Watch What Happens When You Push Away Skilled Immigrants(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Watch What Happens When You Push Away Skilled Immigrants
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-24/making-life-awful-for-skilled-immigrants-is-a-mistake
70 comments
> Here in Sweden a researcher did such study and unsurprisingly the result showed that for the time frame of 20 years the state economics from immigration is a net negative.
I would be very interested to read this study. Can you please provide a source?
What kind of immigration does the study account for? Is it refugee based or diversity based immigration which, naturally, could be a burden on the country because these most likely are not medium-high skilled immigrants. However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program which is only for employment based high-skilled applicants (granted some of these could be medium-skilled but these applicants are definitely not low-skilled) and contribute to the economy by paying taxes and contributing to the local economy by spending.
> the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants.
If there is an economic growth for the local companies, this certainly might correlate with the economic growth for the economy of the country. But I do agree with you that there should be a more focused study for this.
I would be very interested to read this study. Can you please provide a source?
What kind of immigration does the study account for? Is it refugee based or diversity based immigration which, naturally, could be a burden on the country because these most likely are not medium-high skilled immigrants. However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program which is only for employment based high-skilled applicants (granted some of these could be medium-skilled but these applicants are definitely not low-skilled) and contribute to the economy by paying taxes and contributing to the local economy by spending.
> the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants.
If there is an economic growth for the local companies, this certainly might correlate with the economic growth for the economy of the country. But I do agree with you that there should be a more focused study for this.
> Can you please provide a source?
Sure, its was fairly rememberable since the new reportage went bad since the news reporter tried to address and ask question about the political aspects and the academic economy researcher was very academic about it. When they got the question "why did you do this study when it could be used as political material next election" the answer became something like "we were hired to do a study, and having knowledge about the subject is better than having no knowledge".
I also noticed that I did miss-remember a detail. The time frame was between 1983 and 2015, so 33 years rather than 20 years.
https://eso.expertgrupp.se/rapporter/tid-for-integration/ - report (there is a English summery linked on the page).
https://www.svt.se/kultur/medier/forskaren-i-uppmarksammad-i... - interview
> However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program
Yes, as I wrote that could change the result and if so it would make for a great news. Further studies is something that should be funded as the political environment around immigration is about as bad as it can be. I also believe the argument about immigration as humanitarian aid is a good one and focus the discussion towards reasonable middle ground rather than extremes.
Sure, its was fairly rememberable since the new reportage went bad since the news reporter tried to address and ask question about the political aspects and the academic economy researcher was very academic about it. When they got the question "why did you do this study when it could be used as political material next election" the answer became something like "we were hired to do a study, and having knowledge about the subject is better than having no knowledge".
I also noticed that I did miss-remember a detail. The time frame was between 1983 and 2015, so 33 years rather than 20 years.
https://eso.expertgrupp.se/rapporter/tid-for-integration/ - report (there is a English summery linked on the page).
https://www.svt.se/kultur/medier/forskaren-i-uppmarksammad-i... - interview
> However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program
Yes, as I wrote that could change the result and if so it would make for a great news. Further studies is something that should be funded as the political environment around immigration is about as bad as it can be. I also believe the argument about immigration as humanitarian aid is a good one and focus the discussion towards reasonable middle ground rather than extremes.
Thank you for the source. I'll read it!
> we were hired to do a study, and having knowledge about the subject is better than having no knowledge".
Haha. That's absolutely true.
> we were hired to do a study, and having knowledge about the subject is better than having no knowledge".
Haha. That's absolutely true.
> it would strip citizenship from the children of green-card holders and illegal immigrants alike, leaving millions of American citizens suddenly without a country.
Would it take a person with citizenship and remove their citizenship, or would it simply not grant them citizenship?
Would it take a person with citizenship and remove their citizenship, or would it simply not grant them citizenship?
What it would purport to do depends on the precise wording.
What it would actually do is get quickly struck down by the courts with no effect, since executive orders can't validly contradict federal statutory law or the Constitution.
Both sources of law currently protect birthright citizenship, except for the children of foreign diplomats who already don't benefit from it today (no new executive order needed).
What it would actually do is get quickly struck down by the courts with no effect, since executive orders can't validly contradict federal statutory law or the Constitution.
Both sources of law currently protect birthright citizenship, except for the children of foreign diplomats who already don't benefit from it today (no new executive order needed).
The H1B study sounds suspicious and the defence of the H1B program weakened an otherwise strong article.
H1B abuses have been long documented so while there are legitimate benefits to it, they are outweighed by the problems.
H1B abuses have been long documented so while there are legitimate benefits to it, they are outweighed by the problems.
Your assertion that the problems of H1B visas outweigh the benefits is pure conjecture and, for the most part, not supported by facts.
It's all much ado about nothing anyways. 85,000 new H1 visas a year for a population of 330 million? Give me a break. Even if these all went to Wipro it wouldn't even be worth thinking twice about. And the refugee intake is only 49,000 a year. An absolute disgrace.
I am genuinely curious to find out which number or percentage you'd consider a reasonable number or immigrants to admit each year, and how you arrived at that number. Are there any published studies that have tried to calculate this?
[deleted]
You just made a claim too without any results let alone sources for those results.
I am confused about something that seems very basic, and hoping somebody can help me out with this.
I have always supported left politics, and I think I understand the basics of supply-and-demand economics. If immigrants come to the US looking for work instead of bringing work, there should be a higher supply of labor, driving the low-end pay-rate down. Given that the low-end rate has gone down significantly throughout the 3 decades that I have been alive, how do we on the left reason that immigration is not a factor? Or is it?
Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies. Am I wrong about that?
My parents voted for Trump, (or we might say they voted against Clinton). They have since decided to support Bernie Sanders next time, but they point to immigration’s effect on the labor supply as the reason to keep the border closed.
I would like to think we can address this with far more dignified solutions than what is being popularly proposed, but first things first; what am I missing?
I have always supported left politics, and I think I understand the basics of supply-and-demand economics. If immigrants come to the US looking for work instead of bringing work, there should be a higher supply of labor, driving the low-end pay-rate down. Given that the low-end rate has gone down significantly throughout the 3 decades that I have been alive, how do we on the left reason that immigration is not a factor? Or is it?
Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies. Am I wrong about that?
My parents voted for Trump, (or we might say they voted against Clinton). They have since decided to support Bernie Sanders next time, but they point to immigration’s effect on the labor supply as the reason to keep the border closed.
I would like to think we can address this with far more dignified solutions than what is being popularly proposed, but first things first; what am I missing?
You’re thinking in what is known as “the big lump of employment” mode: i.e., that there is some fixed demand for total labour in a country and that it will be apportioned out according to the lowest salaries. This is generally countered with the idea that as population rises (including due to immigration) more support jobs are needed – for example, as population rises you need proportionally more healthcare, and those extra health workers will need more consumer goods which means there’ll be more stores to sell stuff to them and more cashiers & cetera.
> Given that the low-end rate has gone down significantly throughout the 3 decades that I have been alive, how do we on the left reason that immigration is not a factor?
Because we can point directly to the tax policy changes that are largely responsible, starting with the Reagan-era tax burden shift on to work.
And because we on the left don't deny that immigration is not a factor, but instead that immigration policy effects whether people who enter do it more to work and export the proceeds or to settle and participate and both sides of the ledger, and that present policy has been harmful in that regard. A particular way tl in which this is true is the production of multi-decade waiting lists for family-based immigration from Mexico, which both reduces attachment of lawful immigrants, drives remittances, and produces illegal immigration directly.
> Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies.
Xenophobia is probably historically the most central reason, but public resources and labor markets are the acceptable modern pretexts. But even when they are the genuine purposes, that doesn't mean policies are actually well adapted to them.
Because we can point directly to the tax policy changes that are largely responsible, starting with the Reagan-era tax burden shift on to work.
And because we on the left don't deny that immigration is not a factor, but instead that immigration policy effects whether people who enter do it more to work and export the proceeds or to settle and participate and both sides of the ledger, and that present policy has been harmful in that regard. A particular way tl in which this is true is the production of multi-decade waiting lists for family-based immigration from Mexico, which both reduces attachment of lawful immigrants, drives remittances, and produces illegal immigration directly.
> Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies.
Xenophobia is probably historically the most central reason, but public resources and labor markets are the acceptable modern pretexts. But even when they are the genuine purposes, that doesn't mean policies are actually well adapted to them.
Thanks for this thoughtful response. I definitely feel like you get my struggle.
I do understand the impact of Reagan-era economic policies and don’t accept that America would be capable of thriving despite a lot of immigration.
But, I guess I don’t understand why this convo isn’t articulated. Supply-and-demand of the labor market is super simple and it seems pretty obvious that immigration would end up being a scapegoat. I just realized I don’t have anything to say that because, despite understanding numerous economic causes for the lower wages, I can only reason that immigration adds fuel to the fire.
But for some reason people on the left seem to act like this contention doesn’t exist. They just talk about how terrible the border and ICE is; both of which have been awful for many years. It’s nice that people care all of a sudden but name-calling doesn’t address these rational claims of the opposition. If you’re right and that’s the way it is, I wonder how we can actually solve this.
It sounds like if we can just actually take the economics seriously for once then it would eliminate any decent ground to defend the immigration enforcements. I mean, we have to do it some day. It seems to undermine everything we stand for.
I do understand the impact of Reagan-era economic policies and don’t accept that America would be capable of thriving despite a lot of immigration.
But, I guess I don’t understand why this convo isn’t articulated. Supply-and-demand of the labor market is super simple and it seems pretty obvious that immigration would end up being a scapegoat. I just realized I don’t have anything to say that because, despite understanding numerous economic causes for the lower wages, I can only reason that immigration adds fuel to the fire.
But for some reason people on the left seem to act like this contention doesn’t exist. They just talk about how terrible the border and ICE is; both of which have been awful for many years. It’s nice that people care all of a sudden but name-calling doesn’t address these rational claims of the opposition. If you’re right and that’s the way it is, I wonder how we can actually solve this.
It sounds like if we can just actually take the economics seriously for once then it would eliminate any decent ground to defend the immigration enforcements. I mean, we have to do it some day. It seems to undermine everything we stand for.
> But, I guess I don’t understand why this convo isn’t articulated.
In part, because the political “dialogue” in this country isn't a dialogue, it's a propaganda battle where on every issue it is a battle to control the framing, largely with the aim of mobilizing each sides base while alienating the other, not coming to some kind of common consensus.
In part, because the left viewpoint on the economics is not the dominant view of either major party; the (still, arguably barely) dominant faction of the Democratic Party is economically center-right.
> But for some reason people on the left seem to act like this contention doesn’t exist. They just talk about how terrible the border and ICE is; both of which have been awful for many years
Even given the preceding, that's not really true: the left (and Democrats more broadly) do offer much more specific policy criticisms than that, and those didn't all originate under this President. (Though under the immediate preceding one, those positions were often shared with the President though not the Congressional majority, see DACA/DREAM Act.) Obviously, they've become more intense and higher priority with a hostile administration engaging in policy more hostile to their desires.
> It’s nice that people care all of a sudden
People on the left don't care “all of a sudden”, though obviously the policy context has changed all of a sudden which has shifted the tone and focus of criticisms.
> but name-calling doesn’t address these rational claims of the opposition.
Electoral politics largely isn't about rational debate, and trying to make it so is often counterproductive, even if you are winning with the people that are listening for rational debate.
> It sounds like if we can just actually take the economics seriously for once then it would eliminate any decent ground to defend the immigration enforcements.
The left isn't against immigration enforcement so much as it is against the particular policies being enforced and the methods of enforcement.
But “decent ground” isn't, even if it should be, often what wins policy debates.
In part, because the political “dialogue” in this country isn't a dialogue, it's a propaganda battle where on every issue it is a battle to control the framing, largely with the aim of mobilizing each sides base while alienating the other, not coming to some kind of common consensus.
In part, because the left viewpoint on the economics is not the dominant view of either major party; the (still, arguably barely) dominant faction of the Democratic Party is economically center-right.
> But for some reason people on the left seem to act like this contention doesn’t exist. They just talk about how terrible the border and ICE is; both of which have been awful for many years
Even given the preceding, that's not really true: the left (and Democrats more broadly) do offer much more specific policy criticisms than that, and those didn't all originate under this President. (Though under the immediate preceding one, those positions were often shared with the President though not the Congressional majority, see DACA/DREAM Act.) Obviously, they've become more intense and higher priority with a hostile administration engaging in policy more hostile to their desires.
> It’s nice that people care all of a sudden
People on the left don't care “all of a sudden”, though obviously the policy context has changed all of a sudden which has shifted the tone and focus of criticisms.
> but name-calling doesn’t address these rational claims of the opposition.
Electoral politics largely isn't about rational debate, and trying to make it so is often counterproductive, even if you are winning with the people that are listening for rational debate.
> It sounds like if we can just actually take the economics seriously for once then it would eliminate any decent ground to defend the immigration enforcements.
The left isn't against immigration enforcement so much as it is against the particular policies being enforced and the methods of enforcement.
But “decent ground” isn't, even if it should be, often what wins policy debates.
Immigrants increase both labor supply (by working) and demand (by buying things). People often forget the demand part.
Businesses in an area that was losing population can benefit from immigrants moving in. A shrinking community isn't good for business.
Businesses in an area that was losing population can benefit from immigrants moving in. A shrinking community isn't good for business.
Will you explain why these exact things have only had precisely the opposite effects in practice?
Seems like flawed theory to me.
Considering immigrants (as well as most low-wage Americans) primarily purchase cheap imported goods, the only jobs we appear to be creating by this method are extreme low-wage jobs, just like I said. Any other revenue goes to very wealthy who stash it or invest in capital or property, which makes it harder for most Americans to own a home.
Seems like flawed theory to me.
Considering immigrants (as well as most low-wage Americans) primarily purchase cheap imported goods, the only jobs we appear to be creating by this method are extreme low-wage jobs, just like I said. Any other revenue goes to very wealthy who stash it or invest in capital or property, which makes it harder for most Americans to own a home.
Increased supply doesn't drive prices down on its own. Prices change as the ratio of supply:demand diverges from 1:1.
Immigrants not only bring in labor supply, but also product demand. So even if they aren't investors looking to hire people, the proper question should be whether they bring in more supply than demand, or whether they don't.
I'd say that immigrants who send money abroad, tip the balance towards higher supply, while those who don't, are actually suply-demand neutral (they spend their money where they earn it). So removing citizenship from those born, raised and consuming, is just bullshit.
As for why low-end rates have gone down... check out income inequality, you might find that the top-end rates have gone up by the same amount. Either that, or the economy is tanking (but it isn't).
Immigrants not only bring in labor supply, but also product demand. So even if they aren't investors looking to hire people, the proper question should be whether they bring in more supply than demand, or whether they don't.
I'd say that immigrants who send money abroad, tip the balance towards higher supply, while those who don't, are actually suply-demand neutral (they spend their money where they earn it). So removing citizenship from those born, raised and consuming, is just bullshit.
As for why low-end rates have gone down... check out income inequality, you might find that the top-end rates have gone up by the same amount. Either that, or the economy is tanking (but it isn't).
(Disclosure: I'm not a US national, and I don't live in the US)
In my limited personal experience chatting with employees and hiring managers from a couple of big name US tech companies, what I've come to realize is that occasionally they hire talented foreigners simply because they're talented. Of course this doesn't apply to every foreign hire they do, but if they find someone that fits their culture and is above the average by a big margin, they'll be happy to create a job on the spot for that person. So while we try to think of the job market as fixed thing with N available places at any given moment, this certainly doesn't fully apply to creative/innovative workplaces.
In my limited personal experience chatting with employees and hiring managers from a couple of big name US tech companies, what I've come to realize is that occasionally they hire talented foreigners simply because they're talented. Of course this doesn't apply to every foreign hire they do, but if they find someone that fits their culture and is above the average by a big margin, they'll be happy to create a job on the spot for that person. So while we try to think of the job market as fixed thing with N available places at any given moment, this certainly doesn't fully apply to creative/innovative workplaces.
You pass more effective labor protections, and then stop letting employers get around them just because they hired undocumented workers. You prosecute employers for exploiting a vulnerable labor force, instead of charging the people being exploited.
This seems like the truly left position to me. I heard Clinton mention it once in the 3rd debate, but for some reason people focused on other stuff.
This seems like the truly left position to me. I heard Clinton mention it once in the 3rd debate, but for some reason people focused on other stuff.
Hopefully she mentions it twice next time. Pretty sure Bernie Sanders mentioned it every single time he opened his mouth.
A higher supply of cheaper labour does contribute to the reduced pay but by far the biggest influence is the stagnation of wages over those 3 decades (i.e. it's not that wages have gone down, they just largely haven't gone up).
Average, inflation adjusted wage growth has been projected as low as 0.2% year on year in some cases, and this affects most forms of work not just the low end.
Average, inflation adjusted wage growth has been projected as low as 0.2% year on year in some cases, and this affects most forms of work not just the low end.
With all the productivity gains, if the wage growth has been far less, it's clear who is to take a huge part of the blame, hint hint, big corporations who also evade paying taxes.
Its almost as if they don't want a vibrant middle class to spend, thereby dooming themselves in the long run with stagnation.
Its almost as if they don't want a vibrant middle class to spend, thereby dooming themselves in the long run with stagnation.
> A higher supply of cheaper labour does contribute to the reduced pay but by far the biggest influence is the stagnation of wages over those 3 decades.
This only applies to low skilled, replaceable jobs and certainly not the high skilled ones. Because eventually there is a demand for better employees (which naturally comes with experience and skills) which leads to higher wages and wage growth. Look at what's happening in SV.
This only applies to low skilled, replaceable jobs and certainly not the high skilled ones. Because eventually there is a demand for better employees (which naturally comes with experience and skills) which leads to higher wages and wage growth. Look at what's happening in SV.
The labour market isn't one market, it's many markets, stratified in all sorts of ways. Hence: bringing in people to do tech jobs (e.g.) for which a local person can't be found will have no effect on working-class wages as, evidently, there's not much competition for that role locally anyway.
Also leftist but pro-immigration.. (although not American)
I don't have a complete answer but I would point out that some of these immigrants do bring work, eventually. There is a photograph of Sergey Brinn in the article, Steve Jobs is another example.
Also, economically, I am of the opinion that consumption is what drives the modern economy (for better or worse). The production is then typically figured out from that through capitalism. So the additional consumers in economy (immigrants) also add to demand, which acts against the downward pressure on wages.
I don't have a complete answer but I would point out that some of these immigrants do bring work, eventually. There is a photograph of Sergey Brinn in the article, Steve Jobs is another example.
Also, economically, I am of the opinion that consumption is what drives the modern economy (for better or worse). The production is then typically figured out from that through capitalism. So the additional consumers in economy (immigrants) also add to demand, which acts against the downward pressure on wages.
Sergeant Brinn went to Stanford. Steve Jobs went to Reed. Can you articulate an even somewhat critical relation between these examples and the minimum wage? I’m just not seeing it, but open if someone can connect the dots.
I was unable to go to college without massive student loans and now I can’t afford to have children despite working obsessive hours.
> I am of the opinion that consumption is what drives the modern economy (for better or worse).
What about having a productive and efficient economy? I was looking at this recently:
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/labor-force-partic...
Our labor force participation rate is drastically lower than Europe’s. Not sure why but I remember a post on HN a few days ago where a homeless American programmer was asking for advice and more people than not recommended that he not take a minimum wage job because it would barely help and take all his time. True he had programming experience but this is a homeless person. If being homeless is not enough to justify a low-end job, it seems like a stretch to think this is an economy that can work. Again, what am a I missing? Are you not worried that you’re wrong? Economics is difficult stuff which is why i am asking.
> The production is then typically figured out from that.
Poor people consumer almost entirely cheap-labor made imports, often made in free-trade manufacturing zones (sweat shops) so this is not computing at all for me.
This is at least not the left I signed up for when I was in high school. We hated sweat shops.
I was unable to go to college without massive student loans and now I can’t afford to have children despite working obsessive hours.
> I am of the opinion that consumption is what drives the modern economy (for better or worse).
What about having a productive and efficient economy? I was looking at this recently:
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/labor-force-partic...
Our labor force participation rate is drastically lower than Europe’s. Not sure why but I remember a post on HN a few days ago where a homeless American programmer was asking for advice and more people than not recommended that he not take a minimum wage job because it would barely help and take all his time. True he had programming experience but this is a homeless person. If being homeless is not enough to justify a low-end job, it seems like a stretch to think this is an economy that can work. Again, what am a I missing? Are you not worried that you’re wrong? Economics is difficult stuff which is why i am asking.
> The production is then typically figured out from that.
Poor people consumer almost entirely cheap-labor made imports, often made in free-trade manufacturing zones (sweat shops) so this is not computing at all for me.
This is at least not the left I signed up for when I was in high school. We hated sweat shops.
What I am saying is that immigrants (or their kids) sometimes become entrepreneurs, that's all.
Regarding student loans, I am sorry to hear that, frankly situation in the U.S. is messed up. I honestly think you should support Bernie Sanders and his ilk if you want to change that.
What I am saying is pretty much standard Keynesian view of the economy: The economy can produce less than it potentially could (and have full employment, although that is tenuous) when there isn't large enough demand, that is consumer buying things and services.
This has not much to do with minimum wages, although in fact, raising minimum wage can most likely help to stimulate demand.
Regarding the cheap-labor made imports, these in fact hurt the foreign economies more than yours (because of the trade deficit, which most likely won't be equalized). The only way to prevent them (to some extent) would be to impose some form of import tariff.
Regarding student loans, I am sorry to hear that, frankly situation in the U.S. is messed up. I honestly think you should support Bernie Sanders and his ilk if you want to change that.
What I am saying is pretty much standard Keynesian view of the economy: The economy can produce less than it potentially could (and have full employment, although that is tenuous) when there isn't large enough demand, that is consumer buying things and services.
This has not much to do with minimum wages, although in fact, raising minimum wage can most likely help to stimulate demand.
Regarding the cheap-labor made imports, these in fact hurt the foreign economies more than yours (because of the trade deficit, which most likely won't be equalized). The only way to prevent them (to some extent) would be to impose some form of import tariff.
Low-end wages are affected by automation, globalization and immigration. In that order, I believe. To his credit, Trump is trying to tackle the last two.
If you provide unskilled services (e.g cleaning) then unskilled immigration is very bad for your income. I don't think any reasonable economist would object to that.
The "job pool" does expand over time to match the labor pool, but if immigrants don't have the same skill profile as "the natives", then some of the natives are gonna lose.
If you provide unskilled services (e.g cleaning) then unskilled immigration is very bad for your income. I don't think any reasonable economist would object to that.
The "job pool" does expand over time to match the labor pool, but if immigrants don't have the same skill profile as "the natives", then some of the natives are gonna lose.
This is a throwaway account, but, hey, they have their place. I'm a regular HN commenter under another name(that you wouldn't recognize, I'm not secretly patio11 or something).
The article frustrates me, because it echoes a thought complex that seems almost willfully obtuse. It fails to address the actual reasons behind a desire for caution on immigration. This is somewhat forgivable because those with the most reason to want caution are the least likely to be able to explain why, or to have the confidence to do so. But it is somewhat unforgivable because presumably it is the job of those who write articles to tease that sort of thing out.
The article gives a litany of problems for which high-skilled immigrants are the solution: pensions, tax bases, shoring up the population of "declining regions." We are told that the "dark nativist rumblings of right-wing intellectuals like Anton, are doing the U.S. economy an enormous disservice."
This is Bloomberg, so that is the unpardonable sin, hurting the economy. But maybe there's more to life than the economy?
Consider Sen. Elizabeth Warren's The Two-Income Trap [0]. She posits that much of the income a family gains from working women goes to positional goods, like housing or (credentialed) education---but since other women are working as well, the net gain is much, much lower than what the simple income numbers would suggest. Perhaps a simpler example is simply housing in SF. Sure, you get paid a lot, but if your rent is correspondingly high, well...hmm. And that's assuming that you are being paid a lot.
Money is an abstraction. Sometimes it's a leaky abstraction. What price air? What price true love? How much do loving, still-together parents cost? How much to block all ads on the Internet, forever? Just because you can't buy these things doesn't mean they're not wealth, in the pg "wealth is what people want" sense.
If you held Google stock, and they doubled the amount of ads you see, Bloomberg would say you were up. But, well, now the internet sucks for you.
So...how much is your vote worth? How much is it worth to live somewhere where the opinions of most of the electorate match up with yours?
How much would you pay for your child to attend a school where you're comfortable with the racial mix of the other students? This is taboo---even my villanous throwaway persona cringes writing it---but in practice people go to a lot of trouble. [2][3]
How much is social cohesion worth? [4] How much is a monolingual environment---and more specifically, the security of the implied cultural hegemony---worth?[5]
To really drive home the ridiculousness of the article, let's flip the scenario: imagine new research came out that demonstrated unequivocally that "immigrants are Bad for the Economy," and mirror-universe Evil Bloomberg wrote an op-ed citing such. Might you take issue with that, holding that they bring benefits not measured in GNP, and that this was a case of looking for keys under the streetlight?
I'm not arguing for any specific policies, which is good for all of us because I know jack shit about such. Rather, I'm arguing for the basic legitimacy of the nativist impulse. Humans of any origin like living in safe countries that they control.
"But though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy" - http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
[0]http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-inc...
[1]https://www.newsweek.com/why-schools-still-cant-put-segregat...
[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/housi...
[3]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128026...
[4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/08/resea...
The article frustrates me, because it echoes a thought complex that seems almost willfully obtuse. It fails to address the actual reasons behind a desire for caution on immigration. This is somewhat forgivable because those with the most reason to want caution are the least likely to be able to explain why, or to have the confidence to do so. But it is somewhat unforgivable because presumably it is the job of those who write articles to tease that sort of thing out.
The article gives a litany of problems for which high-skilled immigrants are the solution: pensions, tax bases, shoring up the population of "declining regions." We are told that the "dark nativist rumblings of right-wing intellectuals like Anton, are doing the U.S. economy an enormous disservice."
This is Bloomberg, so that is the unpardonable sin, hurting the economy. But maybe there's more to life than the economy?
Consider Sen. Elizabeth Warren's The Two-Income Trap [0]. She posits that much of the income a family gains from working women goes to positional goods, like housing or (credentialed) education---but since other women are working as well, the net gain is much, much lower than what the simple income numbers would suggest. Perhaps a simpler example is simply housing in SF. Sure, you get paid a lot, but if your rent is correspondingly high, well...hmm. And that's assuming that you are being paid a lot.
Money is an abstraction. Sometimes it's a leaky abstraction. What price air? What price true love? How much do loving, still-together parents cost? How much to block all ads on the Internet, forever? Just because you can't buy these things doesn't mean they're not wealth, in the pg "wealth is what people want" sense.
If you held Google stock, and they doubled the amount of ads you see, Bloomberg would say you were up. But, well, now the internet sucks for you.
So...how much is your vote worth? How much is it worth to live somewhere where the opinions of most of the electorate match up with yours?
How much would you pay for your child to attend a school where you're comfortable with the racial mix of the other students? This is taboo---even my villanous throwaway persona cringes writing it---but in practice people go to a lot of trouble. [2][3]
How much is social cohesion worth? [4] How much is a monolingual environment---and more specifically, the security of the implied cultural hegemony---worth?[5]
To really drive home the ridiculousness of the article, let's flip the scenario: imagine new research came out that demonstrated unequivocally that "immigrants are Bad for the Economy," and mirror-universe Evil Bloomberg wrote an op-ed citing such. Might you take issue with that, holding that they bring benefits not measured in GNP, and that this was a case of looking for keys under the streetlight?
I'm not arguing for any specific policies, which is good for all of us because I know jack shit about such. Rather, I'm arguing for the basic legitimacy of the nativist impulse. Humans of any origin like living in safe countries that they control.
"But though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy" - http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
[0]http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/28/book-review-the-two-inc...
[1]https://www.newsweek.com/why-schools-still-cant-put-segregat...
[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/housi...
[3]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128026...
[4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/08/resea...
Current policies will give more opportunities for Americans.
Trump understands something that technology elites don't; the wealth pie is limited and you have to be deliberate in how you slice it and who you give those slices to.
Trump understands something that technology elites don't; the wealth pie is limited and you have to be deliberate in how you slice it and who you give those slices to.
Sure he's just got the allocations completely inverted.
Life doesn't have to be a zero sum game.
Real estate is.
Can't you just build higher? Or then into space? It's not really, is it.
Shutting out skilled, educated immigrants doesn't magically make natives more skilled nor better educated.
Take a look at the UK and Brexit, they're having problems hiring enough health care professionals precisely because of their desired post-EU immigration policies. This before they even apply any new rules!
Take a look at the UK and Brexit, they're having problems hiring enough health care professionals precisely because of their desired post-EU immigration policies. This before they even apply any new rules!
Another way to put this is to say the NHS is insufficiently funded to survive without ongoing imports of cheap labour from poorer countries. The problem would be better solved by reforming the NHS/its funding so that we incentivise the existing population to provide its workforce. Surely propping it up with ceaseless immigration is a ponzi scheme?
A poor kid in the US Midwest isn't being held back by a Chinese PhD candidate in the coastal city when the latter can help local companies grow and acquire capital thus facilitating the hiring of locals not just for the company but for the surrounding economy.
The argument is clearly stated in the article. And your assertion about opportunities does not really align with our understanding of immigration policies.
The argument is clearly stated in the article. And your assertion about opportunities does not really align with our understanding of immigration policies.
I find many popular arguments about immigration lack nuance and are sometimes purposefully misleading.
I'm not fan of Trump, but he wants to institute a 'points based' system, along the lines of what Canada or Australia has.
Immigrants to Canada tend to be fairly educated, more so than those coming to the us partly due to this policy, partly due to the irregular migrants coming to the US.
The article's title and opening argument are basically inconsistent with reality: a points-based immigration system would likely mean more qualified migrants, not fewer.
I'm not fan of Trump, but he wants to institute a 'points based' system, along the lines of what Canada or Australia has.
Immigrants to Canada tend to be fairly educated, more so than those coming to the us partly due to this policy, partly due to the irregular migrants coming to the US.
The article's title and opening argument are basically inconsistent with reality: a points-based immigration system would likely mean more qualified migrants, not fewer.
[A] special clause in the bill could actually take away points if the applicant tries to bring his or her spouse...Drafters of the proposal said that it was modeled on similar systems used by Canada and Australia. But this is actually not how other countries treat family members under their points systems. In the five countries we examined that currently use similar points systems–Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, South Korea and New Zealand, spouses of applicants do not negatively impact the overall accumulation of points.
https://qz.com/1195155/trumps-merit-based-immigration-propos...
https://qz.com/1195155/trumps-merit-based-immigration-propos...
I understand the various points-based systems will have differences but I don't think it's worth splitting hairs over. Generally a points-based system will move the needle towards those who are more qualified.
I find US proposal exact same as Canadian one. Under Canadian system, a person without any family is able to gain more points than one with spouse. Because the spouses gets judged on their own qualifications like degree, English language ability etc.
I think that article is incorrect. Try the points here yourself:- http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/crs-tool.asp
I think that article is incorrect. Try the points here yourself:- http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/crs-tool.asp
It's correct. Canada includes spouses in the comparison, like you say, but with far less weighting than the principal applicant.
Usually the numbers don't work out to penalize the couple for the less qualified spouse in all but the most extreme Canadian immigration examples. A spouse having the opposite impact (helping the numbers) is far more common.
Under Trump's proposal, having a modestly less qualified spouse would hurt the principal applicant, unlike the normal Canadian immigration outcome.
I should note that the link you gave is not the points system used for approval, just the one that affects who can apply when, using certain of the many application pathways. A different points system is used for approval.
Source: immigrated to Canada myself. I don't have a spouse but I had reason to study the rules closely.
Usually the numbers don't work out to penalize the couple for the less qualified spouse in all but the most extreme Canadian immigration examples. A spouse having the opposite impact (helping the numbers) is far more common.
Under Trump's proposal, having a modestly less qualified spouse would hurt the principal applicant, unlike the normal Canadian immigration outcome.
I should note that the link you gave is not the points system used for approval, just the one that affects who can apply when, using certain of the many application pathways. A different points system is used for approval.
Source: immigrated to Canada myself. I don't have a spouse but I had reason to study the rules closely.
You score lower points in Canadian system too, if your spouse is less qualified. But the point impact is maximum 40 points. It can absolutely hurt some people. Here's the spousal impact:- https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
Source: Immigrant to Canada and Australia. Helped at least 10 people immigrate through provincial nominee and Express Entry programs.
Edit:- Your Quebec reply. My brother immigrated through Quebec route too. Also, the spousal changes happened very very recently August 2nd. And Quebec is not the route that most immigrants to Canada take, it is Express Entry.
Source: Immigrant to Canada and Australia. Helped at least 10 people immigrate through provincial nominee and Express Entry programs.
Edit:- Your Quebec reply. My brother immigrated through Quebec route too. Also, the spousal changes happened very very recently August 2nd. And Quebec is not the route that most immigrants to Canada take, it is Express Entry.
Updated my comment. It's possible for it to hurt, but that's an unusual outcome. The marriage usually helps in Canada even when the spouse is less qualified, unlike Trump's proposal.
[Edited to remove inaccurate info about the 40 points]
You may also be interested in Quebec's system, which as of August 2 makes children purely positive to the skilled worker points system there, and never removes points for spouses.
(The marriage only mildly raises Quebec's approval threshold, usually outweighed by the spouse's qualifications even if far lesser than the principal applicant.)
Source for the Quebec comments: the specific way I immigrated to Canada was via Quebec. I have friends who want to immigrate on both sides of the provincial border, so I continue to pay close attention to both systems.
[Edited to remove inaccurate info about the 40 points]
You may also be interested in Quebec's system, which as of August 2 makes children purely positive to the skilled worker points system there, and never removes points for spouses.
(The marriage only mildly raises Quebec's approval threshold, usually outweighed by the spouse's qualifications even if far lesser than the principal applicant.)
Source for the Quebec comments: the specific way I immigrated to Canada was via Quebec. I have friends who want to immigrate on both sides of the provincial border, so I continue to pay close attention to both systems.
Those 40 points come out of your own points if you have a spouse. You score more without a spouse than with a spouse. Trump's proposal is exactly the same as Canada's in principle, except we don't the points being assigned under Trump's program.
Also, under Quebec's new proposal if single you need to score 50 points, and with spouse you need 59 points. Spousal qualifications are absolutely weighted in. This is not the case with other provincial nominee programs though, Alberta, BC or Ontario.
Also, under Quebec's new proposal if single you need to score 50 points, and with spouse you need 59 points. Spousal qualifications are absolutely weighted in. This is not the case with other provincial nominee programs though, Alberta, BC or Ontario.
For Quebec's system, the spousal increase to the threshold is not a change from the system before August 2, and as I noted it's a slight impact. Everything is weighed less for the spouse. A less qualified spouse will still not usually hurt. I mentioned August 2 since I don't remember whether children helped in the old system under which I applied; I did remember how spouses affected things, i.e. no significant change.
You're right that I misread the Express Entry table you linked on where the 40 points come from, although I still think the situation would already have to be a borderline case indeed with a very particular set of characteristics for that to matter to the outcome.
In particular, people with a provincial nomination certificate get 600 points just for that, and most CRS draws lately have been something like 441. An entirely unqualified spouse won't hurt that.
And for Federal Skilled Worker Program applicants, the Express Entry table does not determine the outcome, anyway. Just who can apply in which order.
There is a different points grid for FSWP applications after the Invitation to Apply. Yes, the one with a version of the same 67-point pass mark that has long existed. With spouses only able to help, not hurt.
I guess that if you've mostly done provincial nomination programs, and I had only seriously considered FSWP + Quebec for myself, that explains part of our differing perspectives about Canada's systems. :)
You're right that I misread the Express Entry table you linked on where the 40 points come from, although I still think the situation would already have to be a borderline case indeed with a very particular set of characteristics for that to matter to the outcome.
In particular, people with a provincial nomination certificate get 600 points just for that, and most CRS draws lately have been something like 441. An entirely unqualified spouse won't hurt that.
And for Federal Skilled Worker Program applicants, the Express Entry table does not determine the outcome, anyway. Just who can apply in which order.
There is a different points grid for FSWP applications after the Invitation to Apply. Yes, the one with a version of the same 67-point pass mark that has long existed. With spouses only able to help, not hurt.
I guess that if you've mostly done provincial nomination programs, and I had only seriously considered FSWP + Quebec for myself, that explains part of our differing perspectives about Canada's systems. :)
Express Entry nominations have not been rolled out by all provinces, e.g. Alberta. Provincial nominations are limited to usually 5500-6000 per year. Provincial nominations for EE have a higher entry bar to get into than the usual provincial nominee programs.
Um, Express Entry absolutely determines the outcome for FSWP . 67 points is the first step, you still have to get accepted through Express Entry pool scoring points out of 1200. Where spouse absolutely impacts your final points tally. If your profile is not in the Express Entry pool, your FSWP is not getting accepted.
I have done 3 paper CEC/FSWP applications, 4 Express Entry and 7 Provincial nominations for Quebec (Grad PEQ), Ontario, Alberta and BC combined.
Um, Express Entry absolutely determines the outcome for FSWP . 67 points is the first step, you still have to get accepted through Express Entry pool scoring points out of 1200. Where spouse absolutely impacts your final points tally. If your profile is not in the Express Entry pool, your FSWP is not getting accepted.
I have done 3 paper CEC/FSWP applications, 4 Express Entry and 7 Provincial nominations for Quebec (Grad PEQ), Ontario, Alberta and BC combined.
I have direct personal experience of Hong Kong's points-based scheme, the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme - which, it should be noted, is a very niche scheme, largely unknown even amongst expats. The vast majority of skilled immigration comes on a simple sponsored work visa...
QMAS gives you a few extra points (5) if you are applying alongside a degree-level-educated spouse, and a few more if you're bringing children (5 or 10 for 1 or 2 children). Given that the 'pass mark' is 80 - which doesn't guarantee a visa, just allows you to apply - it's neither a trivial amount nor a particularly significant one.
QMAS gives you a few extra points (5) if you are applying alongside a degree-level-educated spouse, and a few more if you're bringing children (5 or 10 for 1 or 2 children). Given that the 'pass mark' is 80 - which doesn't guarantee a visa, just allows you to apply - it's neither a trivial amount nor a particularly significant one.
The article is absolutely wrong. It states Canadian immigration scores you out of 67 points, that system has been phased out in 2017, before this article was written.
Also, Canada absolutely gives weightage to your spouse's age, English/French skills, education etc. up to 40 points.
Also, Canada absolutely gives weightage to your spouse's age, English/French skills, education etc. up to 40 points.
The system with the 67-point pass mark very much still exists: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=692&...
The Express Entry system introduced in 2015 (not 2017) is just a change to who can apply to the system indicated above and the other systems integrated with Express Entry, rather than being first come first served. It doesn't determine approval. (Though for the provincial nomination programs, some of the other hard parts happen before Express Entry, not after.)
The Express Entry system introduced in 2015 (not 2017) is just a change to who can apply to the system indicated above and the other systems integrated with Express Entry, rather than being first come first served. It doesn't determine approval. (Though for the provincial nomination programs, some of the other hard parts happen before Express Entry, not after.)
Yes, it was 2015, typo.
Express Entry amalgamated FSW/T and CEC streams and digitized the process, for which you used to have to send paper applications before. The Quartz link made 67 points the centrepoint of the article, which that is the first step, you still have to enter yourself into Express Entry pool, where spousal points are calculated separately and in fact does impact your final points tally.
Express Entry amalgamated FSW/T and CEC streams and digitized the process, for which you used to have to send paper applications before. The Quartz link made 67 points the centrepoint of the article, which that is the first step, you still have to enter yourself into Express Entry pool, where spousal points are calculated separately and in fact does impact your final points tally.
Yeah, I think we're mostly agreeing now except for various minor semantic things that aren't worth discussing further. :)
Canada is getting plenty of less educated irregular migrants right now, primarily those departing from the US after the Trump administration ended their Temporary Protected Status programs which had let them stay legally in the US. Any of those affected who are highly educated are probably using the points system you describe to enter through regular channels.
Also, Canada has exactly the same birthright citizenship policy as the US, though it's merely in Canada's statutory law, not also in its constitution.
(Edited to replace "those people" with "those affected" - I just meant a neutral reference, not a phrase that racists often give a derogatory meaning.)
Also, Canada has exactly the same birthright citizenship policy as the US, though it's merely in Canada's statutory law, not also in its constitution.
(Edited to replace "those people" with "those affected" - I just meant a neutral reference, not a phrase that racists often give a derogatory meaning.)
1. Infants are not automatically US citizen when born in the US
2. The US needs more highly qualified workers.
How is the birthright changing that? (argument that every baby could be the next Einstein is not sufficient)
How is the birthright changing that? (argument that every baby could be the next Einstein is not sufficient)
1. They are.
2. The US definitely needs more highly qualified skilled workers, and pretty much anyone to just keep the population where it is as a birth rate of 1.84 children per couple is below replenishment rate.
As for birthright citizenship, I agree, it's not a necessary part of a fair and reasonable immigration system. It's really only a new-world concept and it's declining in the new world too. Australia had and then rolled it back. I'm neutral on this. Obviously I don't think it should be taken away from anyone who already has it, that's a dangerous line to tow, but I wouldn't be opposed to birthright permanent residency with a path to citizenship should the individual choose to immigrate on their own, or of course if they'd otherwise be left stateless.
Hong Kong for instance doesn't afford citizenship to anyone not ethnically Chinese meaning HKIDs are the end of the road for anyone not Chinese.
2. The US definitely needs more highly qualified skilled workers, and pretty much anyone to just keep the population where it is as a birth rate of 1.84 children per couple is below replenishment rate.
As for birthright citizenship, I agree, it's not a necessary part of a fair and reasonable immigration system. It's really only a new-world concept and it's declining in the new world too. Australia had and then rolled it back. I'm neutral on this. Obviously I don't think it should be taken away from anyone who already has it, that's a dangerous line to tow, but I wouldn't be opposed to birthright permanent residency with a path to citizenship should the individual choose to immigrate on their own, or of course if they'd otherwise be left stateless.
Hong Kong for instance doesn't afford citizenship to anyone not ethnically Chinese meaning HKIDs are the end of the road for anyone not Chinese.
It represents an anchor to their adopted community. This is good for integration. Remove it, and the immigrant can decide to go back for whatever reason.
Birthright citizenship is one of the defining reasons for America's continued economic and cultural dominance. The American dream as we know it does not exist without it.
Birthright citizenship is one of the defining reasons for America's continued economic and cultural dominance. The American dream as we know it does not exist without it.
Americans probably don't even realize how evil current administration is towards legal immigrants.
They are actively pushing away legal immigrants who contribute to society.
I don't see the following people wanting to live in a racist, anti immigrant, anti intellectual country:
- Nobel Laureates (budding geniuses especially)?
- Top scientists?
- Good engineers?
- Medical practitioners?
- Researchers?
- People who are family oriented?
Can anyone imagine a well-to-do, well-educated immigrant from a good country ever wanting to deal with US immigration nonsense? Especially, if they can be kicked out or denaturalized? I certainly can't.
In fact, the only people who would come to the US (now that the curtain on American racism is up) are the exact people their politicians over emphasize on aka gang members, asylum seekers, fleeing shitty conditions back home, have nothing else going on.
Such a paradox!
They are actively pushing away legal immigrants who contribute to society.
I don't see the following people wanting to live in a racist, anti immigrant, anti intellectual country:
- Nobel Laureates (budding geniuses especially)?
- Top scientists?
- Good engineers?
- Medical practitioners?
- Researchers?
- People who are family oriented?
Can anyone imagine a well-to-do, well-educated immigrant from a good country ever wanting to deal with US immigration nonsense? Especially, if they can be kicked out or denaturalized? I certainly can't.
In fact, the only people who would come to the US (now that the curtain on American racism is up) are the exact people their politicians over emphasize on aka gang members, asylum seekers, fleeing shitty conditions back home, have nothing else going on.
Such a paradox!
> "Cities’ productivity would increase, as would the wages of native-born high-skilled Americans, if more H-1B workers and skilled permanent residents were allowed to come."
Please stop with this non-sense. You can be for or against the H-1B program, i don't care, but there is zero doubt that US citizens would be collecting way higher paychecks if the H-1B program did not exist. Thats simply supply and demand on the (tech-)labour market.
Please stop with this non-sense. You can be for or against the H-1B program, i don't care, but there is zero doubt that US citizens would be collecting way higher paychecks if the H-1B program did not exist. Thats simply supply and demand on the (tech-)labour market.
Disagree. There may be a short term bump, but long term it would be damaging. Tech workers are value creators. Having a hub of talent like SV increases value and salaries for everyone here because it attracts companies here, increasing demand along with supply. If there’s no talent in SV, there’s also no companies here. They’ll just move overseas to where the talent lives.
Again, I have mentioned this in different threads. H1B isn't just for SV. There's way more companies in US like automotive industry that needs multidisciplinary engineers (mechanical, controls, signal processing, programming, active system knowledge). It's just impossible to find people. My team has about 3 empty vacancies with job postings everywhere, we just can't find people with skills (I am on H1B, there aren't enough people in many fields) stop applying H1B = cheap tech jobs logic.
Also, the Masters degree I pursued (in mechanical engineering - Dynamics/Vibrations/Acoustics) had barely a couple of American kids vs ~8 foreign kids.
Also, the Masters degree I pursued (in mechanical engineering - Dynamics/Vibrations/Acoustics) had barely a couple of American kids vs ~8 foreign kids.
Exactly. If you really care about being competitive, invest in education and social services. Then the locals can compete effectively for high value jobs.
Stop equating H1B with cheap labor. This is gross generalization. There certainly are some companies taking advantage of the program by paying H1B's less, but most of the people on H1B get paid the same as an American citizen would get paid. There is a mandatory step in an H1 application called Labor Condition Application [1] which needs to be approved by the US Government. This makes sure that the H1B applicant is being paid same or higher than the average wage for that occupation in the area.
People on H1B can't even change their location without filing another such application. So, no, H1B immigration does not lead to lower wages for citizens.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Condition_Application#At...
People on H1B can't even change their location without filing another such application. So, no, H1B immigration does not lead to lower wages for citizens.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Condition_Application#At...
If the entire value a tech worker creates is properly captured by their salary, sure.
But if that were the case then no one would bother with spending the insane amounts of money it costs to get qualified foreign labor.
Talent is global and the difference a skilled individual adds to a company has a multiplicative effect.
But if that were the case then no one would bother with spending the insane amounts of money it costs to get qualified foreign labor.
Talent is global and the difference a skilled individual adds to a company has a multiplicative effect.
You seem to assume that foreign labour can only be used if imported to the US. That is not the case, consider remote talent.
Remote talent pours those same resources into another location to its benefit. Which is fine for the other countries; not so good for the US's position as a tech hotspot.
If we only look at the economical aspect then the question about immigration is simply a crass question about averages. If the average applicant with their dependents are in the later group for the defined time frame then its a good policy to allow and encourage growth, and if its not then its better to prohibit. Here in Sweden a researcher did such study and unsurprisingly the result showed that for the time frame of 20 years the state economics from immigration is a net negative. It is very possible that over an enough large time frame that result will change but their study could not make such predictions.
The averages for H1B applicants and their dependents could be different but the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants. Its a good incentive for doing more studies but I would focus the moral perspective of liberty and humanitarian aid when it comes to immigration policy. I have strong doubt that a rigorous economic study would fall in favor of immigration for any time frame less than 50-100 years, based on my own reasoning, guesses and historical knowledge.