I read it when it was first published, Kyuzo. I disagreed with it at the time and I’m not inclined to read it again. If you want to discuss some specific issue raised in it (other than those we’ve beaten to death already), please point it out.
I am from England and live in England and we basically have the same situation. To be honest, its a difficult option.
Essentially what your saying is should you discriminate with immigrants depending on there skills etc ?
Is America now the land of the free for those who are highly trained in something we happen to require now ?
There is an argument that says if you take the talent out of another country then it will stop them developing there own industries etc. the money spent on educating these people will never go back into the system etc.
Then again, in a world of freely traded goods whats the difference with trading employees ?
A lot of Asians have come into England, some are clever and work hard and are now wealthy and having lots of kids ( nearly half the school population is from immigrants ), this has happened before with germans, poles etc. but you couldn’t see it. I think its just natural. If you let in lots of clever people they will stay, buy houses, compete with your children for schooling, work and houses but thats what the free market is all about.
The truth is that someone who is a 9th generation American has the same rights has someone who got an American passport this morning.
Am I wrong ?
You want an example? For decades, the USA lagged behind the Japan in electronic research, development and sales because Japan beat it to the punch. No government interference was involved, and yet the USA has never fully regained the advantage.
FURTHERMORE, all this harping about supply imbalance is irrelevant. Even if a balance occurs, that’s not necessarily a good thing if it occurs because the demand for high tech employment drops, which is exactly what happens when a country or company loses a competitive advantage. All this talk about supply balancing demand is both false and woefully oversimplistic.
All this whiny demanding of an example is ultimately irrelevant. The economics involved are matters of simple common sense, and your arguments are based on the unfounded assertion that supply will necessarily increase to meet demand. Sometimes it does, but only if the demand does not decrease, and only if the economic, political, educational and cultural climate is sufficiently conducive. Engineers aren’t generated easily or overnight, and they’re not produced in a vacuum.
How very interesting. Very interesting indeed.
You see, we already provided numerous reasons why pantom’s assertions are false, and why his analogies fail to hold water. Interestingly enough, I don’t see you asking him to refute any of those reasons… yet you demand a counter-example to refute his unsupported assertion. This, even though the logic behind his assertion has been refuted on multiple levels.
Now, if you want examples, I can name at least one. In the Philippines, there is a tremendous demand for scientists and for engineers with graduate-level degrees. This has been going on for decades now, and the supply has not increased to meet the demand. This is partly due to cultural biases and the extraordinary challenges involved in producing topnotch scientists and engineers. (I’m sure that many other nations are in the same situation.) This demonstrates our point – supply does not always increase to meet demand. That’s because there are numerous factors which influence the supply vs. demand balance.
Heck, one could argue that the USA has a longstanding need for topnotch cross-disciplinary engineers and programmers with an advanced background in science and engineering. (As I recall, you yourself acknowledged the latter need.) It is foolish to think that this need can be met overnight; after all, only an exceptional few have the raw aptitude and the wherewithal to pursue multiple degrees in multiple fields. If we could produce such people overnight, then the supply could quickly increase to meet the demand (though this is not automatically guaranteed). The reality, however, is that it takes time for this to happen – many years, in fact.
Besides, pantom is the one who made the extraordinary claim that supply will always increase to meet demand. His critics are the ones who have explained why this is not guaranteed. It seems to me that pantom’s extraordinary claim is the one which is begging for proof, as opposed to mere assertion.
Jubilation, it’s an analogy. And who said that my analogy to the oil market failed? You simply fail to acknowledge not only the logic but the evidence. Do you have any idea what an analogy means? That there are similarities between the two, not that they’re the same.
Since you seem to need it spelled out in order to get it, allow me to spell it out for you:
1 - In the silver market, there is vast unaccounted for inventory.
Just as, in the labor market for techies, there are tons of people who changed careers or dropped out hidden away, who would reveal themselves quickly when the price changes.
2 - In the oil market, there was alleged inelasticity on both the supply and demand sides, the exact same thing you’re holding exists currently in the labor market for techies. Yet when the price was decontrolled, supply and demand came into balance within less than a decade. No way you’re going to convince me that a market for people is going to be more inelastic than a market for a good that has to be searched for with highly sophisticated equipment manned by highly trained people, and then extracted with lots of equipment and labor, and then transported to the market where it will be consumed.
Now, as for Japan and electronics, government was involved on both sides. In the U.S., the best engineers were hired away for defense research. Meantime, in Japan, MITI subsidized, cajoled, and generally accomodated the electronics industry in every way that it could. Japan’s first-rate researchers went head to head against our second team. Under such circumstances, the only thing that could happen did happen: the consumer electronics industry in the U.S. fell apart, while in Japan it prospered. No surprise there. Lots of government interference, though.
The Phillipines situation I have no idea about, but my suspicion is that they leave that country in larger numbers than they are produced because of a simple market mechanism: price. Their labor commands a higher price elsewhere, I’m reasonably sure, though I can’t make a certain comment on it.
For the sake of this argument and my own sanity, I’m willing to grant you the Phillipines, concede the argument, and shut up. I can’t forever attempt to fight ignorance if I can’t even assume that the word analogy is comprehended.
And really, any student of markets could tell you that it’s hardly extraordinary to claim that supply and demand will come into balance within a reasonable time given clear price signals unencumbered by government subsidy or price control. Happens every day, all over the place. Your very first suspicion if it isn’t happening in a particular market with which you are personally acquainted should be to look for the government law that’s interfering with the price signal. In this case, the culprit is clear. That you’re unwilling to acknowledge it is not a failure of the argument, but a failure to look for the evidence and acknowledge its explanatory power.
And a last PS: I know lots and lots of people with multiple degrees. Run into them all the time where I work. That you don’t is simply a reflection, I’m sure, of the differing pay scales in our two companies. In other words, a market mechanism. That’s called evidence. Real evidence.
Of course it’s an analogy. It’s a fallacious and specious analogy, since the high tech market has numerous critical characteristics which do not apply to the oil market. That is why the high tech market behaves differently.
Here’s a tip: A true scholar is sensitive to the limitations of one’s analogies. One coudl always ignore critical distinctions, but only at the expense of intellectual honesty.
Unlike high tech, the oil market is not governed primarily by technological innovation. That is one reason why it does not experience the same kind of explosive, exponential growth that high tech does. Oil is oil, no matter who produces it. Oil also has established markets, unlike high tech innovations. In the oil industry, being first to market is a modest (and currently meaningless) advantage. In high tech, being first to market is of paramount importance. In the oil industry, innovation is basically meaningless. In high tech industries, innovation is everything.
We’ve already explained these things repeatedly, in dramatic and excruciating detail. We have also repeatedly provided counterexamples to your claims. Instead of refuting them, you are now regurgitating arguments that have been thoroughly discredited. Do you really, really need to be hit over the head with these points?
THAT’S you’re idea of intereference? HIRING PEOPLE?!?! Besides, hiring people would only generate additional demand, so according to your theory, the supply of engineers should have increased accordingly. (Also, it is by no means clear that the best engineers when into defense research.)
Which itself disproves your claim that government interference hinders growth.
You’re the one who made the extraordinary claim that supply always rises to meet demand. The burden of proof is yours, and mere analogies are no substitute for evidence. Moreover, common sense dictates that your claim isn’t true – and that it betrays a tremendous ignorance of basic economics.
That’s only an assertion on your part. We’ve already explained why this assertion is both unsubstantiated and incorrect.
Look, I can tolerate mere error, but I have little patience for blanket, unsubtantiated assertions made in abject ignorance – especially when they run counter to common sense.
Excellent point. That alone disproves the notion that government “interference” is necessarily harmful.
Besides, if we truly want to dispense with government interference, then we should just let any foreigners come in and work whereever they want. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that we should exclude, reduce or restrict employmen of foreigners,while simultaneously demanding that government keep out of employment issues.
Which disproves your notion that market forces invariably cause supply to increase until demand is met.
FTR, engineering is considered a prestigious profession over there, and engineers are paid extremely well. Despite the handsome wages which these people command, the country has failed to produce enough competent engineers. This is just one reason why that country has made little technological advance.
Not true. It is reasonable to say that it can happen; however, it is extraordinary to say that this must and will occur. As we keep pointing out, there are any number of factors which can hinder supply from meeting demand.
Of course, you still haven’t addressed the possibility that demand will drop – or that it would increase at a reduced rate. Remember, it’s not sufficent for supply to equal demand, if the demand is at unhealthy or lackluster levels.
but I can’t. I just can’t. Sigh.
Ok, one more time.
As a general rule, markets in their simplest form match supply to demand by the mechanism of price. An absolutely classic, ordinary, everyday response of a market to interference with the price signal is to respond by attempting to regulate demand by shortage, in one of two ways:
1 - If demand skyrockets because the price goes down, suddenly the supply of the product in question will be insufficient until more of the product is available. This is what happened when AOL went to unlimited access for a flat fee: suddenly, the lines were tied up, until AOL could get its network up to match the increased demand.
2 - If the supplier deems the price to be insufficient, the supplier will stop producing the product, or produce it in insufficient quantities to meet the demand, or sell it where he can get the price he wants. This is what is happening today in NYC with rent control: the supply of apartments is insufficient to meet the demand at the lower price points. (as defined by the local market, which is important and will come up later. Keep this in mind. Obviously what’s a low rent in NYC is nothing of the sort in Iowa.)
Now, to take you guys apart, point by freakin’ point:
1 - JThunder, you have an admirable facility for taking quotes out of context. Keep it up, you could be a politician one day.
Now, to Japan and electronics: There were two pieces to that argument, which were that in Japan electronics work was encouraged by every means the government had at its disposal, while in the U.S. it was a victim of the Law of Unintended Consequences: the need for engineers for defense and aerospace meant they weren’t as available as they would otherwise be for consumer electronics. So on the one side of the Pacific you had positive government encouragement, while on the other side you had government interference. Put the two together, and you get precisely what happened: the U.S. became uncompetitive, and gave up the market to Japan.
2 - The Phillipines: you’ll have to supply more info than you have so far. No one over here has any reason to know anything about what’s going on in the Phillipines, so if you’re going to make these assertions, we’ll need at least some kind of facts to hang on to them. What would be very important would be this: you say that engineers in the Phillipines are very well paid. If they truly are, then you would have to prove that they’re not leaving the country for higher wages elsewhere, because if that’s the cause of the problem, then it means that the market is simply regulating the supply by shortage for the classic reason described above: the producer can get a better price by selling his product elsewhere, which in this case would mean his engineering skill. If it’s because the schools aren’t turning them out in sufficient numbers, then we have one of two scenarios, either of which is easily explained, once again, as regulation by shortage:
a) that the schools don’t see any profit in producing them, or
b) that the companies in the Phillipines aren’t offering wages high enough to get engineers from elsewhere to emigrate to the Phillipines to fill the demand, or
there really isn’t this tremendous demand, because…
c) from what you wrote, it appears that the schools aren’t paying wages high enough to attract teachers from overseas to produce the graduate-level engineers needed, which would also mean that the companies who are allegedly yearning for these engineers are at the same time unwilling to endow these schools sufficiently to produce the engineers they allegedly need, which means they feel they can get along fine without them, which is completely inconsistent with your scenario.
If there’s a fourth scenario, please explain.
3 - Jubilation, up until now I haven’t called you on this, but you really are one of the fuzziest thinkers I’ve seen in a long time. So, it’s time for me to ask you to define your terms. No more hot air is going to be accepted over here:
a - define cultural factors. What does that mean in the context of a market?
b - define lackluster or unhealthy demand. Given that demand is a function of price, what in Heaven’s name does this term mean in economic terms?
4 - A variant of 2c) above is the scenario in this debate for this market, IMO. At one and the same time, you have companies that claim a shortage, but who are unwilling to invest in the training of the people they have for the positions they need to fill. This alleged shortage has been going on for years now, more than enough time for these companies to do the following:
a) get the local schools to produce more graduates, or
b) endow a new school of their own to produce the people they need, or
c) institute in-house training programs to take the best and the brightest employees they have to do the work for which they have a demand.
If they’re not doing these things, then it can only be for one of two reasons:
a) there is no shortage, and they find the H1-B program a convenient way to get workers at a cheap price, or
b) there is a shortage, because they are getting workers on the cheap through the H1-B program, and this gives them no incentive to attempt to produce more of what they need locally, which of course only perpetuates the shortage, and is perfectly consistent with a market regulating demand through shortage when it can’t through the mechanism of price because the price signals have been distorted. (Before you answer that the law has this “prevailing wage” nonsense in it, do a thought experiment: when was the last time you heard of the government being able to set a price for a privately produced good without causing major problems?) Just to explain, because you may have forgotten how this works: the lower price dissuades the potential producers, in this case college students, from getting engineering-related degrees because they can get more money from getting other degrees instead (thereby selling their product elsewhere). If this shortage you’re alleging has gone on for more than four years, that’s good evidence that this is the case.
Now, I’m going to ask you two to do something that might hurt you: think!
If the shortage has been going on for more than four years, and it’s so dang important to these companies to be first to market, ** why in heaven’s name wouldn’t they do everything in their power to produce more engineers?** No way will you ever convince me that a private company with its life at stake is going to just sit back and let itself die, when there are so many avenues to fixing the problem at hand. More likely they can get along fine without these engineers they are so desperate for, and are setting the price lower than what the suppliers deem sufficient for that reason.
I’d love to know what your answer to this is, Jubilation. Or are we to chalk this up to cultural factors?
pantom, you’re hopeless. No matter how many times we point out the fallacies in your arguments, or the gross oversimplifications that you provide, you just won’t give up.
I honestly don’t get you. You pontification on object-oriented programming was absurd, your statements on economics defy common sense (as was repeatedly shown) and your proposal to give immediate permanent residency to foreigners is ridiculous beyond belief. And yet you still persist in regurgitating these pathetic analogies of yours – even though we have listed numerous reasons why these analogies fail.
Your comment, “It’s just an analogy” is unbelievable. You can “prove” anything by offering some fallacious and inapplicable analogy. Analogies can be offered, but they must omit critical characteristics – and they are no substitute for firm data.
You have all the demeanor of someone who is prepared to defend a ridiculous argument to the death. I wash my hands of your lack of common sense.
Only in their simplest form. In other words, this is a simplistic, one-dimensional model which often breaks down in reality. Common sense dictates that supply might equal demand, but that this doesn’t always happen.
Your entire argument is predicated on the premise that supply will always match demand. Any competent economist knows that this doesn’t always happen.
I can’t believe you’re even asking this.
Engineering companies are not universities. They are not in the business of producing engineers. At best, they can only encourage students to enter engineering – and even then, their ability to do so is severely limited. The certainly can’t force students to become engineers – nor can they guarantee that these individuals will have the requisite skills once they graduate.
Additionally, these companies have limited resources, and their need for engineers is IMMEDIATE. One can hardly expect them to expend vast resources in the hope of adding a few more young (and inexperienced!) engineers to the workforce.
In other words, the whole “Companies aren’t producing engineers, so they obviously don’t need more of them” is preposterous from the get-go. If anything, it further betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of the whole anti-H1B argument.
Their need is immediate but the shortage has been going on for years. Uh-huh.
Like I said, THINK!
Of course. There is nothing mutually exclusive about those claims. The need is immediate, and it is not about to be met anytime soon. That is why companies are forced to recruit foreigners.
Since you apparently believe those claims to be mutually exclusive, perhaps you should start heeding your own advice.
I don’t give a damn if they recruit foreigners, Martians or Dalmatians. Long as they don’t do it under the H1-B program.
Illustration of a True Shortage:
Couple of years ago, in our company, we had need of some guys to maintain a truly ancient piece of software we had, until the company could convert out of it. We first tried locally, then instituted a nationwide search, and came up with only 3 candidates, 2 of whom we hired. One was retired, the other working nearby on a contract that was about to end. They were paid well for their stay here.
Of course, all during the Y2K madness we had constant need of guys with oddball experience to look at old systems that were still running and couldn’t be retired in time for the millenium. We could always find some character or other. Oddly enough, no matter how old or how obscure the system, there was somebody with just the right skill set lying around. I personally took part in the conversion of three different systems for Y2K, and interviewed countless people for these systems.
Never once did we have to resort to the H1-B program. Didn’t even pass through our minds once, despite the desperation of our needs.
This is about the umpteenth time I’ve given you highly specific evidence from my own personal experience of just how unnecessary and/or corrupt the H1-B program is. The fact that you ignore it in favor of stentorious ideological statements is certainly no reflection on the information you’ve been given.
Changing tactics again, I see. Oooookay. A moment ago, we were discussing your complaint that engineering companies don’t produce engineers en masse (i.e. why they do not assume the role of universities). I suppose I should be pleased that you’ve abandoned that preposterous argument.
And this is the UMPTEENTH time I’ve pointed out that individual instances of abuse do not mean that the program is unnecessary. Nobody denies that there is room for improvement – heck, Congress has actively passing laws to do so! The need for improvement does not mean that it should be rejected outright.
Your claims about immigration law, economics and the nature of object-oriented programming have all been ridiculous in the extreme. The fact that you’re forced to use ridiculous assertions (e.g. “Companies obviously don’t need more engineers, since they’re not taking it upon themselves to produce these engineers”) shows how preposterous this anti-H1B sentiment is.
Jubilation, you must think calling something ridiculous makes it so. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use the word as many times as you have. Man. Sit back, relax, look out the window, get a grip on reality. When you’re ready to do something other than call names and avoid answering questions (of which I’ve posed a number to which I’ve received no reply in favor of all this name calling) check back in.
Personally, I think it just means that you have no case. And you know it.
PS: I’m not changing tactics. I’ve just been trying, unsuccessfully, to get you to actually answer an argument, or consider some real evidence, instead of calling everything ridiculous and thinking that constitutes an adequate reply.
Obviously not, since I have provided copious counter-examples and reasons why your reasoning is absurd. Besides, as you know full well, I’m hardly the only one who has been denouncing your logic as hopelessly flawed.
Man, you need a serious reality check. YOUR ARGUMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED. No matter how many times you rephrase them, that status will not change. No matter how many time you post anecdotal evidence, it will remain nothing BUT anecdotal evidence. And no matter how many times you build your case based on isolated incidents, they will remain isolated incidents.
Yes you are. Your earlier claim was that the labor need can not possibly be “immediate” if it has also been going on for years. Common sense dictates that the two claims do not contradict each other – in fact, they support one another!
Since that claim has been shown to be absurd, you have now resumed the use of anecdotal evidence – all the while insisting that its representative of the industry at large. Bull.
Obviously then, you’re ignoring the copious reasons that WE have posted, explaining why your arguments are ridiculous in the extreme.
If you want to pretend that all we’ve done is call your statements “ridiculous,” then you’re entitled to that fiction. Any casual reader can look back and see that we’ve presented numerous reasons why your arguments are false – and the vast majority of those arguments have gone unanswered. In other words, you’re the pot, and you’re ridiculing other utensils for being black.
Pantom, do you really want this spelled out for you? It’s really getting old, but I’m willing to oblige one more time.
You claim that the H-1B program is unnecessary, based on the following pithy anecdote:
Let us enumerate the reasons why your argument holds no water.
(1) It is anecdotal evidence, and does not necessarily reflect the industry at large. Hence, it belongs under the vast category of previously answered arguments.
(2) It only reflects the status of your company for that particular project. It does not preclude the possibility that your company might have to recruit an H-1B for other tasks.
(3) It only reflects the status of your company at that given time. Things change, and in the high-tech arena, they can change overnight. Your example does not preclude the possibility that they might need H-1B help at some point in time.
(4) Your example only pertains to your specific company. Other companies can have, and do have, different experiences. In fact, I happen to know several such situations wherein the only qualified person found was a foreign worker. We should not pretend that your limited experience must be extended to the entire engineering industry.
These fallacies should have been immediately obvious to any discerning engineer. Frankly, I’m disappointed that they had to be spelled out for you.
JubilationTCornpone forgot a fifth reason why pantom’s example is fallacious.
(5) It implicitly asserts that the American workers produced the best, most efficient solution. Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes it isn’t. Even if there are Americans who can do a job, that doesn’t necessarily make them the best possible choice.
To be fair, in pantom’s example, there was probably no pressing need to hire a foreigner – but that’s not necessarily the case in other situations.
As for pantom’s assertion that JTC is doing nothing but call his claims “ridiculous” – that is ridiculous in itself. Pantom, you must be exercising very selective reading.
Just look back at the past three pages of postings. One can immediately see many explanations of why pantom’s claims are erroneous. Heck, many of these explanations are long and fairly exhaustive. Only a blind man could possibly fail to see them.
Heck, in my opinion, many of those explanations aren’t even necessary! For example, any fool can see that there’s no contradiction between saying “The need for engineers is immediate” and “The need for engineers has been going on for years.” If anything, the latter claim implies the former! If this need has not been met for many years, then of course it’s immediate – persistent and immediate!
But of course, it’s easier for pantom to pretend that a conflict exists – just as it’s easier for him to pretend that his arguments are not being refuted, on a point-by-point basis. Fortunately, anyone with basic reading skills can look back and see otherwise.