Obama likely to expand a foreign-student pipeline the high-tech industry loves(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Obama likely to expand a foreign-student pipeline the high-tech industry loves
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/20/obama-likely-to-expand-a-foreign-student-pipeline-the-high-tech-industry-loves/
94 comments
It's a bit sad that you see competition on a global scale as "being fucked over". If someone else can do the same job just as well as you, you think employers should be forced to hire you instead just because you happened to be born in the right country? That's just selfishness that harms everyone else.
Oftentimes, foreign citizens working in the US are not able to freely participate in the job market. If they can't freely move from job to job (as US workers can), then they will be paid less money. If they want to be in the US badly enough, this will still be their best option. Everyone wins except the local worker who is now competing with an indentured servant.
[0] Indentured Servant is probably an exaggeration: but google sure has a lot of hits: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=h1b+indentured+servant
[0] Indentured Servant is probably an exaggeration: but google sure has a lot of hits: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=h1b+indentured+servant
The OPT is pretty much a green card in term of mobility. Except the fact that it expires, there're not other limitation to it: you can self employed (freelancing), do a startup, take any job you want.
Well, there are 2 limits: you have to work in your field of study (we won't be taking over your precious Art History, or English job :-)). And you have to be working full time.
Well, there are 2 limits: you have to work in your field of study (we won't be taking over your precious Art History, or English job :-)). And you have to be working full time.
Most visas (in particular, the OPT in question and the H1B) allow very easy work-permit transfer to other employers. So the wage decrease won't apply here.
>>Most visas (in particular, the OPT in question and the H1B) allow very easy work-permit transfer to other employers.
I don't know about the OPT thing, but H1B situations vary[1]. If Obama and his advisers can change the law such that no tech person can be entrapped by the H1B visa shenanigans described in the article I linked, I see no problem here.
1. "Even immigration experts have trouble sorting out how the brokers manage to game the system. From 2000 through 2013, at least $29.7m was illegally withheld from about 4,400 tech workers here on H-1B visas, US Department of Labor documents show." --- http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/28/-sp-jobs-brok...
I don't know about the OPT thing, but H1B situations vary[1]. If Obama and his advisers can change the law such that no tech person can be entrapped by the H1B visa shenanigans described in the article I linked, I see no problem here.
1. "Even immigration experts have trouble sorting out how the brokers manage to game the system. From 2000 through 2013, at least $29.7m was illegally withheld from about 4,400 tech workers here on H-1B visas, US Department of Labor documents show." --- http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/28/-sp-jobs-brok...
One of the issues with the H1B is that if the worker loses their job, they only have a month to find another one or face being deported.
People are entitled to their self-interest, and it is in peoples' self-interest to avoid the race to the bottom that results from globalization. Furthermore, governments exist to serve their specific constituents, not to hew to abstract humanist principles.
Also, even within the context of abstract humanist principles, immigration isn't wholly positive. My family and I are immigrants to the U.S. It's been great for us, not so great for the country we came from that sees all its bright and ambitious people leave never to return.
Also, even within the context of abstract humanist principles, immigration isn't wholly positive. My family and I are immigrants to the U.S. It's been great for us, not so great for the country we came from that sees all its bright and ambitious people leave never to return.
Why are people entitled to self interest? Why aren't people entitled to group interest?
Governments exist because having them tends to lead to better decision-making than the alternative. That's all it requires. Nobody is proposing that anarchy would better serve anyone.
Governments exist because having them tends to lead to better decision-making than the alternative. That's all it requires. Nobody is proposing that anarchy would better serve anyone.
[deleted]
A race to the bottom means a race towards efficiency. This is a net benefit to society. Sure, selfish people might stand in its way, and if you sympathize with them, that's your choice, but don't pretend it's something admirable.
[deleted]
Global "efficiency" is a net negative for every single person reading this.
Why are you standing in the way of it?
Why are you standing in the way of it?
I care about people who are not reading this.
That's not the question. The question is why are you standing in their way?
Perhaps I've misunderstood your position. I think we should decrease the amount we stand in the way of foreigners who want to work in this country.
It's been great for us, not so great for the country we came from that sees all its bright and ambitious people leave never to return.
Remittances alone are on the order of half a trillion per year, much higher than all foreign aid combined. And lots of people do return when they're older and richer.
Remittances alone are on the order of half a trillion per year, much higher than all foreign aid combined. And lots of people do return when they're older and richer.
("It's a bit sad..." seems passive-aggressive to me, but I give you the benefit of the doubt here)
No one wants their advantages whittled away, regardless of whether it helps other people or not. This is simple self-preservation. It is a type of selfishness, yes, but I personally don't consider it a dishonorable type of selfishness.
No one wants their advantages whittled away, regardless of whether it helps other people or not. This is simple self-preservation. It is a type of selfishness, yes, but I personally don't consider it a dishonorable type of selfishness.
> I personally don't consider it a dishonorable type of selfishness.
I think the idea is that there are some advantages that aren't considered good for society. For some historical examples: "regardless of your potential or the quality of your work, you were born to a nobleman/peasant so you'll be a nobleman/peasant". For a more modern example: "regardless of your potential or the quality of your work, you were born in country X so we will erect barriers to prevent you from reaching your productivity potential".
By contrast, "you have an advantage because you are much more productive at this task than that guy[0]" is an advantage that's decidedly not arbitrary, since choosing you means less wasted potential and more wealth for society at large. This is the kind of advantage that can't really be removed without ending up in some sort of Harrison Bergeron type situation, where you pull high-achievers down instead of removing unnecessary impediments to low-achievers (thus increasing total achievement).
The distinction between these two types of advantages should be obvious: fostering the "unfair" advantages benefits nobody but the people being arbitrarily protected, and allowing the "fair" ones is good for pretty much everyone.
> This is simple self-preservation.
We're not monkeys. Presumably we should have the ability to understand whether an advantage is just or not. To use a dramatic example: by your stated logic, it's not "dishonorable" to fight for segregation or for limiting opportunity based on race (if one is in the favored race). Do you really believe that, or is there some unexpressed nuance in your view that would somehow exclude the race-based example but not the country-of-birth example?
[0]Yes, I realize that this is dependent on similarly arbitrary factors like who you were born to (and thus what your education was like), but that's an upstream problem.
I think the idea is that there are some advantages that aren't considered good for society. For some historical examples: "regardless of your potential or the quality of your work, you were born to a nobleman/peasant so you'll be a nobleman/peasant". For a more modern example: "regardless of your potential or the quality of your work, you were born in country X so we will erect barriers to prevent you from reaching your productivity potential".
By contrast, "you have an advantage because you are much more productive at this task than that guy[0]" is an advantage that's decidedly not arbitrary, since choosing you means less wasted potential and more wealth for society at large. This is the kind of advantage that can't really be removed without ending up in some sort of Harrison Bergeron type situation, where you pull high-achievers down instead of removing unnecessary impediments to low-achievers (thus increasing total achievement).
The distinction between these two types of advantages should be obvious: fostering the "unfair" advantages benefits nobody but the people being arbitrarily protected, and allowing the "fair" ones is good for pretty much everyone.
> This is simple self-preservation.
We're not monkeys. Presumably we should have the ability to understand whether an advantage is just or not. To use a dramatic example: by your stated logic, it's not "dishonorable" to fight for segregation or for limiting opportunity based on race (if one is in the favored race). Do you really believe that, or is there some unexpressed nuance in your view that would somehow exclude the race-based example but not the country-of-birth example?
[0]Yes, I realize that this is dependent on similarly arbitrary factors like who you were born to (and thus what your education was like), but that's an upstream problem.
Here's some more oversimplification.
If you find a group of peasants better than local peasants at task X you can import them and the locals will either move to do task X elsewhere, accept lower salaries or switch to task Y.
Task Y can pay less and make a lot of pissed off cynics. Task Y may be harmful to society at large, like crime or Wall St quant voodoo. Wall St attracts quants because A students were promised respectable jobs, but because of STEM oversupply or whatever, many of those jobs pay 30K.
So you can't force one narrow interest, superior performance at task X, without consequences. Everything must be done in moderation, even it means inferior quality X. Task Y may destroy all the productivity gains of task X, like middle management, crashing economy for 3 years, etc.
If you find a group of peasants better than local peasants at task X you can import them and the locals will either move to do task X elsewhere, accept lower salaries or switch to task Y.
Task Y can pay less and make a lot of pissed off cynics. Task Y may be harmful to society at large, like crime or Wall St quant voodoo. Wall St attracts quants because A students were promised respectable jobs, but because of STEM oversupply or whatever, many of those jobs pay 30K.
So you can't force one narrow interest, superior performance at task X, without consequences. Everything must be done in moderation, even it means inferior quality X. Task Y may destroy all the productivity gains of task X, like middle management, crashing economy for 3 years, etc.
"We're not monkeys."
True, but we are often driven by biological influences that cannot altogether be considered "reason".
>> it's not "dishonorable" to fight for segregation or for limiting opportunity based on race
Fighting for advantages, being the disadvantaged, is simply the other side of the coin, behaviorally, from the advantaged holding on to their advantages.
True, but we are often driven by biological influences that cannot altogether be considered "reason".
>> it's not "dishonorable" to fight for segregation or for limiting opportunity based on race
Fighting for advantages, being the disadvantaged, is simply the other side of the coin, behaviorally, from the advantaged holding on to their advantages.
[deleted]
People are not worried about individuals of equal skill taking their jobs, but those of lesser skills.
Example. Individual A : Master's of CS from Stanford, Passed interviews, Java, SQL, Hadoop, JSF - Requested salary - 115k
Individual B : PhD Student at Stanford, Passed interviews, Java, SQL - Requested salary - 95k
Job requirements: Java, SQL, Hadoop, JSF
What would you decide on as the hiring manager, you have a limited amount of funds per year and need to meet a deadline. You know A is more qualified, but B is 20k cheaper. As a manger if time permits you will select B since he is cheaper and can acquire the skills needed in his spare time from his fellow engineers or from online materials. In making this decision B has the advantage due to price manipulation, and you allowing him to work even though he in under qualified.
Some might say this scenario is unrealistic but both candidates are using their salary to improve their lives, it just so happens B takes a lot less money (due to being born in a poorer country) to improve his life then A. Typically what you will see in the valley is B living in an apartment with 4 or 5 other people for 3 to 4 years periodically sending his money to his mother country. He can then start a company easily in that new country with his capital, meanwhile A plans to raise a family locally.
Much of this is happening right now http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Bod... Google, Facebook, Linkedin, Everyone does this in the valley.
Example. Individual A : Master's of CS from Stanford, Passed interviews, Java, SQL, Hadoop, JSF - Requested salary - 115k
Individual B : PhD Student at Stanford, Passed interviews, Java, SQL - Requested salary - 95k
Job requirements: Java, SQL, Hadoop, JSF
What would you decide on as the hiring manager, you have a limited amount of funds per year and need to meet a deadline. You know A is more qualified, but B is 20k cheaper. As a manger if time permits you will select B since he is cheaper and can acquire the skills needed in his spare time from his fellow engineers or from online materials. In making this decision B has the advantage due to price manipulation, and you allowing him to work even though he in under qualified.
Some might say this scenario is unrealistic but both candidates are using their salary to improve their lives, it just so happens B takes a lot less money (due to being born in a poorer country) to improve his life then A. Typically what you will see in the valley is B living in an apartment with 4 or 5 other people for 3 to 4 years periodically sending his money to his mother country. He can then start a company easily in that new country with his capital, meanwhile A plans to raise a family locally.
Much of this is happening right now http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Bod... Google, Facebook, Linkedin, Everyone does this in the valley.
A PhD student at Stanford wanting only $95K?!? I would be extremely suspicious; is B going to be happy with the job and not leave within a year?
In this market, at least, I don't think these choices are very common.
In this market, at least, I don't think these choices are very common.
"This market" won't be "this market" after this new plan is place.
Why? At the high-end, it is already an international market for talent. Where visas are hard to come by, the choice is not often to increase salaries to hire more Americans, but where should we open that new office: Berlin, Bangalore, Singapore, or Beijing? Couple that with a horrible American tax policy that makes repatriating income earned abroad expensive, and doing R&D outside of the US is quite appealing (not only can you find more talent, but you don't have to bring money back to the US to pay for that talent).
If the politicians want to reform the citizenship process, I'm all for that. As it stands, becoming a US citizen is extremely difficult. But what they tend to do is carve out visas to help particular corporations which floods particular labor markets with workers who are often exploited to take low wages.
Also, we already have competition on a global scale, and most people don't complain about that. Read any thread on Ask HN about becoming a freelancer, and it's always acknowledged that you're competing with devs who bill $10/hr but no one is expressing rage towards them.
The tech industry is not unionized. If all we're asking is that in our home country we're not facing unfair competition from non-citizens, I think that's fair. And personally, I'd be happy to see much higher levels of immigration as long as it's spread uniformly across industries and that those people be made full citizens.
Also, we already have competition on a global scale, and most people don't complain about that. Read any thread on Ask HN about becoming a freelancer, and it's always acknowledged that you're competing with devs who bill $10/hr but no one is expressing rage towards them.
The tech industry is not unionized. If all we're asking is that in our home country we're not facing unfair competition from non-citizens, I think that's fair. And personally, I'd be happy to see much higher levels of immigration as long as it's spread uniformly across industries and that those people be made full citizens.
The free market favors the wealth of corporations at the detriment of individual people.
The tech companies would absolutely love it if they could get away with paying their workers as little as the developing countries do; decreasing wages results in increased profits, which are the only thing that matter to them.
I don't see a reason why we have to abide by their greed when we have so much to lose and nothing to gain.
The tech companies would absolutely love it if they could get away with paying their workers as little as the developing countries do; decreasing wages results in increased profits, which are the only thing that matter to them.
I don't see a reason why we have to abide by their greed when we have so much to lose and nothing to gain.
Your point is well taken, but that doesn't seems to be what the GP was saying.
You're essentially advocating to favors one set of people over another set of people. Which the line between two sets being drawn by luck.
You're essentially advocating to favors one set of people over another set of people. Which the line between two sets being drawn by luck.
nothing to gain.
Except for those foreigners who get much higher salaries than at home, plus their whole families and communities thanks to remittances.
Except for those foreigners who get much higher salaries than at home, plus their whole families and communities thanks to remittances.
Do you have any disposable income? You can pick somebody who did not get approved for H1B and send some money to his family each month. You don't need to wait for him to get a job in SV. Start now.
I make $15k/year in a western country, how much disposable income do you think I have?
In any case, I don't see why should I pay for someone else's discrimination.
In any case, I don't see why should I pay for someone else's discrimination.
But we can easily reverse that. What about the local that now has to accept lower wages at home, which also affects their whole families and communities?
They also have lower costs so their lower wages go further. They might be slightly worse off on the balance, but it's outweighed by the benefits those lower costs bring to everyone else. It also frees them up for other pursuits. It's really no different from any other technological advancement that put people out of work.
What about them?
I can see from this response and the other you made, you're not really willing to discuss this in any objective manner. It seems you have issues that go deeper than just this simple discussion. I hope you manage to work them out and good luck to you.
Nope, no issues, just disagreement. The other post was simply responding to tone; not very mature, I admit, but I find that line of reasoning dishonest.
I believe what you perceive as issues is just the fact that you're expecting people to argue it as a simple policy, while I believe that it's an ethical question. That said, I'll suggest that three shorts posts is a rather small sample to psychoanalyze someone.
I believe what you perceive as issues is just the fact that you're expecting people to argue it as a simple policy, while I believe that it's an ethical question. That said, I'll suggest that three shorts posts is a rather small sample to psychoanalyze someone.
Fair statement.
Your argument in favor of eased immigration to the US is that foreigners will benefit?
Yes. Just like the argument for democracy is that peasants will benefit (at possible cost to nobles). Just like the arument for racial desegregation is that black people will benefit (while possibly inconveniencing white people).
No one said freedom and equality were easy. The privalaged lose their advantages.
No one said freedom and equality were easy. The privalaged lose their advantages.
How many countries place no restrictions on non-citizens being able to enter and work for long terms?
China...well, I have to re-get a new working visa every year, but its pretty automatic. The fact that citizenship or long term resident permits are not possible makes this more common.
> It's a bit sad that you see competition on a global scale as "being fucked over".
more offer+equal demand === lower salaries.
more offer+equal demand === lower salaries.
By that logic, tech workers should also demand legally capping the number of new graduates; they provide "more offer" too.
I have little sympathy for high tech workers complaining about lower salaries when in fact they are probably in the top 20% if not 10% of the earners in the country.
Sadly, here on HN there is little discussion of how the tech industry could focus more on making this a better world. Even more sadly, the deeper discussions that do surface here quickly get booted off the front page because they are "controversial".
(and of course this will get downvoted)
Sadly, here on HN there is little discussion of how the tech industry could focus more on making this a better world. Even more sadly, the deeper discussions that do surface here quickly get booted off the front page because they are "controversial".
(and of course this will get downvoted)
Yes? How is that selfish? You commit to a life here, you take on student debt, you study for years under the promise that your government is looking out for you above others.
Heck, why have any immigration controls at all? Why have citizenship requirements for any job, up to and including President?
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but I will assume that it's not and I will bite anyway: because the President necessary put the good of the US States over everything else, including his own family (if necessary), "unquestionable loyalty to the US", basically.
That requirement is pretty much impossible to clear if you wasn't born in the US (and hence your relatives isn't US citizen). So for all practical purposes, you might as well codify it.
For private sector job, however, there seems to be no difference in motivation between a citizen and a non citizen in working for the organization (we're there to make some $$$ and keep on with our lives). So yes, I'd love to see the damn requirement get removed :-).
That requirement is pretty much impossible to clear if you wasn't born in the US (and hence your relatives isn't US citizen). So for all practical purposes, you might as well codify it.
For private sector job, however, there seems to be no difference in motivation between a citizen and a non citizen in working for the organization (we're there to make some $$$ and keep on with our lives). So yes, I'd love to see the damn requirement get removed :-).
Why indeed.
As long as we're going to maintain the fiction of national borders, it would be nice to do so in a way that doesn't consistently fuck over the lower rungs of society in favor of the politically connected.
Once we have a global governmental organization of some kind that can provide open immigration globally we can revisit this.
Once we have a global governmental organization of some kind that can provide open immigration globally we can revisit this.
I feel your phrase "we here at HN" is a bit obnoxious. I'm in the US on a student visa in a STEM field, and would benefit from more more immigration options. I am as much a HN user as you are.
I think there are a lot of misconceptions on this thread, especially since the article mostly talks about OPT!
US domiciles' desire for protectionism is understandable. But it cannot be couched in language of fairness and equity.
In a truly meritocratic society, one cannot claim competitive advantage based on where they were born. The objective of legal immigration is to help companies hire the best talent, irrespective of nationality. OPT folks must have an American education. So, part of your tax payer money has gone to subsidize their education, either through NIH/NSF/DoD grants or, via the X % of a State University's total grant outlay that comes from the state. It is truly a win-win situation. Regarding 'lower pressure for wages to rise': you are not competing with people of your own country, but in reality with the world. So if someone from China or India can earn 10x more, even if it depresses wages when they immigrate to a richer society, it is still fair. The companies are looking for good talent + low costs, so instead of moving the division to India or China, they hire top Chinese / Indian talent educated in the US.
US domiciles' desire for protectionism is understandable. But it cannot be couched in language of fairness and equity.
In a truly meritocratic society, one cannot claim competitive advantage based on where they were born. The objective of legal immigration is to help companies hire the best talent, irrespective of nationality. OPT folks must have an American education. So, part of your tax payer money has gone to subsidize their education, either through NIH/NSF/DoD grants or, via the X % of a State University's total grant outlay that comes from the state. It is truly a win-win situation. Regarding 'lower pressure for wages to rise': you are not competing with people of your own country, but in reality with the world. So if someone from China or India can earn 10x more, even if it depresses wages when they immigrate to a richer society, it is still fair. The companies are looking for good talent + low costs, so instead of moving the division to India or China, they hire top Chinese / Indian talent educated in the US.
> The objective of legal immigration is to help companies hire the best talent, irrespective of nationality.
This is radical stuff. No, the objective of legal immigration is to help Americans. The objective of the federal government is to serve Americans. It's not clear at all that flooding the American labor market with foreign nationals is good for Americans.
This is radical stuff. No, the objective of legal immigration is to help Americans. The objective of the federal government is to serve Americans. It's not clear at all that flooding the American labor market with foreign nationals is good for Americans.
This is beyond a discussion of meritocracy.
What this would do is not further a meritocracy but change the supply/demand equation in way that like others have pointed out, resembles a race to the bottom.
What this would do is not further a meritocracy but change the supply/demand equation in way that like others have pointed out, resembles a race to the bottom.
It is not right to say more STEM means wages will be lower. In high end professions like engineering etc. more people could mean faster innovation and faster expansion of the industry.
For example despite relatively higher number of tech employees Silicon valley engineers earn lot more than engineers pretty much everywhere else.
Even if there is a relative drop in wages, everyone wins because lower wages eventually drive the prices of services provided by these people. For example if Google's salary expenditure reduces it might also reduce advertising prices almost everyone else.
For example despite relatively higher number of tech employees Silicon valley engineers earn lot more than engineers pretty much everywhere else.
Even if there is a relative drop in wages, everyone wins because lower wages eventually drive the prices of services provided by these people. For example if Google's salary expenditure reduces it might also reduce advertising prices almost everyone else.
The alternative is an innovation shortage which will destroy your lively hoods in the long term. We are in many ways loosing this battle in manufacturing, I do not want it to happen to software.
We talked about this in one of my university classes recently. There's a difference between engineering a solution, and coding a spec. If you only need someone to implement your spec, then why not save money and outsource? Turns out, this has been happening a lot recently. In 2013 36% of CFOs (globally) said, "their firm was currently offshore outsourcing" [1]. I think we're losing that battle because nobody wants those jobs. So, I don't think there will necessarily be an innovation shortage, but there might be a hired hand shortage. I think the point being made though, was that shortages aren't bad if you're part of that limited supply.
[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com/outsourcing-statistics-by-coun...
[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com/outsourcing-statistics-by-coun...
>>Why not save money and outsource?
To be frank, I tried this for C++, and found that 'engineers' in India sucked and the competent ones cost almost the same as in the USA (70k/80k).
On the flip side I was able to find a really cheap graphics/publishing workflow (they clean MS word documents) but with 5x margins on our product, I didn't care nearly as much if we/I was paying people in India half the wages.
In truth, I think there are highly skilled jobs that can't be outsourced or rather have an even playing field.
To be frank, I tried this for C++, and found that 'engineers' in India sucked and the competent ones cost almost the same as in the USA (70k/80k).
On the flip side I was able to find a really cheap graphics/publishing workflow (they clean MS word documents) but with 5x margins on our product, I didn't care nearly as much if we/I was paying people in India half the wages.
In truth, I think there are highly skilled jobs that can't be outsourced or rather have an even playing field.
What will happen here is that the more innovative Americans will go into other fields. They won't compete for lowering wages.
Why would they when they have better choices?
Why would they when they have better choices?
There is no innovation shortage necessarily. There is a shortage in the ability to capture market value from new innovations, typically due to undercapitalization.
My hunch is this is what 'immigration reform' is really all about behind closed doors, expanding foreign worker visas for "high tech" professions. It appears that is the whole basis behind Zuckerbergs fwd.us campaign.
If you are a tech company you are foolish to not take advantage of the OPT program. Unfortunately it has a negative feedback loop on actually getting enough qualified and trained citizens in to these positions. It basically drives up the cost of such an education displacing citizens from the classroom. However, from the tech industry point of view it's a positive feedback loop.
One little anecdote on something I thought was pretty telling and a bit funny was when I recently heard an interview with Joe Kennedy where a member of the business community asked him about his thoughts on immigration reform. He gave a pretty canned response about hard working people, family ties, deserving a chance etc. Before he could finish the person asking the question chimed in '...and what about H1Bs?" and it was as if somebody snapped their fingers and Joe Kennedy stood up straight, changed to a more serious tone and replied very quickly with 'Oh yes, we MUST expand the H1B program'.
If you are a tech company you are foolish to not take advantage of the OPT program. Unfortunately it has a negative feedback loop on actually getting enough qualified and trained citizens in to these positions. It basically drives up the cost of such an education displacing citizens from the classroom. However, from the tech industry point of view it's a positive feedback loop.
One little anecdote on something I thought was pretty telling and a bit funny was when I recently heard an interview with Joe Kennedy where a member of the business community asked him about his thoughts on immigration reform. He gave a pretty canned response about hard working people, family ties, deserving a chance etc. Before he could finish the person asking the question chimed in '...and what about H1Bs?" and it was as if somebody snapped their fingers and Joe Kennedy stood up straight, changed to a more serious tone and replied very quickly with 'Oh yes, we MUST expand the H1B program'.
So who exactly is this helping? Ok, I know it helps out foreign students, but I am asking strictly from an American perspective. First and foremost, the governments job is to serve the American people. How does this specific action of Obama's immigration proposal help the American people as a whole?
It's a 100% possibility that I have this wrong but I see two groups who this helps. The first group is foreigners who live in the US and the second group is big businesses who can most likely hire lower wage workers.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for improving the STEM sectors in the US but I just feel like it might be a little more useful to invest in our own schools and our own workers instead of invest in foreigners living in the US. Can someone explain what I am missing or what I don't understand?
It's a 100% possibility that I have this wrong but I see two groups who this helps. The first group is foreigners who live in the US and the second group is big businesses who can most likely hire lower wage workers.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for improving the STEM sectors in the US but I just feel like it might be a little more useful to invest in our own schools and our own workers instead of invest in foreigners living in the US. Can someone explain what I am missing or what I don't understand?
While some of the money foreign workers make is sent back home to family in another country, a lot of it is spent right here in the US, boosting our economy. Often, those foreign workers end up moving here permanently, meaning more of their earned money is spent in this country.
A vast majority of these foreign workers become huge net positives for the US economy. The economy doesn't work like you seem to think it does; there aren't some set number of jobs that need to be divided up amongst all the people. These imported workers take a job, yes, but they also a new consumer of goods and services.
A vast majority of these foreign workers become huge net positives for the US economy. The economy doesn't work like you seem to think it does; there aren't some set number of jobs that need to be divided up amongst all the people. These imported workers take a job, yes, but they also a new consumer of goods and services.
This is a really good reply and it's the type of comment I was looking for. Thanks for offering a positive or different view from mine!
> and the second group is big businesses who can most likely hire lower wage workers.
They're called Billionaires Without Borders. And it sickens me to see them feign interest in diversity and globalization, when really they're looking for cheaper Tech labor, because heaven forbid capitalism from ever working in the american employees favor.
They're called Billionaires Without Borders. And it sickens me to see them feign interest in diversity and globalization, when really they're looking for cheaper Tech labor, because heaven forbid capitalism from ever working in the american employees favor.
This seems to be downvoted because it goes against some ideal of a meritocratic job market or other illusions.
Even if you think that allowing more foreign workers is a good thing in principle, you have to consider that the implementation as it stands is quite a bit messier than that. Plenty of these workers are hired by consulting companies that base their business on hiring foreign experts and exploiting them, paying them less than market rate and restricting their mobility and freedom.
Obviously, this isn't a net positive for society or the job market.
Even if you think that allowing more foreign workers is a good thing in principle, you have to consider that the implementation as it stands is quite a bit messier than that. Plenty of these workers are hired by consulting companies that base their business on hiring foreign experts and exploiting them, paying them less than market rate and restricting their mobility and freedom.
Obviously, this isn't a net positive for society or the job market.
Without foreign born workers, half of Silicon Valley wouldn't have existed. Is that a good enough reason?
No. The important question is not how many jobs there are, but how many - and at what price - and how does that price translate into a standard of living in the country where you live.
To protect US citizens there are laws in place. That however can be chipped away piece by piece. If tech companies had their way that would end.
There is a real concern about the (at least perceived) decline in the US standard of living for low/middle income folks, that is not necessarily anti-immigrant. You can't deny, immigrants built the country. However, America is going to have to deal with this problem of preserving the very ability of its citizens to be upwardly mobile. I'm not sure how much of the fear is real, but its out there.
To protect US citizens there are laws in place. That however can be chipped away piece by piece. If tech companies had their way that would end.
There is a real concern about the (at least perceived) decline in the US standard of living for low/middle income folks, that is not necessarily anti-immigrant. You can't deny, immigrants built the country. However, America is going to have to deal with this problem of preserving the very ability of its citizens to be upwardly mobile. I'm not sure how much of the fear is real, but its out there.
That's not a reason for starting a new program. If anything, the thriving success of Silicon Valley should be a strong signal for our government to leave it alone. There's no evidence this program will do anything but displace American workers.
Well, I feel it is not.
The reasons and successes of the past does not necessarily guarantee success by following the same pattern today. Saying something was good before doesn't provide a free pass from questions on the validity of repeating policies of the past.
Not that I'm stating an opinion on the matter one way or another, but I would say the question is valid and your answer comes across as dismissive.
The reasons and successes of the past does not necessarily guarantee success by following the same pattern today. Saying something was good before doesn't provide a free pass from questions on the validity of repeating policies of the past.
Not that I'm stating an opinion on the matter one way or another, but I would say the question is valid and your answer comes across as dismissive.
Another group that this helps are colleges and universities. Universities love foreign students because they pay full price and have to be able to afford tuition before they can even come over to the US. Higher education has become a major export in the US economy, so it also benefits the trade deficit to some degree.
>So who exactly is this helping?
it improves gene/social/economical makeup of American society first and foremost. Best and brightest young people is the best thing one can import.
Take just one very simple aspect - society needs infrastructure and resources committed for 20 years for 5 kids to get one successful college graduation bound educated young person. Out of the rest 4 some will during next 60 years of their life become a net negative like go to prison, unemployment, spawn next generation of low-productive members of society (cue in opening of "Idiocracy" :), etc... Or you can just "magically" import exactly that 1 bright and healthy 20 year old leaving the other 4 and the related 5 x 20 years expenditures to another country :)
it improves gene/social/economical makeup of American society first and foremost. Best and brightest young people is the best thing one can import.
Take just one very simple aspect - society needs infrastructure and resources committed for 20 years for 5 kids to get one successful college graduation bound educated young person. Out of the rest 4 some will during next 60 years of their life become a net negative like go to prison, unemployment, spawn next generation of low-productive members of society (cue in opening of "Idiocracy" :), etc... Or you can just "magically" import exactly that 1 bright and healthy 20 year old leaving the other 4 and the related 5 x 20 years expenditures to another country :)
"...the governments job is to serve the American people..."
Excuse me, sir, what is the hell that you are doing in all other countries then? If you want to be world's police, then better take care of all world's citizens.
Excuse me, sir, what is the hell that you are doing in all other countries then? If you want to be world's police, then better take care of all world's citizens.
Don't believe the rhetoric. American troops are in other countries to protect American interests, not to protect the rest of the world.
> but I see two groups who this helps.
It helps the universities too.
It helps the universities too.
48 month OPT/STEM extension will be huge for international students here - great move!
Since OPT has few limitations and allows internationals to become self-employed, hopefully more international students will end up on the entrepreneurial path. And for those in "regular employment", more chances to apply for H1B and more time to figure out other, more permanent options (if needed). Lastly, hopefully, more smart graduates will decide to stay in this country and contribute to the economy & innovation, instead of contributing somewhere else.
Win-win-win situation. Looking forward to the update tonight.
The tech companies who lately focus on "diversity" should publish the number of 20 - 40 old workers they have, versus 40 - 60 year old.
There is no need for tech companies to mine youthful, foreign, easily exploited labor pools ("pipelines") when plenty of well trained, well qualified, and seasoned professionals exist that they refuse to hire.
There is no need for tech companies to mine youthful, foreign, easily exploited labor pools ("pipelines") when plenty of well trained, well qualified, and seasoned professionals exist that they refuse to hire.
That's a juicy bit of politics: give the tech industry its guest workers and bail out the universities by shovelling more fuel onto the college bonfire, both at the same time.
But will it be any easier for them to get permanently residency after? There's no point in doubling the number of people going through college and working on OPT if there's a hard cap on the number which can convert those to H-1Bs or (eventually) into green cards.
I think it is obvious and we can all agree that this decision would help foreign students, and American tech corporations. We can probably also agree this decisions is similar to globalization in that it causes an increase in global utility. But given that policy is usually measured against what utility it provides for it's current citizens. One big open question in economics is will this lead to an increase in the utility of current Americans. I think this is the interesting question. Does the increase in talent from around the world spill over enough to offset the reduction in wages from the increase in labor supply?
Because US students under piles of debt need more job competition. Not.
You're right, but I doubt this is even part of the decision making process.
It's unfortunate, but it looks as though the US government is eagerly trashing the future of the citizenry for the sake of the wills of their political donors.
It's unfortunate, but it looks as though the US government is eagerly trashing the future of the citizenry for the sake of the wills of their political donors.
As a US citizen, this is awesome. If I understand this correctly it means students from anywhere can apply for jobs while studying in the US and continue working in the US after graduation. This just means better products, better ideas, and more innovation you know those common things that spawn from a more competitive marketplace. I just wish other countries would take up the same initiative, for instance in Germany you still have to select german and eu citizens over foreign borns.
Does anyone know of other countries where its very easy to move and start working as a foreigner?
Does anyone know of other countries where its very easy to move and start working as a foreigner?
Funny, isn't it, how all the other countries don't want those better products, better ideas, and more innovation?
This is horrendously bad journalism. It is a "news" article making claims about likely future events that cites only "those closely involved in the immigration debate" -- not, particularly, anyone who is, even anyone anonymously attributed in a way which suggests that they are, in any position to know what the President is actually planning to do.
[deleted]
Would the world not be a better place if there was no borders at all? That people from all over the world could work wherever they wanted to, irrespective of where they were born?
[deleted]
Fuck.
There is no STEM shortage; tons and tons of STEM workers work outside their field because they can't get a (typically very competitive) job in their field. If there were a STEM shortage, STEM wages would be skyrocketing, which they are not. Many people with PhDs in the sciences are underemployed and underpaid.
More STEM workers means lower pressure for wages to rise, thus saving money for companies in addition to allowing them to be more picky about who they hire. Increasing the pool of STEM workers is an easy way to please the tech companies (who appear to be coming into their own as political juggernauts) and seeming to make progress on "immigration reform" while circumspectly fucking over the employees of the most advanced sector of the economy in the name of progress.