To begin, it seems counter indicated to admit foreign programming talent to compete in a market allegedly depressed only because foreign programming talent has been imported in overwhelming numbers.
However it gives pause that the problem might not be that our talent pool has been discouraged because of the influx of foreigners. Perhaps the converse is the case: the influx of foreigners has occurred because of a scarcity of domestic talent.
If that is the case one must ask, why has our capitalist system been unable to staff the demand needs of a critically important and rapidly growing industry? The situation, of course, is not limited to programmers but applies to the entire STEM field.
When one looks at the raw numbers of STEM graduates produced in China compared to those produced domestically here, one must conclude that if STEM graduates are the equivalent weapons of war like tanks or aircraft carriers, we might have lost World War II. Or more to the point, we might lose World War III.
So when we look at the STEM situation we have to ask as we stand under the cresting wave of robots and artificial intelligence, are we relying on STEM talent to make amusing gadgets or are we in desperate need of a class of talent that can save us in an oncoming existential struggle with China? If we are simply talking jobs we have one set of considerations, if we are talking existential survival, we have a whole different set.
I think we also have to ask ourselves what is the source of our talent deficiency? Is it that we have flooded the market with foreign talent and depressed wages to the point that these are jobs, like picking lettuce, that Americans simply will not do anymore? Or is it that our entire education establishment is so corrupt and has so profoundly failed in its obligation to society that we have no infrastructure to produce programmers or STEM talent at a pace required in this new age?
If it's the culture of education or the culture which education has produced that is the problem, simply slamming the door on H 1-B visas will not serve the nation in a decisive race for survival with China, in fact it will not solve the problem at all except over the very long haul required to change culture. Have we as a society simply made a collective decision not to pay the price for a modern technological career? Meanwhile, what do we do? If we don't stop the inflow, wages will not go up and the problem of domestic production of talent will not be solved.
There is another problem which gives me pause as well. If we do not import this talent we will simply export the jobs over the Internet to places like India. My son works for a company which employs tens of thousands of Indians who sit before monitors in India 24/7 to service American accounts. If my son's company did not operate by this method, competitors like IBM who employ three times as many in India, would put his company out of business.
I recite this to put the dimension of the problem in context. Donald Trump is up against a structured interconnected way of life of the American economy. If we don't take the workers in, we send the work abroad at the speed of light. If we do send the work abroad, we seem to be financing their increasing ability to produce STEM graduates. Whatever we do will require huge shifts in our economic structure which will not come without huge political struggles.
It seems that this argument is but a symptom of that struggle. My pause is whether we are dealing with a symptom or with the cause? If we are relieving the symptom favorable to Silicon Valley and Indian immigrants now, are we not storing up greater problems? What else can we do?
It seems to me that we can piece together the sequence of events here. The House of Representatives passes the bill, the president accepts the invitation of the president of India to address tens of thousands of Indians in Houston, Senator Lee will advance his bill through the Senate, the president will sign.
This is a problem that ought not to be approached as is the wont here on Free Republic, support a policy if the president supports it, oppose a policy if the president opposes it. I am asking for analysis of the policy itself.
