I interviewed someone last week for a European multi-national. He was a dream candidate, with much more experience than me (I wasn't interviewing him as a manager, but as a potential colleague) and for much bigger companies than me (Yahoo! to name one) and I probably over-compensated in the technical interview because his resume put mine to shame, but he answered all the questions and we had a good chat about various technologies relating to the position. The only reason he wanted to leave San Fran was because he had to as he is an Indian and having visa issues - so now a European company gets the talent. Thanks, America!
"India’s best and brightest swept inland, helped turn a valley full of orchards to Silicon."
Uh, no. Those orchards were gone long before South Asians came to Silicon Valley in significant numbers. The demographic makeup of SV engineers was overwhelmingly white American until around a dozen years ago.
With the importation of so many engineers into the US, wages were suppressed and many American students who had the potential to become engineers made the rational decision to pursue other career paths.
"The demographic makeup of SV engineers was overwhelmingly white American until around a dozen years ago."
A dozen years ago was 1997. Do you seriously think this is true?
"With the importation of so many engineers into the US, wages were suppressed..."
You seem to think that white Americans work hard to "create" jobs, which are then "stolen" by hordes of immigrants. In other words, white Americans "give" and immigrants "take". That's just not how it works.
Immigrants in SV are on average smarter and work harder than Americans - not because there's something wrong with Americans, but because these immigrants are a highly biased sample of the world's huge population.
"A dozen years ago was 1997. Do you seriously think this is true?"
Of course. That's why I wrote it. This is based on my living and working in SV at the time.
"You seem to think that white Americans work hard to "create" jobs, which are then "stolen" by hordes of immigrants. In other words, white Americans "give" and immigrants "take". That's just not how it works."
Who are you quoting when you put quotes around the words "create", "stolen", "give", and "take"? Are you trying to give the impression that you are quoting me?
The wage issue is basic economics: if you increase the quantity supplied of something (such as wheat, or trained engineers), the price will drop.
No, it's not supply/demand economics, that was my point. It would be if Americans created jobs that immigrants later filled. That is not happening.
Rather, both Americans and immigrants worked hard to build a tech industry that then created jobs. Without the immigrants, the Americans would not have been able to create an industry more significant than, say, the Japanese or Italian tech industry. Thus many jobs would not exist, and the wages would not be higher.
You did not say words like "create", "stolen", "give", and "take", but they are implicit in making your supply/demand argument work.
I am morally opposed to immigration restrictions in general. But I agree with dbc. An increased supply in engineers lowers price (wages). If all immigrants left SF tomorrow, the companies left short would bid up the price of an engineer. That is basic economics.
The words you have put in quotes are the moral judgements you believe are attached to those events. dbc gave no indication of such a position. He is just talking abut the dynamics of the market. An engineering shortage would have encouraged more engineering training. The number of white engineers is not static.
*The other things that would happen if immigrant left is that it would become more rational to hire engineers outside of SF ultimately damaging the prosperity of the city. SF engineers should not want to lose the immigrants.
With the importation of so many engineers into the US, wages were suppressed and many American students who had the potential to become engineers made the rational decision to pursue other career paths.
You're assuming that it's a zero sum game, and that there's only a limited number of engineering jobs available.
What about all the companies that immigrants and immigrant children started? Ebay, Yahoo, Google, etc... All those jobs created by those companies would not exist hat it not been for immigration.
"For decades, those swells traversed the Pacific and smashed to rolling white breakers south of San Francisco. India’s best and brightest swept inland, helped turn a valley full of orchards to Silicon. And Silicon turned to gold, as baby-faced kings with Coke-bottle glasses made millions overnight."
Could someone please summarize the factual content of the article? The title makes me interested, but I don't have the patience to wade through the novelist-wannabee writing.
I looked at the HN comments page expecting to see the usual: a bunch of sycophantic comments to the effect of "America is evil! Her immigration policies are backward!!" I wasn't disappointed.
But I'm glad somebody else noticed the pretentious, creative writing 101 nature of the writing. This author is someone who has yet to learn the value of simple, effective language.
> Hopefully we can get it changed in the next couple of years.
The problems aren't new. It's unclear what's changed recently that would allow them to be fixed.
In fact, I suspect that they're actually going to get worse, as protectionism is the first response to economic woes.
Also the folks who say that they care about making it easier for "the best and the brightest" to come to the US insist on joining forces with the "let everyone in" folks. The two issues are separable and latter has considerably more opposition. If the former is your real goal....
I have no doubt that expelling and turning away top Asian talent is bad for American business innovation, but there is another problem here. The advanced degree system is not designed to benefit the individual. I think the amount of work one must put in and the financial rewards one reaps upon graduation are out of sync. PG says as much in his essays.
For a business, they know that if someone has been willing to put up with eight years of crap as a student, they're likely to put up with many more years of it as an employee. Maybe there needs to be a visa program for Asian students without advanced degrees who are starting businesses.
> Maybe there needs to be a visa program for Asian students without advanced degrees who are starting businesses.
Or smart people, period. I'm Canadian and have an undergrad degree in Psych and Computer Science. I've written code at big media companies that you've heard of and started an online education company from scratch with an American co-founder that's growing nicely.
All told I've helped generate millions for the economy and created hundreds of jobs for Americans, and it's still a pain in the ass for me to start a company in the US (technically, I can start a company without problems. But working for a company I start is nearly impossible w/o an American co-founder).
I think the limit on H1B's will benefit large multi-nationals and harm smaller American based companies. I also think it will benefit the American born engineer.
The multi-nationals like IBM, Cisco, et al have already moved many of their engineering jobs overseas. They also have the big bucks to pay American citizens to do those jobs. The result is that smaller firms must rely on them for contractors and consultants which increases the price for these engineers even more.
The result is that engineers get paid more money to do local work through multinational corporations who farm them out to the smaller firms without the resources to find them or the deep pockets to give them permanent salaried jobs.
It also increases the prices for technology for local firms who can't afford custom systems or assistance developing their wares.
Either way, I'm not sure "American" companies are harmed, there is a division among the companies in America who are harmed and those who benefit. The large ones with offices overseas may very well benefit, relative to the harm done to smaller firms.
Also, American citizens will benefit through the availability of cheaper products produced in foreign lands, including software and hardware products. Holding America up as a torch doesn't make much sense here because all of america won't experience the same effect.
Furthermore, there is a lot of criticism of the program because many economists, including Milton Friedman have called it a "corporate subsidy" and others argue that there in fact are enough americans to fill the technology positions.
Really, there is a lot of irrationality on both sides of the debate. Arguments are made on "right now" rather than the future of America. It is only the corporations who are saying that this issue has a deliterious effect on our future. They say we need to change the policy for our future, because they are feeling the pain right now. I'm not really sure who is right.
Fabulously written? Please. The writing was sophomoric and cluttered with pretentious metaphors and turns of phrase. The fledgling writer's first attempt at self-aggrandization.
Agree. I was willing to roll with it through the couple of introductory paragraphs, thinking this was just how the writer chose to set the stage for their piece. However I abandoned reading half-way through after realizing that every sentence in the article was going to be a throbbing, oozing purple jumble. Metaphor should be the spice of writing, not the base, otherwise it loses all power and simply becomes cloying.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with writers who have a bit of personality. But you're probably correct (I did not, however, deserve that downmod) that it's even possible to write badly about an interesting topic.
