This is going to cripple American scientific, mathematical, and biomedical research. To say nothing of the technology sector. Plus, the only way we can staff healthcare workers in...
This is going to cripple American scientific, mathematical, and biomedical research. To say nothing of the technology sector.
Plus, the only way we can staff healthcare workers in underserved/rural areas is through these programs. Say hello to a massive physician and nursing shortage too.
Wasn't just referring to the visa holders. Also referring to driving down wages for USA workers in those sectors by flooding in visa workers at lower wages. It cripples the workforce top to...
Wasn't just referring to the visa holders. Also referring to driving down wages for USA workers in those sectors by flooding in visa workers at lower wages.
It cripples the workforce top to bottom, as entry level positions dry up in favor of more experienced visa workers at same wages, and mid-senior positions wages get driven down.
You could make this exact argument for why we shouldn’t have more degree programs or expand access to colleges. People have a right to pursue opportunities for which they’re qualified. If worker’s...
You could make this exact argument for why we shouldn’t have more degree programs or expand access to colleges. People have a right to pursue opportunities for which they’re qualified. If worker’s wages are a problem, the solution is to address cost of living and collective bargaining issues. Not in crippling your fellow man to give yourself a leg up.
They do, and I hold no ill will to the visa holders. But the purpose of the H-1B (as pitched) was to fill positions that otherwise were not possible to fill (with the US citizens also seeking...
People have a right to pursue opportunities for which they’re qualified.
They do, and I hold no ill will to the visa holders. But the purpose of the H-1B (as pitched) was to fill positions that otherwise were not possible to fill (with the US citizens also seeking those jobs).
But that's not how they're being used. It's artificially inflating the labor supply. H-1B workers are obviously qualified, so they should also be able to pursue their skills elsewhere with little issue.
You could make this exact argument for why we shouldn’t have more degree programs or expand access to colleges
There's a huge difference there. I took my degree based on projected future demand, as did many of my peers, and many took on massive debts to do so.
So yeah, it's one thing to say 'X can't learn to do Y', it's completely something else to say 'we should import workers with Y skill because it will be cheaper.'
You know why we can't staff rural hospitals? Because we saddle our medical workers with insane debt loads. So many stay at learning hospitals which forgive debt. Which are clustered in major cities.
This is a distinction without a difference. If you add people to do a job the labor supply is increased. Saying it’s “artificially inflating” implies there is some sort of “natural” level of labor...
But that's not how they're being used. It's artificially inflating the labor supply.
This is a distinction without a difference. If you add people to do a job the labor supply is increased. Saying it’s “artificially inflating” implies there is some sort of “natural” level of labor supply. But the supply is what it is.
And you must realized the only reason these visa programs are pitched in the most limited ways possible is to assuage fears of yellow/brown peril right? It’s not like there’s any serious economic or social rationale behind it. Thinking adding people to do jobs takes opportunities away from others in a high growth industry is a lump of labor fallacy.
You know why we can't staff rural hospitals? Because we saddle our medical workers with insane debt loads.
We also have a hard limit on numbers of residency slots. That’s a much more direct cause. And also, people with high incomes and educations simply prefer to be in places with lots of amenities, which rural areas lack.
It's not adding people to do new jobs (largely). It's firing people with existing jobs and then replacing them with people earning less. That is artificially inflating the labor supply, by...
It’s not like there’s any serious economic or social rationale behind it. Thinking adding people to do jobs takes opportunities away from others in a high growth industry is a lump of labor fallacy.
It's not adding people to do new jobs (largely). It's firing people with existing jobs and then replacing them with people earning less. That is artificially inflating the labor supply, by introducing unemployment where there previously was little, and driving down wages in the process.
Here's some of the key takeaways from a recent EPI study:
The two lowest permissible H-1B prevailing wage levels are significantly lower than the local median salaries surveyed for occupations.
Not surprisingly, three-fifths of all H-1B jobs were certified at the two lowest prevailing wage levels in 2019
Likewise, three-fifths of H-1B jobs certified for the top 30 H-1B employers were at the two lowest prevailing wage levels
In fiscal 2019, 86% of the 53,377 H-1B employers were approved by USCIS for five or fewer H-1B workers, including both new and continuing H-1B workers, while the top 30 H-1B employers were approved for an average of 3,522 H-1B workers each.
Half of the top 30 H-1B employers use an outsourcing business model
For the last one, I'm just going to quote the whole section:
Major U.S. firms—not just outsourcing companies—pay low wages to their H-1B employees. Major U.S.-based technology firms that hire H-1B workers directly, rather than contract them out to third-party employers, had significant shares of their certified H-1B positions assigned as Level 1 or Level 2, the two lowest wage levels in fiscal 2019, both of which are below the local median wage:
Amazon and Microsoft each had three-fourths or more of their H-1B positions assigned as Level 1 or Level 2.
Walmart and Uber had roughly half of their H-1B positions assigned as Level 1 or Level 2.
IBM had three-fifths of its H-1B positions assigned as Level 1 or Level 2.
Qualcomm and Salesforce had two-fifths of their H-1B positions assigned as Level 1 or Level 2.
Google had over one-half assigned as Level 2.
Apple had one-third of its H-1B positions assigned as Level 2.
This isn’t how labor markets work. This is just a restatement of the lump of labor fallacy I mentioned before. It’s just as likely that if wages in some of these sectors were significantly higher...
It's not adding people to do new jobs (largely). It's firing people with existing jobs and then replacing them with people earning less.
This isn’t how labor markets work. This is just a restatement of the lump of labor fallacy I mentioned before. It’s just as likely that if wages in some of these sectors were significantly higher due to “artificially constrained labor supply” the jobs wouldn’t exist in the first place.
Here's some of the key takeaways from a recent EPI study:
This is all indicative of H1-b workers being over a barrel due to the restrictiveness of our immigration system. Not that it’s having any major supply side effects.
You keep using that term, but it's not really relevant. It was conceived to rebut the idea that reducing hours worked will affect unemployment rates substantially. This is fundementally different...
Lump of Labor fallacy
You keep using that term, but it's not really relevant. It was conceived to rebut the idea that reducing hours worked will affect unemployment rates substantially.
This is fundementally different from firing 100 well-paid workers and replacing them with lower-paid workers with less benefits. The companies didn't need to do this. They didn't hire additional help, they just used the visa workers to reduce costs.
To take this to a hyperbolic, hypothetical extreme, let's suppose that there are 1000 truck drivers in the entire country, with demand for about 970 positions. All employed are earning a respectable $20 an hour. The two biggest trucking companies, in total accounting for 500 of these jobs, decide to cut costs by recruiting immigrants (through a contracting agency to avoid pesky things like retirement or health benefits). So they fire 400 of their truck drivers, and replace them with 400 immigrants earning only $12 an hour.
Now there are 400 unemployed truck drivers, with bleak job prospects since there isn't exactly much demand for their skills since there's still only demand for 970. So they'll be willing to now accept any work to keep from being hungry or homeless, even if it means taking a massive pay cut.
This is what's happening in the tech industry on a smaller scale. Big tech companies are shedding higher paid staff for lower paid staff, leaving the higher paid staff scrambling for new jobs, potentially having to uproot their lives to do so.
This is why wages haven't been rising with the increased productivity since the 70s. There are no worker protections, so by expanding available labor when there isn't additional demand you're just making everyone else worse off.
I am 100% behind pulling in additional labor when it is needed due to a lack of supply. If, as US citizens, we had job, medical, food, education, and housing gareuntees, this would be a non-issue.
But we don't. So by importing additional workers when there are vast numbers of unemployed people, it results in everyone having to lower their living standards...well except the shareholder's who reap additional profits by playing these games.
No, it criticizes the idea of treating labor as a static "lump." It is actually a hard-to-quantify mass of human potential and as people use it they generate value and as they get paid they begin...
It was conceived to rebut the idea that reducing hours worked will affect unemployment rates substantially.
No, it criticizes the idea of treating labor as a static "lump." It is actually a hard-to-quantify mass of human potential and as people use it they generate value and as they get paid they begin to consume and invest, creating more opportunities to generate more value through more jobs.
Killing the H1-b program doesn't "bring the jobs back." If it actually is entirely just a domesticized offshoring (which you haven't demonstrated) it would just make them offshore the operations entirely. Would you prefer that?
This is why wages haven't been rising with the increased productivity since the 70s. There are no worker protections, so by expanding available labor when there isn't additional demand you're just making everyone else worse off.
It would seem like the solution to that would be to demand worker protections rather than destroying American research, crippling the technology industry, and worsening access to medical care in an already poorly designed healthcare system. That's all just crab mentality.
So by importing additional workers when there are vast numbers of unemployed people
Those "vast numbers of unemployed people" are by and large not qualified for these positions. So this is a canard.
Your skills might have been genuinely in demand, and thus you get those higher wages. But this has been a long-standing problem. Especially when considering most US citizens have little to no...
Your skills might have been genuinely in demand, and thus you get those higher wages. But this has been a long-standing problem. Especially when considering most US citizens have little to no genuine job security.
The solution to that would be to equalize the rights, not to put these visa holders into even more desperate straits. And most of these positions aren’t things there are enough qualified people...
The solution to that would be to equalize the rights, not to put these visa holders into even more desperate straits.
And most of these positions aren’t things there are enough qualified people willing to do. We just don’t produce enough physicians locally. There is a hard cap on residency slots.
I found this on hn, and ngl I too thought mostly of h1b as the people who go to work at Tata's. arugulum 18 hours ago [–] I will repost my quick immigration quiz, for Americans/others who may be...
I found this on hn, and ngl I too thought mostly of h1b as the people who go to work at Tata's.
arugulum 18 hours ago [–]
I will repost my quick immigration quiz, for Americans/others who may be unfamiliar with what the typical visa process is for an immigrant:
An international student graduates at the top of their class in Stanford in CS, and goes to work for a tech company. What visa do they use?
The correct answer is F1 (OPT) for one year, with OPT STEM extension for 2 extra years, while they apply for H-1B. If they weren't a STEM major, regardless of their actual role, they have a single year to apply for H-1B, with a ~30% chance of success by lottery, before being asked to leave the country. Regardless of their qualifications.
Instead of staying in tech for their career, they work for a year in a tech firm, then go to MIT for CS grad school. They perform excellently, having many publications under their name, doing several industry internships at Microsoft/Google labs. They then get accepted to a tenure track Assistant Professor position at Columbia. What visa do they apply for?
Still H-1B.
My understanding is that the latest executive order includes several exemptions, but I still want to emphasize how widely used and important H-1B is as an channel for introducing talent into the US.
This is going to cripple American scientific, mathematical, and biomedical research. To say nothing of the technology sector.
Plus, the only way we can staff healthcare workers in underserved/rural areas is through these programs. Say hello to a massive physician and nursing shortage too.
On the flip side H-1B have been abused in the past to drive down wages of these workers.
https://www.itworld.com/article/2739367/h-1b-visas-really-do-drive-down-salaries-and-deprive-u-s--it-workers-of-jobs.html
So it shouldn't really affect any current visa holders, but won't accept new applications. Considering our unemployment rate, I'd call that a win.
The solution to that is to not make the immigration system handcuff people to their jobs. Not to ban immigration.
Wasn't just referring to the visa holders. Also referring to driving down wages for USA workers in those sectors by flooding in visa workers at lower wages.
It cripples the workforce top to bottom, as entry level positions dry up in favor of more experienced visa workers at same wages, and mid-senior positions wages get driven down.
You could make this exact argument for why we shouldn’t have more degree programs or expand access to colleges. People have a right to pursue opportunities for which they’re qualified. If worker’s wages are a problem, the solution is to address cost of living and collective bargaining issues. Not in crippling your fellow man to give yourself a leg up.
They do, and I hold no ill will to the visa holders. But the purpose of the H-1B (as pitched) was to fill positions that otherwise were not possible to fill (with the US citizens also seeking those jobs).
But that's not how they're being used. It's artificially inflating the labor supply. H-1B workers are obviously qualified, so they should also be able to pursue their skills elsewhere with little issue.
There's a huge difference there. I took my degree based on projected future demand, as did many of my peers, and many took on massive debts to do so.
So yeah, it's one thing to say 'X can't learn to do Y', it's completely something else to say 'we should import workers with Y skill because it will be cheaper.'
You know why we can't staff rural hospitals? Because we saddle our medical workers with insane debt loads. So many stay at learning hospitals which forgive debt. Which are clustered in major cities.
This is a distinction without a difference. If you add people to do a job the labor supply is increased. Saying it’s “artificially inflating” implies there is some sort of “natural” level of labor supply. But the supply is what it is.
And you must realized the only reason these visa programs are pitched in the most limited ways possible is to assuage fears of yellow/brown peril right? It’s not like there’s any serious economic or social rationale behind it. Thinking adding people to do jobs takes opportunities away from others in a high growth industry is a lump of labor fallacy.
We also have a hard limit on numbers of residency slots. That’s a much more direct cause. And also, people with high incomes and educations simply prefer to be in places with lots of amenities, which rural areas lack.
It's not adding people to do new jobs (largely). It's firing people with existing jobs and then replacing them with people earning less. That is artificially inflating the labor supply, by introducing unemployment where there previously was little, and driving down wages in the process.
Here's some of the key takeaways from a recent EPI study:
For the last one, I'm just going to quote the whole section:
This isn’t how labor markets work. This is just a restatement of the lump of labor fallacy I mentioned before. It’s just as likely that if wages in some of these sectors were significantly higher due to “artificially constrained labor supply” the jobs wouldn’t exist in the first place.
This is all indicative of H1-b workers being over a barrel due to the restrictiveness of our immigration system. Not that it’s having any major supply side effects.
You keep using that term, but it's not really relevant. It was conceived to rebut the idea that reducing hours worked will affect unemployment rates substantially.
This is fundementally different from firing 100 well-paid workers and replacing them with lower-paid workers with less benefits. The companies didn't need to do this. They didn't hire additional help, they just used the visa workers to reduce costs.
To take this to a hyperbolic, hypothetical extreme, let's suppose that there are 1000 truck drivers in the entire country, with demand for about 970 positions. All employed are earning a respectable $20 an hour. The two biggest trucking companies, in total accounting for 500 of these jobs, decide to cut costs by recruiting immigrants (through a contracting agency to avoid pesky things like retirement or health benefits). So they fire 400 of their truck drivers, and replace them with 400 immigrants earning only $12 an hour.
Now there are 400 unemployed truck drivers, with bleak job prospects since there isn't exactly much demand for their skills since there's still only demand for 970. So they'll be willing to now accept any work to keep from being hungry or homeless, even if it means taking a massive pay cut.
This is what's happening in the tech industry on a smaller scale. Big tech companies are shedding higher paid staff for lower paid staff, leaving the higher paid staff scrambling for new jobs, potentially having to uproot their lives to do so.
This is why wages haven't been rising with the increased productivity since the 70s. There are no worker protections, so by expanding available labor when there isn't additional demand you're just making everyone else worse off.
I am 100% behind pulling in additional labor when it is needed due to a lack of supply. If, as US citizens, we had job, medical, food, education, and housing gareuntees, this would be a non-issue.
But we don't. So by importing additional workers when there are vast numbers of unemployed people, it results in everyone having to lower their living standards...well except the shareholder's who reap additional profits by playing these games.
No, it criticizes the idea of treating labor as a static "lump." It is actually a hard-to-quantify mass of human potential and as people use it they generate value and as they get paid they begin to consume and invest, creating more opportunities to generate more value through more jobs.
Killing the H1-b program doesn't "bring the jobs back." If it actually is entirely just a domesticized offshoring (which you haven't demonstrated) it would just make them offshore the operations entirely. Would you prefer that?
It would seem like the solution to that would be to demand worker protections rather than destroying American research, crippling the technology industry, and worsening access to medical care in an already poorly designed healthcare system. That's all just crab mentality.
Those "vast numbers of unemployed people" are by and large not qualified for these positions. So this is a canard.
Your skills might have been genuinely in demand, and thus you get those higher wages. But this has been a long-standing problem. Especially when considering most US citizens have little to no genuine job security.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/fixing-h-1b-visa-loophole/509639/
https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wage-levels/
Won't it also be a big boost for the employees though since they don't have to compete with people who have less rights than them?
The solution to that would be to equalize the rights, not to put these visa holders into even more desperate straits.
And most of these positions aren’t things there are enough qualified people willing to do. We just don’t produce enough physicians locally. There is a hard cap on residency slots.
Why? It's just six months.
That’s two academic semesters.
Thanks
I found this on hn, and ngl I too thought mostly of h1b as the people who go to work at Tata's.
arugulum 18 hours ago [–]
I will repost my quick immigration quiz, for Americans/others who may be unfamiliar with what the typical visa process is for an immigrant:
The correct answer is F1 (OPT) for one year, with OPT STEM extension for 2 extra years, while they apply for H-1B. If they weren't a STEM major, regardless of their actual role, they have a single year to apply for H-1B, with a ~30% chance of success by lottery, before being asked to leave the country. Regardless of their qualifications.
Still H-1B.
My understanding is that the latest executive order includes several exemptions, but I still want to emphasize how widely used and important H-1B is as an channel for introducing talent into the US.