Phrased differently, the goal is to help industry, not hurt workers. Hurting some workers is an acceptable cost, not the goal.
One idea is that having a thriving industrial ecosystem helps those same workers more than the downward pressure.
The phrase "help industry" has many dimensions. The simplest of course is that by increasing labor supply and suppressing wages it increases profit margins, rewarding shareholders.
Another important function is that by having more workers overall in the US, it increases the productivity of the domestic industry itself, due to increased competition for jobs driving up the productivity of the average worker. This in turn makes the industry more competitive vs its equivalents in other countries.
The average worker (whether permanent resident or temporary/H1B) who doesn't have significant investments likely doesn't receive much of those productivity gains, since they mostly go to capital owners.
Long term, it boosts returns to capital while capping returns to labor, the same trend noted by Thomas Piketty some years back.
The economic impacts I described are looking backwards, not forward, and the data is pretty clear that long term returns on capital swamp the returns on labor (especially since the 1970s). STEM workers have been somewhat insulated from that due to the industries they work in growing in the past few decades faster than the labor supply. It's anyone's guess whether or not either trend will continue into the future.
> the question is less about productivity, but network effect, number of jobs, and quality of jobs.
I'd argue productivity and returns to capital are almost everything when it comes to what informs immigration policy from an economic lens. "Network effect" is a mechanism, not an outcome, and outcome metrics like "quality of job" or even "quality of life afforded by a job" are not a concern of such policies. On average, they might improve, or they might get worse, but productivity and returns on capital will always go up, whether they require workers or not.
If harm was the goal, something like a STEM worker tax or cutting R&D tax incentives would be easier.
These would affect all STEM workers equivalently. The H1-B program, whatever one thinks of its merits, hurts domestic STEM workers and helps immigrant STEM workers.
Perhaps the result is that the overall opportunities are greater because the larger talent pool results in more companies being formed. That depends a lot on how mature the industry is, and whether technological trends like generative AI will replace large swaths or STEM workers altogether.
You can’t really separate the two sides of the same coin.
If I rock it explodes killing all of the astronauts, was that the purpose of the rocket and the mission?
If I crash my car on my way to the store, is that the purpose of leaving my house?
