-
Website
http://techliberation.com/ -
Original page
http://techliberation.com/2008/07/16/will-stirs-the-high-skilled-hornets-nest/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
That's nice to know but conflicts with the idea of free markets. That is, what matters is how that salary compares in today's markets. Today, $80k is nice but it's not going to allow you to have a family, a $300k mortgage, 2 cars, 2 kids and other aspects of a modest middle class lifestyle without a spouse working another job full time.
More so, the reasons for issuing more visas should not be "so we can drive down wages". Otherwise your motivations are no different than those tech workers who want to block the visas because they think it'll hurt them. That is, both sides are looking to use force via the government to bring about what they want.
I'm sorry, but $80k is more than a "modest middle-class lifestyle." That income puts you roughly in the top quarter of households, and you'll probably be in the top 10 percent if your spouse works as well. Outside of a few expensive coastal cities, $300k will buy more than enough house for a family of four to live comfortably. The median home price nationwide is a little over $200k, and about 30 percent of people can't afford to buy homes at all. America is a wealthy country, and so many of us have an inflated concept of what a "modest" middle-class lifestyle looks like. Being a wealthy country isn't a bad thing by any means, but let's not be melodramatic about it.
You put "so we can drive down wages" in quotes, but I don't think either I or Will said anything about driving down wages. That's not the point. The point is that increased skilled immigration would increase the total wealth and benefit both the Americans and the immigrants, on average. It might have the effect of depressing the wages of higher-skilled workers, even as it makes those lower down on the income ladder better off. I (and Will) am not objecting to the wealth of rich Americans. What am objecting to is the notion that propping up the wages of a particular class of American workers is a good justification for limiting immigration. It's not a good justification, and it's especially not a good justification when the policy has the effect (as the low H1-B visa cap does) of redistributing wealth from relatively low-wage Americans to relatively high-wage ones. You aren't entitled to a $300k house and two cars, especially if it's coming out of the hide of people who are significantly worse-off than you are.
Good god man are we now just socialist, pretending that free trade is good because it achieves the social engineering that command and control could not. How about this: the labor we are importing is able to undercut our wages because there domestic economies are basket cases,and that therefore by importing there high skill labor to the US( at a discount due to lack of options) we are killing off whats left of their domestic economy and thus make those that remain even worse off ( OH and not even you and your egalitarian friends can believe that we can import 4-5 Billion people on H1-B.
SO even if we grant the notion that US national interest has no baring on the question of immigration ( we can discuss what that interest is an how H1-B quota advance or retard it )it is pure folly to suggest that the US, and it would seem only the US, has a moral duty to lower its standard of living to match the rest of the world.
Perhaps if there was no escape path to the US, more reform, both economic and political would be demanded in there home counties by the would be emigrants. This might actually elevate the world wide standard of living with out the zero sum game that is currently driving down US wages.
BTW you may want to investigate the role of fraud and corruption,as well as civil unrest in these countries-- do you think this might have something to do with the lack of advancement there.
Oh and one more little detail --the high cost of the US, as well as our declining infrastructure and disastrous education system, are the result of taxing ourselves to death to support an empire over which we have police responsibility but for which we earn little benefit other than cheap imports and downward pressure on wages.
The dollar is falling as a result of our trade deficit and soon we will have no choice but to stand down as police of the high seas, extract value from our territories, or defend the standard of living differential which in part supports that military largess. One day the Iran will try to block the Strait of
Hormuz -- who will prevent this -- The French :) no wait chindia :)
N
Companies often hire H1-Bs because they can hold the threat of "if we fire you, the government deports you" over them. That extra employer power gives employers incentive to replace citizens or permanent residents.
You won't be making $80,000 a year in most areas of the country. Furthermore, $80,000 a year, when adjusted for the cost of living, is not that much money in most of the areas where it's the average software developer's salary. $80,000 in metropolitan D.C. is the equivalent of about $30,000-$35,000 in rural Virginia when adjusted for the cost of living in both areas. It's no easier to have a middle class lifestyle on one income than the other; the $200K house in Rockingham County is equivalent to the $400K-$500K townhouse in Fairfax or Loudon Counties when you adjust for income levels.
Why should they be? Does our government exist to serve our interest, or the world's interest?
Furthermore, the excessive concern about income inequality smacks of socialist sentiments, not capitalist ones. Any good libertarian knows that equality beyond legal equality and liberty are mutually exclusive.
Which is exactly what I'm advocating: greater legal equality for whose who weren't fortunate enough to be born in the United States.
Marc Grundfest is a case in point. He can not even perceive that free trade in labor might improve the circumstances of everyone in the aggregate. Why? Because it would erode a protectionist subsidy to a class he perceives himself to be a member of. And he wraps it up in one of the most brilliant ideological errors I've come across: opposing equality and fairness simply because it's a fondness of the left. Wow.
This would not fly, however, because immigration law is a racket under our current system, and those who stand to benefit from it will not expose themselves. You'll never see management and the legal profession open themselves up to competition. An immigration policy that allowed foreigners to practice American law would probably do far more to free up capital and help our economy than 100,000 visas for engineering staff.
The free trade in labor is one-way. When Americans can just as easily move to China and India to start businesses, this argument will have more merit. From the perspective of the average worker, this isn't protectionism, it's correcting a one-sided relationship that harms them, and only benefits business owners.
And Tim, while it may be true that you consider yourself an advocate for greater legal equality, you do so without paying even the slightest attention to history's lessons on political power. Every massive wave of immigration has brought with it political changes, and our own country is no exception. However, I suspect that it doesn't bother you in the least that our country has absorbed closing in on 20,000,000 or more foreigners from socialist countries in the past decade or two. That is the downside to "increased legal equality" for foreigners that you, and the rest of the beltway libertarians, refuse to acknowledge.
It is an argument for reevaluating priorities. Seeing as how America is increasingly a country that produces less and less wealth of its own, without foreign labor, it is far more important to focus attention on protected professions that produce no wealth at all. Otherwise what you get is less incentive for Americans to join professions that focus on wealth-production versus service jobs that produce no wealth (medicine, law).
One of the reasons that libertarians are rarely taken seriously is that most libertarians treat all policies as though they are atomic. That's what you're slipping to in your argument here. You fail to see the harm that can be done by a policy that opens up competition only to those who produce wealth, and not to those who are in management or in service professions that produce no wealth like law or medicine.
Didn't he make the move to Princeton for a MS?
They can, but not nearly as much as product-producing endeavors, and law and general medicine are at the bottom of professions that produce wealth. My fear is that if society doesn't pry open these professions first, the only outcome will be stagnate wages for engineers, and even more incentive to join the ranks of the protected services professions.
But overall there are several issues with these claims :
a) Calling laws that regulate the movement of people across the borders "protectionism". We're not talking about free trade of goods but actual human beings. A few of these wanting to move about are murders, thugs, drunk drivers, thieves, child molesters, etc. Sure, most are not but there are plenty of valid reasons for regulating who can and can not enter the US or live there.
b) Lack of any evidence of how much, if any, this alleged lack of supply is driving up wages. What constitutes a lack of supply? How short handed is the US, if at all? How much more are wages being driven up than they would be if the demand level was met?
c) Are they're enough qualified candidates in other countries to meet these demands?
I also have issues with claims like this :
"What virtually all of the commenters seem to be missing is that the costs of protectionism for high-skilled Americans falls not only on immigrants who are unable to make better lives for themselves, but also on less-skilled Americans who are forced to pay higher prices for goods and services produced by high-skilled workers."
So how is it that low wage workers pay more? If anything JIT manufacturing, more efficient retail distribution, etc - all things highly dependent on skilled workers coordinating and managing them - have LOWERED the cost for goods and services. Surely you're aware of studies that have shown Wal-Mart's affects on prices, correct? Or look at trading stocks. 20 years ago if Bob The Builder wanted to invest some of that overtime into stocks, what would it have cost him? $50? $100 per trade and with what? A $500? $1000? $2500 transaction minimum? Today Bob The Builder has all sorts of options from $20 / trade to programs that let him invest just $20 / month into a stock.
I'm all for opening things up, I just think you're making a lot of at best un-cited and at worst incorrect claims.
I wouldn't accuse it of being in the beltway. The term "beltway libertarian" generally refers to the liberaltarians who turned on the rest of the libertarian movement that tended to support Ron Paul. Tim revealed that tendency when he immediately went into a race attack over immigration.
Sorry for the confusion there.
I do not appose any such thing. I simply point out that if you are backing a policy because you think it is "fair " you are engaging in social engineering so admit it.
Meanwhile there are in fact 5-6 Billion people in the world and the median wage is something like $1000/yr. Even if you believe that free trade increases the average that average will be much lower that first world standard of living.
So ask these questions if you must go down this path.
1. how fast must world gdp grow just to keep up with population growth.
2. How fast must world gdp grow to sustain a median wage of 10k 0r 20k a year
3. Are such growth rates possible?
4. Will the 3rd world grow to reach 1st world standards or will the 1st world fall to meet in the lower middle.
5. Is any of this possible if the US were not providing Policing of the high seas?
6.How long will this take?
7. Is there enough recourses -- fuel steel etc to do any of this?
8. What will happen if the result of all this hypergrowth is really hyperinflation due to loose money.
I could go on but I expect that events will make the point for me. If you really believe that free trade will make all better of on average then at least consider what that average standard of living will be.
Then ask why it is rational for a person to give up his or her privileged position for the greater good if it does not benefit them. Tim implies that "no person is rational when it come to there self interest" but that is not the case it would be irrational to act against ones self interest unless one buys into socialism.
I am unsure what Tim Means by "liberal minded " If he means libertarian then he may have a point -- of course I am a Republican and relatively conflicted by the notion that the government should an must exist and that control of the boarders is a valid power thereof, so you will excuse me if I ask again-- why is it rational to act against my own interest for the perceived common good if I do not accept the socialist agenda?
This does not concede any of the questions raised above about the rates of growth needed to raise world wide living standards, nor the issues raised in my earlier post about the need to secure the high seas and prevent or contain the wars we all know are coming.
Lucky for me I am not a liberal or even it would seem a good libertarian -- in the age of terror I may be able to live with that. Thank you showing the errors of the Liberian path-- until you answer these questions at least.
relatively UNconflicted
Liberian = libertarian
Sorry about that there may be others sorry about them as well :)
Were there to be freer migration, that would improve world GDP because people would be able to move to where their labor is most useful. They would make more, and the people they work for would make more. Everyone would be better off, except perhaps the small number of people whose incomes are artificially inflated by the labor restrictions inherent in our tightly restrictive immigration laws.
#6 is the key question. It would take a long time. Most poor people don't have the wherewithal to move to the United States, and they don't have the skills and education to take most jobs here. We're not talking about a jolt, but a long-term adjustment to where people's skills and the jobs available to them line up better.
Why should you act against your interest and accept higher immigration rates, even if they could put you in competion with new workers? Because you believe in justice and fairness. If you think that it's the government's job to take from others and give to you, then you're the socialist.
Furthermore, the excessive concern about income inequality smacks of socialist sentiments, not capitalist ones. Any good libertarian knows that equality beyond legal equality and liberty are mutually exclusive."
Quite so.
Sorry, there is an important difference between unrestricted movement of people within a country and within countries. I'd be more than happy to let anyone immigrate who could pay, or have an employer pay, their $3k / year "green card fee" or whatever the new system would have.
Which is precisely what we're discussing in this post, no? H1-B applicants are the immigrants most likely to find good jobs and least likely to impose a major burden on public services. I think there are arguments for broader liberalization, but I think the argument is particularly clear-cut when it comes to admitting highly-skilled immigrants, as Will advocates.
Question - Why limit it to just H-1B?
"Whether immigrants increase or decrease measured GDP or per-capita income is an empirical question that can be answered only by sound empirical research. But the moral case for open immigration is paramount."
Why do you believe that the government does not have the right and duty to control its boarders and decide who is and who is not a citizen? This is a called sovereignty,and all other governments have it. Only in the US do we apologize for being sovereign. People are not free to move anywhere they want now or at any time in the past-- try to emigrate abroad if you doubt me-- for that matter try Canada.
The H1b visa is itself an exception to the default rule of entry base on what-- Business likes it as it reduces wage pressure for critial skills -- you seem to like it because it is fair. This is not an economic argument, it is not a legal argument, and if you serious consider the impact of brain drain on the rest of the world it is not even a true statement. Indeed many now make the claim that without h1b high skill labor will stay in there own counties thus making the US less competitive. At least here they are telling the truth-- if we are importing only high skill labor it will infact increase the unfairness you claim it will mitigate and will have a beneficial impact on the US, But if is is fair then we must take all comers and the result will detrimental to the US but will by lowering US wages to match the world it will result in fairness.
It should be noted that many H1b visa are granted on the basis of artificial over credentialing ( ie a DBA does not need an MS) or in many cases dimploma mill certification. I work with many who have purchase degrees from Overseas universities always will to help export its surplus labor overseas to gain hard currency on the return trip. Again events will speak for me in time.
Migration to and from the US is primarily a national defense issue in any case. But those who support it do not general claim it is fair-- they claim that if will benefit the US more than it costs -- funny I do not hear that claim much anymore-- but if true you must conceed that the brain drain will have an impact on the country of origin and thus it will never be fair.
"#6 is the key question. It would take a long time. Most poor people don’t have the wherewithal to move to the United States, and they don’t have the skills and education to take most jobs here. We’re not talking about a jolt, but a long-term adjustment to where people’s skills and the jobs available to them line up better."
There are Billions of people in the world. Moving to the US is not an option no matter what. So they need to grow locally and organically, but we use H1-b and the "American dream to lure there best and brights ( as well as their duds no doubt) so how exaclty is this helping your long term goal of fairness and elevated world standard of living ?
"Why should you act against your interest and accept higher immigration rates, even if they could put you in competion with new workers? Because you believe in justice and fairness. If you think that it’s the government’s job to take from others and give to you, then you’re the socialist."
You have made my point for me. But infact you can be socialist without state coercion. As I said H1b should not exist at all. No special treatment of immigrants based on skill sets that would not be fair to the others left behind and would hurt not help the cause of improving world living standards. It does exist because it proponents ( ie those who unlike the libertarians actually make policy) think it is our national interest to pooch talent from abroad in an effort to increase our technical lead, while keeping wage and price inflation under control.
If H1B work as designed they will increase not decrease world 'unfairness' and you are force to appose them if you think fairness is a goal ,where as they are used at present they are just controlling wage inflation in such high tech areas as customer support rep (which as we all know requires at least a PHD.-- and customer support is so much better now that we can all see the benifits :) )
I look forward to your solution as to turn the entire world into america. Meanwhile event continue to turn America into the rest of the world. But if you are serious about raising world standard of living you need to
1. stop pooching talent
2.demand free and fair elections for all trading partners
3. up root corruption in the counties of origin and the world bank
4. share tecnology
5. Kill off rouge states
None of this will happen of course but number 1. may be a good start and may even lead, as I alluded to in my first post, to reform in the country of origin, but then the US and the people who run it will not infact be able to maintain there hegemony.
And that is how the world really works,and that is why we will have H1-b in the first place to increase not decrease our hegemony
But you still have not answered any of my questions.
Nor have you explained why there should be any immigration at all. Nor have you refuted my claims that h1-b hurts the country of origin and may increase social unrest.
I have been called far worse, but they usually try to answer my points first.
Well good luck to you.
"
Which is exactly what I’m advocating: greater legal equality for whose who weren’t fortunate enough to be born in the United States."
I cant resist this one. You are now claiming that Foreign national have rights under US law. Tell me can a Foreign National sue in US courts to become a citizen. If not why not? Are there any limits to the claim the world may make on the US.
Let me guess I am also a fascist now.