It did seem in the past that there was much more of an all-hands-on-deck attitude towards education throughout US corporate activities, more broadly focused on the general fields the various companies valued the most. I suspect this fall off is very real, but don't actually know if that is just my impression or if there is a concrete effect from modern economic structures.
It's an important enough question it should definitely be studied and taken into account in policy.
However I can't agree with your conclusion that "Immigration helps the countries [sic] top-line metrics, but it rarely helps the citizens inside the country". That requires meta studies that I have never seen to prove it is so. I could cautiously accept that "some types of immigration rarely help corresponding sections of the local population" much more than such a blanket judgement. Overall, it is just not true that economics is zero sum. It doesn't have to be. An entire people can in fact flourish.
It's not just a supply and demand equation; it's a fundamentally different environment that changes the social payoff for mentoring, networking, and building a reputation.
Ultimately despite all the propaganda trying to convince us that diversity is inherently beneficial, we are trading economic benefits for social costs. So we need to carefully restrict migration to make sure the economic benefits are actually there.
Except the Heritage Foundation, er, I mean, Trump Administration controls all 3 branches of government and has all the freedom in the world to power a resuscitation of public education in America, except they're not interested in that at all; quite the opposite, they want to further fragment education baselines and make secondary education less desirable.
You can't really expect a company hiring PhD's in a niche field to show that they couldn't have spent 7 years training an American for the work.
I don't believe for even an instant that there is a significant amount of immigration happening to bring in people who are that specialized
Some, maybe. But not the vast majority of it
What study does one "have to do" to support _this_ claim?
Immigrants make up 14% of the population but make up over 20% of entrepreneurs. 44% of fortune 500 company founders were either born outside US or to immigrant parents in the US.
The admin has been cutting billions in funding to universities which makes this argument easier.
Need an expert in arithmetic combinatorics? Well Terry Tao lost his grants so now you've got to look elsewhere.
An H1b software engineer median is ~$120k.
Using other official sources, the median pay for US software engineers overall is... ~$120k.
> you'd have to do a study to show that the talent couldn't have been trained in the US, and that an increased supply of workers didn't drag down salaries, either short or long-term.
If the median H1B for software is exactly the same as the overall median, it makes you wonder if the median would be different if the H1B was not an option available to employers.
The whole premise of your original contention was that we should measure like-profession salaries to see whether or not there is an effect. Then when no effect was shown, you switched it up in favor of an argument that (again, incorrectly) predicts that such an effect can't be shown at all. That's not good faith discussion.
[1] Immigrant labor is arriving, by definition, in a pre-existing market. If immigrants can't be hired more cheaply than existing labor, by definition they can't be pulling wages down.
> Using other official sources, the median pay for US software engineers overall is... ~$120k.
So, it seems that if we remove H1b workers and assume that the demand would have stayed the same, then domestic salaries should have been higher. Assuming, of course, that companies won’t simply offshore.
Companies already do a lot of offshoring - you think any rational actor in this space that was hiring H1Bs isn't going to simply relocate them to more friendly jurisdictions for immigration?
On top of this, these are workers who would have otherwise paid tax in the US!
Now you can argue you would prefer that those 200,000 jobs go to Americans, but on the scale of the overall economy, it really doesn’t matter. What’s far more important is the massive impact those 800,000 software engineers have on the rest of the economy. Four million IT jobs, the entire finance and healthcare and retail industries that are propped up on technology built by those people; whole technology companies like Uber or doordash that create entirely new labor markets.
Risk 25% of that capacity on the idea that we would rather have those industries built solely on domestically-grown engineering talent? Why would that be a good tradeoff?
The flipside is that every american industry becomes less competitive globally without the H1b guys.
Maybe at FAANGs what you say is true. But at every place I've been when H1Bs ended up added (normally via consultancy or outsourcing) it was always to cut costs. And the only costs we were cutting was staff.
Then that $120,000 salary median can still represent a 50% undercut of similar Urban salaries for a profession.
I'm going to contend that that is the case. But I don't have time to chase down the statistics
Sure it's sound to argue that wages would be higher with more constraint supply.
BUT: The network effect of all SWE talent from across the globe moving to the US is also huge.
Probably, you'd have a smaller overall tax base without H1B. Make no mistake most countries would like to keep their H1B expats :)
If you really wanted to grow US supply of engineers, you'd have to start by fixing the education system, making it cheaper, and then wait 5 years.
This program was meant to allow talent that is not available in the US, so that gaps could be filled with experts from overseas.
Base salary, not total comp, the first year
Once you are breaking the $100k mark and want to only save costs, you are better off opening a GCC in Eastern Europe, Israel, or India, which is what most companies started doing once remote work became normalized in the early 2020s.
All this did is make a free "Thousand Talents" program for India, especially in chemical, petroleum, biopharma, and biochemical engineering - industries where the delta between US and India salaries aren't significant but the talent gap in the US is real.
There are much smarter ways to crack down on H1B abuse by consultancies - this ain't it.
Edit: can't reply, but here's why this is dumb
Assuming I am in Dallas (a fairly prominent domestic IT services hub) and hiring an H1B employee.
In Dallas, a wage around $95k base is fairly standard based on JPMC, DXC, and C1's salaries in the area.
That $95k an employee is has an additional 18% in employer required taxes and withholdings. Add to that an additional 5-10% for retirement account and insurance plans. That $95k employee became around $115k-125k.
Once salaries start breaking into the 6 figure mark, that 23-35% in overhead starts adding up very fast. On top of that visa processing before this rule costed around $15-20k in additional legal fees on the employer's side.
If I'm at the point where I'm paying a low six figure salary, I'm better off opening an office in Warsaw or Praha or Hyderabad where I can safely pay $50k-60k in base to get top 10% talent while getting a $10k-20k per head tax credit over a 3-5 year period depending on the amount I invest building a GCC because my after tax cost at that point becomes $50-60k per employee. These credits tend to require a $1M investment, and with the proposed H1B fee, this made that kind of FDI much easier to justify than it was before.
At least with the current status quo, if I was hiring an ML Engineer at MS or an SRE at Google (a large number of whom are H1Bs as well), I could justify hiring within the US, but adding an additional $100K filing fee just gives me no incentive at all to expand headcount domestically.
You don't use the stick if you also don't have the carrot.
> You are not taking into account section 174, It takes you 15 years to depreciate foreign salary vs first year
That's a rounding error now that it costs $100K to renew or apply for an H1B visa. And for larger organizations breaking the mid-8 figures in revenue mark, section 174 changes never had an impact one way or the other - it was mostly local dev shops and MSPs that faced the brunt of the section 174 onslaught.
> Honestly, even Germany is probably better bang-for-the-buck than Hyderabad
Germany needs to severely reduce employer contributions and taxes to become cost competitive against Warsaw, Praha, or Hyd for software and chip design jobs.
That said, this is a net positive for Germany's biotech, mechanical, biopharma, and other engineering industries that aren't software or chip design related.
This is a pet peeve of mine, but there is an english name for that city and it's Prague.
There is no point in using the local spelling because it adds no clarity, is less obvious to pronounce for any reader and the locals are not really gonna thank you for doing this either. Just seems like a form of light cultural white-knighting to me.
You are not even consistent because Warsaw is not how locals spell that.
If you don't fix the supply constraints, you'll depress growth.
You could fix the education system - good luck - and then wait 5 years before you cut H1B.
But yes, obviously it depressed wages, which at a certain point is probably a good thing.
We'd be paying that for Early career base (think L3). Mid-career you'd see people breaking the $80-110k base range.
I don't like giving "TC" simply because RSUs are very dependent on a number of outside variables.
And my example was for why a JPMC opens an offshore office abroad, or why a company hires an EPAM type.
For product companies who actually care about work quality, you won't too see much difference between salary abroad and a US salary from 10 years ago. I'd recommend using a fork of the old GitLab comp calculator - it's fairly accurate.
Honestly, even Germany is probably better bang-for-the-buck than Hyderabad, but Hyderabad has the volume and the offices.
Funny things is the agencies/consultancies/outsource companies all solds us on it would cut costs when the only thing changed was labor. But apparently they could cut costs without cutting labor costs? How does that work?
