Lift H1-B cap
A new study from academic economists at Colgate University and UC-Davis shows wages rise fastest in U.S. cities with the greatest influx of highly skilled immigrants.
Highly skilled people tend to make and spend more money, raising everyone's standard of living. The study found U.S. cities with the greatest increase of immigrants specializing in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) professions saw wage increases of 7 percent for college-educated, native-born Americans, and 3 percent for the non-college-educated population.
Besides spending more money on goods and services, demand for these immigrants' skills often pushes salaries higher in other fields. However, we artificially limit these workers by imposing a cap on H1-B visas.
The current level is 65,000, plus another 20,000 with advanced degrees. When the H1-B visa application opens in the spring, the slots are usually filled in less than a week, creating a huge waiting list.
Why the cap? There are technology companies where jobs go unfilled just because they can't find qualified applicants. Ideally, Congress should remove the H1-B visa cap entirely, or at least start by phasing it out. Unfortunately, the politics of immigration reform are less clear than the economics.
The writer is a resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation (ipi.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Not clean enough
- He’ll tax, we’ll pay
- Wolf’s taxes
- Renaming in order?
- Confidence in our courts
- Tarentum demolition
- Ride-sharing’s advantages
- GCC 19, sportsmanship 0
- Behind tax inversions
- ‘PC’ Ebola approach deadly
- Science on fracking’s side