The No-Brainer Issue of the Year: Let High-Skill Immigrants Stay(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The No-Brainer Issue of the Year: Let High-Skill Immigrants Stay
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/the-no-brainer-issue-of-the-year-let-high-skill-immigrants-stay/250219/#
7 comments
[deleted]
Maybe the government / society / businesses / schools can solve the problem in some way; but any solution would take many years to develop - it's not like millions of extra STEM grads will be popping out of college a week after you start some kind of campaign to make it more appealing. (Which doesn't mean you should not start it right now, in parallel with adequate immigration policies.)
Also, this problem is not unique to America. The shortage of skilled STEM professionals is universal in every country with a modern economy. And I don't think this will ever change; STEM is not appealing to everybody, it's just too hard and too boring for most people. I don't say that in a demeaning way; Law or Health Sciences for example, are too hard and too boring for my thick skull. People are different. But in the modern world, the increasing demand for people with a STEM-friendly brain is clearly exceeding the percentage of the population who both have that kind of brain and are lucky/wealthy/hard-working enough to afford full education.
Also, this problem is not unique to America. The shortage of skilled STEM professionals is universal in every country with a modern economy. And I don't think this will ever change; STEM is not appealing to everybody, it's just too hard and too boring for most people. I don't say that in a demeaning way; Law or Health Sciences for example, are too hard and too boring for my thick skull. People are different. But in the modern world, the increasing demand for people with a STEM-friendly brain is clearly exceeding the percentage of the population who both have that kind of brain and are lucky/wealthy/hard-working enough to afford full education.
But of course the completion times and attrition rates are high. Anyone who's worked in the science academia is well aware of the fact that way too many American K-12 graduates, no matter how much they may like a STEM career, are woefully unprepared to deal with the math involved in it. The attrition rates and general unpleasantness of these majors result directly from this factor. Until K-12 math gets fixed for good, you need either some stopgap measures to fill those jobs or the inanity to graduate engineers who can't do basic math (and then drive over the bridges they design).
Unfortunately, I don't have data on failure rates in PhD programs broken down by immigrant vs non-immigrant. This data would be clouded by the fact that many "dropouts" are counted as successful MS students, not dropouts (further complicated by the fact that in some cases, this is absolutely true, the student was happier getting an MS and did make this choice!). It could also be clouded by the fact that US citizens can drop out of their STEM programs without jeopoardizing their right to reside in the US, whereas international students may face deportation if they fail or drop out and don't secure some other visa.
I do think that this last part is used - unintentionally - to manipulate international students, and is part of why the appeal of these programs has declined for people who don't need the program to gain US residency.
I would much rather see this problem resolved by empowering the immigrant to choose what field and degree path (or absence of degree path) he or she wishes to pursue than limiting their freedom. But what I can't do is pretend it isn't a factor in how abusive PhD programs can be toward their students. My first order of business in designing a better system would be to strip universities or employers of any control over an individuals immigration/residency status.
I do think that this last part is used - unintentionally - to manipulate international students, and is part of why the appeal of these programs has declined for people who don't need the program to gain US residency.
I would much rather see this problem resolved by empowering the immigrant to choose what field and degree path (or absence of degree path) he or she wishes to pursue than limiting their freedom. But what I can't do is pretend it isn't a factor in how abusive PhD programs can be toward their students. My first order of business in designing a better system would be to strip universities or employers of any control over an individuals immigration/residency status.
BTW, not sure if you're still following this thread, but here's some info on attrition:
www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/N_pr_PhDC_bookII.pdf
Looks like there is a statistically relevant difference in completion rates - international students tend to complete at 67% vs 54% for US citizens - and that this gap is driven by math and physical science, while humanities only has a 2% gap. So while I wouldn't say there is a vast gap, there is a relevant gap.
While 67% is much preferable 54%, keep in mind that at elite law, med, and business schools, completion rates tend to be in the high 90s.
www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/N_pr_PhDC_bookII.pdf
Looks like there is a statistically relevant difference in completion rates - international students tend to complete at 67% vs 54% for US citizens - and that this gap is driven by math and physical science, while humanities only has a 2% gap. So while I wouldn't say there is a vast gap, there is a relevant gap.
While 67% is much preferable 54%, keep in mind that at elite law, med, and business schools, completion rates tend to be in the high 90s.
There's little point in making a career more appealing for someone if they lack the basic background for it. The explosion in college remedial math courses is good support for my argument, I believe.
That doesn't seem like a no-brainer. Wouldn't it be harder for skilled Americans to find jobs here if they're competing with immigrants? It's not like there aren't high-skilled jobs in other countries, where those immigrants whom we educate could get jobs.
The subtitle says Our policy toward the world's best and brightest is currently: "Welcome! Enjoy this expensive education. Now go home!" Does that make any sense? But I think it makes even less sense to say to native-born Americans, "Enjoy this expensive education. Now go to Europe to get a job, because we decided to hire an Indian instead".
The subtitle says Our policy toward the world's best and brightest is currently: "Welcome! Enjoy this expensive education. Now go home!" Does that make any sense? But I think it makes even less sense to say to native-born Americans, "Enjoy this expensive education. Now go to Europe to get a job, because we decided to hire an Indian instead".
It's not like there aren't high-skilled jobs in other countries, where those immigrants whom we educate could get jobs.
So it's your desire to consign the Indian would-be immigrant to a life of poverty (i.e., poorer than the bottom 5% of the US [1]) just to make sure your wage stays above $150k/year?
But as long as you are happy with me shipping jobs to India, I guess it's all good.
[1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t...
So it's your desire to consign the Indian would-be immigrant to a life of poverty (i.e., poorer than the bottom 5% of the US [1]) just to make sure your wage stays above $150k/year?
But as long as you are happy with me shipping jobs to India, I guess it's all good.
[1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t...
If the argument is that their presence here makes our country richer, then the more smart Indians that there are in India, the richer that country will become.
That's really the crux of it.
We can pay the smartest people in the world to work here, or we can pay them to work elsewhere. If they work here, we get the externalities. Hence, no-brainer.
We can pay the smartest people in the world to work here, or we can pay them to work elsewhere. If they work here, we get the externalities. Hence, no-brainer.
The externalities of adding more workers to an economy at less than full capacity are negative. The public gets to support the $80K native who just got laid off, and the extra corporate profits are shipped off to an overseas subsidiary and the CEO's annual bonus, never to be seen again.
The economy isn't just a single lump. There's a severe shortage of competent technical talent that we're all familiar with.
If someone expects to make 80k and they haven't updated their skills since the 90s, yeah they're gonna get laid off to make room for someone who can hack it. There's still a need for that someone. Artificial scarcity isn't a good thing for the industry.
If someone expects to make 80k and they haven't updated their skills since the 90s, yeah they're gonna get laid off to make room for someone who can hack it. There's still a need for that someone. Artificial scarcity isn't a good thing for the industry.
Oh so you are turning this into a charity case. The primary goal shifted to "help the Indian worker" not to "help the American economy".
Ok, let's roll with that. If that is the case here is a proposal: pay each skilled worker turned away and replaced by an American worker a stipend to help them rise above poverty in their country (say $2k/year?) then go and hire an American worker and pay them base salary-stipend.
Ok, let's roll with that. If that is the case here is a proposal: pay each skilled worker turned away and replaced by an American worker a stipend to help them rise above poverty in their country (say $2k/year?) then go and hire an American worker and pay them base salary-stipend.
>So it's your desire to consign the Indian would-be immigrant to a life of poverty just to make sure your wage stays above $150k/year
The reality is that the government will make policies that favour citizens over foreigners. So yes, it may be someone's desire to cosign an Indian would-be immigrant to a life of poverty just to keep their wage stable. We're already doing that by not taking in unlimited immigrants from, say, war-torn Africa.
>But as long as you are happy with me shipping jobs to India, I guess it's all good.
Skilled immigration has nothing to do with offshoring.
The reality is that the government will make policies that favour citizens over foreigners. So yes, it may be someone's desire to cosign an Indian would-be immigrant to a life of poverty just to keep their wage stable. We're already doing that by not taking in unlimited immigrants from, say, war-torn Africa.
>But as long as you are happy with me shipping jobs to India, I guess it's all good.
Skilled immigration has nothing to do with offshoring.
Skilled immigration has nothing to do with offshoring.
Sure it does. Both are methods of tapping into the labor pool overseas.
We're already doing that by not taking in unlimited immigrants from, say, war-torn Africa.
Very true. Our unwillingness to take on more refugees has resulted in thousands of people being tortured, raped and murdered. Are you advocating this policy?
Sure it does. Both are methods of tapping into the labor pool overseas.
We're already doing that by not taking in unlimited immigrants from, say, war-torn Africa.
Very true. Our unwillingness to take on more refugees has resulted in thousands of people being tortured, raped and murdered. Are you advocating this policy?
Most African cultures have not completed the demographic transition. Until that happens somehow, those cultures will exceed the carrying capacity of any environment, and war over inadequate resources. With unlimited immigration, the billion in Africa would continue moving until America became equally inhospitable.
If anything, our population is already too high, verging on disposable "life is cheap" levels. We haven't learned to make a civilization that values individuals and treats them decently, except when they are scarce enough that resources are going underused (making it clear to everyone that we benefit from their presence).
If anything, our population is already too high, verging on disposable "life is cheap" levels. We haven't learned to make a civilization that values individuals and treats them decently, except when they are scarce enough that resources are going underused (making it clear to everyone that we benefit from their presence).
> Very true. Our unwillingness to take on more refugees has resulted in thousands of people being tortured, raped and murdered. Are you advocating this policy?
If you advocate a general policy of unselfishness, please send all your money here: http://givewell.org/international/top-charities/AMF#Whatdoyo... Every 2000 dollars donated saves a human life.
If you advocate a general policy of unselfishness, please send all your money here: http://givewell.org/international/top-charities/AMF#Whatdoyo... Every 2000 dollars donated saves a human life.
We already have tons of refugees in the USA. In New Hampshire for example (a very libertarian state, with not much sympathy for socialist programs), we have a large contingent of Somali refugees. They are not skilled workers. I'm not saying everything has gone smoothly, but they have been made welcome by their new neighbors. I think charity (giving something to people who don't seem to deserve it) is much more palatable here than entitlement (giving something to people who think they do deserve it).
1. Why give $150,000/year to an immigrant who will send some of that money back to his/her home country? The "no-brainer" is to keep the money here.
2. Skilled workers in India should be able to get above-average pay. (If the situation is really that bad, the ones who are willing to travel elsewhere to get education and jobs should do much better than average.)
Taking that graph at face value, the Indian immigrants could have no jobs at all, and still live better in the US than in India. They wouldn't have to compete with skilled workers here at all.
You're looking at more skilled workers and thinking that they will add to our economy. So you're asking, "What's the absolute value of (say) and Indian worker to our economy?" But I'm thinking it's closer to a zero-sum game - more immigrants will mean less work for native workers - and I'm asking, "What's the difference in value between an Indian worker compared to a native one?"
2. Skilled workers in India should be able to get above-average pay. (If the situation is really that bad, the ones who are willing to travel elsewhere to get education and jobs should do much better than average.)
Taking that graph at face value, the Indian immigrants could have no jobs at all, and still live better in the US than in India. They wouldn't have to compete with skilled workers here at all.
You're looking at more skilled workers and thinking that they will add to our economy. So you're asking, "What's the absolute value of (say) and Indian worker to our economy?" But I'm thinking it's closer to a zero-sum game - more immigrants will mean less work for native workers - and I'm asking, "What's the difference in value between an Indian worker compared to a native one?"
It would be a disaster if an immigrant helped bring his entire family out of poverty. We better do something to prevent that.
That said, how does it benefit the US if the immigrant keeps his money here?
Skilled workers in India should be able to get above-average pay.
They do. It still puts them well below the US poverty line.
Taking that graph at face value, the Indian immigrants could have no jobs at all, and still live better in the US than in India.
Very true. Most poor Americans, who typically have no job at all, still have a higher standard of living than an upper middle class developer in India. So what?
"What's the difference in value between an Indian worker compared to a native one?"
Wages for developers will be lowered. This will cause quantity demanded to increase, resulting in more software being created. This will increase productivity and benefit consumers. I don't see any reason to believe that all the software we could possibly need is currently being created - do you?
That said, how does it benefit the US if the immigrant keeps his money here?
Skilled workers in India should be able to get above-average pay.
They do. It still puts them well below the US poverty line.
Taking that graph at face value, the Indian immigrants could have no jobs at all, and still live better in the US than in India.
Very true. Most poor Americans, who typically have no job at all, still have a higher standard of living than an upper middle class developer in India. So what?
"What's the difference in value between an Indian worker compared to a native one?"
Wages for developers will be lowered. This will cause quantity demanded to increase, resulting in more software being created. This will increase productivity and benefit consumers. I don't see any reason to believe that all the software we could possibly need is currently being created - do you?
Moving someone else out of poverty would be nice, but would you give up your job to do it? More specifically, do you think that family is entitled to your income? I don't see why the USA should pick skilled workers to move here just to compete with the workers we have, who are already struggling to find jobs in this messed-up economy.
It still puts them well below the US poverty line.
The US poverty line is completely irrelevant to a worker in India. Anyway, it's artificially adjusted to keep 20% of the US population below the line, so it's not useful as an indication of actual poverty.
Most poor Americans, who typically have no job at all, still have a higher standard of living than an upper middle class developer in India. So what?
I answered that in the very next sentence. If it's a simple matter of bringing Indians out of poverty, there's no reason for them to compete with skilled workers here. We could continue to bring random people here from India, which is the opposite of what the article recommends. In fact we should focus on the poorest and least-skilled workers.
I didn't see anything in this discussion about programmers.
It still puts them well below the US poverty line.
The US poverty line is completely irrelevant to a worker in India. Anyway, it's artificially adjusted to keep 20% of the US population below the line, so it's not useful as an indication of actual poverty.
Most poor Americans, who typically have no job at all, still have a higher standard of living than an upper middle class developer in India. So what?
I answered that in the very next sentence. If it's a simple matter of bringing Indians out of poverty, there's no reason for them to compete with skilled workers here. We could continue to bring random people here from India, which is the opposite of what the article recommends. In fact we should focus on the poorest and least-skilled workers.
I didn't see anything in this discussion about programmers.
More specifically, do you think that family is entitled to your income?
No. Nor am I entitled to a particular job.
I'm only advocating allowing the job to go to the person who will offer the best cost/benefit ratio. I'm not advocating we should make it illegal to give the job to one person or another, you are.
Anyway, it's artificially adjusted to keep 20% of the US population below the line, so it's not useful as an indication of actual poverty.
This is very true, but regardless - the bottom 95'th percentile of India is poorer than the bottom 5'th percentile of the US.
I didn't see anything in this discussion about programmers.
My arguments are not specific to programmers. I would also advocate bringing over Indian cooks and house cleaners, subject to various non-protectionist limitations.
(In short, I want to limit immigration to people who leave their cultural baggage at home and who won't vote away our freedom. I've discussed this in the past: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=619122 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=477733 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1144340 )
No. Nor am I entitled to a particular job.
I'm only advocating allowing the job to go to the person who will offer the best cost/benefit ratio. I'm not advocating we should make it illegal to give the job to one person or another, you are.
Anyway, it's artificially adjusted to keep 20% of the US population below the line, so it's not useful as an indication of actual poverty.
This is very true, but regardless - the bottom 95'th percentile of India is poorer than the bottom 5'th percentile of the US.
I didn't see anything in this discussion about programmers.
My arguments are not specific to programmers. I would also advocate bringing over Indian cooks and house cleaners, subject to various non-protectionist limitations.
(In short, I want to limit immigration to people who leave their cultural baggage at home and who won't vote away our freedom. I've discussed this in the past: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=619122 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=477733 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1144340 )
Problem 1 is caused by temporary visas. If I know that I may have to go back to my origin country in a few years, I'm tempted to work a lot, save as much as possible, then go back to my country where this money is probably worth much more due to lower currency value, and use the money plus my international experience to jump-start a higher-level career or business (maybe starting a new offshoring company for extra irony). OTOH if I have a permanent visa, I will invest in a long-term career, form a family (or bring existing family from my country), buy a car, mortgage, burn a ton of money in America's ultra-expensive private healthcare and higher education, etc.
Immigration of high-skilled labor increases the average skill level of the workforce, and thus, its productivity. If I immigrate and keep you from getting a top-tier job, you'll get a middle-tier job instead, benefiting your new employer. Worker productivity is the foundation of economic growth.
This is a silly argument.
Immigrants from the low skill tier lower the average skill level of the workforce (in the US), but they are still beneficial [1]. The time a low skill immigrant spends cleaning my bathroom is time I have to devote to my startup.
Trade benefits everyone because of the consumer surplus it creates, not due to some nebulous "raising the average" effect.
[1] For the sake of argument, I'm assuming purely market forces at work. The welfare state substantially complicates this picture. This article argues immigration overall is a net drain on the US, mainly due to redistributionist policies: http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011
Immigrants from the low skill tier lower the average skill level of the workforce (in the US), but they are still beneficial [1]. The time a low skill immigrant spends cleaning my bathroom is time I have to devote to my startup.
Trade benefits everyone because of the consumer surplus it creates, not due to some nebulous "raising the average" effect.
[1] For the sake of argument, I'm assuming purely market forces at work. The welfare state substantially complicates this picture. This article argues immigration overall is a net drain on the US, mainly due to redistributionist policies: http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011
>Wouldn't it be harder for skilled Americans to find jobs here if they're competing with immigrants?
You must have missed a paragraph or two of the article, see below. Wouldn't it be easier for skilled Americans to find jobs if there were more technology companies?
"High-skill immigrants innovate, patent, and start new firms at higher rates than natives. At least one-quarter of the new firms in technology and science fields, from software and semiconductors to biotech, are founded by immigrants. In Silicon Valley, more than half of the high-tech start-ups were founded by immigrants. High skill immigrants especially with degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (aka: STEM) create more jobs and higher wages for Americans."
You must have missed a paragraph or two of the article, see below. Wouldn't it be easier for skilled Americans to find jobs if there were more technology companies?
"High-skill immigrants innovate, patent, and start new firms at higher rates than natives. At least one-quarter of the new firms in technology and science fields, from software and semiconductors to biotech, are founded by immigrants. In Silicon Valley, more than half of the high-tech start-ups were founded by immigrants. High skill immigrants especially with degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (aka: STEM) create more jobs and higher wages for Americans."
I don't have such a problem with founders moving here. Although I guess they might compete for investor money, I don't see that as such a big problem for our economy as competing with workers for jobs.
[deleted]
I'd be interested in seeing the breakdown of work-related vs non-work related immigrants.
Even so... my point above (about the RAND study) is that objective research shows that Americans are avoiding STEM graduate degrees for rational, market-driven reasons. While it's wonderful that high skill immigrants are innovating, patenting, and starting new firms, that may simply reflect the declining appeal of STEM fields to people who have a wider choice of career paths (ie., if we make it easier for smart immigrants to come here as STEM workers than as lawyers, it's not surprising that immigrants show a higher activity in STEM than in law).
The US may be locking itself into a vicious cycle - the appeal of STEM careers declines, so Americans begin to choose other fields. This creates a shortage, which leads to an increased call for more visas. This provides a stopgap measure that prevents the market correction that would might make STEM more appealing (relative to law, medicine, etc), causing even more Americans (well, anyone with choice) to avoid the field, which leads to calls for even more visas...
In many ways, I hate making this argument, because on a personal (moral) level, I feel immensely welcoming to immigrants, especially well educated immigrants who make a wonderful contribution. And as a matter of policy, yeah, it'd be nuts to refuse entry to such a remarkably productive workforce - the US is in trouble economically, and the fact that so many top people still want to come here is one of our best cards! But at the same time, when I set aside my emotions and take a cold, rational look at this, I do think that the emphasis on STEM immigration may very well be deterring young Americans (or, again, anyone here with the ability to choose a profession over STEM) from entering the field. And I believe that this could be dangerous to the US in the long term - sure, it's stupid to turn away our top graduate students, but shouldn't we see it as a crisis that so few of our graduate students in STEM fields are coming up through the ranks of our own educational system?
I hope you can tell I feel a lot of ambivalence about this. I don't ask people to agree with me, I just ask that people recognize that this issue is complex, and absolutely is not a "no-brainer"
Even so... my point above (about the RAND study) is that objective research shows that Americans are avoiding STEM graduate degrees for rational, market-driven reasons. While it's wonderful that high skill immigrants are innovating, patenting, and starting new firms, that may simply reflect the declining appeal of STEM fields to people who have a wider choice of career paths (ie., if we make it easier for smart immigrants to come here as STEM workers than as lawyers, it's not surprising that immigrants show a higher activity in STEM than in law).
The US may be locking itself into a vicious cycle - the appeal of STEM careers declines, so Americans begin to choose other fields. This creates a shortage, which leads to an increased call for more visas. This provides a stopgap measure that prevents the market correction that would might make STEM more appealing (relative to law, medicine, etc), causing even more Americans (well, anyone with choice) to avoid the field, which leads to calls for even more visas...
In many ways, I hate making this argument, because on a personal (moral) level, I feel immensely welcoming to immigrants, especially well educated immigrants who make a wonderful contribution. And as a matter of policy, yeah, it'd be nuts to refuse entry to such a remarkably productive workforce - the US is in trouble economically, and the fact that so many top people still want to come here is one of our best cards! But at the same time, when I set aside my emotions and take a cold, rational look at this, I do think that the emphasis on STEM immigration may very well be deterring young Americans (or, again, anyone here with the ability to choose a profession over STEM) from entering the field. And I believe that this could be dangerous to the US in the long term - sure, it's stupid to turn away our top graduate students, but shouldn't we see it as a crisis that so few of our graduate students in STEM fields are coming up through the ranks of our own educational system?
I hope you can tell I feel a lot of ambivalence about this. I don't ask people to agree with me, I just ask that people recognize that this issue is complex, and absolutely is not a "no-brainer"
I'm not sure that's the real reason. Intel recently found that they could interest an extra 30% of students in tech careers just by giving them more information. https://newsroom.intel.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/38-7...
It's not the emphasis on STEM immigration that's keeping young Americans from these jobs, it's the piss-poor state of math education in the average US K-12. I was a calculus TA in college and was amazed at the proportion of prospective science majors who couldn't deal with variables and fractions; need I add they had all been educated here? Until that gets fixed (and it will take at least one generation, if it happens), you've got to fill the jobs somehow, you know.
That's a factor, but are you sure it's 100% the piss-poor state of math education? I'm not sure if you've read the RAND study I mentioned... here's a link:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
Now, this study doesn't mention anything about immigration systems, it just concludes that the aversion to STEM graduate degrees (particularly PhDs) is market driven.
So to me, there are a few factors here:
- Our K-12 system failing to produce graduates that can go on to advanced study in STEM
- The declining appeal of STEM careers relative to other options available to the best and brightest
- The relationship between the decline of the appeal of STEM fields and the increasing use of visas to fill these positions (for instance, the RAND study makes recommendations for changes to PhD programs... but these programs will be able to resist change if they have the power to bestow visas).
I'm not at all claiming to have a definitive answer here, but I do think you've gone way too far in attributing it to the decline of math education in the US. I would never try to argue that you haven't identified a major factor, but I think your claim that this is the only factor or even the single overwhelming factor is weak, especially in light of the RAND study.
As for filling the jobs... well, I haven't argued that we shouldn't base immigration on job skills, I've argued the opposite! However, I do think we need to consider the possible impact of emphasizing one particular field (STEM) over another, and make sure that we aren't using these visas to the extent that the prevent the market correction that would - slowly as you've pointed out - improve the appeal of STEM careers and bring "Americans" (by which I mean people living here with broad choice of career paths) back into this field.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
Now, this study doesn't mention anything about immigration systems, it just concludes that the aversion to STEM graduate degrees (particularly PhDs) is market driven.
So to me, there are a few factors here:
- Our K-12 system failing to produce graduates that can go on to advanced study in STEM
- The declining appeal of STEM careers relative to other options available to the best and brightest
- The relationship between the decline of the appeal of STEM fields and the increasing use of visas to fill these positions (for instance, the RAND study makes recommendations for changes to PhD programs... but these programs will be able to resist change if they have the power to bestow visas).
I'm not at all claiming to have a definitive answer here, but I do think you've gone way too far in attributing it to the decline of math education in the US. I would never try to argue that you haven't identified a major factor, but I think your claim that this is the only factor or even the single overwhelming factor is weak, especially in light of the RAND study.
As for filling the jobs... well, I haven't argued that we shouldn't base immigration on job skills, I've argued the opposite! However, I do think we need to consider the possible impact of emphasizing one particular field (STEM) over another, and make sure that we aren't using these visas to the extent that the prevent the market correction that would - slowly as you've pointed out - improve the appeal of STEM careers and bring "Americans" (by which I mean people living here with broad choice of career paths) back into this field.
Of course it's market driven. My point was that the cost structure for a STEM degree for someone who did K-12 in the US is different from someone who went to a good program in, say, Poland, where I'm told that until recently they would skip calculus and directly teach real analysis in high school. So the cost/benefit ratio is high for the US citizen, but that's not an argument against allowing qualified STEM immigration as a stopgap measure until K-12 is fixed. This problem doesn't exist for fields outside of science and tech, where US pre-college education does a much better job.
Unfortunately, we can't know this without analyzing drop-out rates. Anecdotally, I was a PhD student at Berkeley and I personally know grads of IIT and elite european universities who did drop out (including one student who failed even the MS exam). So I'm skeptical, but I don't have the data. I would want to analyze drop out rates, as well as time to completion, and see if they are far better for international students.
I did feel at something of a disadvantage, not because my math education was poor (I was a math major), but because US students specialize later. In college, US students do much more general ed. I spent some time in France as a teenager and was surprised to discover that at age 13 I was going to have to pick a track (letters vs science)... I returned to the US at that point, so I completed my high school in the US.
I think that a broad education can be helpful in STEM fields in ways that are not predictable, but if you're hitting advanced stochastic processes for the first time, and the student next to you did this course already as an undergrad, you're at a disadvantage - but that advantage may be a temporary one, and the benefits of a broader education may well kick in later. Hard to say.
I did feel at something of a disadvantage, not because my math education was poor (I was a math major), but because US students specialize later. In college, US students do much more general ed. I spent some time in France as a teenager and was surprised to discover that at age 13 I was going to have to pick a track (letters vs science)... I returned to the US at that point, so I completed my high school in the US.
I think that a broad education can be helpful in STEM fields in ways that are not predictable, but if you're hitting advanced stochastic processes for the first time, and the student next to you did this course already as an undergrad, you're at a disadvantage - but that advantage may be a temporary one, and the benefits of a broader education may well kick in later. Hard to say.
If you were a math major and got into the PhD program, you've made it and I don't think foreign students have any advantage over you. I was rather talking about people who just begin college. What was your experience of the drop-out rate from the introductory math/science classes?
Like I said, I did feel at a bit of a disadvantage. I double majored in English Literature and Math at the undergrad level, which is not something you would typically do in Europe or Asia. Even if you stick to a single major, the US system typically requires a lot of general education coursework (history, art, etc). I studied plenty of math, but European and Asian students typically focus much more intensely on their major subject at the undergraduate level. I had met the prerequisites for some of my grad courses, but it was still new material for me. For many of my fellow students, it was review.
As the percentage of US students continues to dwindle in US based graduate programs, I think that these courses will be increasingly taught assuming a European or Asian style undergraduate experience (ie., earlier specialization) - after all, that's becoming the typical background in these programs. I don't think that the US students necessarily lack the talent or core prerequisites, but they will be more likely to be seeing "graduate level" material for the first time, whereas it may be review for the international students.
To give an example, suppose there's a graduate course in advanced stochastic processes, and prerequisites are calculus based statics and an undergraduate course in introductory stochastic processes. The American took the prerequisites, and also took a lot of coursework outside his major (as required by his university). An international student took far less coursework outside the major and instead used the time to take what in the US would be graduate level courses in stochastic processes. The international student, in this case, would be at a substantial advantage.
The American, though, will probably choose some other path than a PhD in a STEM field - I personally that the RAND study has pretty much identified why that's the case (better pay and prospects in other fields). I think your insight into the difference between US and international students around markets is a good one - if your failure rate is higher, you'd be more inclined to avoid that program, so they are responding differently. That said, I think that the difficulty of gaining admission to professional schools in the US is a also a major factor (medical and law schools make it far more difficult for international students to gain admission than PhD programs in STEM fields, and if we go the "staple a green card to any STEM degree" but don't take comparable actions in other fields, we should understand that this will probably exacerbate the trend away from STEM and toward other fields among people who can choose their profession in the US).
Oh lastly, to answer your question - yes, the dropout rate from STEM undergraduate majors in the US is high (new york times did an article on this recently), and my undergraduate program was no different. But those Americans who make it through often go to professional schools or into finance (though the trend toward finance has reversed somewhat recently), again (I believe) for the reasons specified in the RAND study.
As the percentage of US students continues to dwindle in US based graduate programs, I think that these courses will be increasingly taught assuming a European or Asian style undergraduate experience (ie., earlier specialization) - after all, that's becoming the typical background in these programs. I don't think that the US students necessarily lack the talent or core prerequisites, but they will be more likely to be seeing "graduate level" material for the first time, whereas it may be review for the international students.
To give an example, suppose there's a graduate course in advanced stochastic processes, and prerequisites are calculus based statics and an undergraduate course in introductory stochastic processes. The American took the prerequisites, and also took a lot of coursework outside his major (as required by his university). An international student took far less coursework outside the major and instead used the time to take what in the US would be graduate level courses in stochastic processes. The international student, in this case, would be at a substantial advantage.
The American, though, will probably choose some other path than a PhD in a STEM field - I personally that the RAND study has pretty much identified why that's the case (better pay and prospects in other fields). I think your insight into the difference between US and international students around markets is a good one - if your failure rate is higher, you'd be more inclined to avoid that program, so they are responding differently. That said, I think that the difficulty of gaining admission to professional schools in the US is a also a major factor (medical and law schools make it far more difficult for international students to gain admission than PhD programs in STEM fields, and if we go the "staple a green card to any STEM degree" but don't take comparable actions in other fields, we should understand that this will probably exacerbate the trend away from STEM and toward other fields among people who can choose their profession in the US).
Oh lastly, to answer your question - yes, the dropout rate from STEM undergraduate majors in the US is high (new york times did an article on this recently), and my undergraduate program was no different. But those Americans who make it through often go to professional schools or into finance (though the trend toward finance has reversed somewhat recently), again (I believe) for the reasons specified in the RAND study.
US companies compete on a global market. High skilled workers increase the competitiveness of those companies which in turn create more jobs. And the large IT companies not only directly contribute to the economy, their employees contribute with taxes to the local towns, a lot of companies thrive in the ecosystems surrounding the companies etc.
Also, why this obsessive focus on indians? I'm an H1B from Sweden and there's many fellow europeans working in the valley and all over US. Judge each individual for their skills instead of lumping huge categories together.
Also, why this obsessive focus on indians? I'm an H1B from Sweden and there's many fellow europeans working in the valley and all over US. Judge each individual for their skills instead of lumping huge categories together.
It's a cost issue usually disguised as a "skilled immigrant" issue. Large companies want technical workers (the new miners and factory workers) who are willing to accept a much lower wage than native workers. So when they talk about "skilled" they usually mean "skilled and willing to work for $40k/year instead of $80k/year".
Just look at how many H1B positions are advertised and how much legal but shady stuff goes on. Put ad in local paper among classifieds for "free dirt available", if any resumes are received from US citizens they are discarded (note they have to be "considered" but not accepted), and so on.
If it was just about "skills" there would be no need for this shit to go on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU&feature=plcp&...
Just look at how many H1B positions are advertised and how much legal but shady stuff goes on. Put ad in local paper among classifieds for "free dirt available", if any resumes are received from US citizens they are discarded (note they have to be "considered" but not accepted), and so on.
If it was just about "skills" there would be no need for this shit to go on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU&feature=plcp&...
you cannot hire a h1b for 40k/year, minimum prevailing wage requirement prevents you from doing so.
You can hire an H1B for 45k/year. I know because I was that H1B at one point. My previous employer gave me quick pay rises once I proved that I was capable, but not everyone is so lucky.
Was the prevailing wage where/when you were employed less than 45k?. If it was then you were not undercutting the american worker,if not your employer was doing something illegal.
From personal experience hiring a H1B is anything but cheap, lawyer fees and all.
The prevailing wage was $45k.
This was for a programming role in New York City- I do not know anyone that gets paid $45k. I'm unsure how they calculate prevailing wages, but I'd suggest that the formula could do with some tweaking.
This was for a programming role in New York City- I do not know anyone that gets paid $45k. I'm unsure how they calculate prevailing wages, but I'd suggest that the formula could do with some tweaking.
i doubt prevailing wage in new york city is $45k for a programming job.
Prevailing wage determination has nothing to with H1B even if that was the case.
Well, I can tell you that it was, because I have the paperwork at home which says exactly that. While the wage determination isn't part of the H1B process it still has a key role to play in it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>Just look at how many H1B positions are advertised and how much legal but shady stuff goes on. Put ad in local paper among classifieds for "free dirt available", if any resumes are received from US citizens they are discarded (note they have to be "considered" but not accepted), and so on.
That video has nothing whatsoever to do with H1B.
It is for a green card application which is completely a different thing. The choice the employer faces is, does he sponsor a green card for someone working for many years and has invaluable company knowledge, or send them home and hire someone with the same qualifications but train them again on the company internals.
That video has nothing whatsoever to do with H1B.
It is for a green card application which is completely a different thing. The choice the employer faces is, does he sponsor a green card for someone working for many years and has invaluable company knowledge, or send them home and hire someone with the same qualifications but train them again on the company internals.
If the advocates of high-skill immigration are so smart, why do they keep tying high-skill immigration to massive low-skill immigration and amnesty, two issues which are big losers?
You're the only one bringing up Mexicans. So I'm not sure who you're complaining about.
They're associated, rather than "linked" because, well, they're both immigration driven by a labor shortage.
They're associated, rather than "linked" because, well, they're both immigration driven by a labor shortage.
> They're associated, rather than "linked" because, well, they're both immigration driven by a labor shortage.
Most people understand that I'm talking about the political process, said process being how the US makes changes in immigration law.
The advocates of "high skill immigration" are asking for different changes to said law than the advocates for low skill plus "forgiveness". However, they're putting both sets of changes into a single package.
As to the "labor shortage", I've done farm labor and other "jobs that americans won't do". The "shortage" is a combination of wage-busting and unwillingness to pay for the relevant automation.
Then again, you won't find me arguing that someone is entitled to cheap golf, to mention one of the arguments for low skill immigration.
Most people understand that I'm talking about the political process, said process being how the US makes changes in immigration law.
The advocates of "high skill immigration" are asking for different changes to said law than the advocates for low skill plus "forgiveness". However, they're putting both sets of changes into a single package.
As to the "labor shortage", I've done farm labor and other "jobs that americans won't do". The "shortage" is a combination of wage-busting and unwillingness to pay for the relevant automation.
Then again, you won't find me arguing that someone is entitled to cheap golf, to mention one of the arguments for low skill immigration.
Anamax didn't bring up Mexicans, and it's not his hangup. Here is video of Obama talking about how great a startup visa is, and then tying the startup visa to comprehensive immigration reform.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/obamas-...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/obamas-...
I didn't play the video but I seriously doubt that Obama used the word "amnesty".
"Low-skill immigration and amnesty" is quite clearly talking about latino immigrants. Not accusing him of being racist or anything but that's who he's talking about.
Comprehensive immigration reform is needed in some form and a startup visa is one aspect of immigration reform. So it's really not outlandish to include it when talking about the subject. I'll spare you a websters-mirriam definition of comprehensive, immigration and reform.
Sorry, the original comment just sounded like off-topic whining to me. Lots of putting words in people's mouths, very little contribution.
EDIT: And the conservative downvote brigade has arrived. I'll just call it a day here.
"Low-skill immigration and amnesty" is quite clearly talking about latino immigrants. Not accusing him of being racist or anything but that's who he's talking about.
Comprehensive immigration reform is needed in some form and a startup visa is one aspect of immigration reform. So it's really not outlandish to include it when talking about the subject. I'll spare you a websters-mirriam definition of comprehensive, immigration and reform.
Sorry, the original comment just sounded like off-topic whining to me. Lots of putting words in people's mouths, very little contribution.
EDIT: And the conservative downvote brigade has arrived. I'll just call it a day here.
So it's really not outlandish to include it when talking about the subject.
If you want the startup visa to pass, there is a very good reason to do it by itself: the startup visa is likely to pass, whereas comprehensive immigration reform is not.
Lots of putting words in people's mouths, very little contribution.
It contributes even less to deny his claims, which are basically correct. Obama's blueprint for immigration reform does include amnesty (you need to scroll to page 3 to find it).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/imm...
If you want the startup visa to pass, there is a very good reason to do it by itself: the startup visa is likely to pass, whereas comprehensive immigration reform is not.
Lots of putting words in people's mouths, very little contribution.
It contributes even less to deny his claims, which are basically correct. Obama's blueprint for immigration reform does include amnesty (you need to scroll to page 3 to find it).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/imm...
The "path to citizenship" outlined there has very little in common with what comes to mind when you say "amnesty". Read the language there, it's all about burdens on illegal immigrants and prerequisites, after which they can get in the back of the line to apply for citizenship. "Amnesty" implies something more similar to what Reagan did.
Again, nobody was talking about this at all until anamax brought it up. And Obama proposing a startup visa by itself absolutely will not pass. You know why? Because it would involve Obama proposing it. See the House Republicans refusing to pass a tax cut this week.
Again, nobody was talking about this at all until anamax brought it up. And Obama proposing a startup visa by itself absolutely will not pass. You know why? Because it would involve Obama proposing it. See the House Republicans refusing to pass a tax cut this week.
> Read the language there, it's all about burdens on illegal immigrants and prerequisites, after which they can get in the back of the line to apply for citizenship.
"back of the line"? They're starting in front of everyone who applied to immigrate, didn't get accepted, and waited until they did.
Are you really arguing that it isn't amnesty because there are some conditions?
"back of the line"? They're starting in front of everyone who applied to immigrate, didn't get accepted, and waited until they did.
Are you really arguing that it isn't amnesty because there are some conditions?
Anything that takes over a decade to successfully execute isn't quite "amnesty" by my definition. "Amnesty" is like "Hey, you're good to go!".
Amnesty International isn't campaigning for prisoners to be released "about 10 years from now".
Amnesty International isn't campaigning for prisoners to be released "about 10 years from now".
There's no "decade to successfully execute" - they get legal resident status immediately after "touching base" (at most).
But, you know this.
Yes, they get to wait to be eligible for citizenship, just like every other legal immigrant. Are you seriously arguing that not letting them jump that line is punishment?
But, you know this.
Yes, they get to wait to be eligible for citizenship, just like every other legal immigrant. Are you seriously arguing that not letting them jump that line is punishment?
No system is going to be perfect, how can "high-skill" immigrants be evaluated with absolute certainty that they are, in-fact, highly skilled. I am sick and tired of employers in the U.S. viewing people with degrees from universities in third-world countries as if they are equal to a degree from the U.S (and thus possibly passing over US workers who may not have completed a degree program). I realize that some immigrants come here for college and that would validate their skills-sets, such as "if they graduate from the U.S. university with high grades, then they can stay and work" but it seems to me a lot of these supposedly highly skilled, supposedly "better than the average American" tech workers are people who were educated exclusively in another country and its not comparing apples to apples, in my opinion.
I am sick and tired of employers in the U.S. viewing people with degrees from universities in third-world countries as if they are equal to a degree from the U.S
I, on the other hand, am sick and tired of the immigration authorities questioning my degree from the UK and refusing to confirm that it is equivalent to a US degree. Hardly third-world.
But in any case, your problem is solved very easily- by firing people. At a previous job we hired a guy with a Masters from a college in New Jersey (I forget which, sadly). He was useless. We fired him. Education can get you in the door, but it can't keep you in the room.
The problem with this is that hiring immigrants is more expensive and time-consuming because of the process you have to go through. Although it sounds backwards, if it was easier to hire immigrants it would be easier to fire them when they aren't as good as they say they are.
I, on the other hand, am sick and tired of the immigration authorities questioning my degree from the UK and refusing to confirm that it is equivalent to a US degree. Hardly third-world.
But in any case, your problem is solved very easily- by firing people. At a previous job we hired a guy with a Masters from a college in New Jersey (I forget which, sadly). He was useless. We fired him. Education can get you in the door, but it can't keep you in the room.
The problem with this is that hiring immigrants is more expensive and time-consuming because of the process you have to go through. Although it sounds backwards, if it was easier to hire immigrants it would be easier to fire them when they aren't as good as they say they are.
I find it very hard to believe that many American employers hire foreigners, with all the paperwork that entails, unless they are persuaded that the foreigner in question is indeed better than the Americans in their pool (modulo wages, but there's a wage floor for H1B, and in any case it's a question of value).
This is completely untrue, I get the feeling you haven't worked a place that has many H1B employees. All I can say is it has been quite obvious that some H1B employees were not quite as sharp as their American counterparts at some places I have worked (not saying all H1B workers, but some). Sure, some are good, but they are not all hired because they have a better skillset and are better overall than their American counterparts, this is rather ridiculous.
There are US organizations that certify the accreditation of foreign schools and universities, and the equivalence of their diplomas. It's the same system used by foreign students who apply to an American university. I'm not sure how well this system works, but it does exist, so if there is still space for fraud, just fix the system.
Also, once again this is a problem for temp visas with their complex and expensive sponsorship deals; if you just give a green card to any high-skilled worker, if he is incompetent because his education was much below American standards, the guy is fired after the first month, problem solved. (I would support some scheme where such a new GC holder is denied social security benefits in the first X years of residence or Y years of actual employment and tax paying.)
Also, once again this is a problem for temp visas with their complex and expensive sponsorship deals; if you just give a green card to any high-skilled worker, if he is incompetent because his education was much below American standards, the guy is fired after the first month, problem solved. (I would support some scheme where such a new GC holder is denied social security benefits in the first X years of residence or Y years of actual employment and tax paying.)
>No system is going to be perfect, how can "high-skill" immigrants be evaluated with absolute certainty that they are
Why do you need "absolute certainty"
Why do you need "absolute certainty"
Because I would at least prefer to err on the side of not hurting American-born workers, rather than err on the side of letting in incompetent "tech talent"
Yeah that is a no-brainer: you have to have no brain to be against it and at the same time anybody with a brain knows it is never going to pass.
Why do you guys keep posting these articles?
Why do you guys keep posting these articles?
1) Importing skilled immigrants is like exporting jobs because most of these people go back to their own countries, and those who stay take the place of a US citizen who could have had the job, if our education system was better and our government's policies were otherwise aligned with the welfare of its people.
2) All routine immigration should be immediately stopped, and indefinitely kept that way. Exceptions should be made only for the few, true geniuses who could definitely benefit the US in a big way.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9PpaoZE8oXk NumbersUSA - Immigration by the Numbers - Part 2 of 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XyTmClBU7nA NumbersUSA - Immigration by the Numbers - Part 1 of 2
http://NumbersUSA.com
2) All routine immigration should be immediately stopped, and indefinitely kept that way. Exceptions should be made only for the few, true geniuses who could definitely benefit the US in a big way.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9PpaoZE8oXk NumbersUSA - Immigration by the Numbers - Part 2 of 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XyTmClBU7nA NumbersUSA - Immigration by the Numbers - Part 1 of 2
http://NumbersUSA.com
> immigrants [...] who stay take the place of a US citizen who could have had the job, if our education system was better and our government's policies were otherwise aligned with the welfare of its people. All routine immigration should be immediately stopped, and indefinitely kept that way
Yes, and to be consistent also ban imports. Each suitcase produced abroad takes the place of one that could have been produced in the US, if the manufacturing industry was better and governmental policies were aligned with the interests of blue collar workers.
I mean, North Korea is so successful, there's no reason to not emulate their economic policies!
Yes, and to be consistent also ban imports. Each suitcase produced abroad takes the place of one that could have been produced in the US, if the manufacturing industry was better and governmental policies were aligned with the interests of blue collar workers.
I mean, North Korea is so successful, there's no reason to not emulate their economic policies!
The "utilitarian" case for halting immigration is obvious to me. But utilitarian arguments are what the pro-immigration people use, too.
I find it interesting that nobody ever talks about national solidarity anymore when discussing immigration. It seems taken for granted that the USA is not a real nation, a real "people". It's just some sort of bazaar for various people with nothing in common to do business, so let in the hordes to do business. No need to worry about literally millions of people coming here without strong loyalties and intent to fully and permanently assimilate.
I find it interesting that nobody ever talks about national solidarity anymore when discussing immigration. It seems taken for granted that the USA is not a real nation, a real "people". It's just some sort of bazaar for various people with nothing in common to do business, so let in the hordes to do business. No need to worry about literally millions of people coming here without strong loyalties and intent to fully and permanently assimilate.
Your major mistake (and there are many...) is believing that only "true geniuses" bring great benefit to the country. For every Sergey Brin who can create Google, there is a thousand of engineers who can "only" implement Google; if the latter are too rare or too expensive, the great innovators or entrepreneurs (either immigrant or native) may not have much success... also, very rarely a "true genius" possesses that status before immigrating. Albert Einstein was already a Nobel Prize winner before coming to the US, both that's the exception not the rule. (And he only settled in the US due to Hitler and the war... most people of a certain age, already successful and wealthy, don't bother with the pain of immigration.) Sergey's family would only qualify as "regular" H1B-class immigrants (a Math teacher and a climate scientist).
Finally, it's very funny how people like you are favorable to a closed working market (let's say this is possible) but an open, fair and competitive market for everything else. Will you be happy if all foreign countries fight back with unfair commercial practices? This is not a theoretical question, as you already have at least one important commercial partner that's strong and ingenious enough to screw you -- China -- and this is apparently bad enough already. The fact is, the globalization cat is out of the bag and there's no way back, and no way to play only half of the music.
Finally, it's very funny how people like you are favorable to a closed working market (let's say this is possible) but an open, fair and competitive market for everything else. Will you be happy if all foreign countries fight back with unfair commercial practices? This is not a theoretical question, as you already have at least one important commercial partner that's strong and ingenious enough to screw you -- China -- and this is apparently bad enough already. The fact is, the globalization cat is out of the bag and there's no way back, and no way to play only half of the music.
I've mentioned a RAND study many times in my comments on hn. This study took a very objective look at the pay, career prospects, completion time, attrition rate, and so forth of STEM grad degrees vs the professions (MD, JD, DDS, MBA, etc). The conclusion reached was that STEM grad degrees are unappealing to young americans because they are no longer competitive with other career paths available to the "best and brightest".
So, does it make sense to specifically staple green cards to evey stem diploma when the most objective research suggests the shortage may be market driven?
I don't have a definitive answer. I think it's a complex question wothy of discussion, and not at all the no-brainer the atlantic article claims it it.