Winning the visa lottery(aeaweb.org) |
Winning the visa lottery(aeaweb.org) |
Mmmm... It seems in the world of politics, esp. populist politics, more facts don't bring better policies. They are simply ignored, or accused of being lies pushed by the ennemies.
> "We have all the facts on this we need. We don't need any more facts. In the land of truth, my friend, the man with one fact is the king."
-- Linton Barwick, In The Loop (2009)
"Economist X says there's relation R between variables P and Q" Meanwhile another economist might have found a different result.. or not have published a non-effect. Or have found the effect to be non-existent given confounders.
The danger is when/if people selectively choose studies, that just so happens to repeat what their ideology would dictate.
So maybe evidence does help, but what detracts from its effectiveness is how it is presented. Like we see every day on various public forums including this one, arguments are made in a rather heated manner, which are probably not conducive to making the other side more receptive to ideas. I'm not sure if this might be the confounding in these previous studies.
LLMs have the advantage of infinite patience and RLHF'd dispassionate mannerisms and the presumption of no vested interests. But that also means your friend could be technically right.
Humans have a machinery reinforcing their world view. Contradicting observations and facts are usually ignored or interpreted such that it matches their already held opinions.
An AUS Utopia reference would probably be more fitting though.
But more often, the “fact” does not address the individual’s issues, and the individual may give a stupid counterargument (“…lie pushed by my enemies…”) but they have a legitimate one. In this case, I guarantee there are specific people who’ve been indisputably replaced by H1Bs, maybe clustered in specific reasons, and maybe specific fields. Telling these people “overall H1Bs create jobs” won’t convince them.
Like telling poor people “the economy is improving, inflation is only 0.x%”. Both may be true in general at the population level, but to the person you’re speaking to, they don’t matter; economic improvements can go to others while they suffer more.
I feel like this has been a big failing of one (left) side of politics in recent years. Quick to state 'facts' as arguments but those haven't landed as well as they have in the past (15 - 20+ years ago), for whatever reasons...
> "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.
I feel like the wording "low-skill" has become a technical term that doesn't mean what the word says and it makes people make assumptions they shouldn't with regards to these jobs. A lot of these so called low skill jobs require a highly specific job experience and/or productivity to simply keep pace and not drag down the rest of the team. We talk about Joel Spolsky and how a poor hire in a software development team can hurt morale but it simply isn't that big of a factor with us as it is in these so called low-skilled jobs but we aren't ready for that conversation.
Also about housing, who do you think builds all these additional housing units if we don't bring in the labor we need to build them?
Did the economists who ran this study miss this? Do they explain it?
The "investment in equipment, vehicles, and structures" seem to be referring to Capital-labor ratio, a metric in economics that is often attributed as a good indicator of company productivity. I wonder if firms would still prefer to invest in labor force in lieu of capital, given the greater revenue multiple achieved by capital investment.
While this study pertains to US labor force, it is also salient to the Japanese economy. Here in Japan, we have a shrinking working population. Firms have responded by importing labor from abroad and investing in capital (e.g. automation). For example, convenience stores would hire foreigners, but eventually reduce headcount when they install self-serviced checkout.
More worrying to me is that enrollment of foreign students is down 10% in 2026-7.
I know economic opportunity isn't everything, but to me as Founder that's still a big appeal :)
> not found
Yet another chamber of commerce article clamoring for more cheap labor without addressing where all of these people are supposed to live.
And what other issues would you like to see besides housing and employment in the article?
(That's not inherently a universal problem, especially if you're talking about the entire labor market. But it's a problem in many places.)
Proving that the issue is capitalism and its systemic need for a reserve army of labour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour) to pressure people to accept unfair conditions of living/work
It's probably the single most harmful mind virus in economics next to thinking a communism-style command economy is a good idea.
This is only because immigrants are willing to do jobs at wages and working conditions that locals do not accept. Employers in the Finnish berry industry were just jailed for human trafficking. Meanwhile the same companies have been loudly complaining that no Finn wants to work for them.
I would partially disagree with this assertion (immigrants are clearly very constrained in their job mobility, and their wages are correspondingly suppressed) but what TFA and other similar studies and history show, it's not like wages increase for native employees with lower immigration. Typically what happens is that there just aren't enough people to do the work, and so the work just doesn't get done, which is why businesses just don't grow.
Sometimes the economics just don't work out. Relevant berry-related example, California farmers often have had to let entire years' worth of strawberries rot in the field when they could not find enough farmhands to pick them. And they did try raising wages and perks: https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/california-farmers-have-ra...
But sometimes even with the right economics there just are not enough workers. TFA gels with my experience working in Tech in the US for almost 2 decades, conducting countless interviews for positions that I know paid very well, and just not finding enough qualified candidates regardless of visa status, which constantly put significant constraints on our roadmaps.
There are similar issues in agriculture, hospitality, and construction. Many jobs are seasonal and require you to live away from home. And because the outputs are supposed to be affordable, they don't pay enough to support you for the rest of the year. So you need an actual job, which is probably nicer and pays enough that you don't want the seasonal job anymore.
Unionization demonstrably leverages benefits out of corporations, so I'm inclined to think that immigration bans would have the same effect.
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
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.
That's not how you write "cheap".
But remember, cotton was once also cheap because of the endless stream of immigrants, consequences are paid every day since.
At least in theory, many people perpetuating this myth are at least nominally convinced that it must be obviously true, because the zero-sum thinking is simpler than the reality.
Of course, the other problem is people going "my anecdote beats your study", because they personally know someone who blames immigration for losing their job, and a study of people in general still lets someone go "ah, but that's not always true".
Facts are much lesd helpful here because half of the perceived problem is emotional.
2. Not everything can be answered by gdp; there is a real issue of culture and values that could become eroded by huge influx of immigration causing societal strife.
So the trade is your country gets (sort of) richer overall and the elites get richer while the average person gets poorer.
If you're okay with that outcome, then yes no need to worry about the data!
> 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.
That would not happen if "cleaner" were a slightly better-paid job and "scrum master" had to become a slightly worse paid job. "Who will pick the cotton?" is a classic, but that doesn't make it automatically correct.
E.g. to move to the capital permanently from outside you're basically under the same scrutiny as an immigrant on a greencard.
I'll preface this by saying that the topic is highly contentious in economics. There is no "consensus." The main issue is that with large systems, it is impossible to isolate individual factors like immigration and their effects on other individual factors, like employment, job growth, wages, working conditions, etc.
Let's start with the article, which is narrower than you state. The study covers 472 firms in the 2021–22 H-2B lotteries. Mainly temporary/seasonal low-skill jobs such as landscaping, hospitality, and seafood processing. You cannot jump from that to “immigrants don't take American jobs”.
Further, across all firms, the estimated effect on U.S. employment was positive, but very modest and imprecise. Roughly +0.06 to +0.19 elasticity. The authors themselves say it “does not reduce, and *may* raise” U.S. employment. [Note that the highlight figure of 0.61 is only for rural firms. It is a pre-specified subgroup and the statistical test comes in at p = 0.05. It should not be presented as the result for American workers generally.] Even if the effect is mildly positive, does that negate the negative effects on wages, competition, displacements, housing prices, etc?
We should also remember that H-2B firms are a very particular sample. Employers in this programme must recruit Americans, accept qualified available U.S. applicants, and meet prevailing-wage rules. These are firms specifically seeking temporary foreign labour after going through a labour-market test. That makes extrapolating the result to the whole labour market impossible. Further, the study tells us what happened inside firms that won or lost access to H-2B workers. It doesn't by itself establish what happens to wages, competing firms, workers elsewhere, or every category of immigration.
Let's zoom out. The broader body of research is far more mixed. For example, the [National Academies concluded that immigration's long-run effect on native wages and employment overall is generally small, but found that negative effects can fall disproportionately on workers who are close substitutes, particularly previous immigrants and sometimes native high-school dropouts.](https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/new-report-assesses-t...) The [CBO found short-term downward wage pressure for some less-educated workers from recent immigration.](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60569)
[This is one of the best and most cited longitudinal studies on immigration ever conducted.](https://docs.iza.org/dp8961.pdf) I'll summarise for you. Denmark accepted a large number of refugees between 1986 and 1998. The study tracks their progress over time, and the impact to natives. The authors found that the influx had a profound negative effect on low skilled natives. The refugees were primarily from low education backgrounds, and immediately displaced natives in jobs like driving, delivery, farming, painting, etc. This forced the natives to leave their professions and up-skill. Thankfully Denmark offers not just free higher education, but monthly allowances to those studying. Natives utilised this, and eventually moved into higher paying work. The outcome of the study is mixed, because on one hand, natives eventually ended up earning more overall, as they moved into white collar professions. On the other hand, I'm not sure they were happy to be forced to leave their chosen professions. The study doesn't evaluate life outcomes, happiness, satisfaction, or any other similar metrics.
What we can surmised from this is that an influx of low-skilled immigrants displaces low-skilled natives. They must be given intensive assistance to retrain if they are not to be harmed. In a nation like Denmark, this is less of a problem. In a nation like America, this is a very big problem. Indeed it follows what we have observed internationally, with low-skilled natives pushing back hardest against high unskilled immigration. They are worst affected by the negative externalities of immigration. And there are many studied negative externalities. I alluded to some above, and they include downward pressure on wages and working conditions, increased competition for jobs and places in universities, higher rent and property prices, higher crime (depending on the originating nation of the immigrant, their level of education, and their reason for immigrating), etc.
I will end by conceding that the U.S. does a better job of integrating immigrants than arguably any other nation on Earth. From the research, this appears to be attributable to a) high national pride and identity, allowing immigrants to assimilate into "the American way," and feeling like a member of the nation, b) poor social safety nets, forcing immigrants into work, and discouraging immigrants from entering who would prefer not to work, and c) a culture of hard work and ambition. European immigration has been far less successful, and has had profound negative effects across society.
tl;dr the poorest and least skilled tend to be the most impacted by immigration - especially low-skilled immigration. Those in white collars professions tend to be the least impacted. All economics and immigration policies carry both positive and negative outcomes. People are often very quick to point out the positive outcomes without admitting to the negative outcomes.
What happens when immigrants force people out of the highest-skilled job tiers, and there is no higher tier to upskill into? Here in the US, with the H1-B program, we're being told that these immigrants are only for the very highest levels of skill, which the American workforce lacks.
So for example, it's impossible change the ranking of brands in peoples' minds, in a given category (not absolutely impossible, but extremely hard). But what's possible, is create your own category, and own it.
The book gives the example of 7UP which famously branded itself as the "Uncola". It could do that because it was clear instead of dark; but the point was to create a different category instead of trying to fight Coca-Cola on its own turf.
I think this works in many other fields. People who fight against oppression are good; but if you label them "terrorists" they're bad -- worse than bad: they're not really people any more.
Politics is not a game of facts, it's a game of labels.
[0] Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind (1981)
That being said, having shared experience can help, at least anecdotally, in being able to come to terms with wildly differing views. One example I have is with my brother. With the same event we had come away with a drastically different understanding. The facts between us all checked out, and we confirmed it many times. Yet the shared vocabulary gave us a way of acknowledging the others disagreement in the shared experience.
As a conclusion, immigration does not affect low skilled jobs in any way. No matter what the politicians propose, increase immigration or decrease immigration, their situation is more or less the same.
While the average salary decreases in this scenario it is entirely down to composition effects and does not necessarily mean anyone gets poorer.
Everyone existing employee's wages stay the same. The new immigrant paid less than the previous average but more than they were being paid in the country they moved from.
Its the floating table. You knock all the legs of their argument down and their belief only gets stronger. They are not switched on.
No. I just want it. That's the part you don't seem to get. It's a preference. There's no reason or rationale that you can attempt to short-circuit with any fact.
>ts the floating table. You knock all the legs of their argument down and
They're not arguing with you. They're attempting to tell you that this is their preference. That they won't change their mind. Sometimes they're bad at it, can't articulate it. Other times they say this perfectly clearly... doesn't much matter, because you're not listening. You hear what you want to hear (like above, with "you think the apple pie has vitamins!").
>and their belief only gets stronger. They are not switched on.
It's not belief. That's actually frustration. And a little bit of spite.
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
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.
Locals are not living in a house with 8 other day-workers and 1 bathroom, hence they need completely different ranges of wages.
It simply is not economical to pay that much higher wages given the low prices people want to pay for produce, and they waste anywhere from 30% to a full years' worth of crops. Forget "preserving margins," they typically straight up take a huge financial loss on their investments up to that point.
So really, it's not just a simplistic choice between cheap immigrant labor or expensive native labor, it is also about farmers actually having a viable business, and everyone getting affordable produce -- very often, including people who really need that food: https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2019/10/california-...
I don't know what the actual economics are, but it's very conceivable that, after considering all the people involved, it is better for cheap immigrant workers to undercut expensive native workers as long as the majority of people get more affordable food and farmers can keep their businesses going.
>>> "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."
So, no, if they had no choice they just shrink their operations, it seems. The apparent conclusion is that immigration bans will just force those companies to reduce operations or shut down, instead of paying higher wages to locals.
The outcome could have been different had all of them lost access due to a foreign labor ban.
Well market forces will quickly align these back to reality, unless somebody will keep pumping in tons of money to subsidize this.
I think this is where the distinction between "imported" and "locally produced" berries becomes important. My guess is there are interests pumping money to keep local production going.
it's a long road to get there. but it's the only way that is going to work.
Torment nexii on the stick axis.
a lot of weight has to be given to 'what works' - what things grind up against the machinery of reality and survive over the long term? there is a 'truth' to such things
This, in itself, assumes that all studies / papers are equally as good and methodologically sound, which is not a true assumption.
https://www.fbk.eu/en/press-releases/artificial-intelligence...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61345-5
https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09662
The naive interpretation is that these companies would pay higher wages without access to H1B workers.
Studies like TFA suggest that is not actually true. Companies in all sectors are constrained by the availability of skilled labor and to some extent are paying what they can afford.
Reducing the number of H1B visas would likely hurt employers to the extent that their workers would suffer. It is not sensible to pretend that all of those jobs would still exist if you cut the H1B program.
One major issue I did not touch on above is that it is unequivocally true that immigration grows GDP. What is not unequivocal is that immigration grows GDP per capita, and I think this matter a lot more than the top line figure. American immigrants usually grow GDP per capita, but it depends on the migrant group and reason for migration. Refugees are usually a net loss, for example. To point: most of the gains in GDP growth have been accrued to the top 1-10% over the last few decades. Meaning that high immigration is great for business and asset owners. As someone who is displaced by immigration, unless you own a lot of assets, you will bear the cost of immigration without experiencing any of the gains.
This is the premise of a fascinating paper by [Eric Weinstein from 2001.](https://www.ilo.org/publications/migration-benefit-all-towar...) He proposed an "immigrant dividend." Since the costs are usually borne by the poor, and the gains usually accrued to the rich, there should be some mechanism to rebalance this. His proposal is a fee which companies need to pay to the government for hiring an immigrant. For the sake of discussion, let's say this is $1M. This money is then used to compensate the people most affected. It could be money split evenly between everyone, or targeted for those most impacted.
This aligns multiple negative incentives with public good. For starters, there is a widespread belief that companies like Microsoft regularly fire (or fail to hire) good local employees because they can hire much cheaper (and desperate) foreign workers, who will not complain if they are asked to work 70 hour weeks. Secondly, it compensates people affected by these practises, so they can be made whole. Third, it forces companies to only hire immigrants when there is a genuine skills shortage. Fourth, it encourages companies to upskill employees (this is a major issue right now) - or at least partake in improving education across the nation.
If companies were forced to pay an immigrant dividend, I think we would immediately discover that very few of those "genuine" skill shortages were real, and instead it was really a shortage of people willing to work for low pay and poor conditions.
The question is whether jobs in low-margin industries would exist at all if the immigrant workers weren't there to do it. It's not cut and dried, but the research tends to suggest that cutting immigration would hurt both employers and the workforce.
My last employer (manufacturing sector) flat out refused to consider paying $100,000 for a non-resident H1B. Employers that did fork out were likely hiring top level or very scarce talent. An "immigrant dividend" paid by employers would simply restrict immigration to highly paid work.
As it is, H1B visas already go primarily to highly paid (mostly tech) workers. The problem is that most immigrants arrive in the US by different avenues. Who pays for spouses and dependents? Asylum seekers?
As for Microsoft: it is not a low-margin business. If Microsoft is suppressing labor costs to juice profits, that is the sign of a company that does not know how to use the talent it has at its disposal.
So we're gonna treat 944000 as less than a million I guess? If we also count illegals, as we should since they exist and keep arriving, that year was probably around a million. Even if we don't count them - it's very close to a million.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/lo...
So to sum up : 2023 alone had (almost) the entire Chinese immigrant population come into the UK.
I'll happily admit I'm wrong though, in light of evidence before me
Well in countries like Denmark and Sweden the facts do show over representation of MENA immigrants (and their descendants) in violent crime. I don't think it's something that could or should be wished away. But I also don't think it's the main issue , it's for sure also a cultural/religious clash.
I think that the issue is less cultural and more socioeconomic. Being "other"ed your entire life sucks. Making it in another country with far more limited resources sucks. It's hard to ignore the toll it takes on the people I interact with.
You can look at it like that. Another way to look at it is those accepting countries possibly saved your life (if you're claiming you're a refugee) or in the very least gave you a much much safer existence and better healthcare and standard of living. And it's really quite a big expense on the hosting countries who aren't doing that great themselves lately.
The socioeconomics explanation irks me - when you accept a refugee / low skilled worker they are almost by definition going to be poorer than the locals. There's absolutely no way you could equate their wealth to the locals. This is no one's fault, just the reality of taking in people from poorer countries and/or with low skills. I'm also not sure it's fair to say poorer immigrants are always more violent (you didn't say this but it was implied); immigrants from Thailand, India, Philipines into Europe are actually underrepresented in crime. So yeah , this is complex I agree.
And as similar data point, you see certain Americans scared of going to UK assuming some super high crime levels there ... while it has overall smaller crime levels then where they like. And you see rural people feeling super afraid the moment they step into a low crime city, because they are predisposed to think city = immoral crime.
Unless given country has similar % of foreigners (and of course they don't), you get where they come from and where the emotion 'foreigners bad' stems from. Even if one ignores flashy news about high profile attacks/criminality, which of course are impossible to ignore. Right or not, this statistics is primary level math that anybody can do in their head and even folks following populists will do.
Now what would you say to these people in such case? Bear in mind the topic is in western Europe, ie Germany so toxic that even saying above got high ranking people like police chiefs fired on spot. Exactly kind of dumb over-corrected setup that makes things like ADF thrive quietly, till election come and then folks are 'shocked' that they don't understand their own population at all.
The honest thing would have been to tell them - you're right, yes there's an overrepresenation in crime - but we're working on it , it will get better in the 2nd and 3rd generation (it does but very slowly), etc. But lots of the establishment doesn't seem able to even do that - they have to completely deny the problem, by for example pulling tricks like counting immigrants from India, Thailand and MENA together, or by not allowing the collection of data at all. This is really bad policy imo.
They don't do that. They do not do that for local population either.
> Exactly kind of dumb over-corrected setup that makes things like ADF thrive quietly
Yeah, the far right exists only because of supposed left claim pops up again. The fact it, far right fans themselves tend to be more criminal and more violent then general population. And you make that claim in relation to Germany from all the places. AfD has large popularity roughly where Hitler was popular and roughly where communists led the country for years.
And their big things are more into "Russia should be our friend, actually", "we dont like modern art" and "the retirees will have super large pensions if we win".
it is not said honestly out loud, because it is absolutely insane, and would be rightfully rejected.
I don't think not saying it out loud is helping the current policy makers; the right and the far right understood right away this was their biggest point. By not engaging them in the discussion , or engaging with hand wavy trickery, you kinda lose the debate I think.
What about african americans?
What about african amercians?
It's like I'm the stupid goose in the meme.
African americans were on track to be more wealthy and less crimey, same as every other poor ethnic group in the US has done before. Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. Something went off the rails.
What happened? It ain't the skin or some societal factor that gets applied because of the skin. We got plenty of African and Caribbean immigrants to use as control groups.
(I don't expect you to answer this question, I expect this question to make a lot of people around here uncomfortable.)
>by for example pulling tricks like counting immigrants from India, Thailand and MENA together, or by not allowing the collection of data at all. This is really bad policy imo.
Agreed
Are you saying that Jim Crow never happened? Pretty sure the violence was applied on the basis of skin color. Can you understand how a century of oppression and expropriation might retard your wealth and likelihood of ending up in jail, relative to an Italian or a Pole?
Why would (more recent) African immigrants be an appropriate group to compare against? They have a completely different economic and cultural history.
As for Caribbean people -- they have their own experiences of slavery and genocide. Migrants to the colonizing nations have not necessarily thrived.
Economic migrants didn't have their lives saved. They were not welcomed to their host country as an act of charity. The conditional and transactional nature of their presence is made very clear to them.
There's lots of people who are not refugees and getting into Europe. They can come from places like Morocco, Turkey, Somalia or even Syria as it is now. The strict definition of refugee won't apply to many of them - yet they are able get in and stay (how is another discussion). The best definition would be economic migrant - they are not fleeing immediate war, their main motivation is getting a better standard of living. I have no idea who you're working with but the definition refugee / legal migrant is not enough there's a lot of in between. Is it crazy to expect at least a little gratitude from such people, or in the very least no hostility ? To me it is not crazy, you can disagree.