust to the new and reduced cost/benefit of a graduate degree in engineering. But in the long run, it may simply deter young people from entering the field and displace the existing workforce - not because it's a bad deal, but because talent can find a better deal in an area that is not targeted for increase through visa allocation. This could leave the US heavily dependent on foreign students. Some people will say "so what? we'll have good engineers, for cheap, and if later we can't recruit as easily, domestic interest will increase." I'm not nearly so optimistic. I think that a healthy pipeline isn't something you can kill off and revive on a dime. When you lose it, it is very difficult to revive. I want to be clear - I think it would be terribly foolish for the US to close the door to top talent from overseas. A healthy domestic pipeline requires a healthy infusion of talent from overseas as well. However, I think it needs to be carefully balanced As it stands, I don't think that people creating these policies are aware of the potential risks and damage they may be doing to the domestic pipeline, nor do they seem to understand the long term implications of narrowing the domestic pipeline.

by geebee 14y ago

pbiggar 14y ago

Undoubtably. If you run out of good talent, then the price of talent goes up. If you increase the pool of good talent, then it stabilizes. However, I believe (and the point of the H1B program is) that being able to hire great people is a competitive advantage of US companies, and is more important than increasing salaries of existing employees (to the economy).

geebee 14y ago
This raises another question, though - why is it more important to do this in high tech than other fields? Nobel economist Milton Friedman scoffs at the idea of the government stocking a farm system for the likes of Microsoft and Intel. "There is no doubt," he says, "that the [H-1B] program is a benefit to their employers, enabling them to get workers at a lower wage, and to that extent, it is a subsidy." http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/72848/H_1B_Is_Just_Another_Gov_t._Subsidy http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/72848/H_1B_Is_Just_An... So why subsidize Microsoft and Intel rather than other sectors of the economy? Why specifically attach green cards to graduate STEM degrees? Much of the objection here isn't to liberalized immigration or bringing great people in general, it's about tailoring our immigration system to increase the size of the STEM workforce, when the evidence does not support the notion that there is any shortage. Also, keep in mind, there are long term dangers to restricting the domestic pipeline of talent into these fields. A sudden and massive increase in the size of a specific sector of the workforce through immigration will increase the pool of good talent in the short term, as the existing domestic workforce will not have had time to adjust to the new and reduced cost/benefit of a graduate degree in engineering. But in the long run, it may simply deter young people from entering the field and displace the existing workforce - not because it's a bad deal, but because talent can find a better deal in an area that is not targeted for increase through visa allocation. This could leave the US heavily dependent on foreign students. Some people will say "so what? we'll have good engineers, for cheap, and if later we can't recruit as easily, domestic interest will increase." I'm not nearly so optimistic. I think that a healthy pipeline isn't something you can kill off and revive on a dime. When you lose it, it is very difficult to revive. I want to be clear - I think it would be terribly foolish for the US to close the door to top talent from overseas. A healthy domestic pipeline requires a healthy infusion of talent from overseas as well. However, I think it needs to be carefully balanced As it stands, I don't think that people creating these policies are aware of the potential risks and damage they may be doing to the domestic pipeline, nor do they seem to understand the long term implications of narrowing the domestic pipeline.