> Equally striking is what did not happen. Employment of low-skill American workers at losing firms did not increase. Across all firms the effect of foreign hiring on US employment was zero or positive, and in a prespecified subsample of rural firms it was significantly positive, with an elasticity of 0.61, meaning that for every one percent increase in H-2B workers there was just over half a percent increase in US workers.
> "If you don't allow firms to hire immigrant workers, they just become smaller firms," Lewis said. "They are not replaced with US workers. Instead, the output of the firm shrinks, and there are fewer total workers."
This is incredibly important. Everyone who fears immigration is going to take their job should read this and realize that fear is not only false but inverted.
You're thinking of second-tier and third-tier tech companies, big banks, insurance and telecom companies, consulting shops.
Big Tech pays enough to hire whoever it wants, regardless of nationality.
The evidence is they continue to pay obscene wages to people to work in the most expensive parts of the country: Silicon Valley and SF, NYC, Seattle. Until very recently even new grads made close to $250k at FAANG (MAAMA? whatever it is) and peer companies.
Big Tech could easily hire in cheaper American cities, save a ton of money, hire only citizens, avoid the visa hassles of hiring foreigners. But they don't. Because they can't hire enough.
Having the people they want, in the places they want them working, really, really matters to them. Much more than saving a few bucks.
If it were restricted from hiring in America, Big Tech would have invested even more in global capability centers instead.
I can think of few things more threatening to big tech SWEs in Silicon Valley than their management becoming more comfortable with work done outside of the US.
> they could make it more incentive to hire citizens
There's already an incentive. Visas cost time and money. They add uncertainty to hiring. If Big Tech companies go through the hassle it's because they really want the people they want. We've already established that money (for salaries) is no object to them.
> And they could incentivize the companies to help prop up education so they do have more and more people that they can hire.
Why can't people get a bachelor's degree and grind Leetcode for free on their own? Big Tech jobs are prestigious and highly-paid, with outstanding working conditions and benefits. These are highly sought-after jobs.
I believe Big Tech companies have already hired effectively all of the citizens who are interested and qualified. It's not companies' job to "prop up education".
> government investing in citizens
I agree the government should do more of that. That's what taxes are for. It should use them for productive purposes.
JoshTriplett · · focus · HN ↗
> "If you don't allow firms to hire immigrant workers, they just become smaller firms," Lewis said. "They are not replaced with US workers. Instead, the output of the firm shrinks, and there are fewer total workers."
This is incredibly important. Everyone who fears immigration is going to take their job should read this and realize that fear is not only false but inverted.
ozgrakkurt · · focus · HN ↗
I don’t think limiting immigration like this is a good thing. But this also doesn’t mean that it isn’t hurting local people.
Big tech would have been super heavily invested in education if they weren’t getting an endless stream of high-performing well-educated immigrants
triceratops · · focus · HN ↗
Big Tech pays enough to hire whoever it wants, regardless of nationality.
The evidence is they continue to pay obscene wages to people to work in the most expensive parts of the country: Silicon Valley and SF, NYC, Seattle. Until very recently even new grads made close to $250k at FAANG (MAAMA? whatever it is) and peer companies.
Big Tech could easily hire in cheaper American cities, save a ton of money, hire only citizens, avoid the visa hassles of hiring foreigners. But they don't. Because they can't hire enough.
Having the people they want, in the places they want them working, really, really matters to them. Much more than saving a few bucks.
If it were restricted from hiring in America, Big Tech would have invested even more in global capability centers instead.
I can think of few things more threatening to big tech SWEs in Silicon Valley than their management becoming more comfortable with work done outside of the US.
ozgrakkurt · · focus · HN ↗
And they could incentivize the companies to help prop up education so they do have more and more people that they can hire.
But government not working FOR the companies and government investing in citizens is foreign to USA.
Also think USA wouldn’t be successful like it is if they did these things but it might have been better for their citizens
triceratops · · focus · HN ↗
There's already an incentive. Visas cost time and money. They add uncertainty to hiring. If Big Tech companies go through the hassle it's because they really want the people they want. We've already established that money (for salaries) is no object to them.
> And they could incentivize the companies to help prop up education so they do have more and more people that they can hire.
Why can't people get a bachelor's degree and grind Leetcode for free on their own? Big Tech jobs are prestigious and highly-paid, with outstanding working conditions and benefits. These are highly sought-after jobs.
I believe Big Tech companies have already hired effectively all of the citizens who are interested and qualified. It's not companies' job to "prop up education".
> government investing in citizens
I agree the government should do more of that. That's what taxes are for. It should use them for productive purposes.