Small Businesses Lament There Are Too Few Mexicans in U.S(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Small Businesses Lament There Are Too Few Mexicans in U.S
http://www.wsj.com/articles/small-businesses-lament-there-are-too-few-mexicans-in-u-s-not-too-many-1480005020
151 comments
You assume available jobs are located near where teenagers live? In many cases the jobs are located in remote areas with small populations (most agricultural work).
Also, I want mine and your teenagers to be studying and preparing for their futures. These are jobs with limited upside, for the most part.
Also, I want mine and your teenagers to be studying and preparing for their futures. These are jobs with limited upside, for the most part.
Your concept of who illegal immigrants are and what they do is completely fabricated by media influences whose incentives are not your own. It is false. See here: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/03/26/chapter-1-occupations-...
Learning discipline and the value of hard work is infinitely more important than learning things that are easily Googlable in out-dated high school curriculums.
Learning discipline and the value of hard work is infinitely more important than learning things that are easily Googlable in out-dated high school curriculums.
These jobs aren't located near where Mexicans live either - they are actually on the wrong side of a heavily policed border in an entirely different country.
I'm not sure I agree with the whole chain of logic, but at this point is seems fair to point out that the Mexicans aren't enrolled at a university that requires them to turn up for classes.
In Georgia, we implemented immigration laws and neither the juveniles or prisoners would pick crops for both minimum wage and reduced sentences.
And that's the issue. Immigrants gladly do the work that Americans won't do.
The OP probably meant summer jobs. I worked on farms and cut grass at a country club no where near my house. Saved enough money to buy my first computer and teach myself some code. I was hired because I spoke Spanish (took it in middle/high school) and could translate.
There's no need to assume anything because the article states the kind of workers needed: "hospitality, construction and agriculture, "
Agriculture is mentioned, of course, but it's seasonal. Two months out of the year? What jobs do you do for the other 10 months?
Agriculture is mentioned, of course, but it's seasonal. Two months out of the year? What jobs do you do for the other 10 months?
When I was a kid I did pipeline work during summer breaks. Lots of kids are out of school during harvest season, one of the major reasons for kids even having school breaks.
Imagine if we lived in a world in which all forms of discrimination based on circumstances at birth was considered beyond the pale. Or conversely, a world in which it was okay to say about blacks what we say about foreigners. For instance, would this be okay?
"Hey, you know that lazy generation of kids coming through college right now without any experience actually holding a job? What if, bear with me here, what if, instead of black people from all over the country who can work for less than minimum wage (because they're already breaking the law by working in whites only jobs in the first place), what if instead of black people taking those jobs, white youth actually held jobs and got experience working? Wouldn't that be nuts? Oh you probably think white people don't want those jobs, right? They don't. At least, not for less than minimum wage, because that's illegal and nobody wants to have that on their record. But white teenagers definitely want money. Everybody does. Imagine a world where there is ZERO black workers in whites only occupations. Teenagers actually might learn the value of hard work. They might go to college with a strong work ethic and marketable skills. We might just be able to dig ourselves out of this massive college debt crisis."
If it were illegal for blacks to work some jobs (as it once was in a not-too distant past in a not-so-far-away place) wouldn't the appropriate response be to make it legal for them to compete with whites for said jobs
"Hey, you know that lazy generation of kids coming through college right now without any experience actually holding a job? What if, bear with me here, what if, instead of black people from all over the country who can work for less than minimum wage (because they're already breaking the law by working in whites only jobs in the first place), what if instead of black people taking those jobs, white youth actually held jobs and got experience working? Wouldn't that be nuts? Oh you probably think white people don't want those jobs, right? They don't. At least, not for less than minimum wage, because that's illegal and nobody wants to have that on their record. But white teenagers definitely want money. Everybody does. Imagine a world where there is ZERO black workers in whites only occupations. Teenagers actually might learn the value of hard work. They might go to college with a strong work ethic and marketable skills. We might just be able to dig ourselves out of this massive college debt crisis."
If it were illegal for blacks to work some jobs (as it once was in a not-too distant past in a not-so-far-away place) wouldn't the appropriate response be to make it legal for them to compete with whites for said jobs
I think this is a great idea.
I suggest China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Africa start first. As soon as China opens its borders to anyone who wants to go in and make lots of money there, and Saudi Arabia does so, and Israel does so, and Africa opens its borders to anyone who wants to go and tap into its natural resources, we should think about maybe doing the same here too.
As it stands, we already have a lot of illegal immigrants already, so let's let these other places take the lead first and we'll catch up with them later.
I suggest China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Africa start first. As soon as China opens its borders to anyone who wants to go in and make lots of money there, and Saudi Arabia does so, and Israel does so, and Africa opens its borders to anyone who wants to go and tap into its natural resources, we should think about maybe doing the same here too.
As it stands, we already have a lot of illegal immigrants already, so let's let these other places take the lead first and we'll catch up with them later.
White American kids don't want these jobs. "We're a nice white family and our kids deserve to go to college". Especially for people coming from marginal backgrounds, sending your kids to college is seen as an achievement and part of the American Dream. High class successful people go to college and low class losers go to work out of high school. Those dirty jobs are for "other" people, not us.
How many of your friends would be happy if their kids became an electrician, plumber, fire fighter, or police officer? These jobs can pay well but nobody wants to do them. You don't need an expensive college degree either, just vocational training. Thats much better than your starbucks barista with 60k student loan debt on her photography degree.
Not everyone needs to go to college. In fact I think it would be better if we killed the stigma against the trades and integrated vocational paths with public high schools. College is academia, and its only relevant if you're going into the sciences or some other highly technical skilled arena or the arts. Sorry but not all of your children are special and gifted.
To many kids going to college, getting expensive useless degrees, and then having little job prospects and a load of student debt. Not to mention the increased demand these people bring inflates college tuition for everyone else.
How many of your friends would be happy if their kids became an electrician, plumber, fire fighter, or police officer? These jobs can pay well but nobody wants to do them. You don't need an expensive college degree either, just vocational training. Thats much better than your starbucks barista with 60k student loan debt on her photography degree.
Not everyone needs to go to college. In fact I think it would be better if we killed the stigma against the trades and integrated vocational paths with public high schools. College is academia, and its only relevant if you're going into the sciences or some other highly technical skilled arena or the arts. Sorry but not all of your children are special and gifted.
To many kids going to college, getting expensive useless degrees, and then having little job prospects and a load of student debt. Not to mention the increased demand these people bring inflates college tuition for everyone else.
You're spot on.
I worked on a farm from 12-17. Not an option for a non-Mexican for the last 15 years or so.
I worked on a farm from 12-17. Not an option for a non-Mexican for the last 15 years or so.
[deleted]
mozumder(4)
> In Dallas, the King of Texas Roofing Co. says it has turned down $20 million worth of projects in the past two years because it doesn’t have enough workers.
Doesn't that mean that they aren't paying high enough wages?
Doesn't that mean that they aren't paying high enough wages?
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
When I immigrated to a rural part of Canada it was shocking to see WalMart, McDonalds, Tim Hortons, etc. all had rubber stamp approval from the government to bring in foreign workers.
Canadians won't work for the wages they offer, so they just bring in a foreigner instead.
Meanwhile all those companies post multi-billion dollar profits.
The greed does not add up.
When I immigrated to a rural part of Canada it was shocking to see WalMart, McDonalds, Tim Hortons, etc. all had rubber stamp approval from the government to bring in foreign workers.
Canadians won't work for the wages they offer, so they just bring in a foreigner instead.
Meanwhile all those companies post multi-billion dollar profits.
The greed does not add up.
"In 2015, the average wage for roofers was $17.65 per hour, according to the BLS. Mr. Braddy says he has already raised wages twice this year, putting most of his workers above $20 an hour."
Roofing is difficult and dangerous work. It makes sense that pay would be high.
I have no idea what those guys are making (they're not driving Lexuses home), but I do recall reading that roofing is right up there with commercial fishing as one of the jobs with the highest risk of fatality. (DOL keeps those statistics online)
Whatever they're paid, it's probably not enough.
Whatever they're paid, it's probably not enough.
Scarcity of building contractors will push up contract values until supply meets demand - and people actually get paid more. This is how the market is supposed to work.
The market isn't "supposed" to work like anything. It just works some way, just as gravity does. It doesn't have feelings, it doesn't have preferences, it just is.
You may support some nativist policies since they are advantageous for the group you are part of, but why try to make it sound like it's some kind of universally just way to do things?
You may support some nativist policies since they are advantageous for the group you are part of, but why try to make it sound like it's some kind of universally just way to do things?
Because they subscribe to a given model of economic theory and understanding that is widely accepted?
People always seem to forget about this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
This is a ludicrous argument because the process you describe will nearly always happen. If you banned women from working, supply would meet demand, if you banned people from working unless they wore a dunce cap, supply would meet demand. The fact is that you are okay with import controls on labor, which, in any other good, you would say artificially hikes the price for domestic consumers.
The article isn't lamenting the lack of Mexicans, it's lamenting the lack of Mexicans who immigrated illegally.
The article is cheerleading illegal immigration because these construction companies and restaurants most likely got away with paying these people below-minimum-wage and were able to violate other labor laws with impunity simply because they were here illegally.
The article with rife with claims that US-born workers don't want these jobs. Well, I live in an area with very low rates of illegal immigration, and magically, all these jobs are filled with native-born inhabitants working minimum wage or sometimes (especially in the case of construction, though there's booms and busts) quite a bit better. Construction was one of the first jobs for a lot of family and friends. I worked at a restaurant for six years, every person who worked there in that time was native-born and paid minimum wage.
I find this excuse highly suspect. I think it has a lot more to do with the reasons discussed above. And I have no sympathy for employers flagrantly exploiting workers.
The article is cheerleading illegal immigration because these construction companies and restaurants most likely got away with paying these people below-minimum-wage and were able to violate other labor laws with impunity simply because they were here illegally.
The article with rife with claims that US-born workers don't want these jobs. Well, I live in an area with very low rates of illegal immigration, and magically, all these jobs are filled with native-born inhabitants working minimum wage or sometimes (especially in the case of construction, though there's booms and busts) quite a bit better. Construction was one of the first jobs for a lot of family and friends. I worked at a restaurant for six years, every person who worked there in that time was native-born and paid minimum wage.
I find this excuse highly suspect. I think it has a lot more to do with the reasons discussed above. And I have no sympathy for employers flagrantly exploiting workers.
Its frustrating that all the heat has been focused on the illegal immigrants and not the small business owners that hire them.
Small business owners that hire illegal immigrants are able to out-compete business owners who chose to follow the law because they have access to a larger labor pool at lower prices. In most cases the small business owners will be paying in cash and off the books so they will be evading taxes to some extent as well. As these business expand and after above-the-board business owners see their profits erode and market share crumble a larger segment of the market is operating outside the law.
Long term having large segments of your economy routinely breaking tax and labor laws creates a breeding ground for organized crime. I could argue that all these businesses are organized crime but I'm talking about the break-your-knee type of organized crime.
Since the workers are illegal and don't have the protection of the law they are vulnerable to intimidation and it is fairly easy to find your business with a new "partner" when your labor stops showing up one day. What are you going to do? Go to the cops because the mafia won't let your illegal immigrants work for you?
At that point hiring above-the-board labor isn't an option at the prices you charge.
Small business owners that hire illegal immigrants are able to out-compete business owners who chose to follow the law because they have access to a larger labor pool at lower prices. In most cases the small business owners will be paying in cash and off the books so they will be evading taxes to some extent as well. As these business expand and after above-the-board business owners see their profits erode and market share crumble a larger segment of the market is operating outside the law.
Long term having large segments of your economy routinely breaking tax and labor laws creates a breeding ground for organized crime. I could argue that all these businesses are organized crime but I'm talking about the break-your-knee type of organized crime.
Since the workers are illegal and don't have the protection of the law they are vulnerable to intimidation and it is fairly easy to find your business with a new "partner" when your labor stops showing up one day. What are you going to do? Go to the cops because the mafia won't let your illegal immigrants work for you?
At that point hiring above-the-board labor isn't an option at the prices you charge.
"...most likely got away with paying these people below-minimum-wage..."
Source?
(Having the majority of your workers off the books tends to look funny.)
Source?
(Having the majority of your workers off the books tends to look funny.)
Demand will also change when prices change. People are going to cook more at home and live in smallet apartments / houses.
The market is also supposed to work by shifting labor from low productivity to high productivity uses. Price factor equalization is part of the market.
One could (and did) make the same argument you are making in favor of all sorts of bad laws - Jim Crow, Davis Bacon, etc. That suggests your argument is probably invalid.
One could (and did) make the same argument you are making in favor of all sorts of bad laws - Jim Crow, Davis Bacon, etc. That suggests your argument is probably invalid.
What are you smoking its how the free market works
Artificially banning a class of workers isn't really the free market. They're not leaving to make more efficient use of their labor. Just as banning black workers would up the wages for white workers according to the free market.
The ban is only 'artificial' if you believe free and open borders should be the default state of the world. This hasn't been true globally since World War I.
Yes, we have a very non-free labor market. It's designed to keep poor people poor and rich people rich.
[deleted]
Surely you are not arguing that national borders are non-artificial? We can argue all day about their pros and cons, but they are certainly an artificial construct.
We're talking about in the context of economic relations, which are entirely human-created constructs. Under that definition, everything is artificial.
Fact of the matter is that every nation in the world has labor and passport controls. It would be exceptional and unusual for the US to abandon them unilaterally.
Fact of the matter is that every nation in the world has labor and passport controls. It would be exceptional and unusual for the US to abandon them unilaterally.
They could open the border with Mexico, just as the UK opened the "border" with Poland. If that happened, it would be undeniably a freeing of the labor market. That means the participants are individually deciding where to go, rather than other people who aren't directly involved in their trading. It might be unlikely but just because a situation is the status quo, doesn't make it natural or free.
The Soviet Union lasted a long time without a free market. Yet nobody would say allowing sellers to choose their own prices is artificial because they've been dictated by the government for decades and that's the normal and natural state of things.
The Soviet Union lasted a long time without a free market. Yet nobody would say allowing sellers to choose their own prices is artificial because they've been dictated by the government for decades and that's the normal and natural state of things.
Yes, the free market is supposed to work by shifting labor from low wave places (e.g. Mexico) to high wage places (e.g. USA) and causing wages to equalize between those places.
Similarly the market should shift oil and iron from low value places (in the ground) to high value places (e.g. in a steel beam or gas station).
Similarly the market should shift oil and iron from low value places (in the ground) to high value places (e.g. in a steel beam or gas station).
Economies that attracts and integrates (domestic or foreign, the difference will blur) individuals which work or study hard will prevail. Countries that falls under the hands of extremism will collapse or be forced back into open societies.
Artificial protection of economies are a fraudulent propositions from demagogues and doomed to further digging the economy down into extremism.
The government should support citizens through change friction, but by enabling rather than addictive entitlements.
But which politician can sell foot work, instead of sugar? Find a common external enemy, blame them rather than the rigged markets and systems.
Imagine that you are concerned by anti-competitive legislation motivated by ethnocentrism. In a democracy such as the U.S., one must consider, when discussing whether or not to allow immigration that improves efficiency while also depressing wages, not just the direct economic effects, but also the political externalities caused by enfranchising those who may have rather distinct voting patterns. We must consider the likelihood that Mexicans will themselves pursue policies nativist from their perspective, when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. To do otherwise would be myopic.
I'm concerned about anti competitive policies, whether ethnic or not. I attach no moral weight to ethnic groups.
I am concerneded about the harmful effects of democracy that you bring up, but I prefer disenfranchisment as a solution. Preventing people from working is far more harmful than preventing them from voting.
I am concerneded about the harmful effects of democracy that you bring up, but I prefer disenfranchisment as a solution. Preventing people from working is far more harmful than preventing them from voting.
In a global economy, the supply includes people from Mexico too. Your argument is right under the assumption that we do not artificially decreased the number of laborers from Mexico.
What you're describing is artificial scarcity. It sounds a bit weird to say it's supposed to work like that.
What's artificial about it? It's the law.
...reducing profits for contractors and increasing costs for consumers until a new equilibrium is found.
I see a lot of comments to the tune of "Well, don't foreigners deserve work too?" - that may be so, but isn't it a countries' duty to place the interests of its own citizens first?
To a degree, specifically the degree to which those citizens want them to, but the world becomes a better place when we push tribalism to the sidelines.
Allowing illegal immigration isn't the way to do it, however. The most important job of a state is to provide a level, predictable playing field.
Allowing illegal immigration isn't the way to do it, however. The most important job of a state is to provide a level, predictable playing field.
"but the world becomes a better place when we push tribalism to the sidelines."
It seems we're putting the cart before the horse however - allowing immigration first, and trying (unsuccessfully) to get rid of tribalism second. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and...
It seems we're putting the cart before the horse however - allowing immigration first, and trying (unsuccessfully) to get rid of tribalism second. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and...
Yeah. Unfortunately we don't know how to do this well, and it seems like political correctness (and fear of failure) is keeping us from experimenting.
I don't have any good answers here. People can't even agree on what their goal is.
I don't have any good answers here. People can't even agree on what their goal is.
And only pre-tained.
I guess they'll have to start paying them more. Maybe it will approach a decent living wage?
What a tragedy.
What a tragedy.
They won't pay them more because they're losing their jobs and leaving the country. They're going to earn less in Mexico. Just because they're outside the country doesn't mean they're not human beings anymore.
By the same token, you could say "let's fire all curly haired people". Then we'll see wages rise for the remaining workers as demand meets supply and straight haired people get a good high wage. Sure, that'll happen, but that doesn't make it right or good.
By the same token, you could say "let's fire all curly haired people". Then we'll see wages rise for the remaining workers as demand meets supply and straight haired people get a good high wage. Sure, that'll happen, but that doesn't make it right or good.
It's good for those in the US obtaining those jobs and right for the country from a nationalist perspective.
As a humanist you may not like that. As an American, I believe that's right. Stop dragging the wage base down because it's "humanitarian" for immigrants. It's not. It's just enabling abusive labor practices.
Mexico's wages will rise just the same as China's as they industrialize.
As a humanist you may not like that. As an American, I believe that's right. Stop dragging the wage base down because it's "humanitarian" for immigrants. It's not. It's just enabling abusive labor practices.
Mexico's wages will rise just the same as China's as they industrialize.
What makes Americans more deserving than Mexicans? Do Americans contribute something during their childhood which is repayed as wages in adulthood? Or is it the same factor that makes whites more deserving than blacks - i.e. membership of the same in-group?
Citizenship is membership. If you don't like it, start your own country. But that's how the current system works.
I don't care the color of your skin, I expect you to follow the same rules everyone does to apply for citizenship.
I don't care the color of your skin, I expect you to follow the same rules everyone does to apply for citizenship.
Which rules did you follow in order to attain membership?
Life is not fair, nor a meritocracy. I'd love U.K. Or Canadian citizenship. Even as a US citizen, I need to get in line like everyone else.
The question is which rules should those be.
The rules created by a democratic process of course. As voted on by the citizens of a country.
That's how sovereignty works. Or are you advocating for removal of sovereignty for the economic benefit of citizens of other countries because "that's more moral"? Hardly.
That's how sovereignty works. Or are you advocating for removal of sovereignty for the economic benefit of citizens of other countries because "that's more moral"? Hardly.
Citizens in the US voted for Jim Crow and it was only overturned via non-democratic means. Were these laws moral at the time?
To take a modern example, will Maharashtra's proposed law against Biharis driving autos be moral if it has popular support? (Background: Marathi nationalists have - this year - proposed Jim Crow type laws against non Marathis driving taxis/auto rickshaws.)
To take a modern example, will Maharashtra's proposed law against Biharis driving autos be moral if it has popular support? (Background: Marathi nationalists have - this year - proposed Jim Crow type laws against non Marathis driving taxis/auto rickshaws.)
The Jim Crow laws were most certainly overturned through democratic means, namely the 1964 Civil Rights Act (an act of the elected legislature) invoking the Commerce Clause (part of the Constitution) and 1965 Voting Rights Act. If you mean they were not repealed through by referendum or plebiscite, that is true, but neither were they enacted through direct voting. This is the case with most laws in the US.
I'm guessing by 'non-democratic' means, he was referring to Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
I actually misremembered which was ended by law and which by judicial fiat. Regardless, the moral question of whether they were justified when democratically popular remains.
Yes. And as citizens (of various countries), that's what we're arguing. Just because citizens set the rules doesn't mean whatever they decide is necessarily just.
EDIT: In reply to your edit, I have no idea why you'd bring up "removal of sovereignty". I don't see anyone here even hinting at that.
EDIT: In reply to your edit, I have no idea why you'd bring up "removal of sovereignty". I don't see anyone here even hinting at that.
I don't know precisely what "removal of sovereignty" means, but I suspect it means that undocumented immigrants undermine USA laws, by routinely breaking them. Even from the outside that seems different than debating (and voting) what the laws should be... One suspects you'd be more sensitive to this difference if the laws in question were those that you strongly support.
The questioning of my support of sovereignty came in reply to my post saying the question is what the laws/rules should be. If the sovereignty worry is about illegal immigration, then the reply makes no sense in the context of my post.
You can debate what the rules "should be" but in the mean time it would be nice if people obey the rules that are currently in place.
If you're waiting for people to stop breaking the law altogether to make reforms, you'll never reform a law in your life. Sounds like an excuse to do nothing.
That sounds like you're advocating civil disobedience. But what exactly are illegal immigrants willing to work in shitty conditions, below minimum wage, without paying taxes fighting for?
No, please re-read my post, I meant what I wrote and nothing else.
Whatever the law, some people will always be breaking it. Should we wait for murders to stop happening before we reform the laws regarding it? We'd still have crucifixions and stonings! That doesn't mean one supports murders, just that it's not a justification for inaction.
Whatever the law, some people will always be breaking it. Should we wait for murders to stop happening before we reform the laws regarding it? We'd still have crucifixions and stonings! That doesn't mean one supports murders, just that it's not a justification for inaction.
I'm not waiting for anyone to stop breaking the law, I'm waiting for someone to start enforcing the law. I'm not sure if I'm arguing or agreeing ;-)
Mexico's wages will rise just the same as China's as they industrialize.
Mexico is already industrialized. Also, the same nationalist position that opposes immigration also supports erecting trade barriers that prevent goods manufactured abroad from being competitive.
Mexico is already industrialized. Also, the same nationalist position that opposes immigration also supports erecting trade barriers that prevent goods manufactured abroad from being competitive.
The goods manufactured abroad are extremely competitive because the rules are different in other countries. Lax environmental standards, lower wages, inferior working conditions and benefits. So people fought for better conditions in the US and business simply decide it's cheaper to move outside the country than comply. When all other conditions are essentially equal then we can talk about "free trade" until then there is no such thing and trade barriers are not a bad thing. Taking care of others is a noble thing, but a nation needs to take care of its own first.
You should have posted that reply to toomuchtodo, who was the one saying that Mexico should be emulating China, who's dependent on the lack of those trade barriers.
I support erecting trade barriers to prioritize local industry over consumer excess.
Lower prices don't help if you have large swaths of the rust belt in poverty.
Edit: you industrialize with domestic demand. That's not a sham. That's economic stability.
Edit: you industrialize with domestic demand. That's not a sham. That's economic stability.
Therefore your argument that they'll just industrialize like China is revealed to be a sham, because that was reliant on a fairly open market.
[deleted]
"As they industrialize"? Mexico's already a major industrial economy. It's not in the top tier of nations but at about US$16500 its per capital GDP is still above China's, although probably not for much longer. Unfortunately its growth rate has been sluggish like a mature economy which is part of the reason Mexicans keep looking northward for better employment. There's nothing on the horizon that would make them suddenly enter a rapid growth rate. To the contrary, returning expats will no longer be sending remittances from the US, hurting Mexico's national income, and may flood the labor market, sending wages spiraling.
Plus, some of the Americans who take over Mexican jobs may not have them for long. If businesses can no longer obtain low cost labor within the country, then where possible, producers will relocate south of the border, or elsewhere, or increase mechanization efforts to decrease their costs. And where not possible, they may be priced out of the international market as the production cost of their goods shoots up.
Plus, some of the Americans who take over Mexican jobs may not have them for long. If businesses can no longer obtain low cost labor within the country, then where possible, producers will relocate south of the border, or elsewhere, or increase mechanization efforts to decrease their costs. And where not possible, they may be priced out of the international market as the production cost of their goods shoots up.
Dragging the wages down benefits everybody who doesn't work at that company.
And by paying US workers the wages won't be leaving the US either.
The same argument could be made to refuse hiring people from other states, cities, or even neighborhoods.
It could, yes, and has been.
See Walmart vs local economies.
See Walmart vs local economies.
The problem with small business is that the way the economy is set up most of the money is available at the medium to big business side of things. Small business does not have the capital to pay employees properly. So really it should not exist in the way the economy is structured. So it won't exist if you take cheap labour out of the picture. It's not as if small business robber barons are making bank on the back of poor workers. They are not. They are barely surviving.
Yes small businesses employ a lot of low skill labor and therefore are hit in the short term the hardest with a lack of labor surplus.
In the long term, this is necessary for wages to rise. When all restaurants have to compete for a diminishing labor pool, they'll have have to raise their prices to pay people decently.
This is a good thing.
In the long term, this is necessary for wages to rise. When all restaurants have to compete for a diminishing labor pool, they'll have have to raise their prices to pay people decently.
This is a good thing.
Beyond this specific case, the problem is the unfair competition for human resources between small and big companies. For example, how can you compete with Google for a software engineer? The unfair part is that Google can establish a company in Ireland to avoid taxes while you can barely organize your taxes.
I am not saying there are no ways to compete (e.g. give more equity, sell a startup dream) but that the inequalities are not only between the rich and poor gap, they are present in companies too.
I am not saying there are no ways to compete (e.g. give more equity, sell a startup dream) but that the inequalities are not only between the rich and poor gap, they are present in companies too.
It's not just that. It's that big business can have economies of scale which allows it to push out each unit at a cheaper price point. This then trains consumers to want things at certain price points which then makes it difficult or impossible to compete with larger companies. Further it is much easier for larger business to get investor money and debt financing, so if they want to expand it's much easier for them to do so than for small business. Also for B2B it's again much easier for big business because most of the spending done in the economy is by big business, and they don't care that much about price as consumers and can afford a lot more because they have lots saved up. So there are many factors that favor big business and shut out the little guy who is doing it because he wants more autonomy in his life.
a building contractor who "turned down 20 mil" is not a mom and pop store
So how about letting the signalling that money and pricing is supposed to do actually take place instead of suppressing it?
If there is such a problem - and I agree with you that there is - then something should be done about the cause instead of the symptom. Which won't happen if the symptom is successfully suppressed.
So to me the question is, let their be the pain that is meant to be there (signal!) so that something can change, or try to avoid the long-overdue correction. What I see in the real world is different in what I learned in economics 101 in that the signal function of prices is suppressed instead of used as far as the labor market is concerned - but only in one direction ("wages are getting too high!").
I think trying to avoid pain at all cost is similar to when people have a condition that lets them feel no pain. It sounds great but actually leads to self-destruction. Let the prices (wages) rise! Yes it will lead to small businesses having to give up. Either they are not actually needed, or society as a whole undervalues (and underpays) the role of those businesses. Or a mix of the two. Time to find out?
If that sounds like I'm for restricting immigration, I'm actually for much more legal(!) immigration. The problem with illegal immigration is that people are forced to subsist in the shadows. I think this distorts the (low end but similarly for H1 jobs) labor market far more (towards slave conditions and low wages) than the same amount of legal immigration would do, which would give immigrants a perspective and a lot more choices while having to endure a lot less anxiety.
If there is such a problem - and I agree with you that there is - then something should be done about the cause instead of the symptom. Which won't happen if the symptom is successfully suppressed.
So to me the question is, let their be the pain that is meant to be there (signal!) so that something can change, or try to avoid the long-overdue correction. What I see in the real world is different in what I learned in economics 101 in that the signal function of prices is suppressed instead of used as far as the labor market is concerned - but only in one direction ("wages are getting too high!").
I think trying to avoid pain at all cost is similar to when people have a condition that lets them feel no pain. It sounds great but actually leads to self-destruction. Let the prices (wages) rise! Yes it will lead to small businesses having to give up. Either they are not actually needed, or society as a whole undervalues (and underpays) the role of those businesses. Or a mix of the two. Time to find out?
If that sounds like I'm for restricting immigration, I'm actually for much more legal(!) immigration. The problem with illegal immigration is that people are forced to subsist in the shadows. I think this distorts the (low end but similarly for H1 jobs) labor market far more (towards slave conditions and low wages) than the same amount of legal immigration would do, which would give immigrants a perspective and a lot more choices while having to endure a lot less anxiety.
> Small business does not have the capital to pay employees properly. So really it should not exist in the way the economy is structured. So it won't exist if you take cheap labour out of the picture.
If the result is people renovating their houses left often or building smaller houses in general, then maybe it's a fair price to pay for more social cohesion?
If the result is people renovating their houses left often or building smaller houses in general, then maybe it's a fair price to pay for more social cohesion?
and GASP maybe start training more apprentices
Easy to solve, isn't it? Mandatory withholding with felony consequences. Felony to hire an illegal. Create an IRS verification program, the post office could do it, let them notarize documents if some one wants to claim more than two deductions for tax withholding purposes.
$30bn per year leaves the US economy via wages to immigrant workers sending/taking it back to their home countries.
$25bn to Mexico alone, that's 2% of their GDP
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-05/trump-...
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/migrationremittancesdiaspo...
$25bn to Mexico alone, that's 2% of their GDP
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-05/trump-...
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/migrationremittancesdiaspo...
You've identified part of the negative. Now what are the positive aspects? Cheaper buildings and labor for US companies, which improves their competitiveness against international competition, increased agricultural exports, cheaper services for American citizens.
You haven't even attempted to estimate the value of any of these things. You've just cherry picked one number. Your conclusion may or may not be accurate, but without trying to analyze both the costs and benefits, your way of arguing doesn't contribute much.
You haven't even attempted to estimate the value of any of these things. You've just cherry picked one number. Your conclusion may or may not be accurate, but without trying to analyze both the costs and benefits, your way of arguing doesn't contribute much.
I didn't draw and conclusions, I just presented one bullet point of note and linked to the conclusions of experts.
> Cheaper buildings and labor for US companies, which improves their competitiveness against international competition, increased agricultural exports, cheaper services for American citizens.
Illegal immigrants pay no tax, no welfare contributions, are not protected under employment laws, work long hours with no holidays. Slavery increases your international competitiveness and provides cheaper domestic services too.
Our forefathers fought bloody battles against the excessive worker exploitation. Let's not slip back into the dark days. Although I do question the benefit of minimum wage.
> Cheaper buildings and labor for US companies, which improves their competitiveness against international competition, increased agricultural exports, cheaper services for American citizens.
Illegal immigrants pay no tax, no welfare contributions, are not protected under employment laws, work long hours with no holidays. Slavery increases your international competitiveness and provides cheaper domestic services too.
Our forefathers fought bloody battles against the excessive worker exploitation. Let's not slip back into the dark days. Although I do question the benefit of minimum wage.
Oooh, and guess how much the wall costs? ~30 billion dollars.
Coincidence? This is how Mexico is going to pay for it!
Coincidence? This is how Mexico is going to pay for it!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well, you can speak of how markets would balance themselves. Sure... but in the short term:
- Some people have built their business model on top of cheap labor. You take away the cheap labor, then the business model does not work anymore.
- Some other businesses, rely on cheap products and services. If you make those products more expensive, their business model doesn't work either.
People would say then, "that's a good thing, because now supply and demand, wages go up, prices go up, etc...". Well, not so fast.
Local producers are not alone in the world. Instead of paying more, you will just start importing from cheaper countries. Does that help the local economy? probably not.
- Some people have built their business model on top of cheap labor. You take away the cheap labor, then the business model does not work anymore.
- Some other businesses, rely on cheap products and services. If you make those products more expensive, their business model doesn't work either.
People would say then, "that's a good thing, because now supply and demand, wages go up, prices go up, etc...". Well, not so fast.
Local producers are not alone in the world. Instead of paying more, you will just start importing from cheaper countries. Does that help the local economy? probably not.
If there is a business need then work in Washington to come up with a solution for legal immigration. This means having people go through embassies to get permission to immigrate. Heck have sponsorship by companies needing the workers or agencies willing to front them. Just like H1B those who come here need to not only be legal but not adversely affect employment opportunities for those already here.
Tech companies complain there aren't enough high-skilled workers. Small businesses lament there are too few low-skilled workers. In the end, they are both saying the same thing: they want more workers for less money.
I heard about this second hand from some Bay Area residents in their 70s: Back in the 60s a lot of the hippy communes were able to take over old run down mansions in the Bay Area in Marin and San Francisco. These mansions got run down because, due to no illegal immigration, construction and maintenance were very expensive and keeping old houses up was astronomically expensive.
The problem is not a lack of cheap workers, the problem is the low wages. Someone doing hard or unpleasant work should bring home a six figure salary, not a developer sitting in a nice air-conditioned office.
It isn't how hard you work. It's how much value you provide that determines your salary.
You can work really hard smacking rocks together. It provides no value to the world at large, and thus, you cannot get paid to do it.
You can work really hard smacking rocks together. It provides no value to the world at large, and thus, you cannot get paid to do it.
How much value you provide determines the upper bound of your salary. Supply of people willing and able to do the work determines the lower bound.
It's the upper bound if you assume perfect information and a perfectly efficient market. It's often hard to measure the value an employee provides, which means there is imperfect information. If you look at CEO compensation, which is determined by the board, often staffed with friendly CEOs from other companies, it doesn't look like an efficient market either.
The price is not only determined by value but also by scarcity. If there is a lot of demand for unskilled work, then wages will go down and the business owner can capture the difference between the value produced and the wages paid.
It is of course more or less by design that several factors go into the price so that different feedback loops can affect different factors in an intertwined way. For example high demand for specific skills is supposed to lead to higher wages which in turn is supposed to encourage more people to acquire those skills which then finally satisfies the demand.
And in theory this is all fine but in reality it is not as easy as in the economics text book. Some of those feedback loops are slow and take years to react, some of the factors are constraint in one way or another and just can no go where one would like them to be.
And the article is not talking about smacking rocks, it is talking about building houses and producing food, things fundamentally more valuable than building websites. And if you are doing work that is valuable and physically demanding, then you should be able to demand compensation for your hard work and not have to accept whatever you are offered but that of course fails if people undercut each in order to get the job.
I am not sure that it is even possible to [easily] decouple price factors like value and scarcity without ruining the entire system, but one has to admit that at least in practice and at least in some situations mixing value and scarcity leads to undesirable results.
It is of course more or less by design that several factors go into the price so that different feedback loops can affect different factors in an intertwined way. For example high demand for specific skills is supposed to lead to higher wages which in turn is supposed to encourage more people to acquire those skills which then finally satisfies the demand.
And in theory this is all fine but in reality it is not as easy as in the economics text book. Some of those feedback loops are slow and take years to react, some of the factors are constraint in one way or another and just can no go where one would like them to be.
And the article is not talking about smacking rocks, it is talking about building houses and producing food, things fundamentally more valuable than building websites. And if you are doing work that is valuable and physically demanding, then you should be able to demand compensation for your hard work and not have to accept whatever you are offered but that of course fails if people undercut each in order to get the job.
I am not sure that it is even possible to [easily] decouple price factors like value and scarcity without ruining the entire system, but one has to admit that at least in practice and at least in some situations mixing value and scarcity leads to undesirable results.
If what you say is true and you believe it, then surely you're for deporting all illegal immigrants who artificially deflate wages by working for less than is legal.
That does not follow from what I said, you can also just declare them legal and enforce paying them minimum wages. Heck, you can even try to keep them illegal and enforce minimum wages, if you discover an illegal immigrant working below minimum wage just go after the employer and leave the worker alone.
And I am not a US citizen or living in the USA, so I have no stakes in what happens to illegal immigrants in the USA and in turn also no well-founded opinion. On the one hand there is the law and if you violate it, you have to deal with the consequences, so there is certainly a point for expelling illegal immigrants.
On the other hand you probably should also take the lives of the immigrants into account. Can you justify the consequences? Ripping families apart, sending people back into unsafe futures or countries? And what about the economic consequences?
Maybe the USA could pardon all current illegal immigrants while then being more aggressive towards new ones? I really don't know what I would suggest, that is not a topic I ever really thought about.
And I am not a US citizen or living in the USA, so I have no stakes in what happens to illegal immigrants in the USA and in turn also no well-founded opinion. On the one hand there is the law and if you violate it, you have to deal with the consequences, so there is certainly a point for expelling illegal immigrants.
On the other hand you probably should also take the lives of the immigrants into account. Can you justify the consequences? Ripping families apart, sending people back into unsafe futures or countries? And what about the economic consequences?
Maybe the USA could pardon all current illegal immigrants while then being more aggressive towards new ones? I really don't know what I would suggest, that is not a topic I ever really thought about.
You provide no evidence for your claim that building houses and producing food is fundamentally more valuable than building websites.
If there are more than enough homes already why would building an extra home be more valuable than building a website? If there is enough food why would producing more food be more valuable than building a website?
If a hundred workers picking vegetables can be automated by a machine programmed by a developer is these workers' labor more valuable than the developer's labor?
The best indicator we have for the value of one's labor is the free market. There is an exceptionally high scarcity of people smacking rocks together; if I founded a rock-smacking startup I might not be able to find an investor to bankroll my endeavors.
If there are more than enough homes already why would building an extra home be more valuable than building a website? If there is enough food why would producing more food be more valuable than building a website?
If a hundred workers picking vegetables can be automated by a machine programmed by a developer is these workers' labor more valuable than the developer's labor?
The best indicator we have for the value of one's labor is the free market. There is an exceptionally high scarcity of people smacking rocks together; if I founded a rock-smacking startup I might not be able to find an investor to bankroll my endeavors.
You provide no evidence for your claim that building houses and producing food is fundamentally more valuable than building websites.
I meant that in the sense of [basic] human needs, if there is already enough food and housing, then there is of course not much value in producing even more. And I certainly did not want to advocate paying people high wages to pick oranges just for the sake of it.
But this touches my exact point, we use the price as a scarcity signal to steer production and it is certainly a good thing for products so that we are not overproducing things. But I am less convinced for the price of work. While it is good in the longer term to push people into the direction of jobs with unsatisfied demand, it seems bad in the shorter term because it leads to the devaluation of work in case of a high supply of work.
If a hundred workers picking vegetables can be automated by a machine programmed by a developer is these workers' labor more valuable than the developer's labor?
The value for consumers remains unchanged, the effort required to produce this value decreases drastically. In my book the developer should not get paid 100 times the salary of a worker just because he managed to produce the same value as 100 workers, he should get paid the same as one worker because they did the same amount of work, at least in a first approximation just looking at working hours. The benefit of the automation should go to the consumers reducing the price by a factor of 100.
You my argue that in this situation there is no incentive to innovate and that this is a bad thing and I agree with that, the benefit for you is indeed pretty slim, you only get to enjoy the lower vegetable prices. Therefore in reality the the thing should probably be not that black and white to incentivize innovation, but I don't think you should get 100, 50 or even 10 times the wage of a worker.
And just in case, I am none of the downvoters, I don't downvote things I disagree with.
I meant that in the sense of [basic] human needs, if there is already enough food and housing, then there is of course not much value in producing even more. And I certainly did not want to advocate paying people high wages to pick oranges just for the sake of it.
But this touches my exact point, we use the price as a scarcity signal to steer production and it is certainly a good thing for products so that we are not overproducing things. But I am less convinced for the price of work. While it is good in the longer term to push people into the direction of jobs with unsatisfied demand, it seems bad in the shorter term because it leads to the devaluation of work in case of a high supply of work.
If a hundred workers picking vegetables can be automated by a machine programmed by a developer is these workers' labor more valuable than the developer's labor?
The value for consumers remains unchanged, the effort required to produce this value decreases drastically. In my book the developer should not get paid 100 times the salary of a worker just because he managed to produce the same value as 100 workers, he should get paid the same as one worker because they did the same amount of work, at least in a first approximation just looking at working hours. The benefit of the automation should go to the consumers reducing the price by a factor of 100.
You my argue that in this situation there is no incentive to innovate and that this is a bad thing and I agree with that, the benefit for you is indeed pretty slim, you only get to enjoy the lower vegetable prices. Therefore in reality the the thing should probably be not that black and white to incentivize innovation, but I don't think you should get 100, 50 or even 10 times the wage of a worker.
And just in case, I am none of the downvoters, I don't downvote things I disagree with.
If you want to implement a minimum income, there are more efficient ways to do it. You can pass a minimum wage that applies to everyone. You can go further and create a universal basic income policy. You can try to guarantee a minimum wage using immigration law, but that is going to have some big side effects and is not going to be accurate at all.
Are you proposing a $100,000 per year minimum wage across all professions?
Are you proposing a $100,000 per year minimum wage across all professions?
I am not satisfied with how different factors like work, value and scarcity influence prices, at least in some situations. See also my other comment [1]. If different products requires 8 hours of work, they should have similar prices, they should not vastly differ just because it is hard to find a good developer requiring a high salary while you can drive wages down for flipping burgers because there are many people that could and are willing to do it.
Unfortunately I can not provide a superior and convincing alternative allocation strategy for scarce resources than doing it via the price, but it still leaves me unsatisfied. Scarce resource should be allocated so that they can produce the most value, however we define that in the end and there will admittedly probably not be a single correct definition but varying points of view, but giving scarce resources to whomever is able and willing to pay the most, is certainly not optimal.
In general I am for a good minimum wage, what is the point of working full-time and still not being able to support once life? But I also understand that simply raising the minimum wages is likely to just shift prices around and in the end we are right where we started just with an additional zero on all prices.
If I knew the solution, I would run for president, but I don't and so I can only point at things in the current system that are in my opinion not working as well as I would like them to.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13043465
Unfortunately I can not provide a superior and convincing alternative allocation strategy for scarce resources than doing it via the price, but it still leaves me unsatisfied. Scarce resource should be allocated so that they can produce the most value, however we define that in the end and there will admittedly probably not be a single correct definition but varying points of view, but giving scarce resources to whomever is able and willing to pay the most, is certainly not optimal.
In general I am for a good minimum wage, what is the point of working full-time and still not being able to support once life? But I also understand that simply raising the minimum wages is likely to just shift prices around and in the end we are right where we started just with an additional zero on all prices.
If I knew the solution, I would run for president, but I don't and so I can only point at things in the current system that are in my opinion not working as well as I would like them to.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13043465
People making arguments about free markets must remember that they assume free movement of labour - which we don't have.
[deleted]
Whoa, so basically what this article is saying is that our increased border enforcement efforts are working!?!
I guess walls do work.
I guess walls do work.
The US attitude towards immigration is completely asinine and driven by ignorance. Immigrants are a huge sector in the economy.
This WSJ article, like so many others, is part of that ignorance in that it isn't about low skill or low pay workers. It is about filling jobs, regardless of pay rate, that US citizens are not willing to fill. A prime example is software developers.
In the US software developers make 2x to 3x the national average pay rate for full time labor. Despite the high pay rate and comfortable work environment there is a massive demand for skills that is not being filled domestically. From 1995-2005 there was a massive off-shoring to find low cost software developers. Since 2010 the off-shoring is entirely about finding competent employees to fill labor shortages opposed to reducing expenses. Americans are not willing to step up and take these available software development jobs at a level of competence demanded by employers regardless of pay rate.
A popular bitch-fest on reddit is that software developers are paid too low and if they were paid more this problem would be magically solved. First of all there is absolutely no evidence to suggest such. Secondly, software developers are already paid well and still there are massive shortages with high attrition. These problems are not related to pay rates, but are deeper rooted issues more related to outdated skills, low confidence, missing initiative, and poor education. These deeper problems are a hard pill to swallow considering they require some amount of time and investment and still result in an substandard result.
This WSJ article, like so many others, is part of that ignorance in that it isn't about low skill or low pay workers. It is about filling jobs, regardless of pay rate, that US citizens are not willing to fill. A prime example is software developers.
In the US software developers make 2x to 3x the national average pay rate for full time labor. Despite the high pay rate and comfortable work environment there is a massive demand for skills that is not being filled domestically. From 1995-2005 there was a massive off-shoring to find low cost software developers. Since 2010 the off-shoring is entirely about finding competent employees to fill labor shortages opposed to reducing expenses. Americans are not willing to step up and take these available software development jobs at a level of competence demanded by employers regardless of pay rate.
A popular bitch-fest on reddit is that software developers are paid too low and if they were paid more this problem would be magically solved. First of all there is absolutely no evidence to suggest such. Secondly, software developers are already paid well and still there are massive shortages with high attrition. These problems are not related to pay rates, but are deeper rooted issues more related to outdated skills, low confidence, missing initiative, and poor education. These deeper problems are a hard pill to swallow considering they require some amount of time and investment and still result in an substandard result.
I've looked into some of those jobs and the guys on Reddit are right. A lot of those jobs don't pay shit. Developers will get paid 2-3x the national average in major cities and tech hubs. Outside of that expect an honest offer of 38-45k.
I've been in that call with a recruiter trying to fill a job in flyover state. I felt sorry for him because he really had an impossible task. He had gone through surrounding towns and states slowly widening that circle until he was now trying to find talent on the coasts. His client needed a developer with SC clearance but was offering low pay, stale benefits, and no relocation. No wonder he was having problems filling the job.
If you want skilled developers with modern skills be prepared to pay for it.
I've been in that call with a recruiter trying to fill a job in flyover state. I felt sorry for him because he really had an impossible task. He had gone through surrounding towns and states slowly widening that circle until he was now trying to find talent on the coasts. His client needed a developer with SC clearance but was offering low pay, stale benefits, and no relocation. No wonder he was having problems filling the job.
If you want skilled developers with modern skills be prepared to pay for it.
I work in a major metropolitan area (one of the 4 largest in the US). There is a large educated sector of the population and a huge number of software and technology companies here. Still, despite this, technology jobs cannot be filled. Half my coworkers have always been immigrants. Even when pay is high local people are not stepping up to fill the positions.
If you are in technology you can only continue to ignore that you work with a large number of immigrants and offshore teams for so long. Eventually, you will have to keep up with current skills, move to a low income market, or be content with being replaced by an immigrant who has more initiative.
> If you want skilled developers with modern skills be prepared to pay for it.
There is no evidence that increased rates have solved this problem as demand continues to outpace availability.
If you are in technology you can only continue to ignore that you work with a large number of immigrants and offshore teams for so long. Eventually, you will have to keep up with current skills, move to a low income market, or be content with being replaced by an immigrant who has more initiative.
> If you want skilled developers with modern skills be prepared to pay for it.
There is no evidence that increased rates have solved this problem as demand continues to outpace availability.
What do you mean by "high" wages? Would you post your region, along with the BLS salary for a software developer, a physician, lawyer, nurse practitioner, and dentist?
For dallas, here are the numbers:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000
Nurse Practitioner: $101,260 Software Developer: $97,930 Dentist: $177,130 Lawyer: $132,380 Physicians and Surgeons: $202,450
I understand there are some big differences here, and you could reasonably argue that software developers don't deserve such high wages (they often have graduate degrees but aren't strictly required to, for example). But this does show you the kind of options available in the US to those motivated, confident, educated people with initiative you described in an earlier post.
Personally, I think that if employers are having trouble getting people with choice to work as software developers, that's the market's answer. There are a lot of different perspectives on this - I personally don't have a problem with immigration, but I have a huge problem with coercing immigrants to work as software developers as a condition of living in the US.
That's the real appeal of these corporate controlled immigration programs - create a pool of engineers who aren't allowed to go into higher paying fields. Free people are allowed to go to law school, open a sandwich shop, sell real estate, whatever they like. In response to market signals.
You know free markets, freedom, personal choice. Corporations hate that stuff. So they've invented this fake story of a "shortage", as if this shortage isn't a rational response among free people to the pay and working conditions that are below what they can earn in other fields. And their solution is to use a coercive visa program to create a pool of workers who don't have this freedom.
For dallas, here are the numbers:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000
Nurse Practitioner: $101,260 Software Developer: $97,930 Dentist: $177,130 Lawyer: $132,380 Physicians and Surgeons: $202,450
I understand there are some big differences here, and you could reasonably argue that software developers don't deserve such high wages (they often have graduate degrees but aren't strictly required to, for example). But this does show you the kind of options available in the US to those motivated, confident, educated people with initiative you described in an earlier post.
Personally, I think that if employers are having trouble getting people with choice to work as software developers, that's the market's answer. There are a lot of different perspectives on this - I personally don't have a problem with immigration, but I have a huge problem with coercing immigrants to work as software developers as a condition of living in the US.
That's the real appeal of these corporate controlled immigration programs - create a pool of engineers who aren't allowed to go into higher paying fields. Free people are allowed to go to law school, open a sandwich shop, sell real estate, whatever they like. In response to market signals.
You know free markets, freedom, personal choice. Corporations hate that stuff. So they've invented this fake story of a "shortage", as if this shortage isn't a rational response among free people to the pay and working conditions that are below what they can earn in other fields. And their solution is to use a coercive visa program to create a pool of workers who don't have this freedom.
> I understand there are some big differences here, and you could reasonably argue that software developers don't deserve such high wages (they often have graduate degrees but aren't strictly required to, for example).
In my opinion this is the root of the problem. Schools are not preparing students with many of the practical skills of software development. These students enter the market with skills businesses claim to want, but often don't match with the reality of the position, platform, or technology. Businesses could solve this problem themselves by training their work force, but they don't. Instead it is entirely on the employee to get the skills (on their own time) the current employer demands. As a result many developers burn out and those who achieve this mastery of learning on their own time leave to get higher paying jobs elsewhere. Why wouldn't they since they have invested in themselves more so than the employer has, and such there is no loyalty earned. The end result is a talent gap. A large pool of barely qualified people that have trouble moving between employers and on the other side a couple of talented folks who can do whatever they want.
In my opinion this is the root of the problem. Schools are not preparing students with many of the practical skills of software development. These students enter the market with skills businesses claim to want, but often don't match with the reality of the position, platform, or technology. Businesses could solve this problem themselves by training their work force, but they don't. Instead it is entirely on the employee to get the skills (on their own time) the current employer demands. As a result many developers burn out and those who achieve this mastery of learning on their own time leave to get higher paying jobs elsewhere. Why wouldn't they since they have invested in themselves more so than the employer has, and such there is no loyalty earned. The end result is a talent gap. A large pool of barely qualified people that have trouble moving between employers and on the other side a couple of talented folks who can do whatever they want.
I've worked with smart domestic and immigrant workers. I've also worked with incompetent domestic and immigrant workers. There is a shortage of talent and there is abuse of immigrant worker vidas. These are both indisputable.
Even I, an American expat, is an immigrant worker. I'm well compensated for my work. And that's how it should be. But there are employers m that abuse h1b, E, and L visa schemes and they prefer the system just he way it is. Abusing immigrant workers and undermining domestic wages.
Even I, an American expat, is an immigrant worker. I'm well compensated for my work. And that's how it should be. But there are employers m that abuse h1b, E, and L visa schemes and they prefer the system just he way it is. Abusing immigrant workers and undermining domestic wages.
I've discussed this with a lot of people. Why do you feel the "shortage" isn't a rational response to wages and working conditions?
Do you think none of the US citizens who became nurse anesthetists, physicians, or lawyers were capable of becoming programmers? I suspect many of them could have, but realized that better working conditions and wages were available in other fields.
This doesn't really many much to do with immigration - the 1.2 million immigrants the US takes in every year are, like people born here, generally free to pursue their profession or trade in response to their own personal interests and market signals. Interestingly, among 300 million US citizens and 1.2 million new arrivals every year, software employers continue to experience a shortage.
I'm glad you feel well compensated, but the real test is whether someone who is free to pursue other fields chooses to pursue this one.
I see the restrictions of these visas as inherently anti-market. I actually see them as anti-freedom. If you can't compete for the labor of free people, people who are free to choose their field, then you don't deserve workers. Setting up a coercive visa program that allows immigrants into the country only if they agree to work as software developers seems like a magnificently bad way to solve this problem.
I'm also very confident that in the absence of this crutch, employers would absolutely find a way to improve wages and working conditions, to the point where people with choice (a group that includes all immigrants who came here freely) might be more interested in it again.
If you create a large scale program that staffs this field with people who have no choice in the job they work, I assure you, eventually the only people who work it will be the ones who have no other choice.
Do you think none of the US citizens who became nurse anesthetists, physicians, or lawyers were capable of becoming programmers? I suspect many of them could have, but realized that better working conditions and wages were available in other fields.
This doesn't really many much to do with immigration - the 1.2 million immigrants the US takes in every year are, like people born here, generally free to pursue their profession or trade in response to their own personal interests and market signals. Interestingly, among 300 million US citizens and 1.2 million new arrivals every year, software employers continue to experience a shortage.
I'm glad you feel well compensated, but the real test is whether someone who is free to pursue other fields chooses to pursue this one.
I see the restrictions of these visas as inherently anti-market. I actually see them as anti-freedom. If you can't compete for the labor of free people, people who are free to choose their field, then you don't deserve workers. Setting up a coercive visa program that allows immigrants into the country only if they agree to work as software developers seems like a magnificently bad way to solve this problem.
I'm also very confident that in the absence of this crutch, employers would absolutely find a way to improve wages and working conditions, to the point where people with choice (a group that includes all immigrants who came here freely) might be more interested in it again.
If you create a large scale program that staffs this field with people who have no choice in the job they work, I assure you, eventually the only people who work it will be the ones who have no other choice.
> Americans are not willing to step up and take these available software development jobs at a level of competence demanded by employers regardless of pay rate.
Do you honestly believe this? There's an easy test against it: post a hard-to-fill job at $50K salary, increase it by $3K per day posted. Within a couple months you will start to see desirable applicants.
Do you honestly believe this? There's an easy test against it: post a hard-to-fill job at $50K salary, increase it by $3K per day posted. Within a couple months you will start to see desirable applicants.
> Do you honestly believe this?
Absolutely. Most of the time I have interviewed for a job in the past I am the guy picked out of 20-25 applicants. Its not because I am a rock star or something special. It is because most of these people are horribly under qualified. People want to get paid more, but are often not willing to invest the effort to make higher wages a reality.
The common solution (band-aid) for this problem... frameworks.
Absolutely. Most of the time I have interviewed for a job in the past I am the guy picked out of 20-25 applicants. Its not because I am a rock star or something special. It is because most of these people are horribly under qualified. People want to get paid more, but are often not willing to invest the effort to make higher wages a reality.
The common solution (band-aid) for this problem... frameworks.
Pointing to your record as an interviewee is like saying "you always find your keys in the last place you look." Tech hiring is hard, and the glut of candidates pumping up their resumes with nonsense makes it harder still, but nothing about this suggests that Americans don't _want_ the jobs... the job postings just didn't attract a high proportion of very good applicants, whether due to company status, pay, location, or some other factors.
Imagine a world where there is ZERO illegal immigration to the US. Teenagers actually might learn the value of hard work. They might go to college with a strong work ethic and marketable skills. We might just be able to dig ourselves out of this massive college debt crisis.