[Amezarak]

I don't think I, or most other people who are against the H1B visa system, have anything against H-1B holders themselves. They're obviously everyday people who are doing what's right for themselves and taking a big risk that generally pays off pretty well for them. If I was in their place, I hope I would have the cojones to do the same thing. Picking up and moving to another country is a big deal.

What I have a problem with is the companies who employ them. The intent of the H1-B visa is for companies to be able to hire workers with skills they can't hire for in America. The reality is that 99% of H1-B programmers are hired because they're cheaper or some other anti-labor reason. There is not a shortage of programmers in the US - I'll grant there could be in Silicon Valley or California - these companies are not looking very hard for programmers, and they're more willing to get someone from a foreign country than pay for relocation for someone from say, Iowa, or to open an office there. So, frankly, I see virtually every tech company hiring H1-Bs as committing immigration fraud in order to screw over people like me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1b#No_labor_shortages - basically sums it up.

Unlike other people in this thread, I don't give a fig for free markets, except to the extent they make people's lives better, which they do have a decent track record of doing in many instances. Since I live in America and only the US government has direct power over the lives of Americans, I judge US government policy by that criteria. It seems clear to me a global free market for labor is the worst thing imaginable for Americans in the short term, and the world population in the very long run. Free immigration is a handout to corporations, who want to expand the labor pool as much as possible so they can play us all off against each other on a grand scale. It disgusts me enough to watch corporations and businesses play off state and national governments against each other for tax incentives and subsidies. I'm not interested in programming being a minimum-wage job or living under any more of a global techno-corporate system than I already do.

[pm90]

American companies are not a welfare state. A corporation can only expend so much time and money in the search for good workers. So you can't expect the companies to actively go out to every little town in Iowa and see if there are workers willing to relocate at a reasonable pay (more on the reasonableness of pay later). The workers themselves need to apply, to be proactive in their search for jobs. I think this last fact is overlooked a lot. Many (not all, of course) workers are extremely unwilling to move, and may even be really unhappy about moving away from the social structures that they are comfortable with.

Every US company I've worked at has favored hiring locally, hiring US citizens etc. if only because there is less uncertainty relating to the visa situation, and the process of applying for H1B and green card is not cheap. However, if you have qualified workers applying to your company and you determine they are a good fit, you will try to hire them. Because ultimately you, the company, does want to stay competitive and hire good workers who are motivated enough to 1) Get the technical skills and 2) Actively seek out great opportunities.

Her is another thing I noticed about the tech companies I've worked at: Once you're an employee and in good standing, the company will do almost anything to help you remain that way. Paying extra for the visa and green card process is just another expense; spending extra time and money to convince joe tech worker to move from nowheretown is just a lot more complex.

My solution to this problem would be more comprehensive. Instead of reactive policies like increasing the minimum salary requirement or decreasing visas, create a more comprehensive job matching program/board. Have a system where companies looking for engineers must register and get matched with Americans looking for jobs and interview them. If you're really serious about helping Iowan programmers, then make it more convenient for companies to find the kind of workers they are looking for.

I said I would address "reasonable pay" more. A lot of people seem to think that if you can't find employee at salary A, you just need to increase the salary and employees will magically appear. This is just not the way the market works. If American workers become too expensive, it becomes more cost effective to open a satellite office in another country and the jobs move overseas.

[Amezarak]

> American companies are not a welfare state. A corporation can only expend so much time and money in the search for good workers. So you can't expect the companies to actively go out to every little town in Iowa and see if there are workers willing to relocate at a reasonable pay (more on the reasonableness of pay later).

I agree. That's why I support the abolition of the H1-B visa program, at least in the form it currently takes. As long as it exists, companies will abuse it. Part of the problem is to some extent, the government has been captured by corporate interests.

> Many (not all, of course) workers are extremely unwilling to move, and may even be really unhappy about moving away from the social structures that they are comfortable with.

This is absolutely true. It's also true that programmers, especially, can work remotely or in cheap satellite offices, and that this is probably preferable to them moving all around. Strengthening social structures for American workers should be a priority of the government. It makes for happier, healthier, better-adjusted people. It makes for people less prone to mental illnesses like depression and drug addiction, less likely to become homeless, and more likely to be deeply involved in their community and local politics. (Something I have been considering for a while now is the flagrant corruption in local US politics that is becoming increasingly enabled by transient populations who haven't lived in the same place for decades, and therefore lack deep knowledge and experience of local issues and local politicians, and who aren't much interested because they don't expect themselves, their children, or their grandchildren to remain in the area.) It also often has the side-effect of making life a lot cheaper. If your retired grandparents are willing to watch your kids while you're at work, that's a lot cheaper than paying for daycare.

> A lot of people seem to think that if you can't find employee at salary A, you just need to increase the salary and employees will magically appear. This is just not the way the market works. If American workers become too expensive, it becomes more cost effective to open a satellite office in another country and the jobs move overseas.

If you can't afford the labor costs, then your business doesn't get to exist. That's the way the market works. If I could hire people for ten cents an hour, I could start a great software business. I can't. Too bad for me.

Your statement in general is representative of the race-to-the-bottom thinking I referenced in my earlier post - the idea that we have to do this, or the jobs will go elsewhere, where labor is cheaper. Well, that's how you get savage cuts to labor protections, stagnant wages, and massive corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. What's the endgame, here? Essentially, a global, common market with freedom of movement, a world where democratic governments are entirely subordinate to large corporate interests, a world where wages start plummeting because someone, somewhere, is perfectly willing to program for 5k/year and live in a one-bedroom apartment with five other people, all the while the company involved is getting massive tax breaks lest they start move somewhere else even cheaper.

No thanks.

The reality is that American workers are highly educated and there's a huge amount of social capital and financial capital that will keep businesses operating in the US. If they really wanted to, it's already cheaper open foreign offices and hire locals elsewhere - there's more than just immediate financial considerations already in effect. In a future with more expensive American labor, brilliant US programmers will still be starting their companies in the US, because they already live here. They will hire their friends and alumni from their college in the US. They will hire people those people give references for. They will hire people who live near them.

Most businesses will not leave the US in the near-term, H1-Bs or no H1-Bs. If they choose to go elsewhere to evade American labor prices and American labor protections, there is a simple solution. They can be forbidden from selling their products and services here. Access to the American market can be predicated on worker wages and benefits. I don't see any other solution that prevents a global corporate oligarchy.

[prostoalex]

> If you can't afford the labor costs, then your business doesn't get to exist. That's the way the market works.

True for a small local business, but with larger outfits an entire department gets outsourced to a cheaper country. This brings the headache of extra overhead, project management, travel and difficulty in scheduling meetings due to time zones, but at certain scale the companies can handle that.

Do we as a society

* want an economic policy that disadvantages small businesses in favor of large businesses?

* want to initiate a long-term migration of entire departments and then companies and then industries offshore?

If we as a society are completely okay with this, then this seems like a reasonable economic policy.

[pm90]

> If you can't afford the labor costs, then your business doesn't get to exist. That's the way the market works. If I could hire people for ten cents an hour, I could start a great software business. I can't. Too bad for me.

Its rather ironic that you advocate for free markets when it suits you but later in your same post you want protectionism. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want it.

> Your statement in general is representative of the race-to-the-bottom thinking I referenced in my earlier post - the idea that we have to do this, or the jobs will go elsewhere, where labor is cheaper. Well, that's how you get savage cuts to labor protections, stagnant wages, and massive corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. What's the endgame, here? Essentially, a global, common market with freedom of movement, a world where democratic governments are entirely subordinate to large corporate interests, a world where wages start plummeting because someone, somewhere, is perfectly willing to program for 5k/year and live in a one-bedroom apartment with five other people, all the while the company involved is getting massive tax breaks lest they start move somewhere else even cheaper.

> No thanks.

Eh? The world is heading towards a global common market, whether you are willing to accept it or not. Do you expect the current imbalance in wealth and development between countries to continue in perpetuity? This imbalance has been the product of some very unique circumstances in world history and will not last for very much longer.

Anyways, the example you give is a strawman. Please find me a qualified developer who will work for that amount anywhere. Critical thinking and creative programming skills are hard to develop for most people and its definitely not that easy to find good developers.

> The reality is that American workers are highly educated and there's a huge amount of social capital and financial capital that will keep businesses operating in the US. If they really wanted to, it's already cheaper open foreign offices and hire locals elsewhere - there's more than just immediate financial considerations already in effect. In a future with more expensive American labor, brilliant US programmers will still be starting their companies in the US, because they already live here. They will hire their friends and alumni from their college in the US. They will hire people those people give references for. They will hire people who live near them.

I completely agree with the huge amount of social and financial capital in the US. But I don't believe its the operating factor in keeping businesses local. One of the main advantages of SF is that it acts as a magnet for talent from all over the world. Cut that off, and you won't have that anymore.

The wiser strategy would be to exploit that capital to continue to build on existing structures and strengthen the position of the US economy to attract the best talent. I must admit I simply don't understand why you want to kill the Golden Goose just because you think maybe possibly protectionism will help you when historically it hasn't.

> Most businesses will not leave the US in the near-term, H1-Bs or no H1-Bs. If they choose to go elsewhere to evade American labor prices and American labor protections, there is a simple solution. They can be forbidden from selling their products and services here. Access to the American market can be predicated on worker wages and benefits. I don't see any other solution that prevents a global corporate oligarchy.

That is protectionism. And it never helps. Sure, you can try it, but when the rest of the world retaliates, suddenly you're cut off from the rest of the world and operating in isolation.

[dangjc]

Smart protectionism does help. It's how Japan, South Korea, and now China have developed advanced manufacturing industries where free traders would have told them to specialize in what they did best at the time like grow rice. We need to look more holistically at free trade.

[Amezarak]

> Its rather ironic that you advocate for free markets when it suits you but later in your same post you want protectionism. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want it.

I'm for free markets where they work, and against free markets where they don't. I do not care whether free markets exist or not. I care about whatever improves the lives of people. When free markets help that cause, I am for them. When they do not, I am against them. Free markets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They are a tool. If a hammer will help me drive in a nail, I'll use a hammer, but I don't care about hammers in themselves.

I don't see anything ironic about this position.

>Eh? The world is heading towards a global common market, whether you are willing to accept it or not.

That is a decision that's entirely up to the people of the world. It is not some kind of fatal inevitability. Corporate interests in the West have been pushing strongly for it, but there are plenty of examples of powerful economies controverting this thesis, and, to all appearances, plan to do so for the indefinite future. Of course, recently, we see on top of this where previously pro-common market economies are withdrawing from that ideal - the UK with Brexit, the US from the TPP, and the immigration debate in both countries.

> Anyways, the example you give is a strawman. Please find me a qualified developer who will work for that amount anywhere. Critical thinking and creative programming skills are hard to develop for most people and its definitely not that easy to find good developers.

Good programmers are all over the place. Of course, everyone wants to hire the very best programmers, which are by definition limited, but good, productive programmers exist in tremendous numbers all over the world, including in very poor countries where five grand is a lot of money.

On top of that, considering the direction the world is going in (automation of manufacturing and services), and the continual cheerleading of STEM and programming in particular as a profession, we can only expect the number of good programmers to increase.

> I must admit I simply don't understand why you want to kill the Golden Goose just because you think maybe possibly protectionism will help you when historically it hasn't.

Because, frankly, the "Golden Goose" has absolutely zilch to do with H1-B visas. There are a lot of tremendously talented H1-B developers, absolutely. But the number of H1-B developers that are tremendously more talented than unemployed and flyover-country US programmers is approximately nada. (But only approximately. A real H1-B visa that worked only for unique talent might be worthwhile.)

In addition, you're quite simply wrong. Protectionism sometimes hurts. Free trade sometimes helps. Protectionism sometimes helps. Free trade sometimes hurts. Sometimes, a little protectionism ameliorates severe short-term pain and turns it into mild long-term pain. Pragmatism should always be preferred to free-market ideology or protectionist ideology.

> Sure, you can try it, but when the rest of the world retaliates, suddenly you're cut off from the rest of the world and operating in isolation.

People like to paint these doomsday pictures of protectionism, where all the rest of the world cuts you off. The reality is there is plenty of protectionism being engaged in already by the free-market West and nobody cares. Let alone the degree of protectionism engaged in by countries like China, which is presently nurturing multitudes of multi-billion dollar businesses without any kind of horrible punishment.

[humanrebar]

> I'll grant there could be in Silicon Valley or California

I'd be willing to relocate there if it made economic sense. If H1B were not available and bay area salaries higher, it would be more in the realm of personality.

I know a lot of great engineers in "flyover states" that more than understand that they'd have to take a decrease in standard of living to move to the Bay Area so don't even consider it.

[Merad]

> I know a lot of great engineers in "flyover states" that more than understand that they'd have to take a decrease in standard of living to move to the Bay Area so don't even consider it.

Yup. According to all the cost of living calculators I'd need upwards of $175k in SF to match what I'm getting at the moment in boring old Tennessee. There's no way it's worth it for me.

[humanrebar]

...and in my experience, those cost of living calculators underestimate how much nicer (and more commutable) homes are in lower cost of living areas.

[seanmcdirmid]

They also over estimate how much non housing expenses are in places like SF. Food is often cheaper in those cities, not more expensive, and most non service items cost almost the same.

It's a wash.

[ghaff]

The Bay Area situation is complicated. Relocating to the Bay Area from a not-low-cost East Coast area looked like a decrease in standard of living to me 25 years ago. (Admittedly other positions might have been different. But Bay Area CoL has been high for a long time.)