Live data from Hacker News

How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

wsj.com

311–320 of 451 posts

Re: How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

#311
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously we can't know what the organisation doing the hiring is like in this fictional scenario, but $100k would be a huge, huge amount for non-senior staff in rural Alabama no matter what. The problem with a hard salary floor is that it doesn't account for differences in cost of living at all. It would very quickly become the visa of coastal cities and little else.

If you factor in cost of living, the consulting agencies that currently abuse the system will just open up offices in cheap areas.

Which would in my opinion even be a good consequence.

Re: How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

#312

The general direction of the Trump plan regarding H-1b is the way to go. The lottery needs to be replaced with a demand system where the highest salaries get slots. A floor of $100,000/yr should exist and adjust for inflation. Next, generously expand the green card fast track, as this category of employee, as an immigrant, is a free agent to move among companies or to start their own business. To date, as we all know…

The H1B as it is has many problems, but a big salary floor is not the way to go in my opinion. Remember H1B is not just for tech workers. If you want to hire, say, an interpreter of a specific foreign language to work on a community in rural Alabama temporarily, a $100,000 minimum wage would be absurd. They instead need to go after the companies that learned to game the system. I'm not sure what the solution is here.…

What about the idea of having an auction for the H1B slots?

Re: How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

#313
post #213
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're argument is that it's impossible for their to be an actual shortage of US workers unless the salary exceed $100K?

Yes, in the same way as there is no shortage of Bugatti Veyron for 100k. They simply cost more than that. We live in a capitalist society where price is how you communicate demand. Now, if you are willing to pay X times median wage in the US and still can't find people then perhaps there is an argument. But, saying you can't find people when you are not willing to go that far suggests you are not willing to pay marke…

> suggests you are not willing to pay market wages.

Uh, or you know, you can't afford it?

Re: How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

#314

The tone of tech companies does not resonate with the electorate. The Bay Area basically says to America: We have foreigners here who founded some companies and got rich, so we don't want your visa restrictions. How do tech executives motivate the average American to support this stance? Taxes? IT companies and their owners enjoy a very friendly tax treatment. Jobs? The largest IT companies employ only 20-60k people…

Do you have ideas of what a tech company could put on the table?

I have a bit of an idea, and also a way to frame the problem that may sound a little ridiculous, but hopefully is helpful to someone.

I propose tech, free-trade, outsourcing, and other forces have impacted the US job market similar to the problem laid out in The Innovator's Dilemma [1].

Apple - and Steve Jobs - have been applauded for figuring out ways to solve the innovator's dilemma; specifically, Apple lets newer products with a greater profit potential cannibalize older products' smaller profits.

1. The iPod classic and iPod nano were great products that had solid profits.

2. The iPod Touch ate into iPod classic and iPod nano profits. However, it also eclipsed the profits that the earlier iPods could have achieved, since it was much more than just a music player.

3. The iPod classic and iPod nano did not mind that they sold less, and Apple changed their expectations for sales from each product line accordingly as one product took sales away from other products.

Here's how I see the US addressing a similar dilemma, but involving people's jobs:

1. Career tracks in manufacturing and energy production (coal, especially) had solid salaries and career prospects.

2. Market forces (e.g. trade deals, technology) reduced need for US manufacturing and energy production jobs. Computer programming, technology in general, and design of things rather than the manufacturing of things all have better profits for the companies involved than the building of things.

3. The people who had manufacturing and energy production jobs DO mind that they do not have a job. Government and society did NOT recalibrate goals by saying something like, "sorry your coal job experience is no longer relevant, we're going to give you basic income / job training / some other job prospects."

Apple can make the iPod classic, whose qualities are outdated, simply go away from stores without a tear shed.

The US cannot make people whose skills are outdated simply go away, though. Those people need, at a minimum, some way to pay the rent, food, and aspire to something greater than they have now.

How should the US best address this?

It makes as much sense to re-introduce the iPod classic when the iPod Touch is already out there as it does to go back to dirty energy production when clean energy production already out there, and has great qualities like an endless, easily accessible energy source in the sun and less pollution and land destruction.

However, that very thing has been proposed, and I have not seen any other plans. What about, for instance, ensuring solar panel production facilities are built near where coal jobs went away? Or perhaps big wind farms, sun farms, etc?

The places where coal is buried is not where wind or sun is best captured, but giving some kind of hope to people in those areas - whether in the form of subsidies, training, moving people, etc. It may mean some changes to those impacted, but with every big shift in technology and labor, some jobs simply are no longer necessary like they used to be.

Thoughts?

[1] https://smile.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Ch...

Re: How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

#315
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously we can't know what the organisation doing the hiring is like in this fictional scenario, but $100k would be a huge, huge amount for non-senior staff in rural Alabama no matter what. The problem with a hard salary floor is that it doesn't account for differences in cost of living at all. It would very quickly become the visa of coastal cities and little else.

If you factor in cost of living, the consulting agencies that currently abuse the system will just open up offices in cheap areas.

Not really, because quality software development generally requires teams to be in close proximity. As has been discovered by many firms, moving operations overseas is "penny wise and pound foolish"

For example, Disney of Florida replaced 250 American IT workers in US using immigrants with H1-B Visas. They in theory could have saved more money by sending that operation overseas but they chose not too.

Computer operations today are way too mission critical to most organizations to risk problems by moving tech overseas at least in operational settings.

Re: How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historical misconception: Rome was not destroyed by barbarians at the gates, it was destroyed by barbarians inside the gates, hired as mercenary replacements for military regulars. Once the gold dried up, they sacked their former clients or simply left to find other work, leaving many Roman regions sparsely defended. You analogy does not hold up.

It holds up quite well actually. You pretty much outlined why step two is deportation, to remove those already inside the gates.

Allow me to expand. The American economy depends on immigrants, as did Rome. We need immigrants to work our fields, found startups, and maintain the birth rate (which would be demographic doom in America without immigration).

If we expel recent immigrants and close the gates, we will need to either automate furiously or push the birth rate way, way, way up. Good luck convincing more young people to have kids when they can barely scrape up enough to buy a house.

Otherwise you will need to mobilize the legions of American heroin addicts and dependents on Social Security "disability" to actually go out and work for shit pay. Or maybe paying more for the same goods is what you would prefer?

And of course, if you kick out 20 million people from America, you kick out 20 million consumers. Without their spending, what will happen to the Americans whose jobs depend on them?

I am not being hostile or facetious. I always keep an open mind about how to do things better. But the anti-immigrant doctrine so far has produced no plausible answers to the questions I have asked of you.

Re: How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

#317
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously we can't know what the organisation doing the hiring is like in this fictional scenario, but $100k would be a huge, huge amount for non-senior staff in rural Alabama no matter what. The problem with a hard salary floor is that it doesn't account for differences in cost of living at all. It would very quickly become the visa of coastal cities and little else.

If you factor in cost of living, the consulting agencies that currently abuse the system will just open up offices in cheap areas.

The H1B already factors in cost of living (via the proxy of what local salaries are) and we don't see that happening all that much.

Re: How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep hammering the fact that these people are job producers, not consumers. If you can prove that one skilled H1B results in additional two jobs being created in the region, then it becomes an easier pill to swallow. I work in a rural region with a high number of H1Bs because one of the biggest companies in the area is a tech giant. Most people I've talked to (outside of tech) realize that these people bring in a lot…

And as a counterpoint to your anecdata, I've worked with H1B co-workers whose only redeeming quality was the ability to provide CO2 for the plants in the office. They were net-negative contributors.

Is there anyway to grade the general effectiveness of H1B co-workers and how they compare to people with permanent residency or citizenship? Or even to compare different people of the same citizenship status?

Have you also worked with H1B co-workers who did have redeeming qualities?

I've known many people in all differing forms of work authorization and citizenship, and I haven't observed any strong correlation of competency and a person's immigration/citizenship status.

I've seen people here on student or H1Bs who have worked particularly hard, because they know that school or their job is the only thing keeping them is the only thing keeping them in the USA, which is where they truly want to be. I've also seen US citizens work really hard because they care about their job, or just take pride in doing good work. And I've seen people of many different backgrounds just not be the best contributors, too.

If a company keeps net-negative contributors around, that's to the company's detriment. If it eventually contributes to hurting the company enough that the person gets laid off or fired, that person will struggle to keep a job at a better-functioning company. And once someone with an H1B cannot find another job, they cannot stay in the country for very long.

Re: How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

#319
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The H1B as it is has many problems, but a big salary floor is not the way to go in my opinion. Remember H1B is not just for tech workers. If you want to hire, say, an interpreter of a specific foreign language to work on a community in rural Alabama temporarily, a $100,000 minimum wage would be absurd. They instead need to go after the companies that learned to game the system. I'm not sure what the solution is here.…

Agreed. The world is bigger than just tech. Take a look at all the other backgrounds that often get H1Bs. A big one is scientists. If you made the floor $100K, say goodbye to non-PhD (and some PhD) scientists! And since the demand for PhDs isn't that high (you often have 2-3 non-PhDs reporting to a PhD), say goodbye to a lot of scientists using the H1B.

We'll then PhD demand would increase for h1b applicants. You would have to argue that there's a shortage of Bio, Chem,..etc graduates in the US, which there isn't. Any foreigner who posses a high level of skill in their field, shouldn't have a problem getting a PhD either.

Re: How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Dominance

#320
post #223
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not the GP, and I do not agree with the statement. However, I have seen it being made numerous times: any shortage of US workers just means the companies are not paying enough (their argument being, try to pay $1mil and you will certainly fill your positions, this is just very minor exaggeration)

I see the thought process, but it's not universally true since you have to account for value the employee brings as well. Consider a company with only 1 employee. That employee can create 1 widget per year which sells for $100,000. The market for widgets is very elastic and at price points above $100,000, the demand is zero. Overhead and cost of goods is $50,000. In that case, the person's salary can't exceed $50,000…

Not sure what your example is trying to demonstrate; yes, there's no viable business producing a $100k widget that costs $100k in labor and $50k in goods to create (unless maybe you're VC funded).
Post reply on HN