Laurence DuttonSUMMING UP
How Should America Admit Talented Workers of the World?
The notion of attracting talented workers to the United States deserves support, especially at times when the unemployment rate is low. But the H-1B program currently in effect is not the way to do it. It has been misused to replace higher-paid Americans with entry-level workers from abroad, mainly India. Its use is largely confined to high-tech firms with substantial coding needs. That is the sense of responses to this month’s column.
How you feel about the H-1B program appears to depend on how closely you have observed it in operation. Familiarity breeds contempt. Julie commented, “So, at how many companies have American workers been rounded up, coerced into training their replacements, then terminated? … This is not supplementing our workforce, this is replacing our workforce.” Troup concurred, saying, the abuse of H-1B visas is as old as the program itself. “I had 3 trainees; each learned a different facet of my job. None of them had near the knowledge or experience as me. I was the lucky American who found work elsewhere and left on my own.”
H1BReformNow provided data to suggest that H1B visa recipients are not highly paid (regardless of talent), saying that “green card data show the following percentages of foreign workers at Levels I or II making below-median wages (for a given region): Amazon 91%; Facebook 91%; and Google 96%... the GAO (Government Accounting Office) found that a mere 6% of H-1B temporary foreign workers are at ‘Level IV’ (above the median wage) officially defined by the Department of Labor as those who are ‘fully competent.’”
On the other hand, Ted G. argued, “The unemployment rate is low in the US. Let these entrepreneurs in.” Dfallah pointed out that, “Global talent is diverse talent, and unique skills help grow the economy.”
David Wittenberg put it this way: “If any H-1B visa holders have gone on to start large, profitable companies in the US, that is a great but unintended by-product of the program, not its principle purpose.” He goes on to say that, “The idea of opening America’s borders to creative, entrepreneurial immigrants is attractive. H1B is not, in my view, the correct vehicle for this. I would rather that the country revamp its immigration program along the lines currently being discussed so that it becomes similar to the point-based system (largely intended to identify the attractiveness or special needs of a potential immigrant) used in Canada and some other countries.”
Do you agree with David Wittenberg regarding the adoption of a Canadian-style system for sorting out talent for admission to the US? How should America admit talented workers of the world? What do you think?
Original Column
The talented people of this planet “are the world’s most precious resource,” writes William Kerr in a recent book. They are highly mobile, benefit from association with other talented people, and are “shaped by the environment” that surrounds them, hence they tend to congregate in a few places. They are much sought after—but also associated by some with the inequality that exists in our society, fomenting discontent and even rage.
With these conclusions, Kerr introduces The Gift of Global Talent: How Migration Shapes Business, Economy & Society, a thoughtful analysis of whether the United States risks losing its preeminent position in attracting global talent. Kerr is the Dimitri V. D'Arbeloff-MBA Class of 1955 Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School.
Kerr concentrates some of his attention on the H-1B visa, the ticket to temporary employment for skilled immigrants that can lead to the coveted “green card” providing permanent residency. Along with college admissions of international students and and new hires by non-profit organizations, it is one of the main avenues by which talented visitors gain admission to the US.
He describes the arcane system that puts a limit on the number of H-1B visas issued each year. Demand fluctuates from year to year depending on economic conditions and other factors, but in most recent years demand has vastly exceeded supply—the number of H-1B visas issued (as of 2017) is capped at 85,000 per year, although this does not include renewals or transfers. This triggers a lottery for determining who gets the visa, creating uncertainty for both the immigrant and the sponsor.
The US system, like those in Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Norway, relies on sponsoring companies or organizations to apply for H-1B visas on behalf of workers they would like to bring in to fill jobs.
These are jobs that paid a mean salary of about $80,000 in 2016. Wages must reflect the current prevailing wage for that type of work. Currently more than two-thirds go to immigrants of one country, India. Chinese citizens are the next most frequent recipients. The largest recent recipients of the visas have often been American subsidiaries of Infosys and Wipro, Indian-based companies that provide outsourced services and use the visas to introduce employees to US clients, as well as US firms such as Microsoft and Intel.
Should H-1B quotas be expanded?
The primary argument against expanding the H-1B quotas is that they may eventually be used to replace domestic workers. Rather than retrain older Americans, a firm may choose to bring in already-trained, less expensive talent. This may have sparked the rage leading, on at least one occasion, to the murder of an H-1B visa holder.
Another concern is the tight control that the sponsor holds over an individual during the process. Sponsoring companies may commit to helping a talented immigrant obtain a green card, a process that requires several years. During this period, immigrants can have weaker job mobility and thus be at a negotiating disadvantage.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence that global talent is a major source of innovation and productivity gains in the US. It provides a cadre of entrepreneurs who, after they obtain green cards, start their own companies, mostly in the tech sector.
Kerr believes the system can be improved to create a more welcoming set of policies for talented people to enter the US and to prioritize the best uses of visas. He also argues for changes to ensure the gains from global talent are shared more broadly throughout the country. He concludes, “We should welcome and harness global talent, not push it away.”
This prompts the questions, which do not necessarily represent Kerr’s position: Why limit H-1B visas at all (other than by means of a possible wage floor placed on applicants)? Why not open the doors to all of the world’s talent? What do you think?