None of these empirical studies are useful for broad policy decisions. This is a bit like linear regression, there are to many dimensions each matters differently and the same classifier will not hold true if you add more dimensions randomly or remove few.
There is no "core human trend" to all this that will get revealed only by empirical studies but not by logic. (Empirical studies are useful to judge say whether vaping actually makes us more healthy on average. Smoking is so irrational at some level that no amount of logic can help us predict how people behave.)
The economics logic is pretty clear. People will react to incentives. But there is no hard formula that we can apply. Raising minimum wage by few cents will not cause job loss but increasing it by few dollars will. But if you make minimum wage around $100 then whole industry might go underground and no effective jobless but for in government record keeping.
I think effectiveness of UBI will be useful only if we perform far too many experience under far too variable circumstances and then understand the broader trends.
Also remember that despite of what their balance-sheet and financials say (which are impressive no doubt) they built a simple but solid product. Simple in a sense they did not run after the buzzwords of deep learning, in the cloud and all that stuff. It was a replacement for Eclipse and Netbeans which have been around for decades but a far far superior product.
Their revenue might look like just $270M but the value they have added by sheer gain in developer productivity across the world will run into several billions.
There is a price for every freedom we have. Free speech also comes with some price. Which can include riots and deaths. All we need to ask if whether slippery slope of restrictions on free speech would lead to a higher price or a lower price.
An FBI agent working on child rape cases told me how on one occasion he was 100% sure who the criminal was and yet he had to let him go because the person had rights. Now many such freed criminals are the price for having 4t hand 5th amendment in first place.
USA as a society needs to debate whether the freedoms of having free speech or freedom to own guns are worth it. Either ways it is their choice and outsiders like me would only be curious as to what choice americans would make.
> s at the very least it means that they have spent more money on an American business (IE, the univerity).
I am not sure why it matters. Good chance the university is a visa mill and setup specifically for f1 to h1b transition like the recent DHS sting revealed. Such businesses needlessly muddle edu-sector and destroy capital on things that solely exist to bypass government red tape. It adds to economic inefficiency of the society.
Also, that is not the reason USCIS has given. "They spent money on USA business" is the criteria than the law should explicitly state that and everyone can then compete. My wife arrived on H4 and lost to H1B lottery twice. In that time she converted to F1 and then got her OPT is a small college. The degree was worthless and we spent $25K on her education. That enabled her to win H1B lottery in her third attempt in master's cap. Technically beneft to US society was significantly more if she had got her H1B in first attempt.
But that is not the point I am making. My central point is that USCIS policy clearly (I am not sure how much more clear it can get than that text) violates the law passed by Congress. USCIS at the very least need to provide credible evidence as to why this new system is better, why someone with US masters degree be automatically assumed to be higher skilled and based on what evidence and how it links to BAHA executive order whose pretext is being used for such changes. H1B visa is not meant for "high skilled" any ways. It is meant for specialized skill that is in short supply in USA. So there is a violation of far basic principles there too.
Yes. Total number of visas are not increased but people with US Masters degree will have a higher chance of winning the lottery. I am not a lawyer but based on my reading of the law USCIS is likely going to lose in court over this. Here is the relevant text of the law[1]:
---
(5) The numerical limitations contained in paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien … who … (C) has earned a master’s or higher degree from a United States institution of higher education (as defined in section 1001(a) of title 20), until the number of aliens who are exempted from such numerical limitation during such year exceeds 20,000. (Emphasis added)
---
Based on the literal interpretation of law I think it is absolutely clear that the law clearly wants Students not to be counted against the cap until the 20,000 Masters cap is filled. I do not see any way to implement current USCIS proposal without violating this clause. It appears to me that DHS is unable to afford any competent lawyers these days and constantly proposing things that are illegal and not properly thought through.
Ignoring the legality of this move, this move does not benefit US society in any way. Implication that students with US masters degree are high skilled is pretty lame because majority of these students are from fly by night universities that do not even need GRE for admission. Most students after they are done with their masters work on OPT for around two years and seek sponsors for H1B during that time. Many of them simply approach body shoppers and consultancies which operate the low value spectrum of tech and will hire anyone. Also these are the companies at the forefront of most fraudulent activities.
Based on some of the unverified insider information, USCIS director Cissna has had a plan for a four pronged assault on H1B.
1. Simply refuse to renew H1B beyond 6 years. This impacts mostly Indians. He failed to implement this policy after the memo leaked to press.
2. Slow down entire H1B process to the extent most employers lose interest. He has successfully done this. My wife's H1B was filed in April 2018 and was approved in January 2019. No matter how kickass coder she is no employer will ever want to get into that kind of hiring process.
3. Create a system where you simply waste H1B visas each year. One way is to increase the rejection rates for new visas. If out of 65K visas say 10K visas are rejected these are never filled. Second approach which he wanted to implement this year but failed is to have this concept of "pre-registration" which everyone including immigration lawyers applauded. This is a sinister move. Under this move any company can file a lottery even without hiring an employee. After winning the lottery the company may simply refuse to proceed and that visa is wasted. Since there is no serious fee involved here any company who does not even have a hiring plan can enter the lottery and win it. This means a large number of H1B visas will not be claimed at all.
4. Rescind the H4EAD program to hurt families on H1B. Again affects only Indian citizens on H1B. I am told USCIS is unable to come up with good reasons to rescind this program and hence it is delayed for more than 2 years now.
H1B program is in a mess and current USCIS administration is acting in bad faith and making it worse, encouraging fraud and misuse.
There is no "core human trend" to all this that will get revealed only by empirical studies but not by logic. (Empirical studies are useful to judge say whether vaping actually makes us more healthy on average. Smoking is so irrational at some level that no amount of logic can help us predict how people behave.)
The economics logic is pretty clear. People will react to incentives. But there is no hard formula that we can apply. Raising minimum wage by few cents will not cause job loss but increasing it by few dollars will. But if you make minimum wage around $100 then whole industry might go underground and no effective jobless but for in government record keeping.
I think effectiveness of UBI will be useful only if we perform far too many experience under far too variable circumstances and then understand the broader trends.