3 ms·

I know foreign workers are a controversial topic in the software/tech industry...but intrinsically does it matter the replacement worker was foreign? In other

I know foreign workers are a controversial topic in the software/tech industry...but intrinsically does it matter the replacement worker was foreign? In other words, would there be less controversy if the worker was replaced with a lower paid American, or what if the foreign worker was paid more (it appears opponents of foreign workers might take greater issue if the foreign worker was paid more than the American-counterpart). I understand the general claim/controversy is that American workers are laid-off and replaced with foreign workers who are paid less...lowering the wages for American workers across the board. But there does not seem to be evidence of that in this instance, just a "they took our jobs" attitude that the foreign worker. Obviously there is a separate issue, in that it appears the employer seems to have expressly stated that the worker's position was being eliminated, but does not appear to be accurate, I am just curious why focus on the foreign aspect.

arebop 11y ago
A rational reason to focus on the foreign aspect is that we have immigration controls that disadvantage foreigners. These controls distort the market at the expense of laborers more generally. Immigration controls worsen the bargaining positions of foreign workers relative to Americans; this is an opportunity for employers. Employers then exploit their advantage by preferring to hire foreigners; this extends the disadvantage of foreigners to Americans.
existencebox 11y ago
Here's a hypothesis, although I don't have the data to back it up: When you bring foreign workers in, you have to train them, teach them skills, work culture, etc, that local workers already have. I would assume this leads to a situation where the job market simply becomes more saturated. Even if H1B regulations require giving above the prevailing wage, over the long term, job market saturation will suppress wage growth through more contention for limited positions, and they may in fact be saving themselves money by paying the higher wages to essentially "Water down the soup"
misterbee 11y ago
Well, "foreign" indicates that the operation was likely illegal. You might think that law unfairly discriminatory, but even so, if it is lowering wages, it is a net-loss overall, as more money its pocketed by wealthy owners instead of wage-earning employees.
developer1 11y ago
> does it matter the replacement worker was foreign? In other words, would there be less controversy if the worker was replaced with a lower paid American, or what if the foreign worker was paid more Foreigners on HB-1 will almost always make less. This is why companies do this. You won't find an American willing to earn less, because they know what they are worth and can demand it. If the foreign worker were to be paid the same as an American in the same position, the incentive to replace the worker vanishes completely. So yes, we'd be happy with your conditions. Because either of those conditions being fulfilled would stop H1-B in its tracks, except for the extremely rare occurrence where a company finds value in importing a foreigner for their talent/skills/experience, as opposed to padding the bottom line.

arebop 11y ago

A rational reason to focus on the foreign aspect is that we have immigration controls that disadvantage foreigners. These controls distort the market at the expense of laborers more generally. Immigration controls worsen the bargaining positions of foreign workers relative to Americans; this is an opportunity for employers. Employers then exploit their advantage by preferring to hire foreigners; this extends the disadvantage of foreigners to Americans.

existencebox 11y ago

Here's a hypothesis, although I don't have the data to back it up: When you bring foreign workers in, you have to train them, teach them skills, work culture, etc, that local workers already have. I would assume this leads to a situation where the job market simply becomes more saturated. Even if H1B regulations require giving above the prevailing wage, over the long term, job market saturation will suppress wage growth through more contention for limited positions, and they may in fact be saving themselves money by paying the higher wages to essentially "Water down the soup"

misterbee 11y ago

Well, "foreign" indicates that the operation was likely illegal. You might think that law unfairly discriminatory, but even so, if it is lowering wages, it is a net-loss overall, as more money its pocketed by wealthy owners instead of wage-earning employees.

developer1 11y ago

> does it matter the replacement worker was foreign? In other words, would there be less controversy if the worker was replaced with a lower paid American, or what if the foreign worker was paid more Foreigners on HB-1 will almost always make less. This is why companies do this. You won't find an American willing to earn less, because they know what they are worth and can demand it. If the foreign worker were to be paid the same as an American in the same position, the incentive to replace the worker vanishes completely. So yes, we'd be happy with your conditions. Because either of those conditions being fulfilled would stop H1-B in its tracks, except for the extremely rare occurrence where a company finds value in importing a foreigner for their talent/skills/experience, as opposed to padding the bottom line.