[barrkel]

It's not actually obvious in "Economics 101" that wages are depressed by the best and the brightest coming to the US.

What you're not taking into account is the relative efficiencies of scale. When there's more talent in a particular geography than somewhere else, high value global companies can grow in a way they can't elsewhere. A precondition of that is lots of raw material - people - who can be repurposed by the highest bidder. Limit the raw material, and the industry might not even be located on the West Coast.

If supply was enough to depress wages, the US would have the world's lowest cost developers. In fact, it has the most expensive, because of the valuable companies that are able to grow in SV, which each bid up wages.

Economics teaches us about winner effects. The best attract outsize rewards, far larger than their proportional increment in ability or effort. SV attracts the best of the best because it's the best place for such people to be rewarded. It's a virtuous circle in multiple, compounding dimensions.

People are a fixed cost in the economics of software development. That means scale is king; it's the divisor on those costs. Scale isn't just on the sales side, though; it's on the talent side too.

Reducing skilled immigration is the kind of shortsighted approach that kills the golden goose in the long term.

[HarryHirsch]

It's not actually obvious in "Economics 101" that wages are depressed by the best and the brightest coming to the US.

These "best and brightest" are unencumbered by student loans and voluntarily put themselves in a very bad position at the negotiating table for the salary. If that doesn't depress wages it's hard to say what would.

I can introduce you to someone who sells Eiffel towers and used bridges. You can trust him. He is my cousin.

[tiziniano]

Exactly, even though the economies of scale were making the economic value of the company much higher, this extra will just keep disproportionately going to the shareholders. In fact, the bigger the companies, the more power they hold in wage negotiations. Think about an efficient market with many, many buyers and sellers. What kind of equilibrium does it reach? Now think of a few big companies, hiring from an ever increasing supply. The companies grow bigger, but the wage that laborers receive, will decrease. At some point it becomes this question, why should American workers give up an ever bigger part of their wage to shareholders and other immigrants?

In spite of their best efforts, most of the software development still occurs in the US. Think Microsoft hasn't tried to offshore as much as possible to India and China, building dev centers there? Or Google and FB?

Even then, just look at what kind of workers end up being imported through this programs. Not always the best and brightest. Many do entry level jobs not even in software development, for outsourcing companies.

I'm not saying outright ban immigration but better control is needed. (And saying this as a non-American living in the US). Something that struck me as particularly interesting and President Trump recently commented, is how about making companies bid for a fixed number of visa slots. Whoever pays the highest salary, gets the visa. This would certainly make companies be able to bring the brightest, while raising wages in general.