That’s a whataboutism. The original question is why many US tech workers support open borders for tech labor when the supply increase primarily hits the wages and bargaining power of workers already here.
That's not what I am asking. I want to know why US-born people in tech is/was so pro open border when it clearly does not benefit US labor. You don't get a lot of push-back from within tech against these hiring practices.
My tier 2 US tech Bay Area office is 80% immigrants from one country on visa (H1-B or OPT). They never say no, and they are willing to work any hours and take meetings at any time. 90% of management up to CTO is from the same country. This is for tech, its a little less lopsided in non-tech divisions. Most of them used this pipeline (I've checked LinkedIn): 2 years of non-spectacular experience in home country, cheap US master, possibly internship in US company with same ethnic makeup, then OPT, then shoot for the H1-B in company with manager from same country.
American grads now compete with ethnic hiring, foreign work morals, and possibly billions of people with not-so-impressive experience, which I assume is why we see the crowding out of locals. Add to that some groups generally having less scruples about cheating and lying in the application process, as well as being trained in school for passing tests rather than performance, and you get what we see now.
It was a good experience. You'd learn more in 4 years at a brick and mortar since you spend more time and homework there. Great option if you already know much of the material though, but i think they only admit US and Canadian people.
I liked that it was async but still proctored exams, and they provided great access to teachers and so on.
ADD here, and therefore (I believe easily irritable by sounds). For me, sudden and infrequent sounds are worse for stress than "noise". I'm wuite OK with city noise but hate door slammers and bowling ball droppers.