It's because skilled immigrants are being brought over specifically to make large companies richer. That's it. There is no other reason. In 95% of cases, there are plenty of people here that can do the job.
Aren't a lot of these immigrants doing highly skilled and highly paid labor? They don't depress wage growth for low paying jobs. And they actually increase demand for their products.
The point is that by allowing more highly-skilled immigrants into the country, it enables many other companies to make use of that high-skill labor and increase productivity (which would increase our standard of living, in theory). The lowering of wages is only a side effect of that.
Isn't the ideal thing here to let employers compete with higher and higher salaries for visas rather than silly things like luck-lotteries or country-of-origin? This ensure that the smartest foreigners come here, and stay here. This also ensures that we attract high quality talent. It removes the uncertainty immigrants face (and that companies face.)
My understanding of your post is that you think the US doesn't need more skilled immigrant workers because those jobs should go to Americans first. That's a valid argument. Attracting skilled immigrants indeed have both cost (i.e. Americans don't get those jobs) and benefit (i.e. America get the best workers and become more productive). I think the benefit outweigh the cost, and you vice versa. That's another debate entirely, which I'm not pursuing here, but I do want to recognize the validity of your argument.
The original post I made, on the other hand, is not about whether the US should attract skilled immigrants. I just wanted to clarify that the US does NOT have a generous immigrant system for skilled workers, contrary to popular perception.
its basic supply and demand. the wealthy encourage mass immigration because it makes the cost of labour cheaper in the economies they run businesses in.
see: h1b visas and ultra pro immigration silicon valley companies
I am absolutely confident there is no shortage of good software engineers willing to drop everything and move to another part of the country for $500k/year. Absolutely no shortage. If you raise your wages, you will find someone to do the work. If you can't afford to raise the wages, your business plan is not viable. I mean, I could use a houseworker to clean my house for $1 per day, does it mean I should get my wish as well? Nope.
Skilled immigration is valuable for another reason though - the more talent in the leading industry the better it is for the country, and draining other countries of their talent is also a valuable competition tactics.
Skilled labor immigration reform is perhaps the single most important factor for this country to maintain its relevance in the international race for talent acquisition. It's demoralizing (yet expected, I suppose) that it continues to proceed at a snail-like pace.
Perhaps the most telling quote from the article:
"But proponents of more skills-based immigration say the salary differential is overstated. They say immigrants tend to create jobs because they are twice as likely as U.S.-born people to start their own companies and can help improve access to foreign export markets."
Because the demand for good workers doesn't go away when the supply of good workers gets decreased. To be clear, I am supportive of immigrants working whatever jobs they want to work and that people will hire them for (and I'd argue that the free market is also supportive of this), I'm just noting that people have a financial motivation to keep people more competent than them out of the labor pool.
(Unless, of course, the replacement of competent workers with incompetent ones causes the economy to shrink, which now that I think about it is pretty likely.)
It's a hardened belief that jobs are a zero-sum game — and from this arises the idea that every skilled immigrant takes away a job from a U.S. worker. This isn't true. More skilled, educated workers will actually add to the economy — and grow the economy.
Any argument that looks at job creation in isolation is next to worthless. Such an argument leads to conclusions like "we need visa reforms to ensure that only really skilled people get through". Skill based criteria are almost always absurd. I'm pretty sure that in a country as large as the United states, there's a good chance that you'd find enough number of skilled people in all domains. So the obvious factor which drives companies to recruit foreign workers is the cost of labour. That begs the question: "why are natives not okay to work at the salary levels of immigrant workers?". There could be two reasons: either their liabilities are greater, or it is that prevailing culture that discourages US natives to work at lower salaries". From that perspective, the natural way forward for the US government should be try and reduce the liabilities of the natives. Why cant they make education cheaper and more accessible? What can they do to reduce the price of housing? How do you reduce the cost of transportation?
IMHO blaming immigrants/the companies that hire them is not productive. Businesses try to maximize their profits; that's given. They aren't hiring immigrants through benevolence towards immigrants or aversion towards natives. The US should fix their social problems before blaming the immigrants/corporations.
I think one angle the parent may have intended is that immigration increases labour supply and thus depresses wages. This argument ignores the fact that immigration generally grows an economy and in many countries it's a critical driver. This goes doubly for highly skilled immigration - particularly in the tech industry. I've worked with extremely talented folks who'd come to the US from all over the world, raising the bar at the world's top tech companies. Anyone who's worked in these companies will tell you that it's the quality bar that's the biggest constraint on hiring. SV is a concentrator of technical talent - one of the reasons the ecosystem works so well (the other is access to capital).
Beyond that, I'd find it surprising that progressive policy should depress wages - conservative economic stance typically weighs in favour of Capital.
The ultimate irony of the parent post is that the values he strongly identifies with are those that thwart his dearest wish. Emblematic of the human condition?
reply