6 ms·

>> People choose careers for social reasons as well as for money. Adding a significant fraction of third world immigrants to a career lowers that career's prest

>> People choose careers for social reasons as well as for money. Adding a significant fraction of third world immigrants to a career lowers that career's prestige, meaning that talented natives who might have joined the field are less likely to, since they have options. First of all, as someone born in what you term a "third world" country, I do find your argument morally outrageous, but apparently I'm not allowed to argue morality. But let's see: "Foreign-born entrepreneurs helped start one-fourth of all new U.S. engineering and technology business established between 1995 and 2005, including Google and eBay. In high-tech Silicon Valley, California, more than one-half of business start-ups over that period involved a foreign-born scientist or engineer; one-fourth included an Indian or Chinese immigrant" [1]. Is being a founder of a multi-billion or multi-million dollar company no longer considered prestigious? What is prestigious? Being a doctor? "Of the roughly 853,000 health care professionals employed as physicians and surgeons in 2010, more than one-quarter (27 percent) were foreign born. ... Persons born in India, the Philippines, and China accounted for 34 percent of employed foreign-born physicians and surgeons." [2] [1] http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2011/usforeignbornstem.aspx http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2011/usforeignborns... [2] http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/foreign-born-health-care-workers-united-states#4 http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/foreign-born-health-c...

ta0348553 12y ago
Unless I misunderstand the underlying argument, more skilled immigration is argued to be good because it is good for business. That's an economic argument, and I was making an economic argument in turn, that more skilled immigration may not straightforwardly result in a bigger talent pool in the US. On the moral side, I do wonder if the West will be criticized in 50 years for its intellectual draining of the third world, not unlike the West's draining of colonies' natural resources 50 or 100 or more years ago. But this is a favorite thought experiment of mine, the question of "What currently fashionable thing will our grandchildren denounce us for doing?" Anyway, you're disputing my assertion that "People choose careers for social reasons as well as for money. Adding a significant fraction of third world immigrants to a career lowers that career's prestige, meaning that talented natives who might have joined the field are less likely to, since they have options." First of all, I wish I had written that better in that I don't mean "a career", but rather "our career", ie, technology / programming. My mistake. Still, doctors are a poor example since their supply is constrained by an outside force (medical education and licensing), and so their salaries are higher than they'd otherwise be, and their power is based on our awe for people who can save human life. In other words, they are nothing like programmers. Also, I have heard that many governments like importing foreign doctors since in some cases this offloads parts of their education to their native land, and training doctors is expensive. Probably not the point you're looking for. As for founders, I am not certain individual founders matter much in the cultural image of tech as a career. Most non-Californians can't name many founders, and certainly not many foreign born founders. I suspect that the only founders who get many people to consider tech to be a possible career are Jobs and Zuckerberg. But as for programmers, people have various ideas floating around in their heads. They remember outsourcing, where American programmers ended up with no power and no money. This didn't do much for the prestige of the career. They think of nerds, obviously, who aren't too great on social norms. Does it seem reasonable that adding people to that labor market who are accustomed to lower living standards (wages), locked in by restrictive visas (power), and unfamiliar with American social norms (nerds) is actually going to make the field more attractive to natives?
- anindyabd 12y ago
  > I do wonder if the West will be criticized in 50 years for its intellectual draining of the third world, not unlike the West's draining of colonies' natural resources 50 or 100 or more years ago I do not think these are equivalent at all. When the Westerners drained the colonies of natural resources, the ones who were colonized got no benefit from that whatsoever. That was pure exploitation. (It will be very interesting indeed if you argue otherwise.) However, when educated immigrants from under-developed nations are hired in a developed country, the immigrants can 1) have a much better quality of life; 2) send money back home to their families; 3) can use what they learn to go back to their home countries and start businesses there (if they so choose). Thus, the immigrants, and their countries of origin, are being helped. Most people from the third world will tell you the same. But (hopefully) no one is going to say that the Scramble for Africa was a good thing. And I doubt that the Africans thought it was good thing when it was going on. But going back to the argument you're making -- "people have various ideas floating around in their heads. They remember outsourcing, where American programmers ended up with no power and no money. This didn't do much for the prestige of the career. They think of nerds, obviously, who aren't too great on social norms." Hmm, maybe. But this [1] article argues, with some interesting charts, that interest in CS education is increasing. The Chair in Computer Science & Engineering at the UW argues that "Kids are waking up. Every field is becoming an information field, and if you can program at a level beyond an intro course, it’s a huge value to you." The CS department chair at Harvey Mudd College says "Students feel that computing is socially relevant and even hip." [1] http://www.geekwire.com/2014/analysis-examining-computer-science-education-explosion/ http://www.geekwire.com/2014/analysis-examining-computer-sci...

ta0348553 12y ago

Unless I misunderstand the underlying argument, more skilled immigration is argued to be good because it is good for business. That's an economic argument, and I was making an economic argument in turn, that more skilled immigration may not straightforwardly result in a bigger talent pool in the US. On the moral side, I do wonder if the West will be criticized in 50 years for its intellectual draining of the third world, not unlike the West's draining of colonies' natural resources 50 or 100 or more years ago. But this is a favorite thought experiment of mine, the question of "What currently fashionable thing will our grandchildren denounce us for doing?" Anyway, you're disputing my assertion that "People choose careers for social reasons as well as for money. Adding a significant fraction of third world immigrants to a career lowers that career's prestige, meaning that talented natives who might have joined the field are less likely to, since they have options." First of all, I wish I had written that better in that I don't mean "a career", but rather "our career", ie, technology / programming. My mistake. Still, doctors are a poor example since their supply is constrained by an outside force (medical education and licensing), and so their salaries are higher than they'd otherwise be, and their power is based on our awe for people who can save human life. In other words, they are nothing like programmers. Also, I have heard that many governments like importing foreign doctors since in some cases this offloads parts of their education to their native land, and training doctors is expensive. Probably not the point you're looking for. As for founders, I am not certain individual founders matter much in the cultural image of tech as a career. Most non-Californians can't name many founders, and certainly not many foreign born founders. I suspect that the only founders who get many people to consider tech to be a possible career are Jobs and Zuckerberg. But as for programmers, people have various ideas floating around in their heads. They remember outsourcing, where American programmers ended up with no power and no money. This didn't do much for the prestige of the career. They think of nerds, obviously, who aren't too great on social norms. Does it seem reasonable that adding people to that labor market who are accustomed to lower living standards (wages), locked in by restrictive visas (power), and unfamiliar with American social norms (nerds) is actually going to make the field more attractive to natives?

anindyabd 12y ago
> I do wonder if the West will be criticized in 50 years for its intellectual draining of the third world, not unlike the West's draining of colonies' natural resources 50 or 100 or more years ago I do not think these are equivalent at all. When the Westerners drained the colonies of natural resources, the ones who were colonized got no benefit from that whatsoever. That was pure exploitation. (It will be very interesting indeed if you argue otherwise.) However, when educated immigrants from under-developed nations are hired in a developed country, the immigrants can 1) have a much better quality of life; 2) send money back home to their families; 3) can use what they learn to go back to their home countries and start businesses there (if they so choose). Thus, the immigrants, and their countries of origin, are being helped. Most people from the third world will tell you the same. But (hopefully) no one is going to say that the Scramble for Africa was a good thing. And I doubt that the Africans thought it was good thing when it was going on. But going back to the argument you're making -- "people have various ideas floating around in their heads. They remember outsourcing, where American programmers ended up with no power and no money. This didn't do much for the prestige of the career. They think of nerds, obviously, who aren't too great on social norms." Hmm, maybe. But this [1] article argues, with some interesting charts, that interest in CS education is increasing. The Chair in Computer Science & Engineering at the UW argues that "Kids are waking up. Every field is becoming an information field, and if you can program at a level beyond an intro course, it’s a huge value to you." The CS department chair at Harvey Mudd College says "Students feel that computing is socially relevant and even hip." [1] http://www.geekwire.com/2014/analysis-examining-computer-science-education-explosion/ http://www.geekwire.com/2014/analysis-examining-computer-sci...