- This topic has 63 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
technovelist.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 9, 2006 at 10:05 AM #7456September 9, 2006 at 10:24 AM #34808
PerryChase
ParticipantSorry, Barnaby33, I think that protectionism is always a bad way to go. Foreign H1B engineers help us keep a high level of innovation in America and help ensure that discoveries belong to American companies.
If foreign engineers don’t work in America they’ll work somewhere else and we’ll loose out on the fruit of their work. But if they work here, they’ll grow our economy and improve our standard of living.
September 9, 2006 at 10:35 AM #34809speedingpullet
Participant“There are lots of liberal studies majors, too few Comp Sci and Electrical Engineers. By enlarging the H1-b program without real protection all you are doing is ensuring that in the future there will be more real estate agents and less engineers.”
More American real estate agents, certainly.
If the US wants to keep its place as one of the foremost technological innovators, then it needs scientists, and lots of them.
If you’re not ‘growing your own’ so to speak, then they have to come from somewhere. Until the US college system starts churning out Science Majors in adequate numbers to replace the H1Bs, then you have the choice of either downsizing science-based R&D by only using US citizens, or you bite the bullet and hire foreign nationals to fill the gap.
Maybe, rather than blaming H1Bs for coming to work here, some hard work rehabbing the US education system is in order, to woo the good minds away from business/finance/law towards hard science….?
Its not just a US problem either – I worked as a Math teacher in London for many years, and the level of numeracy and science in both schools and junior colleges has been dropping for years.
And yet…there’s all those keen, enthusiastic, well-educated Indians and Chinese who would give their right arms for a chance to see the world and make some decent money….Not blaming anyone for it….but this argument reminds me of the one where neighbours get angry with a seller for reducing the asking price of their house, in order to sell it. “But you’re lowering our comps! Now we won’t be able to sell our places for a profit because you’ve selfishly lowered your price to a realistic level!”
September 9, 2006 at 11:15 AM #34811JES
ParticipantI’ve worked in high technology consulting the past few years and I was shocked at the number of foreign workers at wireless and telecom companies here in San Diego. I’d put the number at over 50%. At a meeting two years ago at the local office of one of the worlds largest cell phone companies (a Finnish company) there were 35 attendees and all of them were from another country. Most were from Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.
Is it the case that there are no qualified Americans willing to take these jobs? Somehow I doubt that, although I don’t have the statistics. If that is the case then we should start offering full rides to anyone in this country who agrees to get an engineering degree and work in the field for at least 5 years. We could pay for this by doing what the entire world thinks we are doing already in the Persian Gulf. We could capture all of the oil fields in the oil rich and less populated southern part of Iraq, and even consider annexing Kuwait and the oil rich parts of Saudi Arabia.
Could it also be the case that companies are bringing these guys in because they’re cheaper?
September 9, 2006 at 11:18 AM #34812
barnaby33ParticipantBoth points are well taken. My first statement is that I am not against the H1-B visa program. As origonally envisioned it was to allow 65k engineers scientists etc to come to the US. That is not an insignificant number, but here is the rub.
Engineers scientists etc are not cheap to educate and train. Hence your comment about re-habbing our educational system is just what I am all about. By allowing the importation of foreigners, in huge number, we are dis-incentivizing native born people to compete. Rather than allowing true internal market forces to force our education systems to reform, we are providing a short circuit way out. Why invest millions in creating schools that will turn out engineers and then wait a decade when you can have them now and cheap!
As to Perry’s comment, thats cool I understand the theory behind why protectionism is bad. I just don’t agree. There are high fixed costs that are very long term to persuing an science or engineering education. If all of a sudden there is some major tectonic shift in the marketplace, ie NAFTA GATT, then those fixed costs need to be addressed. As it is all enlarging the current program will do is depress wages and force me and others to compete in an unfair marketplace.
Everyone thinks free trade is a great idea until they realize that it has some very dark corners. Currently one of those dark corners is the export of high dollar high value jobs from the US to foreigners. Some of that is good. It helps spread development and bring new ideas to our nation.
In a way this really is just a highly specialized sub-section of the broader immigration debate.
Josh
September 9, 2006 at 11:42 AM #34813davelj
ParticipantAs a consumer and citizen I don’t care who does the engineering… or the science… or anything else for that matter as long as it gets done. It’s interesting that you assume that the marketplace is “unfair” simply because you have to compete with people who are just as skilled as you but are willing to work for less. I bet from their perspective it’s “unfair” if they’re not given the opportunity to compete with you. Is it their fault they weren’t born in a country with as much opportunity as the U.S.? What’s fair or unfair often depends on whose ox is being gored.
And why should we care whether native-born people can compete in engineering? The fact is, in this day and age, most engineering and scientific functions are commodities, so why not treat them as such? Because they weren’t commodities 20 years ago? Things change.
Do you now feel solidarity with your brothers in the United Auto Workers Union whose jobs have been exported around the globe for years now? If you do, then Big Auto would be happy to keep those jobs here in the U.S. if you’re willing to pay an additional $15,000 per car. But you’re probably not willing to do that.
So the U.S. churns out fewer native-born engineers and scientists and instead we import them. I don’t see the problem… unless you’re a native-born engineer or scientist trying to compete with these hungry foreigners.
September 9, 2006 at 12:01 PM #34814bgates
ParticipantAs a consumer you don’t care, but it’s a curious concept of citizenry that sees no difference between fellow citizens and foreigners.
September 9, 2006 at 12:15 PM #34816Anonymous
GuestI had to add a few comments. I have an H-1B visa, so am very familiar with the topic.
1. First of all, you have to understand that the program was put in place to help US companies get qualified workers they could not find locally. It was not out of compassion that the US welcome foreign workers.
2. When a company hire a foreign worker under an H-1B visa, it has to compensate that employee at the prevailing wage for this job, so the foreign talent is NOT paid less than an equally qualified local employee.
3. The H-1B visa holding employees have a higher education than the average US population, they will contribute to the local economy, buy groceries, travel, buy real estate, … I have personally been in the US for many years under different visas (work, studies, …) and have contributed to the local US economy more than the average American.
4. People working here pay US taxes, contribute to the US social security, but may very well never benefit from it since most will move back to the country they come from. So, they are helping paying your retirement benefitsIn conclusion, I really think you are choosing the wrong battle if you want to improve the local economy
September 9, 2006 at 12:32 PM #34818barnaby33ParticipantAs a consumer and citizen I don’t care who does the engineering… or the science… or anything else for that matter as long as it gets done.
I bet you wouldn’t say that about defense, or healthcare. Both fields I have worked in recently. Your assumption is that these things are done equally well by any commoditized engineer.It’s interesting that you assume that the marketplace is “unfair” simply because you have to compete with people who are just as skilled as you but are willing to work for less. I assume its unfair because the costs of education/life/skills are higher here than in other places.
I bet from their perspective it’s “unfair” if they’re not given the opportunity to compete with you. Is it their fault they weren’t born in a country with as much opportunity as the U.S.? What’s fair or unfair often depends on whose ox is being gored.
On this I agree. Ultimately its my, “ox that is being gored.” However we have a nation that has very real needs, one of which is to stay one step ahead of our competition. Its not my or even our national responsibility to look after other nations. One of the things that we need to do as a nation is protect to some extent those industries that are the fundamental engines of invention and new technologies. The only way you can do that is by having people who have a vested interest in the sustainability of a country leading that charge.Its like food production. I am generally against subsidies for farming, with a caveat. America needs to make sure it can always grow enough food on its own so that it can survive when and if its trading partners decide to stop doing so. The only way we will keep our competitive technological advantage is by growing it at home.
If you offer a company a short term boost to profitability at the cost of a long term inability to find trained workers, guess what the company does? We have created a financial system the places no real value on long range decision making, and the sort of protectionism and I have no illusions about what I am pushing is meant to address that short circuit.
Whew that was long. If you made it through all the way congrats!
Josh
September 9, 2006 at 12:42 PM #34819ParticipantLets not forget the hurdles that the US puts up to hamper some sorts of technological innovation. Not old-school Engineering as such, but things like Biotechnology.
As much as the US has moral/religious/ethical problems with things like Stem Cell Research and cloning, the biotech revoloution is here. If scientists are prohibited from doing work in the US, other countries will rise and fill the gap. Other people will make the discoveries that change the world, while the US wrings it hands and complains about how unfair it is.
I find it ironic and sad that, using the only veto he’s ever made, the President stopped in its tracks any meaningful US research into the fastest growing R&D base, for religious reasons…
September 9, 2006 at 12:50 PM #34820bubble_contagion
ParticipantThe H1-B quota should be kept at a level to provide just enough engineers to maintain US companies competitive. As of right now, there is absolutely no need to increase the quota.
It is true that the H1-B and similar visa programs allow the best to come to the US. Unfortunately the quality of engineers and scientists that use most of them is not great when compared to what US universities produce. Picture them as “generic” engineers vs. brand name engineers (US graduates).
For most companies the cost of hiring a foreign engineer vs. a US engineer is about the same. Even if they are paid less, the visa and lawyers fees will even out the cost. The reason companies hire foreign engineers is primarily that there not enough US engineers. The US for years has been producing very few engineers. Engineering is hard and there are easier ways to earn money. If you remove the supply of foreign engineers the demand and thus wages will go up. This may motivate more people to study engineering but it will take several years. In the mean time companies may be required to go were the engineers are. A well managed H1-B visa program could avoid this.
September 9, 2006 at 12:55 PM #34821barnaby33Participantbubble_contagion, wow a subtely reasoned response, this is what I was hoping for more of. As I said, I am not totally against the H1-b Visa program. I don’t want to cancel it. I just don’t want it enlarged.
The current program is just not well managed, thats all. The cheating by employers is rampant. Foreigners do have to be paid prevailing wage, but there are all sorts of loopholes.
Josh
September 9, 2006 at 1:23 PM #34825ParticipantJosh, yes I would say that about defense and healthcare. Not so much that they are as commoditized as other areas – they’re not – but I don’t care about the origin of the people doing the work. In the case of defense, so long as they agree not to sell their research to other countries and plan to live here, I have no problem. The fact is that we have a disproportionate number of scientists from Eastern Europe already working in the defense field. Doesn’t bother me a bit.
You “assume its unfair because the costs of education/life/skills are higher here than in other places.” As an engineer I’m sure you see the flaw here. What’s important is not the ABSOLUTE level of wages and/or cost of education/living in two places but rather the difference between them. For example, I’m sure that Indian engineers would have no problem with you coming to India to work for a wage that might leave you with a hundred dollars per month of savings after their much lower cost of living. In contrast, they’re dying to come here because the wages here are extremely high even RELATIVE to our much higher cost of living.
SebNY, good point about the prevailing wage issue with H-1Bs. I had completely forgotten about that. Although I think this discussion goes beyond just H-1Bs and into the issue of outsourcing in general of which I am a proponent (and where generally lower foreign wages obviously prevail).
bgates, I’m assuming that most people who obtain H-1Bs probably would like to become citizens, with which I have no problem. When I distinguised between “consumer” and “citizen” I was just trying to distinguish between the benefits that I might derive as a consumer (which are economic) and the benefits I might derive from living amongst a more diverse population (which are social/cultural). I was just trying to make the point that having highly educated foreigners here isn’t just an economic issue but a social/cultural one as well. You may disagree.
I like the U.S. and I enjoy living here. But I have no great emotional attachment to this country. I live here largely because my job demands it. Otherwise I could be just as happy living in a lot of other places. That’s probably the root of my H-1B/outsourcing opinions, rightly or wrongly. At the end of the day I think people should be forced to compete, geographical boundaries be damned.
September 9, 2006 at 1:34 PM #34826Participantbubble_contagion, I’m confused. These seem to be contradictory statements:
“As of right now, there is absolutely no need to increase the quota.”
“The reason companies hire foreign engineers is primarily that there not enough US engineers.”
Do we have enough engineers or don’t we? And if we don’t, why not let the market sort out who the “generic engineers” and the “brand-name engineers” are, which amounts we need of both, and what their relative values are?
September 9, 2006 at 1:37 PM #34827murray
Participant“Everyone thinks free trade is a great idea until they realize that it has some very dark corners. Currently one of those dark corners is the export of high dollar high value jobs from the US to foreigners”.
It’s been said there’s no such thing as a free lunch – someone’s gotta to pay for it. Ditto with *free* trade. The mantra of free trade sounds great, eliminating import tariffs and allowing free flow of goods and services across borders. The problem is that there are huge disparities between economies and countries and the differences are never mitigated to achieve fairness or a level playing field. Who gets screwed? – the US taxpayer on the back of Joe Wagearner of course.
For instance other countries subsidize health care, education, childcare, etc. Communist China fixes it’s currency at an artificially low rate, effectively subsidizing their exports. Lax environmental, legal, child labor, copyright and piracy laws prevail at many of our trading partners.
The biggest beneficiary of free trade is large corporations. They also have effectively reduced their US tax burden by utilizing “aggressive accounting techniques and having favorable laws passed” according to a recent Newsweek article; (using Treasury Dept data) in the 1940s corporations contributed ~ 60% of total tax receipts, 40% from individual income, now it’s ~20% from corporations and ~ 80% from individuals.
This “race to the bottom” is sad.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.