[pweissbrod]

I dont understand arguments like this. It reads too closely to the anti-immigration narrative I hear all to much in USA lately. If you're hard working, critical thinker, creative then you deserve the opportunity to join us and lowering barriers to all these folks is not something we should perceive with skepticism. Discouraging opportunity so you can have more market share is just plain selfish and bad for society, not to mention the fact that if youre highly qualified you shouldnt be concerned with a growing field of tech workers.

[ksdale]

Exactly. When I became a lawyer I was astounded by people speaking in lofty language about how serving people is the highest good and then turning around and saying that we have to protect the legal field from “low skilled” entrants because those people will harm clients with the inevitable malpractice that will occur.

As a lawyer, I know for a fact that a lot of legal work is not complicated enough to require a law degree, but it does because otherwise lawyers would make substantially less money.

There’s a giant gap in the legal market where there are poor people who need simple services and they aren’t getting them because there are no lawyers who can afford to work that cheap and pay off their loans, or the lawyers are doing the work pro bono, which is generous, but why don’t we just let people who aren’t lawyers do more of this clerical work?

[spamizbad]

I think the critical thing to focus on is the fact that:

1) H1Bs are known to be abused by US companies. A much better system, rather than a lottery, would be one based on bidding: Where basically those willing to pay the highest salary "win". You could just as easily say the status-quo for H1s is anti-immigrant: they are held captive by their employer unless someone else can hire them; they have to leave the country a few days after their employment ends, all while working for less than other equally skilled workers.

2) As the article states, tech companies grossly overstate the so-called tech skill shortage, and furthermore, this alleged demand just showing up in worker's wages. If there was indeed a shortage as vast as they claim, wages would be higher.

3) Many people are being sold on these careers not for the love of computers and technology, but for the potential earnings. But those potential earnings will shrink once you have an influx of cheap talent in the labor market. So if you tell people "You should take on this debt and learn to code because the jobs are high paying" you're essentially repeating the same "go to college so you can get a good job" scam the baby boomers pushed on millennials.

Some younger HNers may not remember this, but in the aftermath of the dotcom crash of 2001, interest in these sorts of "learn to code" efforts evaporated, with people being actively discouraged from learning to code because software was going the way of textiles. If there's another downturn, and tech is impacted, you should expect a repeat. Regardless, those student loans will still be due.

[hoaw]

I think you are missing the point a bit. Opportunities aren't static. Someone gets to decide what should count. If you don't assert your case, someone else is going to get their way. And there isn't necessarily an objective truth. One person might value experience and the other youthful enthusiasms. These shifts are going on all the time. When everyone started doing "agile" almost nothing else mattered. Sometime barely agile itself.

[lolc]

I agree with what you say and was irritated by this side of the article. The other side is deeply disturbing though: It's companies deciding about what we're able to learn.