<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en-US" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Engineering Science - H-1B Hubbub Comments</title>
  <id>tag:blog.phds.org,2008:/2007/6/1/h-1b-hubbub/comments</id>
  <generator uri="http://mephistoblog.com" version="0.7.0">Mephisto Noh-Varr</generator>
  <link href="http://blog.phds.org/2007/6/1/h-1b-hubbub/comments.xml" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml"/>
  <link href="/2007/6/1/h-1b-hubbub" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
  <updated>2007-06-04T21:27:36Z</updated>
  <entry xml:base="/">
    <author>
      <name>Geoff Davis</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.phds.org,2007-06-01:535:540</id>
    <published>2007-06-04T21:27:36Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-04T21:27:36Z</updated>
    <category term="Immigration"/>
    <category term="Labor Market"/>
    <link href="http://blog.phds.org/2007/6/1/h-1b-hubbub" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'H-1B Hubbub' by Geoff Davis</title>
<content type="html">&lt;p&gt;Yes, I think you are right that stay rates will decline for China and India, with India probably sooner.  One way to reduce the impact of a potential glutting of the US market is to throw resources at training people for the entire idea-to-product pipeline, not just at the idea-generation/research stage.  Taking a research idea to market is a long and difficult process, and most PhDs as currently trained are probably not much good for anything but the earliest stages.  Professional Science Masters' programs are one way of doing this; I'm sure there are others.  These kinds of lateral training programs would not only provide other useful outlets for the talents of S&amp;amp;Es, but by increasing the rate at which scientific findings get commercialized, could help increase the overall demand for S&amp;amp;E's.&lt;/p&gt;</content>  </entry>
  <entry xml:base="/">
    <author>
      <name>DSM</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.phds.org,2007-06-01:535:539</id>
    <published>2007-06-04T20:50:17Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-04T20:50:17Z</updated>
    <category term="Immigration"/>
    <category term="Labor Market"/>
    <link href="http://blog.phds.org/2007/6/1/h-1b-hubbub" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'H-1B Hubbub' by DSM</title>
<content type="html">&lt;p&gt;The fundamental problem is that it is difficult to determine if importing this foreign talent is of net benefit to the nation in the long term.  It strikes me that the emergence of more competitive universities in China and India is inevitable given that stay-rates for their expatriates will erode as their domestic economies improve. We've already witnessed that in the case of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Consequently, we run the very real risk of spending tax payer money to educate our future competition which will benefit from the quality of our education and as you pointed out, the labor cost structure of their countries of origin. Alternately, if foreign talent stays they end up glutting the supply of S&amp;amp;E labor market and eroding wages which in turn deters domestic talent from considering S&amp;amp;E. Obviously, my analysis overlooks many mitigating factors that may in fact be signficant such as the potential net economic gain derived from foreign talent establishing startups etc. &lt;/p&gt;</content>  </entry>
  <entry xml:base="/">
    <author>
      <name>Geoff Davis</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.phds.org,2007-06-01:535:537</id>
    <published>2007-06-01T17:51:56Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-01T17:51:56Z</updated>
    <category term="Immigration"/>
    <category term="Labor Market"/>
    <link href="http://blog.phds.org/2007/6/1/h-1b-hubbub" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'H-1B Hubbub' by Geoff Davis</title>
<content type="html">&lt;p&gt;Not only that, but if you turn really smart people away, it's entirely possible that they'll get jobs teaching in other countries.  Next thing you know, you'll end up with much more competitive universities in China, India, etc.  Once that happens (and it's already underway), you're looking at the possibility of entire sectors of the economy being underpriced by equivalents overseas.  Compared to that prospect, the short-term career needs of a few native grad students and postdocs look a lot less important to me.&lt;/p&gt;</content>  </entry>
  <entry xml:base="/">
    <author>
      <name>JS</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.phds.org,2007-06-01:535:536</id>
    <published>2007-06-01T17:39:03Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-01T17:39:03Z</updated>
    <category term="Immigration"/>
    <category term="Labor Market"/>
    <link href="http://blog.phds.org/2007/6/1/h-1b-hubbub" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'H-1B Hubbub' by JS</title>
<content type="html">&lt;p&gt;I don't know if I agree with the logic in the Science article. Let's say you limit foreign grad students and postdocs. That increases the chances for citizens to get faculty positions, and results in an increase of citizen grad students and postdocs. Now the pyramid scheme fills out again and we're back to square one. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As with the NIH doubling, it seems like this buys you one generation time before it blows up again. &lt;/p&gt;</content>  </entry>
</feed>
