> 2. Matloff -- I guess reading Sec 6 of the summary says it all for
> me (the condescension is palpable; but on a factual point: why
> compare the incomes of all H1-Bs to the median of computer software
> applications engineers, of whom there were 380k in 2000, as surely
> Matloff does not mean that all H1-B's (a number larger than 380k)
> are employed as software applications engineers -- in the passage
> cited, it's earlier said "programmers").
Could you cite the passage you criticize? I see
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html#tth_sEc6
> 6 Educational Issues
but not the point to which you claim to refer.
kj khoo Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:20:24 +0800
> But the whole thing -- hey, is the US a closed system? Given the
> nature of the work, I guess no H1-B's, or a more restrictive H1-B
> will probably mean outsourcing and/or re-location -- and even lower
> salaries for those doing the same job, but now in a non-US location.
A false assumption: more below.
> Incidentally, 1/3 of all PhD's in science and engineering in US R&D
> are foreign-born -- many out here would be quite happy to see them
> come home.
You're not alone:
http://nber.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html#Flood
> Among serious analysts, who have examined the surge in Science and
> Engineering (S&E) PhD production, there is little question but that
> 1. The market has been glutted since the beginning of the 1990s.
> 2. The magnitude of the surge in production emanates from the
> temporary visa sector with smaller increases and fluctuations
> among immigrants and citizens.
<snip>
> "There is a suspicion that international postdocs are in many cases
> a form of slave labor within the American research establishment.
> ...
> There are some very touchy issues surrounding the question of
> international postdoctoral students. We can certainly identify some
> advantages to having these students on our campuses....international
> postdoctoral students provide a good deal of low-cost talent for our
> universities. They often serve as teachers in our research
> laboratories by supervising both doctoral and masters students."
> -Steven B. Sample, President, University of Southern California,
> "Postdoctoral Education in America", a Speech to the AAU, September
> 23, 1993
kj khoo Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:20:24 +0800
> 3. Is the whole arrangement exploitative? On a systemic basis, yes.
But ...
> For the non-US individuals involved, less so than if they were
> employed in their home locations where the salaries they receive
> would be even lower.
Lemme try to construct an argument from the points you've advanced: US technical visas enable technical employers to exploit their workers, both imported and domestic. But that's OK, as long as they improve the standard of the imported workers.
Am I missing something? Allow me to ask 2 followup questions (plus one more below):
* Regarding the degree of exploitation: Do the relative levels of
exploitation, or of "return on migration" (i.e. the differential
compensation between working here and working at home) matter?
I.e. how much sweat is OK in your shops ?-)
* Regarding another sector: Is it OK for US agriculture to exploit
farm workers, degrading their working conditions and minimizing
their pay, as long as the farm workers receive better pay than they
would in their country of origin? Or is this only OK in IT?
> 4. So what is it that you want?
> a. don't hire foreigners in the US and maintain the American wage
> premium
> b. hire only foreigners who are 'geniuses' (a la Matloff) and pay
> them a premium over Americans
Brief interruption for correction:
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
> 9.6.1 We Should Indeed Bring in the Best and the Brightest
> It is my opinion that in the case of foreign nationals of
> extraordinary talent, our immigration law should indeed facilitate
> the ability of employers to hire such workers. I personally have
> helped a number of extremely bright foreign students, mainly Chinese
> and Indians, find jobs with Silicon Valley employers, and have
> strongly supported making offers to many outstanding foreign
> applicants for faculty positions in our Computer Science Department
> at UC Davis.
> However, as will be shown later workers of extraordinary talent
> comprise only a small fraction of the overall population of H-1Bs
> and employer-sponsored greencards. For example, the vast majority of
> computer-related H-1Bs make less than $58,000 per year, far below
> ``genius'' levels, which approach or exceed $100,000.
kj khoo Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:20:24 +0800
> c. hire foreigners in their home locations, at an even greater
> discount than under H1-B
Fine with me. You seem to suggest that this would be even tougher on the domestic worker than are the technical visas. You forget that employers are free to do this now (and many are): if offshoring was so advantageous to employers, why do they resort to technical visas in such great numbers? and fight so hard to keep those numbers high?
> d. hire foreigners in the US at the same wage and conditions as
> Americans and how would you do that without reducing wages in the US
> (supply and demand)
more below ...
> e. allow for a globalised labour mobility without unnecessary
> restrictions such as no change of employer, etc. -- i.e. liberalise
> the H1-B programme
What I want is fairness:
* No 2-tier labor market. When there is one market for citizen workers
(relatively high-wage and well-regulated) and another for imports
(low-wage and poor working conditions), employers will eventually
drive the system to a new equilibrium--exploitation for all.
* Equality of opportunity. Worker X can come to the US from nation Y
and compete for jobs with US citizens, provided
- Y allows US citizens to compete in its labor markets under
equivalent terms (some affirmative action is allowed)
- X is not employed under conditions which unfairly benefit his/her
employer or which tend to degrade labor conditions for all US workers
(whether citizen or non-)
- X receives compensation equal to that of his/her coworkers (e.g.
does not receive reduced compensation due to status)
Supply-effect reduction in wages is acceptable (e.g. as when students enter the labor force), but employers should receive _only_ supply-effect returns.
Which brings me to a final question: which side are _you_ on? Why are you (and, frankly, so many self-proclaimed "leftists" and "progressives" of my acquaintance) so ready to accept obvious exploitation of workers by employers, and resist change, so long as those workers are immigrants?