As a left-libertarian it always disappoints me to see this attitude. But political opinions have always been about incentives, always about expressing your position in an in-group, and it's amusing in a depressing sort of way to see how peoples' political philosophies switch when their interests are at stake. In particular, it seems to be common among hackers to be very libertarian except when they feel threatened in their jobs, then you hear them talk about unions and protectionism and regulation and so on.
I think it's very selfish to oppose H1B visas. America is wealthy compared to almost everywhere, and phenomenally wealthy compared to many of the places these H1B workers come from. Furthermore, the best thing for the US in the long run is to import as many smart people as it can. The best thing for us in the long run is to import as many smart people as we can. There are economists who dispute increasing immigration, but there is to my knowledge no serious argument against importing smart people.
Again, there is to my knowledge no economist, who anyone takes seriously, who would say "The USA needs to import fewer tech workers". It's a gain for everyone except the worker being "replaced", and that's a fallacy anyway because the economic pie is not zero-sum.
It's not depressing to see people's political attitudes change with more experience and in response to life experience and new realities. It's actually quite refreshing. You should be far more worried about the opposite, someone who uses ideology as a mental shortcut.
> In particular, it seems to be common among hackers to be very libertarian except when they feel threatened in their jobs, then you hear them talk about unions and protectionism and regulation and so on.
It seems you are in favor of open borders and ascribing extremist views--non-sovereignty of nation-states--to those who simply might not toe the liberal party line.
> Again, there is to my knowledge no economist, who anyone takes seriously, who would say "The USA needs to import fewer tech workers".
Since when did economists have tech worker interests in mind? All bow down at the altar of GDP, everyone else can burn.
> Since when did economists have tech worker interests in mind? All bow down at the altar of GDP, everyone else can burn.
Good straw man, but most economists are left-wing academics who chose a low-paying career track despite having a very marketable degree. I don't know of a single economist, not even any Austrian nut-jobs, who seriously think GDP is more important than human welfare.
But hey. Tell me, seriously, why it is good for the world to take this enormous pool of potential high-skilled workers and shut them out, leaving them in countries they don't want to be in, in places they will be less productive. Explain, in terms of the human interest you care so much about, the benefit of this. Explain how it produces more value for the world.
Hint: as you correctly noted, money != wealth. In particularly, allocating more money to us does not make the world richer.
>Good straw man, but most economists are left-wing academics who chose a low-paying career track despite having a very marketable degree.
These supposed left wing economists follow the money just like everybody else. The money in research is there, provided you provide research that is 'useful' to certain pro-corporate groups.
It's somewhat like climate science in that respect, except the climate science community hasn't been corrupted by the money thrown at it to prove 'global warming doesn't exist' whereas the economist profession has been utterly corrupted by it.
>But hey. Tell me, seriously, why it is good for the world to take this enormous pool of potential high-skilled workers and shut them out, leaving them in countries they don't want to be in,
One reason would be because those countries suffer badly enough from brain drain as it is. Another would be because it becomes too easy to play one set of workers against another and drag down wages all across the world. Wanna know one of the political causes of massive wealth & income inequality? This.
>Good straw man, but most economists are left-wing academics who chose a low-paying career track despite having the most marketable degree in the world.
Surveys consistently find academic economists to average left-wing. I had thought economics degrees were also the highest-paying (at 75k if I remember correctly) but apparently this has been outstripped by a few engineering disciplines, particularly petroleum, in the last few years. I edited my post.
However, having an economics degree is still a good way to make money and academia not a good way to make money. The point is people stereotype research economists as corporate shills or something, when they tend to be left-wing and most research economists consciously gave up money to work in academia.
What is right wing or left wing is a complete red herring in the context of this discussion. Both are highly subjective, ultimately rather meaningless and are subject to the issue of "shifting goalposts". What's decried is nearly communist in the US is hard-right wing for most of the rest of the world.
Pro-corporate/anti-corporate is more meaningful. And yes, it is inherently pro corporate to be pro immigration and against state ownership of enterprise. Both are incredibly pro corporate stances in fact.
There are probably not a ton of people here who would disagree with the phrase "the USA needs more tech workers." There are probably quite a few who disagree with the phrase "the USA needs more tech workers at the expense of its current tech workers."
Do you see the difference? If MS, Google, Cisco et al want to import workers, they should be paying them the same amount as their American counterparts, rather than pulling them in to be temp workers and lay off higher cost employees.
> "If MS, Google, Cisco et al want to import workers, they should be paying them the same amount as their American counterparts"
They are. You're pointing the finger at the wrong people. I've met many a Google/MS/Amazon/Facebook H1B and they are all making very good salaries, on par or better than their American peers.
The top 6 places are all outsourcing and consulting shops, and as expected their average salaries are dramatically lower than the "real" tech companies in the mix like Google, Microsoft, et al.
This trend holds true as you go down the list. Companies that do their own tech are paying on average high wages (even Wal-Mart, heh), while consultancies are the ones hiring people in the $60K range.
H1Bs are a bimodal distribution. One the high end you have Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and the such, who are paying their employees well into the six figures and anecdotally, competing for top talent. On the low end you have Infosys, Wipro, Tata, Accenture, etc, who are importing vast numbers of low-pay engineers. Note that Infosys imported in a single year 15 times the number of people Google did, at only 60% of the salary.
If you want to start somewhere, it'd be useful to look at Infosys, Wipro, Accenture, and the rest before you start rapping on Microsoft's door.
Hm... I do know tech companies are much better than the consultancies, but your source doesn't compare H1 salaries with W2 salaries. I seem to recall another set of data with Cisco in particular paying H1s much, much less than W2s, though I couldn't find it again in 18 seconds of Google searching.
This probably all circles back around to the social and employer pressure against sharing salaries thats been circling around HN the past couple of days.
>As a left-libertarian it always disappoints me to see this attitude. But political opinions have always been about incentives, always about expressing your position in an in-group, and it's amusing in a depressing sort of way to see how peoples' political philosophies switch when their interests are at stake. In particular, it seems to be common among hackers to be very libertarian except when they feel threatened in their jobs, then you hear them talk about unions and protectionism and regulation and so on.
H1-Bs are the very antithesis of freedom, which is apparently what libertarianism is about (I have my doubts its supposed adherents sometimes).
Giving corporations the near instant legal ability to revoke your immigration status (this is what H1Bs are) reduces you to a state of semi-chattel worker. In turn THAT pressures the wages of other workers down.
It's ENTIRELY consistent with libertarian views to oppose H1-Bs and the companies that push for them if they're pressuring your wages down. It's not an anti-foreigner view. That's not EVEN an anti-immigrant view. It's an anti "letting companies dictate the right of ANYBODY to stay in the country" view.
If tech companies OR you want more skilled tech workers they should lobby for more green cards or shut the fuck up.
Of course, what they really want is more easily controlled tech workers. That is, tech workers they have under their thumb. Tech workers they can say "I need you to work late tonight... unless you'd like to be on a flight back to your home country next week that is."
>I think it's very selfish to oppose H1B visas.
Don't call yourself a libertarian then.
Use the phrase 'anti-freedom corporatist apologist' or something.
You're absolutely right--H1B workers do not have nearly enough rights.
I don't really care for whatever else you have to say. Try speaking to me like a rational adult instead of telling me to "shut the fuck up".
EDIT: I find it incredible that, judging by the downovtes, people seriously think I am obligated to respond to someone who has shown so little respect to me.
Now you are going to rightfully be down voted for insulting the rest of us by complaining about being down voted. Your comment as it stands now, should be down voted.
You aren't new to HN. You know this is wrong. Don't do it.
I've been here long enough to see this argument before, yes.
I feel the same as I do now: that if it looks like people are using the downvote as an "I disagree" or "I don't like you" button, people are entitled to call this out and ask for an explanation. If no good explanation is forthcoming, this suggests the downvoters might be in error.
I don't think he was telling you personally to STFU, but rather making the argument that if you really want immigrants you should argue for green cards, not H1Bs which give the employer too much control. I think you mis-read what he wrote. BTW, I've upvoted you even though we "disagree."
You didn't ask for an explanation. You complained. This is wrong.
"I find it incredible that, judging by the downovtes, people seriously think I am obligated to respond to someone who has shown so little respect to me."
This is not seeking clarification. You didn't even assume people were mistaken. You made a judgement call. You were complaining about down votes. Don't do it.
Laws restrict freedom, that's their entire point. Whether a society, political ideology etc deems those limitations in freedom necessary is a different story. Visas put a wedge in the law to allow someone to work at a business. Global immigration laws prevent people/workers from moving freely to other areas of economic opportunity. By making immigration controls more restrictive (denying visa grants) you leave people with less opportunities and ergo freedom.
Should we create inter-state immigration controls? Should I need to apply to the state of New York to move there? By supporting immigration controls and denying H1-B visas you're in essence saying, yes I should have to apply to the state of New York to move there.
Laws restrict freedom, that's their entire point. Whether a society, political ideology etc deems those limitations in freedom necessary is a different story.
I see what you did there... which is, you jumped from the particular restrictions of the H1-B visa to the generality of "laws". The point the parent ultimately points to is that creating a situation where your visa ends when a particular company says it ends makes you beholden to that company in a fashion which would be different than if, say, you visa ended at a fixed time.
All law may to an extend restrict people's freedom of actions but a law which facilitates indentured servitude would create a situation of greater concrete unfreedom than a law restricting a person from going to some fraction of the globe.
Indentured servitude is a system in which someone who has no present capital writes a contract with someone to exchange future labor for present capital (in an historical context, passage on ships if I recall correctly). If you're issued an H1-Bs you don't have to work at that company. Why on earth would anyone take an H1-B visa if they thought they could get a better job in their home country?
Are you saying that foreigners cannot think for themselves and that a slow, innovation-lacking, bureaucratic government is smarter and knows better than them?
The majority of H1B workers I have come across in my own career were paid less than the Americans, or were working in a business that was notorious for being either a bad place to work and/or not one that paid well. Yes there are exceptions, and yes this is anecdotal, but I have yet to see solid data to refute this observation.
"I think it's very selfish to oppose H1B visas. America is wealthy compared to almost everywhere, and phenomenally wealthy compared to many of the places these H1B workers come from."
Your reasoning applies to immigration, not to H1B visas. If America is wealthy and should share its wealth with others, then it should have open borders. H1B visas bring in foreign workers on a temporary basis, tie them to a specific job, and therefore leave them in a precarious situation, unable to demand pay increases. If you believe that America should share its wealth via immigration, then you should be fighting for a more generous availability of green cards, not H1B visas.
About this:
"The downvote button is not a disagree button. If I'm wrong, tell me why."
Paul Graham has specifically said that the downvote button can be used to express disagreement.
"I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness. It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of software to protect against that."
If you believe that the government should be manipulating immigration rates to interfere with the costs of labor in a 'free' labor market you really shouldn't call yourself a libertarian.
I think it's very selfish to oppose H1B visas. America is wealthy compared to almost everywhere, and phenomenally wealthy compared to many of the places these H1B workers come from. Furthermore, the best thing for the US in the long run is to import as many smart people as it can. The best thing for us in the long run is to import as many smart people as we can. There are economists who dispute increasing immigration, but there is to my knowledge no serious argument against importing smart people.
Again, there is to my knowledge no economist, who anyone takes seriously, who would say "The USA needs to import fewer tech workers". It's a gain for everyone except the worker being "replaced", and that's a fallacy anyway because the economic pie is not zero-sum.