Is that what you got out of it? Seems like some bias might have been brought to the reading, since at no point did they “contrast” US workers from what I see. They simply stated they are pro-immigration because they view them as beneficial additions to the US workforce? So the better question is why did you feel the need to inject such an argument rather than receiving what was actually said?
We're talking early boom? Like WW2 era? It was more industrial. If we are defining tech worker as a person that worked at a factory for technology, I am pretty sure there is a history of immigration there too.
I don't think we could cleanly say either way though, it would come down to nitpicking the definition of "tech worker". I have no real interest in that, and will grant you could look at it either way.
That’s a whataboutism. The original question is why many US tech workers support open borders for tech labor when the supply increase primarily hits the wages and bargaining power of workers already here.
Nope it is not. It is an explanation for why you see it. You said you can’t understand why people are not trying to prevent new people over entering the tech labour market in US.
They simply see that the longterm gain for everyone is higher by having more people do high-value creating jobs vs the shortterm strategy of pulling up the ladder after yourself.
I support open borders (yes open borders) because I support human rights. Migration is natural and human. Limiting migration limits people's ability to improve their circumstance. Closed borders also limit society's ability to benefit from migranta because they are stuck in an unproductive situation.
That's not what I am asking. I want to know why US-born people in tech is/was so pro open border when it clearly does not benefit US labor. You don't get a lot of push-back from within tech against these hiring practices.
I think the answer is that it depends upon who is talking and how the question is asked. Many recognize that it helps the US to import great talent. But people also recognize the downward pressure on wages and the sometimes explicit racism that appears. It's not usual to hear stories of managers who only want to hire people with the same skin color.
So if you ask the question in general, you'll get some basic support. But if you ask, perhaps, about H1B abuse you'll find that people will often confirm that it occurs.
I used to have more open attitudes, probably mostly stemming from the idea that America should take in the best and the brightest and that was a big driver of Americas rise to power. I sort of see it more like a Trojan horse as used in the last 30 - 40 years.
30 and 40 years ago H-1b visa essentially represented a source of indentured servile class of employee. People with no rights and enough fear to keep their mouths shut. If your trojan horse reference relates to these people getting permanent status and job mobility and leadership positions then sure. I would agree. On the other hand there is no coordinated malice here. Just individuals who graduated from the exploited immigrant to the tech leader who now manages a team of their countrymen hoping for thier own trojan horse opportunity.
I'm not really sure how to clarify what I mean by Trojan horse. I think people respond to incentives so I don't really care how people take advantage of that. I do think that there is some shortsightedness on the part of the people that created the incentives. If not shortsightedness perhaps a cultural cynicism on one or the other side of the exchange.
My tier 2 US tech Bay Area office is 80% immigrants from one country on visa (H1-B or OPT). They never say no, and they are willing to work any hours and take meetings at any time. 90% of management up to CTO is from the same country. This is for tech, its a little less lopsided in non-tech divisions. Most of them used this pipeline (I've checked LinkedIn): 2 years of non-spectacular experience in home country, cheap US master, possibly internship in US company with same ethnic makeup, then OPT, then shoot for the H1-B in company with manager from same country.
American grads now compete with ethnic hiring, foreign work morals, and possibly billions of people with not-so-impressive experience, which I assume is why we see the crowding out of locals. Add to that some groups generally having less scruples about cheating and lying in the application process, as well as being trained in school for passing tests rather than performance, and you get what we see now.
Right. I've seen the same thing in Seattle Wworking places with large numbers of H1-Bs. By and large, the H1-B employees are so desperate to keep their jobs and see so little hope of advancement not extra rewards that they'll work as slow as possible while preserving their careers.
Around the kinds of people who politically put job security above excellent client results, you really do need to work harder to get less done.
It was a good experience. You'd learn more in 4 years at a brick and mortar since you spend more time and homework there. Great option if you already know much of the material though, but i think they only admit US and Canadian people.
I liked that it was async but still proctored exams, and they provided great access to teachers and so on.
That's that idea out the window then! They should open up to international students, I reckon they'd clean up, the only real competitor in the UK would be the Open University and WGU has significant cost and time savings over it.
