

Immigrant Scientists Create Jobs and Win Nobels  - yarapavan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322004574477700761571592.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter

======
geebee
This article reminds me of the "sample bias" Phil Greenspun wrote about in his
career guide for women in science

<http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science>

When our policy makers think about PhD's in the sciences, they form their
opinion by talking to the dean of MIT and/or nobel prize winners. They don't
see how underpaid and disappointing many of these careers really are, or that
"Adjusted for IQ, quantitative skills, and working hours, jobs in science are
the lowest paid in the United States."

It's not just greenspun, of course. CNN listed "Research Scientist" as one of
the "Big Jobs with Low Pay." A RAND institute study recently concluded that
the low interest of US students in math/science research was the result of
uncompetitive pay and work conditions.

I do think that the US should make an effort to retain top talent in these
fields, but I have trouble taking an editorial seriously if it completely
fails to acknowledge how uncompetitive research science careers have become
with law, medicine, mba, and other paths available to very smart people.

Loosening out immigration laws for these folks and allowing the percentage of
foreign nationals in our PhD programs to rise even higher (and it's already
very high) will allow the US to fill some science positions without addressing
this discrepancy for a while longer... but not forever.

Someday, maybe I'll get to read an editorial by an MIT dean that acknowledges
how unattractive PhDs in science have become for Americans, and what to do
about it that doesn't amount to "more visas for foreigners."

------
yummyfajitas
The article seems to assume we need more PhD scientists. Here is a
counterpoint, which argues that we actually overproduce PhD scientists.

[http://www.businessweek.com/print/smallbiz/content/oct2007/s...](http://www.businessweek.com/print/smallbiz/content/oct2007/sb20071025_827398.htm)

(I think the actual problem is that we overproduce _low quality_ PhD
scientists, but the assumption that we have a shortage isn't right.)

~~~
iuybuyvvyu
Law of supply and demand.

If there was only a 100 science PhDs granted each year in th eUSA then they
would be able to demand a high salary as industry fought for their services.
This would in no way reduce the innovation of industry of force them to move
their R+D overseas.

No wonder they call economics the dismal science

------
kvs
"But that openness stands in sharp contrast to arcane U.S. immigration
policies that discourage young scholars from settling in the U.S." I am an
immigrant. Whether I am a "scientist" is debatable but the above statement is
disingenuous. I think, sometimes people mix-up the highly talented pool of
immigrant with IT works... I am yet to see Ph.Ds refused visas and what not
(not to say one need a Ph.D. to do something useful).

~~~
iuybuyvvyu
To work in the USA with a PhD, even as a professor you need an H1B - you are
subject to the same quotas and limitations as other H1B IT workers.

~~~
kvs
No you're not. It is not the same quota.

~~~
iuybuyvvyu
That's a recent change - it used to be very difficult to get academic staff
into the US, even for international research programs. It's why a lot of
international scientific projects aren't head quartered in the US anymore.

------
anateus
In general, in the long term, immigration is vastly a net positive.

The waves of migration from Europe in the early 20th century brought with them
their share of crime and poverty. There was even a jewish mafia, but I'll
stake that right against Feynman any day.

In general, technology and education are the best contributions to
productivity growth, which in turn is the best proxy we currently have to good
living ("happiness economics" is a growing field that aims to produce a better
proxy). These immigrants are making life better for everyone.

Full disclosure: I have immigrated twice, about to get my US citizenship
(passed the test, need to be sworn in). Probably not gonna win a nobel prize,
but as an entrepreneur hope to be creating jobs.

~~~
geebee
It always surprises me that people talk about "immigration" as if it's a
binary field, either on or off. To me, it's all about degree. There's an ideal
level of immigration - go too high over it, and it leads to overcrowding,
social upheaval, displacement. Go too low, and a society stagnates.

It's not just about numbers, of course, it's also about the type of immigrant.
While it may be politically incorrect to say so, migrant farm workers who send
most of their earnings home may very well result in a net loss, whereas highly
educated workers result in a net gain.

The issue is so intense in the US that I think it's productive to ask how
you'd design an immigration system for a smaller country with lower population
density. Right now, New Zealand has a population of about 4 mil and a land
mass only a bit smaller than California.

Would New Zealanders be better off if fifty million immigrants came into the
country over the next 20 years? If not, how many immigrants would you consider
to be ideal? It's not all about GDP - it's a beautiful country, essentially a
giant national park, and that would be lost if they allowed mass immigration.

------
mkramlich
but the vast majority of immigrants to the US take jobs and don't win
Nobels.... so? :)

~~~
sfnhltb
Except for every immigrant that comes in taking a job, they also come with an
indivisible consumer unit that makes other people jobs. Strangely almost
always in an average $1:1 ratio.

This probably explains things like why the population of the US roughly
trebled over the last 100 years and yet unemployment didn't rise to 66%+ of
the working population during that time.

~~~
codexon
I don't understand this.

There is no proof that immigrants spend nearly all the money they earn. In
fact, I would argue that they are frequently more frugal so the money is
locked away from the economy.

And I would also not attribute immigrants as the main factor to why
unemployment did not rise to 66%. The main reasons that the number of jobs
grew rapidly can be attributed to the auto and computer industry.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Don't forget about remittance. Lots of immigrants send a chunk of their income
back home. Think of the ads, _Can I send money to {[India, Mexico,
...]|random} and get free cell phone minutes?_

Incidentally, the point is not that immigration prevented unemployment from
rising to 66%, but simply that the number of jobs tends to be proportional to
the size of the population. New people == new jobs.

~~~
codexon
"Don't forget about remittance."

Remittance doesn't help the US dollar. It hurts the US dollar. As foreign
exchange banks need to make a profit, for every USD -> Rupee exchange, they
are giving you less rupees for your dollar. Its just like buying gold. If a
bunch of people start buying gold, the price will skyrocket against the
currency you are buying it with.

" but simply that the number of jobs tends to be proportional to the size of
the population. New people == new jobs."

Sorry but I don't believe that. More people does not necessarily equate more
jobs. If you have a city that has food and water for 500 people, you are bound
by that restriction. Adding another 500 people to it would not increase any
jobs.

