Obama likely to expand a foreign-student pipeline the high-tech industry loves (opens in new tab)

Oftentimes, foreign citizens working in the US are not able to freely participate in the job market. If they can't freely move from job to job (as US workers can), then they will be paid less money. If they want to be in the US badly enough, this will still be their best option. Everyone wins except the local worker who is now competing with an indentured servant.

[0] Indentured Servant is probably an exaggeration: but google sure has a lot of hits: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=h1b+indentured+servant

People are entitled to their self-interest, and it is in peoples' self-interest to avoid the race to the bottom that results from globalization. Furthermore, governments exist to serve their specific constituents, not to hew to abstract humanist principles.

Also, even within the context of abstract humanist principles, immigration isn't wholly positive. My family and I are immigrants to the U.S. It's been great for us, not so great for the country we came from that sees all its bright and ambitious people leave never to return.

("It's a bit sad..." seems passive-aggressive to me, but I give you the benefit of the doubt here)

No one wants their advantages whittled away, regardless of whether it helps other people or not. This is simple self-preservation. It is a type of selfishness, yes, but I personally don't consider it a dishonorable type of selfishness.

People are not worried about individuals of equal skill taking their jobs, but those of lesser skills.

Example. Individual A : Master's of CS from Stanford, Passed interviews, Java, SQL, Hadoop, JSF - Requested salary - 115k

Individual B : PhD Student at Stanford, Passed interviews, Java, SQL - Requested salary - 95k

Job requirements: Java, SQL, Hadoop, JSF

What would you decide on as the hiring manager, you have a limited amount of funds per year and need to meet a deadline. You know A is more qualified, but B is 20k cheaper. As a manger if time permits you will select B since he is cheaper and can acquire the skills needed in his spare time from his fellow engineers or from online materials. In making this decision B has the advantage due to price manipulation, and you allowing him to work even though he in under qualified.

Some might say this scenario is unrealistic but both candidates are using their salary to improve their lives, it just so happens B takes a lot less money (due to being born in a poorer country) to improve his life then A. Typically what you will see in the valley is B living in an apartment with 4 or 5 other people for 3 to 4 years periodically sending his money to his mother country. He can then start a company easily in that new country with his capital, meanwhile A plans to raise a family locally.

Much of this is happening right now http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Bod... Google, Facebook, Linkedin, Everyone does this in the valley.

If the politicians want to reform the citizenship process, I'm all for that. As it stands, becoming a US citizen is extremely difficult. But what they tend to do is carve out visas to help particular corporations which floods particular labor markets with workers who are often exploited to take low wages.

Also, we already have competition on a global scale, and most people don't complain about that. Read any thread on Ask HN about becoming a freelancer, and it's always acknowledged that you're competing with devs who bill $10/hr but no one is expressing rage towards them.

The tech industry is not unionized. If all we're asking is that in our home country we're not facing unfair competition from non-citizens, I think that's fair. And personally, I'd be happy to see much higher levels of immigration as long as it's spread uniformly across industries and that those people be made full citizens.

The free market favors the wealth of corporations at the detriment of individual people.

The tech companies would absolutely love it if they could get away with paying their workers as little as the developing countries do; decreasing wages results in increased profits, which are the only thing that matter to them.

I don't see a reason why we have to abide by their greed when we have so much to lose and nothing to gain.

How many countries place no restrictions on non-citizens being able to enter and work for long terms?

> It's a bit sad that you see competition on a global scale as "being fucked over".

more offer+equal demand === lower salaries.

Yes? How is that selfish? You commit to a life here, you take on student debt, you study for years under the promise that your government is looking out for you above others.

Heck, why have any immigration controls at all? Why have citizenship requirements for any job, up to and including President?

As long as we're going to maintain the fiction of national borders, it would be nice to do so in a way that doesn't consistently fuck over the lower rungs of society in favor of the politically connected.

Once we have a global governmental organization of some kind that can provide open immigration globally we can revisit this.

> The objective of legal immigration is to help companies hire the best talent, irrespective of nationality.

This is radical stuff. No, the objective of legal immigration is to help Americans. The objective of the federal government is to serve Americans. It's not clear at all that flooding the American labor market with foreign nationals is good for Americans.

This is beyond a discussion of meritocracy.

What this would do is not further a meritocracy but change the supply/demand equation in way that like others have pointed out, resembles a race to the bottom.

We talked about this in one of my university classes recently. There's a difference between engineering a solution, and coding a spec. If you only need someone to implement your spec, then why not save money and outsource? Turns out, this has been happening a lot recently. In 2013 36% of CFOs (globally) said, "their firm was currently offshore outsourcing" [1]. I think we're losing that battle because nobody wants those jobs. So, I don't think there will necessarily be an innovation shortage, but there might be a hired hand shortage. I think the point being made though, was that shortages aren't bad if you're part of that limited supply.

[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com/outsourcing-statistics-by-coun...

What will happen here is that the more innovative Americans will go into other fields. They won't compete for lowering wages.

Why would they when they have better choices?

There is no innovation shortage necessarily. There is a shortage in the ability to capture market value from new innovations, typically due to undercapitalization.

This is a really good reply and it's the type of comment I was looking for. Thanks for offering a positive or different view from mine!

This seems to be downvoted because it goes against some ideal of a meritocratic job market or other illusions.

Even if you think that allowing more foreign workers is a good thing in principle, you have to consider that the implementation as it stands is quite a bit messier than that. Plenty of these workers are hired by consulting companies that base their business on hiring foreign experts and exploiting them, paying them less than market rate and restricting their mobility and freedom.

Obviously, this isn't a net positive for society or the job market.

No. The important question is not how many jobs there are, but how many - and at what price - and how does that price translate into a standard of living in the country where you live.

To protect US citizens there are laws in place. That however can be chipped away piece by piece. If tech companies had their way that would end.

There is a real concern about the (at least perceived) decline in the US standard of living for low/middle income folks, that is not necessarily anti-immigrant. You can't deny, immigrants built the country. However, America is going to have to deal with this problem of preserving the very ability of its citizens to be upwardly mobile. I'm not sure how much of the fear is real, but its out there.

That's not a reason for starting a new program. If anything, the thriving success of Silicon Valley should be a strong signal for our government to leave it alone. There's no evidence this program will do anything but displace American workers.

Well, I feel it is not.

The reasons and successes of the past does not necessarily guarantee success by following the same pattern today. Saying something was good before doesn't provide a free pass from questions on the validity of repeating policies of the past.

Not that I'm stating an opinion on the matter one way or another, but I would say the question is valid and your answer comes across as dismissive.

Don't believe the rhetoric. American troops are in other countries to protect American interests, not to protect the rest of the world.