The Foreign Visa Crackdown Is Putting Americans Out of Work(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
The Foreign Visa Crackdown Is Putting Americans Out of Work
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-21/the-foreign-visa-crackdown-is-putting-americans-out-of-work
15 comments
>They'll take the jobs if you pay well enough.
Taking a job and doing it with sufficient attention/quality/skills/etc. are two different things. No money would make most of Americans working 110F strawberry field for any prolonged period of time. Even $1M/day - most would just quit after a week with cool $7M (at least i'd :)
Of course, the immigration system making illegals pretty much slaves is just a shame for a civilized society and has to be replaced with more humane system. We should value and respect people doing such hard and undesirable jobs. Practically it means at least minimum wage and all the labor laws irrespective of status (one of the effects otherwise is just breeding predatory employers and that drugs the society back and lower). And of course the minimum wage in US should already be 2x-3x what it is now (the current minimum wage in US is another shame for a civilized society)
Taking a job and doing it with sufficient attention/quality/skills/etc. are two different things. No money would make most of Americans working 110F strawberry field for any prolonged period of time. Even $1M/day - most would just quit after a week with cool $7M (at least i'd :)
Of course, the immigration system making illegals pretty much slaves is just a shame for a civilized society and has to be replaced with more humane system. We should value and respect people doing such hard and undesirable jobs. Practically it means at least minimum wage and all the labor laws irrespective of status (one of the effects otherwise is just breeding predatory employers and that drugs the society back and lower). And of course the minimum wage in US should already be 2x-3x what it is now (the current minimum wage in US is another shame for a civilized society)
Actually I think $40/hr (obviously not a real number) would get quite a large labor migration to the strawberry fields. North Dakota saw a huge influx of out-of-work men when oil was booming.
Sure, and then the price of strawberries goes up, and grocery shoppers complain and don't buy them.
The US is addicted to cheap goods. In many sectors cheap goods can't be had without cheap labor.
The US is addicted to cheap goods. In many sectors cheap goods can't be had without cheap labor.
Erhm, you can't be addicted to cheap goods if cheap goods don't exist. People weren't any less materialistic in the 60's they just had less cheap stuff to buy. Business push prices down to make more money not because they have to satiate rabid consumers.
You are exactly right. But who said that strawberries should be inexpensive and found in every fridge in America? What you have just acknowledged is that strawberries are not cheap. They should not be cheap.
The real danger here is not that Americans will be deprived of strawberries. The danger is that some American who does not actually harvest strawberries will not be able to profit so much from strawberries. Their business will be in jeopardy. It is obviously bad for America when we drive businesses out of business. American business people need to be able to have somebody else do all the work very cheaply so that the American business person can profit.
If nobody values your product enough to pay its true costs, the answer is to reduce costs by having somebody else work cheaper. If the free market doesn't support cheaper labor costs, you need to use some other method to reduce labor costs. Wielding control of immigration status is one tool to incent cheaper labor.
The real danger here is not that Americans will be deprived of strawberries. The danger is that some American who does not actually harvest strawberries will not be able to profit so much from strawberries. Their business will be in jeopardy. It is obviously bad for America when we drive businesses out of business. American business people need to be able to have somebody else do all the work very cheaply so that the American business person can profit.
If nobody values your product enough to pay its true costs, the answer is to reduce costs by having somebody else work cheaper. If the free market doesn't support cheaper labor costs, you need to use some other method to reduce labor costs. Wielding control of immigration status is one tool to incent cheaper labor.
Yeap - A real shame if the CEOs had to take a lower paycheck in order to pay their workers more.
Yeap - a real shame.
Yeap - a real shame.
There are probably some exceptions but in most businesses you could eliminate the CEO salary altogether and there wouldn't be enough savings to give "the workers" more than a very small raise.
[Former] Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf made 473 times more than the salary of a median employee, according to Bloomberg. That ratio of CEO-to-employee pay puts Wells Fargo at No. 33 among S&P 500 companies and third highest among financial institutions on the list. He earned $19.3 million in total compensation last year.
Add in the other highly paid C-level people in WFC and
Split that with the median paid and below employees would mean about $3000/year.
For a full-time teller making about $30K/year that is a 10% salary difference.
I do call that much more than a "small" raise.
Add in the other highly paid C-level people in WFC and
Split that with the median paid and below employees would mean about $3000/year.
For a full-time teller making about $30K/year that is a 10% salary difference.
I do call that much more than a "small" raise.
But the median-wage Wells Fargo employee is a crook who defrauds Wells Fargo employees. It is not right that those employees should profit from abusing customers. Clearly, top-tier executives should be the ones to profit from this.
Correction:
> Wells Fargo employee is a
scapegoat
> Wells Fargo employee is a
scapegoat
Right, but you wouldn't split it equally. You'd split it proportionally based on what each employee actually makes, so the $30k/yr employee would get less than a $3k raise.
[deleted]
I'm of course fine with CEOs getting lower pay, but is that a realistic outcome?
Yes it is.
Is it actually realistic, or would you just like it to be? Executives obviously resist downward motion on their salaries, and collectively they have a decent amount of clout: there are enough companies with crazy inflated CxO salaries that if your board doesn't offer what the candidate pool wants, you don't fill that position.
I would love to see CxO salaries drop across the board, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
And regardless, as other sibling posts point out, firing the CEO and distributing the salary to the rank-and-file wouldn't improve their situation by all that much.
I would love to see CxO salaries drop across the board, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
And regardless, as other sibling posts point out, firing the CEO and distributing the salary to the rank-and-file wouldn't improve their situation by all that much.
Yet somehow the mining industry doesn't seem to have problems paying highly trained people to sit underground for 10+ hours a day sitting around explosives and heavy machinery.
Perhaps you should look up Woofing.
Perhaps you should look up Woofing.
This is the bubble you live in.
I grew up in the Midwest and my white middle class brothers spent some summers in strawberry fields picking and in corn fields detassling (not 110F, but mid 90's). There aren't many immigrants there so you'll find tons of lower-middle/lower class white Americans in those jobs.
Landscaping is mostly white, maids are mostly white, and construction work is mostly white. Becase most people there are white. Take a trip to the Midwest and see how the rest of the country lives.
I grew up in the Midwest and my white middle class brothers spent some summers in strawberry fields picking and in corn fields detassling (not 110F, but mid 90's). There aren't many immigrants there so you'll find tons of lower-middle/lower class white Americans in those jobs.
Landscaping is mostly white, maids are mostly white, and construction work is mostly white. Becase most people there are white. Take a trip to the Midwest and see how the rest of the country lives.
> There aren't many immigrants there
WHAT are you talking about?
> Landscaping is mostly white, maids are mostly white, and construction work is mostly white
I can't say anything about landscaping or maids, I've never noticed, but construction work is not mostly white, or at least, you can't simply discount the number of non-white construction workers.
In my experience, immigrants in the Midwest are simply more segregated than in other places.
WHAT are you talking about?
> Landscaping is mostly white, maids are mostly white, and construction work is mostly white
I can't say anything about landscaping or maids, I've never noticed, but construction work is not mostly white, or at least, you can't simply discount the number of non-white construction workers.
In my experience, immigrants in the Midwest are simply more segregated than in other places.
If you're talking "big" Midwest cities, yea there's definitely segregation. But go out into the sticks a bit or 30 minutes outside any city and it's mostly white.
I grew up in the suburbs of one of the largest cities in my state (city pop. 110,000 - suburb pop. 25,000). If I go onto wikipedia it says my suburb was and still is 90%+ white (closer to 97% when I was growing up) and the city is currently 82% white, 1% asian, and 2.5% hispanic (and these numbers have become more diverse since 15-20 years ago when I was growing up).
Visiting Chicago, St. Louis, Louisville, and other large cities in the Midwest will not give you a good idea how most people in the Midwest live.
At least half of the immigrants or children of immigrants I met while growing up actually didn't do service work. No one wants to move to bumfuck nowhere with little diversity, little job opportunity, and no major hub for anything nearby.
Lots of Asian immigrants that came due to a Toyota plant that was built somewhat close to my suburb, lots of Indian and Middle-Eastern physicians, and about 1/10 of the Hispanic immigrants seemed to own their own restaurant/chain of restaurants.
It's seriously crazy how different the world I grew up in is compared to the one most liberal, coastal, upper-middle class people experienced (the bubble I'm in now). I really wish everyone on the coasts could take a year to live in the middle-of-nowhere flyover country, it's amazing how Americans struggle to even believe the experiences of their fellow countrymen in different geographic regions.
I grew up in the suburbs of one of the largest cities in my state (city pop. 110,000 - suburb pop. 25,000). If I go onto wikipedia it says my suburb was and still is 90%+ white (closer to 97% when I was growing up) and the city is currently 82% white, 1% asian, and 2.5% hispanic (and these numbers have become more diverse since 15-20 years ago when I was growing up).
Visiting Chicago, St. Louis, Louisville, and other large cities in the Midwest will not give you a good idea how most people in the Midwest live.
At least half of the immigrants or children of immigrants I met while growing up actually didn't do service work. No one wants to move to bumfuck nowhere with little diversity, little job opportunity, and no major hub for anything nearby.
Lots of Asian immigrants that came due to a Toyota plant that was built somewhat close to my suburb, lots of Indian and Middle-Eastern physicians, and about 1/10 of the Hispanic immigrants seemed to own their own restaurant/chain of restaurants.
It's seriously crazy how different the world I grew up in is compared to the one most liberal, coastal, upper-middle class people experienced (the bubble I'm in now). I really wish everyone on the coasts could take a year to live in the middle-of-nowhere flyover country, it's amazing how Americans struggle to even believe the experiences of their fellow countrymen in different geographic regions.
> No money would make most of Americans working 110F strawberry field for any prolonged period of time.
Anecdotal counter-point: there are plenty of Americans making decent money in similar conditions working marijuana farms on the West coast during harvest seasons. I have met a few and they do not complain about the work.
Anecdotal counter-point: there are plenty of Americans making decent money in similar conditions working marijuana farms on the West coast during harvest seasons. I have met a few and they do not complain about the work.
The slave system only prevents further automation
From experience of both Sweden and the US, levels of automation are an order of magnitude higher here in Sweden. Then again, taxi drivers, cleaners, and waitresses earn a living wage here and are respected members of society.
Yeah, that's kind of his point, I understood: If you have to pay humane wages, you have a stronger incentive to invest in automation.
It also kills the human-robot job, where basically a normal human is taken and his brain is replaced for 8 hours with a mobile app, running a task.
You're not making a meaningful argument.
If you want to pay market rates for labor, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. You are more than welcome to pay $30+ an hour for babysitting. You'll find people tripping over themselves to take your job.
Everybody wants immigrants to be paid more until it's you that has to pay them. Then you'll find you're just as price conscious as everybody else.
The truth here is that this is a really hard problem. Nobody likes the externalization of costs onto the disenfranchised. But once price expectations are set, the expectation that they're always going to go down, that you're going to get more for less, is also set. That's just how markets and human nature work.
You can make an individual decision to pay more for a particular class of good, but on the whole the entire market is focused on delivering more for less, and even if you hang out your shingle and deliver more for more, you will always have a niche clientele because if it were more than niche, then your model wouldn't be profitable anymore. Someone else is going to offer your product for less, and they will eat your market share.
If you want to pay market rates for labor, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. You are more than welcome to pay $30+ an hour for babysitting. You'll find people tripping over themselves to take your job.
Everybody wants immigrants to be paid more until it's you that has to pay them. Then you'll find you're just as price conscious as everybody else.
The truth here is that this is a really hard problem. Nobody likes the externalization of costs onto the disenfranchised. But once price expectations are set, the expectation that they're always going to go down, that you're going to get more for less, is also set. That's just how markets and human nature work.
You can make an individual decision to pay more for a particular class of good, but on the whole the entire market is focused on delivering more for less, and even if you hang out your shingle and deliver more for more, you will always have a niche clientele because if it were more than niche, then your model wouldn't be profitable anymore. Someone else is going to offer your product for less, and they will eat your market share.
Which is why you have treaties and laws that protect people.
By your argument, actual slavery should have never been made illegal because it would just hurt the us in the marketplace. After all, anybody could have paid more for non slave produced cotton, if they chose.
By your argument, actual slavery should have never been made illegal because it would just hurt the us in the marketplace. After all, anybody could have paid more for non slave produced cotton, if they chose.
Slavery had a simple legal solution, abolition. The political will to enact it had to be generated with a civil war. What would you propose as a legal solution for this? And how dearly do you think we would need to pay for it?
> What would you propose as a legal solution for this?
By "for this" do you mean "to have a decent minimum wage"?
By "for this" do you mean "to have a decent minimum wage"?
What defines "decent"? And even if you could come up with an appropriate algorithm for it, you realize this essentially constitutes price fixing, right? And that it won't actually fix the problem of getting Americans to take jobs that they wouldn't ordinarily take because the wage for them is too low?
Not saying it's an easy calculation, but as "a legal solution" it already exists.
> But once price expectations are set, the expectation that they're always going to go down, that you're going to get more for less, is also set. That's just how markets and human nature work.
I'd offer counter-examples of houses, and stocks. Not everything goes down in price, only things that people don't borrow for.
I'd offer counter-examples of houses, and stocks. Not everything goes down in price, only things that people don't borrow for.
Not all goods are the same. The prices of stocks and houses vary according to the demand, this is for all scarce assets. Labor demand varies with price.
The price of construction is not the same as the price of housing. The price of construction has only gone down over time, because it's constrained only by time and materials, not scarcity.
The price of construction is not the same as the price of housing. The price of construction has only gone down over time, because it's constrained only by time and materials, not scarcity.
> as long as immigrants have all the same workplace protections as American citizens.
The contrary is called Social Dumping:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dumping
That's, for instance, what Margaret Thatcher did during the 80' in the UK when the working class people asked for better conditions.
The contrary is called Social Dumping:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dumping
That's, for instance, what Margaret Thatcher did during the 80' in the UK when the working class people asked for better conditions.
Recently heard someone argue "If you can't afford to pay livable wages, then you can't afford to be in business". Have to say I agree with that. It's hard for me to feel sorry for businesses who rely on importing cheap labor to survive.
What percentage of companies in SV pay their customer support staff a 'livable wage' for the bay area? If I recall correctly, this community wasn't kind to the Yelp letter girl.
And I'll bet the office and engineering staff at Uber, for example, absolutely love their drivers who have to work long days to barely break even-plus, many of whom sleep in airport parking lots and similar while they're away from home, working where the money is.
Sure, they have a "choice," they don't have to drive 250 miles and stay at their jobs for a week for low pay. But sleeping in your car to be able to work is, as the say, "not normal." The only reason Uber is able to get away with this is because their drivers' choices are limited. Just like the Jamaicans and similar that come to America to pick and serve strawberries. They're exploited because it's possible.
It's a dilemna, I realize. I rarely go stay at a B&B, for example, and if the B&B paid "American, livable" wages, they'd be too expensive for me to ever go. So maybe a business that provides "services" for things like a place to sleep (and someone to clean up after you) and something to eat (and someone to cook and clean up after you) is simply not sustainable (even though those exploited people would probably rather have the job than not).
Maybe there shouldn't be lots of hotels, restaurants and car services, except for the niche that serve people willing and able to pay enough for those services to in turn pay equitable wages.
Pretty tough to figure out, for me.
Sure, they have a "choice," they don't have to drive 250 miles and stay at their jobs for a week for low pay. But sleeping in your car to be able to work is, as the say, "not normal." The only reason Uber is able to get away with this is because their drivers' choices are limited. Just like the Jamaicans and similar that come to America to pick and serve strawberries. They're exploited because it's possible.
It's a dilemna, I realize. I rarely go stay at a B&B, for example, and if the B&B paid "American, livable" wages, they'd be too expensive for me to ever go. So maybe a business that provides "services" for things like a place to sleep (and someone to clean up after you) and something to eat (and someone to cook and clean up after you) is simply not sustainable (even though those exploited people would probably rather have the job than not).
Maybe there shouldn't be lots of hotels, restaurants and car services, except for the niche that serve people willing and able to pay enough for those services to in turn pay equitable wages.
Pretty tough to figure out, for me.
yelp letter girl?
https://medium.com/@taliajane/an-open-letter-to-my-ceo-fb73d...
edit: hn thread from the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11138086
edit: hn thread from the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11138086
[deleted]
The wages are livable for the temporary foreign workers who came in seasonally. This was standard operating procedure. These towns are tourist towns. So now you have whole local economies shutting down because Americans need jobs. Oh the irony.
I'm sure you'd also be totally ok with the _much_ higher prices this would cause?
The greater part of operating cost isn't wages, it's rent for the premises, cost of energy and of raw materials, and yet this pernicious meme gets trotted out every damn time the subject of minimum wage comes up. What I cannot understand is why that is.
Care to back that up? Every time I read something[1] -- reputable -- about, for example, restaurants testing out eliminating tipping in favor of paying employees a livable wage, they have to implement a mix of cutting staff (and making existing staff work harder), increasing prices (sometimes beyond the 18% you'd expect based on a common tip amount), and reducing quality of ingredients (or finding ways to consolidate menu items to reduce the variety of ingredients or increase scale).
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/dining/restaurants-no-tip...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/dining/restaurants-no-tip...
I understand why: It serves the interest of CEOs
What I don't understand is why non-CEOs believe it so dogmatically.
What I don't understand is why non-CEOs believe it so dogmatically.
Maybe because people subconsciously equate the % rise in wage to % rise in out of pocket expense e.g. if wages increase $4/hour (50% increase) that means the cost to buy that shirt will increase by 50%
There was a news report[1] that for h&m to pay workers in Asia local living local wage (an additional ~120 USD/week), prices of shirts would go up ~50 cent. Accordingly, if prices went up ~3.50 the workers should make around 40-50k usd/year.
Doesn't sound all that terrible.
[1] https://www.dn.no/nyheter/2017/06/02/0942/Handel/nordea-sjef... (Norwegian, statement by head of the Nordea bank)
Doesn't sound all that terrible.
[1] https://www.dn.no/nyheter/2017/06/02/0942/Handel/nordea-sjef... (Norwegian, statement by head of the Nordea bank)
um... yes.
If a product costs $1 to produce, why should I be unhappy that it costs $1.10?
I may choose not to buy it, but that doesn't mean I am unhappy. It may mean I can't afford it.
If a product costs $0.25 to produce plus a few finger off little children working in the factory, but we don't pay for fingers... then the product doesn't really cost $0.25 to produce. So I can pay $0.25 plus higher taxes to pay for dismemberment medical, or higher taxes to pay for police to arrest dismembered people from stealing for a living, or higher costs from being mugged every so often by fingerless bandits.
Not paying a living wage has costs to the consumer and everyone else in society.
I may choose not to buy it, but that doesn't mean I am unhappy. It may mean I can't afford it.
If a product costs $0.25 to produce plus a few finger off little children working in the factory, but we don't pay for fingers... then the product doesn't really cost $0.25 to produce. So I can pay $0.25 plus higher taxes to pay for dismemberment medical, or higher taxes to pay for police to arrest dismembered people from stealing for a living, or higher costs from being mugged every so often by fingerless bandits.
Not paying a living wage has costs to the consumer and everyone else in society.
I don't say this to advocate minimum wage. I am opposed to minimum wage. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the costs of low wages.
This is why I am opposed to minimum wage: My child does not need to make a living wage bagging groceries. I want them to have a job for the life experience, but they don't pay rent or utilities or a car payment or a grocery bill. If they have skills to land a $30/hr job, great! But they don't have those skills. They have no skills and no credentials. I want them to get a summer job so they can start building. The wage doesn't matter.
Here's another reason: I have a great job with great benefits. I also have spare time. I don't mind doing side jobs for peanuts if I find value in the work. For instance, I might teach a class at the local community college. I don't do this for the money, but for other reasons. Is this fair to other teachers whom I displace? Well... I think so. If they want job security they should get skilled at something with more security. Imagine if the cost of medical school got cut in half because so many successful doctors spent some of their free time working part-time at medical schools for $5/hr.
Is a minimum wage preventing doctors from working part-time at medical schools? Of course not. But there are many circumstances where a minimum wage and other well-meaning labor laws are having a detrimental effect.
I know that if we dropped all protections for workers, many workers would allow employers to take advantage of them. So I don't know the right balance. But I would err on letting the worker make the call.
One more thought, though, is that we have reached a point where we can produce far more than we consume. There is just less need for labor. So we are seeing growing pains as we continue the everlasting wrestle over who controls and benefits from the means of production. In a world where we only need 40% of the population to be able to produce enough for everybody, how do you decide who does how much work and who benefits how much from their work?
The historical answer is, pay people to play games while other people watch. That way, we can employ people to produce nothing. So you end up with one person who works 80 hours a week to barely support their family while another person refuses to play another game unless they get paid $100K to play it. That is because YOU are willing to pay $100 to go to see people play a game, but balk at paying $1/pound for onions.
This is why I am opposed to minimum wage: My child does not need to make a living wage bagging groceries. I want them to have a job for the life experience, but they don't pay rent or utilities or a car payment or a grocery bill. If they have skills to land a $30/hr job, great! But they don't have those skills. They have no skills and no credentials. I want them to get a summer job so they can start building. The wage doesn't matter.
Here's another reason: I have a great job with great benefits. I also have spare time. I don't mind doing side jobs for peanuts if I find value in the work. For instance, I might teach a class at the local community college. I don't do this for the money, but for other reasons. Is this fair to other teachers whom I displace? Well... I think so. If they want job security they should get skilled at something with more security. Imagine if the cost of medical school got cut in half because so many successful doctors spent some of their free time working part-time at medical schools for $5/hr.
Is a minimum wage preventing doctors from working part-time at medical schools? Of course not. But there are many circumstances where a minimum wage and other well-meaning labor laws are having a detrimental effect.
I know that if we dropped all protections for workers, many workers would allow employers to take advantage of them. So I don't know the right balance. But I would err on letting the worker make the call.
One more thought, though, is that we have reached a point where we can produce far more than we consume. There is just less need for labor. So we are seeing growing pains as we continue the everlasting wrestle over who controls and benefits from the means of production. In a world where we only need 40% of the population to be able to produce enough for everybody, how do you decide who does how much work and who benefits how much from their work?
The historical answer is, pay people to play games while other people watch. That way, we can employ people to produce nothing. So you end up with one person who works 80 hours a week to barely support their family while another person refuses to play another game unless they get paid $100K to play it. That is because YOU are willing to pay $100 to go to see people play a game, but balk at paying $1/pound for onions.
[deleted]
We need to start distinguishing between the H1B abuse of several large foreign consulting companies and the seasonal low skill jobs in our discourse. You yell "let's reform the visa process" in a crowded room in this country and everyone cheers for different reasons.
That's right, it isn't black and white. There isn't one knob to turn. If you read the visa regulations, it looks perfectly fine. But "body shops" game the system. Because, short of litigating every job description, there is no visibility by regulators into job requirements and whether applicants meet those requirements, H1-B has hijacked for the purpose of wage suppression.
There's also no bright line between the generally bad actors and the good guys. Even R&D-oriented high tech companies that often use H1-B for the intended purpose of importing otherwise unobtainable talent also use H1-B (and other methods like anti-poaching agreements) for wage suppression.
Reform needs to be flexible and enforced by financial incentives, like auctioning visas at a high reserve. It does not need to be cheap for employers.
There's also no bright line between the generally bad actors and the good guys. Even R&D-oriented high tech companies that often use H1-B for the intended purpose of importing otherwise unobtainable talent also use H1-B (and other methods like anti-poaching agreements) for wage suppression.
Reform needs to be flexible and enforced by financial incentives, like auctioning visas at a high reserve. It does not need to be cheap for employers.
I think wage suppression was a side effect despite good intentions. In addition, H1Bs are/were a mechanism for outsourcing companies to win US IT contracts. Auctioning visas may not solve this problem.
Other causes of recent wage suppression include the no-poaching and other gentlemen agreements among the big players in the Valley. In addition the basic, I'm not going to pay more than the other guy (or the minimum I can get away with).
Wage suppression comes in other forms too. Asking for previous salaries, asking for W2s etc... Some companies are so large that they just refuse to pay more as well. But that's just "the market" at that point. In every company there's some maximum value for you.
The only way to escape this is to start your own company.
Other causes of recent wage suppression include the no-poaching and other gentlemen agreements among the big players in the Valley. In addition the basic, I'm not going to pay more than the other guy (or the minimum I can get away with).
Wage suppression comes in other forms too. Asking for previous salaries, asking for W2s etc... Some companies are so large that they just refuse to pay more as well. But that's just "the market" at that point. In every company there's some maximum value for you.
The only way to escape this is to start your own company.
Two diametrically opposed quotes from the article:
"Employers find the H-2B program expensive and bureaucratic, and tend to reserve it for hard-to-fill jobs that are critical to expanding operations." (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, 2011)*
vs.
"In the Pentagoet’s case, that’s meant six women from Jamaica (about a fifth of the total staff) who work in housekeeping and in the kitchen."
Are housekeeping and kitchen jobs hard to fill, critical to expanding operations, and worth significant investment? I'm just confused about H1-B in general and what it's supposed to do. Bring high-skilled workers? Provide cheap, seasonal labor? Both?
*Paraphrased for readability. Original quote hedges the conclusion.
"Employers find the H-2B program expensive and bureaucratic, and tend to reserve it for hard-to-fill jobs that are critical to expanding operations." (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, 2011)*
vs.
"In the Pentagoet’s case, that’s meant six women from Jamaica (about a fifth of the total staff) who work in housekeeping and in the kitchen."
Are housekeeping and kitchen jobs hard to fill, critical to expanding operations, and worth significant investment? I'm just confused about H1-B in general and what it's supposed to do. Bring high-skilled workers? Provide cheap, seasonal labor? Both?
*Paraphrased for readability. Original quote hedges the conclusion.
> Are housekeeping and kitchen jobs hard to fill, critical to expanding operations, and worth significant investment?
No. In the Pentagoet's case, this is about being able to find pre-trained workers without paying the market rate. This place has gone out of their way to establish travel and housing, yet completely failed to look in any major urban area for staff. Ask yourself why that is.
No. In the Pentagoet's case, this is about being able to find pre-trained workers without paying the market rate. This place has gone out of their way to establish travel and housing, yet completely failed to look in any major urban area for staff. Ask yourself why that is.
H1B and H2B are two different visa programs. The H2B program which is discussed in the article is designed for short term seasonal workers.
"Many Businesses Are More Viable When They Can Pay Employees Peanuts"
Looking forward to more insightful articles from Bloomberg.
Looking forward to more insightful articles from Bloomberg.
Counterpoint to their argument. Japan has negative population growth and an aging population. Yet, outside of Tokyo and even in Tokyo it's rather rare to see foreigners do the "immigrant" work that we see in the US.
Go to a restaurant in Tokyo, for the most part the cooks server and other staff are Japanese --you will see a smattering of foreign staff, but it's not nearly the same as in the US. And that is in an economy with an aging population and decreasing population.
And things are not super expensive. Food is healthy and reasonably priced. Some foodstuffs cost more than the equivalent in the US but Japanese are quite willing to pay the price difference to keep their farmers afloat --many times have they imposed barriers to cheaper imported foodstuffs but they like things their way.
Point is, it's not pre-ordained to ruin an economy.
Go to a restaurant in Tokyo, for the most part the cooks server and other staff are Japanese --you will see a smattering of foreign staff, but it's not nearly the same as in the US. And that is in an economy with an aging population and decreasing population.
And things are not super expensive. Food is healthy and reasonably priced. Some foodstuffs cost more than the equivalent in the US but Japanese are quite willing to pay the price difference to keep their farmers afloat --many times have they imposed barriers to cheaper imported foodstuffs but they like things their way.
Point is, it's not pre-ordained to ruin an economy.
Came here for the comments.
Just wanted to make sure that FOSS hadn't made everyone open borders evangelicals.
Many demographics have huge unemployment problems, mostly NEETs, because the jobs they used to do are replaced by absolute lowest wage immigrants. This problem has been long brewing in the US, and I just don't understand how making it worse (more immigration) is going to solve it. At the same time I know I'm a massive beneficiary with overseas production of my products and cheap food at home.
Also, why is HN posting pure political articles so much now? I understand technology intersects with politics, but at this point anyone strongly advocating for saving the H#B programs are probably H1B beneficiary companies which are only the Big tech companies, so a story like this feels like it's rolled out to the tech community to soften you up to the plight of the H2B community.
If that's the case, this is nothing more than a propaganda feed.
Just wanted to make sure that FOSS hadn't made everyone open borders evangelicals.
Many demographics have huge unemployment problems, mostly NEETs, because the jobs they used to do are replaced by absolute lowest wage immigrants. This problem has been long brewing in the US, and I just don't understand how making it worse (more immigration) is going to solve it. At the same time I know I'm a massive beneficiary with overseas production of my products and cheap food at home.
Also, why is HN posting pure political articles so much now? I understand technology intersects with politics, but at this point anyone strongly advocating for saving the H#B programs are probably H1B beneficiary companies which are only the Big tech companies, so a story like this feels like it's rolled out to the tech community to soften you up to the plight of the H2B community.
If that's the case, this is nothing more than a propaganda feed.
If they need low-wage unskilled laborers, surely there are high school students or college students who would do the work while on summer break. I worked in a kitchen as my first job (age 16) and it was a great experience, even though it was hard work with low pay. Some of the people working there were immigrants (not seasonal though) and it was a great cultural learning experience in that respect too.
Sure there will be increased turnover and more expenses spent on hiring, but that should be accepted as a standard cost of doing business. Also, hiring young people is better for the community. When a young person has their own job they learn responsibility, money management, and are contributing to the economy instead of getting into trouble.
The numbers of young people working part-time or over the summer has dropped significantly in the past 30 years. I wonder if the ease of getting visas for seasonal labor has contributed to that.
Sure there will be increased turnover and more expenses spent on hiring, but that should be accepted as a standard cost of doing business. Also, hiring young people is better for the community. When a young person has their own job they learn responsibility, money management, and are contributing to the economy instead of getting into trouble.
The numbers of young people working part-time or over the summer has dropped significantly in the past 30 years. I wonder if the ease of getting visas for seasonal labor has contributed to that.
Maybe they should pay local people fairer wages for the work to make it more appealing hmm?
I dunno. That might go against the narrative that literally everything is subject to market forces except for labor. The only thing for which we can arbitrarily set a magical, minimum value for some reason.
So your point is that indeed everything is subject to market forces and hence we cannot control the minimum wage. Or that market forces are not all encompassing and we should legislate the areas where they lead to unacceptable equilibria? I am confused...
I'm confused why they're complaining to bloomberg & not bothering to put ads in some nearby towns/cities.
I imagine there's no shortage of low-skill workers available in the united states, shipping people in from afar seems outrageous.
I imagine there's no shortage of low-skill workers available in the united states, shipping people in from afar seems outrageous.
I get the sentiment, but from TFA:
> including the costs of the newspaper ads they have to take out as part of the process, plus (...), they’ve already spent thousands of dollars they won’t get back.
> including the costs of the newspaper ads they have to take out as part of the process, plus (...), they’ve already spent thousands of dollars they won’t get back.
From the article, H1-B costs an estimated $2,500/person, plus flight and lodging. Let's pretend all 6 people Pentagoet wants to hire are staying in the mentioned apartment ($1,200/mo).
Assuming a 40 hour work week, they could increase the hourly wage by $4+/hr. and spend the same amount of money. That's a ~50% increase from minimum wage.
Now I feel for the business in this particular case. They had a process, they followed it, spend their money, and got staff. Now the process has changed, but they've already spent the money. It's a sunk cost. That sucks.
Assuming a 40 hour work week, they could increase the hourly wage by $4+/hr. and spend the same amount of money. That's a ~50% increase from minimum wage.
Now I feel for the business in this particular case. They had a process, they followed it, spend their money, and got staff. Now the process has changed, but they've already spent the money. It's a sunk cost. That sucks.
Perhaps this reduction in visas and foreign workers will make voters realize how much of the economy they currently enjoy is buoyed by cheap, foreign labor. We aren't paying the real costs.
We are paying the real cost, just not in the price of goods. We spend it on public assistance, food stamps, medical care for these cheap laborers. A direct parallel would be the outrage over walmart employees being asked to go on supplementary services in order to survive. I'd rather know what this magical extra cost is so it can be compared to the other real hidden costs.
Looking at the broader scope of things, it seems to be that the idea of Americans filling low paying jobs directly competes with the relatively small pay these foreign workers are getting.
The question is, are these businesses being artificially propped up by foreign low paid workers, or is it a symptom of jobs paying too low for any American to actual work?
The question is, are these businesses being artificially propped up by foreign low paid workers, or is it a symptom of jobs paying too low for any American to actual work?
There's no such thing as a shortage; only a clearing price. If these businesses paid more they could get local workers.
Ever heard of summer student labor? These are lame tears.
Sounds like a project. Match students seeking jobs (and who have some experience) with employers similar to those in the OA.
UK: it tends to be waiting/bar staff in my local Universities as lower skill requirements and more flexible working times
UK: it tends to be waiting/bar staff in my local Universities as lower skill requirements and more flexible working times
> Maine, meanwhile, is set to be hit so hard by the shortage that Republican Governor Paul LePage has conditionally commuted the sentences of a number of prisoners so that they can fill some of the needed positions.
That's interesting - I wonder what the conditions are?
That's interesting - I wonder what the conditions are?
> “I don’t think that people who talk about defending American jobs with this policy have ever looked into the economics of it,” says Giovanni Peri, chair of the economics department at the University of California at Davis.
Amen...and I find it doubly cool because my degree is from the economics department at UC Davis.
Amen...and I find it doubly cool because my degree is from the economics department at UC Davis.
But the argument that Americans won't take these jobs is and always had been bullshit. They'll take the jobs if you pay well enough. A whole lot of the American economy runs on effectively indentured servitude, either from illegal immigrants working under the table, or legal immigrants trapped in jobs because of the terms of their visa or literal prisoners or literal slave labor from sweatshops in developing countries and it depresses salaries for everyone.
We have an expectation for the price of goods and services that's based on the idea that the less privileged should do shitty backbreaking work for next to nothing.
One of the things that had lead to the rise of vile, xenophobic populists like trump has been the complete unwillingness of both parties to address this, and the unwillingness of Americans to recognize that the cheap shit they buy from Walmart and amazon has real human costs.