Slashdot Mirror
Australian IT Workers Concerned About Migrants
sien writes "In Australia it is being asserted that Australia's intake of migrants skilled in IT is taking jobs and lowering wages for Australian citizens. It appears that in all developed countries, not just the US, the case that immigrants are lowering wages for IT workers is being made. Would programmers in the developed world be better off without immigration that favors IT or is there an overall benefit for the industry with skilled workers going to the developed world and thus making the industry larger?"
Once again the boom bust cycle continues...
1. high demand results in increasing supply (more uni graduates and immigration)
2. demand deminishes resulting in supply being met
3. demand bottoms out => oversupply
4. low demand => less uni graduates and less immigration
5. demand begins to increase
6. goto 1
It's all very fine to point the finger at immigrant workers and blame them for vanishing jobs, but the question to be asked is why are they needed? Is it because immigrant workers are instantly, instinctively appealing to employers that they just feel a desperate urge to dump on their countrymen? If that were the case, then this would be a valid argument. But the IT immigration bias exists because the demand for IT labor exists. True, if there were no immigrant workers, then there'd be no shortage of X country IT jobs for people from X country, but there also would be a gaping personnel demand that X country's IT workers could not fill. The question should be why are immigrant IT workers getting jobs over the natives (and I use that term as respectfully as "immigrant")? And please don't come back with the "lower wage" stuff -- all the (few) job offers I got (being an "immigrant") were very competitive with those of local workers.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
Either the skilled immigrants are taking our jobs (competing under our labor laws), or the skilled foreigners are doing our jobs remotely.
Either the poor immigrants are responsible for all the poverty and crime, or else the birthrate is too low.
Admittedly, I didn't RTFA before deciding to post, but i have read it now. Basically, it's all summed up in the title. Some immigration analyst interviewed by what appears to be a newspaper says that too much skilled labor is causing a glut. Nothing new, for those of you who follow this kind of news in America, or any other country, i guess. damned foreigners (not that it's not a legitimately difficult situation).
A single source gave them the gist. Then at the end, here's the kicker:
But Australian Computer Society chief executive officer Dennis Furini said that while there was possibly an oversupply of entry-level programmers, there was a shortage of specialists in areas such as e-commerce and network security.
An Immigration Department spokesman said it relied on information from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to draw up the skilled occupation list.
"The Immigration Department has no information suggesting IT jobs should be taken off the skilled occupation list," he said.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
assuming equal proficiency, if someone will do for $10 what i want $100 for, then obviously the guy who will do it for $10 will get the job
whether he lives in bangalore, san francisco, or melbourne
go ahead and fight that, go ahead and wail about the injustice of it all
what are you going to do about it? what can you do about it?
are you saying it's exploitation of the guy who makes less? well he doesn't have to deal with the real estate market in san francisco... so rather than complain about how little the guy in india is getting paid, why isn't the problem that you are getting too much money for what you do?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Doubling the number of developers doesn't mean you double the size of the industry. Some developers will leave the field, others will be discouraged from taking entry level jobs, etc.
The last point is something worth considering. My friends and I all have solid technical educations. A generation ago we would be leading the charge to get more students to pursue similar academic and career tracks. It's hard work, but it also meant you could have steady employment later.
Now we all discourage people from pursuing technical degrees. The risk is too high. Senior people may still be in demand (although we have to wonder about that as well), but entry-level positions?
For that matter it's not just IT. Higher education is getting much more expensive at the same time that skinflint republicans are cutting student assistance. That forces many students to be more focused on a "trade school" university education than the more well-rounded one of prior generations. K-12 education, it goes without saying, is now teaching to the test to avoid draconian measures under NCLB. (Never mind what a high-performing school district can do. How do you show improvement when you already peg the test? These districts will be punished for being "successful.")
That's a minor pain today, but where will this country be in 20 years? I don't begrudge other countries growing their IT economy, but what happens when everyone would rather stay at home with a higher standard of living than they could get here?
There's a term for what the US is doing -- "eating our seed corn". Businesses may need to look at the next quarterly statement, but the government should be taking a longer view. Maybe the solution is to increase immigration so these skilled workers are more motivated to stay, maybe it's to limit immigration so our students have a motivation to make the necessary investment to be highly skilled workers in 20 years. But AFAIK that question isn't even on the table.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
you guys supporting this 'no foreign workers' paradigm should be ashamed of yourselves. you're a racketeering mob if ever their was one: cronyist, corrupt and extortionist. take the medical fraternity in australia as an example of where this 'jobs for qualified locals only' thinking goes. the Australian Medical Association (AMA) has exactly these kinds of racketeering rules laid out in law (you can't practice medicine without being an AMA member; doing so is the equivalent of a felony) to prevent foreigners from taking up positions and possibly denying them the rates that allow them to upgrade their porsches every year. This practice continues while lack of specialists and rural GPs drives huge hospital waiting lists and ever-increasing costs of healthcare. And yet here is an example of a foreign worker: my wife is eastern european, and through her I have met older friends of the family, one of whom was a respected neurosurgeon in her country of origin. A neurosurgeon you say? surely she must be practising her incredibly difficult-to-gain level of education and experience to treat desperately ill patients on said waiting lists, right? wrong. she worked as a cleaner for many years while trying unsuccessfully to gain AMA membership, and now owns a small business completely unrelated to medicine and has left her hopes behind. The AMA is a cabal of price-fixers who use thier fraternity to starve supply and to artifically raise costs. You IT 'no foreign worker' bastards are just the same. If they can't place someone locally, or the candidates who do apply are shithouse, then foreign workers should be sought. If there's an oppurtunity to give gainful employment to qualified personnel from underprivelidged nations then we should jump at the chance. do you think its fair that an argentinian programmer should have to work for $20US a day to barely feed his family and drive a taxi at night to survive so you can be guaranteed of being overpaid for a job you're underqualified for, even though his code runs rings around yours? ps. yes, aussies are racist. %93 supported sending the NV Tampa home while on board Iraqis starved and faced either death or destitution at home. add to that concentration camps for refugees. and aborigines probably don't appreciate the name 'the lucky country' you insensitive twats.
Why is a global free market for goods considered good, but that for labor bad by so many inhabitants of "developed" nations?
As an American (white male - lower middle class) I just want people to realize that immigrants aren't the real problem - foreign workers are the main problem. The best solution is to make it easier for those foreign workers to migrate here and get decent jobs here. We have minimum wage laws and free competition that other countries don't have. A large number of foreigners working for $2/hr would move here where they can make $20/hr. I'd sure as hell rather compete locally where all workers are under similar laws and living expenses than with someone that lives in a dirt hut and gets dirt pay. There would be a dip in wages as competition grew but it'd be much less drastic than the dip from jobs moving out of the country. What do we really think is going to be left as a source of income for us as companies keep migrating jobs? Blue collar jobs have been leaving us for years, white collar jobs have been following - what is going to be left?
Make it easier for those workers to move into our western countries and encourage buying products produced within our own countries. That's how to keep wages high. Not by slowing migration. We want to force foreign countries to raise their minimum wage, improve their working and living conditions, etc and compete on a level ground with us. Pretty simple.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Sometimes for whatever reason, a nation might produce fewer skilled workers per capita in an industry than another nation does. But the fact is that a nation does need to protect its citizens, and an unmitigated deluge of skilled workers in an area from a nation with great capacity to produce them (perhaps they have a population that is 30 times larger) can be devastating to the local economy.
I like this post, because you actually display more sophisicated reasoning here than most of the talk-radio types that usually complain about this phenomenon. But I would like to point out something important.
The costs of producing something have an impact of the price of what's produced. If steel suddenly becomes more expensive, you can expect to pay more for refrigerators and cars--not quite as much more as the literal cost impact, but something approaching it. (There's some economic analysis that underlies this, but it's not important.) If the costs of production decrease, you have the opposite effect, where the cost of the product/service decreases.
Labor is the same way, and in many industries (IT being a perfect example) labor costs are almost the entire cost of production. Sure, there are servers and ethernet cables to buy, but commodity hardware has made it so that the vast majority of IT costs are in terms of actual dollars paid for salaries, benefits, etc. to the people that run the servers, write the code, make it all happen.
So if the market for IT jobs is suddenly or gradually flooded with people who are willing and able to work for lower wages, the costs of IT services will tend to go down, too (assuming there's some competition in the market, of course). You can buy hosted web services from lots of competiting companies, so the price of web hosting will go down. Outsourced helpdesk support will also get cheaper. The price of Windows won't necessarily go down, but that's because they have a pretty effective monopoly on desktop OS software (slightly different rules apply).
Since IT services are a cost of doing other types of business, the costs of producing everything that relies on IT will tend to fall, too. Whether and how much depends on those particular markets and how much of their total costs are IT-related, but there will be an effect. In the end, the costs to end-consumers across the economy will go down. And it doesn't take an economist to realize that to the consumer, lower costs are the same thing as having more money.
Like you pointed out (and this is the part I liked), this can be pretty messy if it happens overnight, because the original IT workers who are losing jobs and seeing less in their paychecks will just be SOL. Costs might be lower for everybody, but it may be a net loss the the family depending on a sysadmin's (now decreased) income. The breadwinner might have to retrain or change jobs into a new field in order to get back his/her original income level.
But modern, 1st-world economies can absorb these changes decently well. As long as the percentage of IT workers in your work force isn't too high, and the change doesn't come too quickly, the retraining and job-switching will happen incrementally and people will have time to adjust. And it's not a zero-sum game, either--after people do adjust and retrain back to their original salary levels, they're by definition working in fields where the "home" economy has more competitive advantage, so the net economic effect is positive. Everybody gets lower prices, and (assuming people retrain to original salaries), everybody is making as much as they were before. It doesn't work out perfectly, but that's the general idea.
Job protectionism works out to be the same moral give-and-take as any other kind of trade protectionism: if you protect the current salaries of IT workers, everybody else in the economy (including a lot of other poor, working stiffs) pays for it with higher prices. If you let the market do what it wants to do, you let the IT people take a hit in the short-medium term in exchange for greater prosperity in the economy as a whole.
An unmitigated deluge of skilled workers ... can be devastating to the local economy.
Bzzzt! Return to Econ 101.
The local economy = everything produced locally. More skilled workers = more produced locally = economy grows.
Now, wihile said deluge certainly won't the devastate local economy, it certainly can devastate those displaced workers foolish enough to cling to the idea they are somehow owed a job in their former industry.
I cannot speak to the levels with which I agree with your assessment of this persons
neo-globalization tripe.
You cannot have a fair, equal, and equitable relationship with nations that do not
have the same labor laws . Unequal ground = Unequal Terms .
If I were to run a company on US soil the same way one is run in China or other
countries I would be taken to court, fined, or possibly jailed if ppl were pissed enough .
This is about one thing, and that is MONEY, aka good old greed .
It always has been, and it always will be, "period" .
Extortion and manipulation of resources of ppl, aka human futures for the stock market .
Fle$h for sale .
The ppl that support the globalization tripe are most likely to profit/benefit from it
thus their perspective is skewed .
Globalization is how the country of france was almost burned to the ground, Globalization
is how riots have occured in the UK:
http://www.writewords.org.uk/archive/200.asp
Didn't hear about them I suppose ????
Mum's the word, keep the profits up mate !!!
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
This is a small planet people, and everyone is just trying to get through life as best as they can.
The last ACS survey put this around 80%. Yeah - contacts are everything.
But that's really the same everywhere, in any field where skills aren't fungible. Not particular to IT or to Australia. In any given field, in any given area, people tend to know other people working with similar things. And any employer understandably likes the extra safety net of hiring someone who comes recommended by someone they already know and trust. Even if the recommendation is not wholehearted, the person - with strengths and weaknesses both - becomes a known quantity, and thus lower risk.
That's a major reason companies prefer people with some work experience as well. The fact that they have been hired once already in the field gives an implicit stamp of approval; someone else vetted them and found them acceptable. It's the same phenomenon anyone who's gotten engaged or married can tell you - suddenly you're much more interesting to people of the preferred sex than you were when you were single.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
The bigger question you are asking about relative strengths of national economies, well that's just a huge topic. As a matter of national policy, it really depends on what resources that nation has and what resources it needs, and how effectively they can leverage the nations assets (people and natural resources) to reach agreements with other nations that are advantageous. The more resource that a nation has, the less it depends on others and so it has a stronger position. The more valuable the resources it has that it is will to exchange for power or other benefit, the stronger its position. (Witness the important of the Middle East on the global economic stage: Hello, Oil. Just for giggles, imagine if 90% of the oil on the Earth had actually been located in what is now U.S. territory.)
The market is very "fair" in the sense that the strongest nation at any given moment when factoring all these things in (lots of nuclear weapons is not to be underestimated in this respect for instance), is going to have the most "wealth". Might makes right is true on a national stage, no matter how subtle "might" happens to be. It's still the ultimate "fairness" in matters of power. Depending on the government, it may be concentrated into very few or it may be distributed more. That's where your per capita money comment comes into play. A nation leverages its resources as effectively as possible and that results in a certain GNP. If the leveraging is very inefficient, you get a low return on a large number of people and presto: low per capita wealth.
What you see in China right now is the industrial and technological revolutions occuring at a very rapid pace. Right now they have relatively little leverage (but still considerable) because they are somewhat behind the time curve on these economic transformations, but that will not hold for long, ...
Then you will see fairness in the form of a much bigger per capita leverage multiplier * 1.5 billion. The interesting question, at least to me, is how will the global community respond to this. How will the planet respond to the exponentially increasing energy demands, is interesting, too.
The next 50 years will be very interesting, unless an H5N1 or some such thing greatly simplifies things.
Like you pointed out (and this is the part I liked), this can be pretty messy if it happens overnight, because the original IT workers who are losing jobs and seeing less in their paychecks will just be SOL. Costs might be lower for everybody, but it may be a net loss the the family depending on a sysadmin's (now decreased) income. The breadwinner might have to retrain or change jobs into a new field in order to get back his/her original income level.
...
I like to apply the simplicity method to this .
And to me that is this, if they can do ANYTHING we do for less, then they will doing all
the jobs we do for less than we do under the simple fact that they will work for less .
As there is no minimum wage in some of the competing countries
So abolish minimum wage, and let americans work for 90 cents an hour so we can "compete"
Simplicity applies again here, try to afford a house or car on 90 cents an hour .
So you see property values plumment as massive deflation grips the nation .
Greenspan warned of this, and this is part of the formula for the housing bubble.
I don't like all of Greenspan's thinking, but he was right on this one IMHO, time will tell.
Ex-Mislech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
fuck protectionism
i thought the whole idea is that the contrast between rich and poor areas of the world should level out, that this is progress
or i suppose you like regions of disgusting wealth contrasted with disgusting poverty in this world?
exactly what does the idea "progress" mean to you? or do you think progress isn't important?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Bzzzt! Return to Econ 101.
/ sha020404.htm
The local economy = everything produced locally. More skilled workers = more produced locally = economy grows.
Yet again,
The shell game, you can get a different job, ad naseum .
How many degrees will you have to get to "keep getting new jobs",
When the old one is "SOLD OUT" .
When does the cost of the new degrees exceed the pay from
restarting your career everytime the "corpocracy" decides to
sell your job to ANYONE who will work for less .
Under this theory, if they can do any job for less, then they
will do ALL jobs for less, and thus their will be no jobs for
workers that are citizens .
Your grandfather or great grandfather may have died for your
country, but that doesn't matter anymore .
Business as usual, the bottom line is to be fed .
Greed wins again .
http://www.engology.com/E-News1375.htm
Now, wihile said deluge certainly won't the devastate local economy, it certainly can devastate those displaced workers foolish enough to cling to the idea they are somehow owed a job in their former industry.
I don't need a job, I own my own company now .
I am not so moronic that I cannot see that total replacement of all citizens by
L1 visa workers living in corporate owned slums sending most of their pay back
to their home country would have a negative impact .
During this time my and other London guest worker's corporate housing was frequently without heat, hot water and electricity.
http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/108
I do not blame the ppl of other nations for wanting to get money to take care
of their families, but I think they and their country would be better off in the long run
fixing their country rather than picking the low hanging fruit off their neighbor's trees .
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Disclaimer: I'm an Australian, born and bred in one of Australia's most unique spots, but as soon as I was able to work, I left Australia .. and have been making my living, ever since, as a programmer, outside Australia.
.. your lifestyle is the problem. The world needs you to leave.
You want to make money as a programmer, have a wonderful life, and do something worthwhile? Go to a 3rd world country and teach them to write code.
The world needs far less nationalism, far less 'right to my nations lifestyle', and far less elitism. The world needs more cooperation, more participation between cultures, and more direct influence on the ability of the poor, by the well-educated, such that equality does occur. Complaining about 'migrants taking our jobs' is the most narrow-minded, stupid, un-educated point of view in this modern age of technological wonder; living in a village with your laptop and giving the local kids a logon so you can learn their language properly is a far, far greater way to spend ones life.
I can't stand the 'lifestyle trap' that Australians think they have a God-given right to. Australia never, ever belonged to whitey. To my Australian compatriates, I say, get the hell out of town and live a little
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
It's an extreme example, but we used to have laws that made it illegal for black people to learn to read. Why? God forbid a black person should achieve the same ability to do a job as a white person.
We can't (ethically) prevent other people on this planet from educating themselves. We shouldn't (economically) prevent them from doing so either - a world with 50 million educated engineers is better than a world with 50 million people who can't read.
Australians (and Americans) don't lose jobs to immigrants because of migration. They lose jobs to them because the other person is better at doing the job, despite the inherent advantages they have in language and culture.
I work with immigrant engineering workers on a regular basis. These guys wern't born in the US, their families didn't speak english natively, they didn't grow up in this country - if these guys can do a job in a foriegn (to them) language, in a foreign culture, and to it better than a native.... whose fault is that? Getting (and keeping) a job is a competitive effort. I'd much rather see someone lose because the other person is better at the job than see someone lose because they were born in the wrong spot or have the wrong skin color.
And, at least in America, immigration is GOOD. Immigration lets us get young people to help fix our demographics problem. The best way to pay for all these damned baby boomers is to let a whole bunch of 20-something, educated immigrants into the country to pay taxes to support them (instead of letting them work in India where we don't get the money for our social system.)
paintball
In both cases the people doing the complaining are themselves almost all immigrants, they just got there a bit earlier.
Nice to see your racist colours shining through.
To my Australian compatriates, I say, get the hell out of town and live a little .. your lifestyle is the problem. The world needs you to leave.
Huh ? One of the big problems in Australia is there are _too many_ skilled people leaving the country because the wages are relatively low and taxation is relatively high.
Exactly.
Trade and the economy is not a zero-sum game, and things are so interlinked that protectionism in one area can result is disastrous.
Unfortunately we don't have free movement between countries, that would make this even better, the labour force could migrate if the work changes (although of course, real world factors like family can prevent this).
Protectionism is not the way forward though, it stiltifies the economy to the detriment to all.
Someone else (an AC) already noticed this error, but I though I'd point out exactly why this is a contradiction.
Minimum wage laws impose artificial restrictions on the economy. Like any price floor, they encourage oversupply and drive down demand, which results in unemployment. For a simple thought experiment to demonstrate this point, consider the following:
Employee A starts out in an economy with no minimum-wage laws, making $2.50/hour for 40 hours/week. For every 120 hours of labor and $50 worth of material, the employer can sell a product for $400 ($50 over monetary cost). This increase is a result of the employee's time-preference: the employer has advanced $350 in wages and materials, in exchange for getting an additional $50 when the product is sold. We'll assume for the moment that this is the pure interest rate, the average monetary rate of time-preference. In other words, $350 three weeks from now is, on average, worth $100 in one week, another $100 in two weeks, and yet another $100 in three weeks (the rate is exaggerated for the purposes of example).
A minimum-wage law is passed, requiring wages to be $3.00/hour or higher. The amount of labor required to produce the product remains unchanged, so the cost of labor and materials is now $410. Assuming that the pure rate of interest remains unchanged, the final price of the product will be $460. Raising the price will decrease demand, and so less of the product will be sold. As a result, although the wages have increased by $0.50/hour, the number of hours of labor required for all the products combined will decrease. This may result in unemployment for some, reduced hours for all, or some combination of the two. In the end, the total amount of money spent on labor may increase, remain the same, or decrease. In any event, the product itself will be harder to come by. If the minimum wage applies across the entire economy, then the purchasing power of the money will decrease because there will be less to buy.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
My observation, from having worked for IT employers who heavily used immigrant workers and living in areas where such workers settle, is that it's, now, very rare that said workers contribute more than the absolute minimum to the local economy. In the past it was normal for immigrant workers to come to an area, settle down, buy houses and raise families (by either bringing in others from their area of origin or marrying into the local population). These days, especially in IT, the norm seems to be to move into an area, take over jobs, spend as little as possible whilst saving or sending back to their area of origin as much money as possible then (as soon as they've saved enough) returning to their area of origin. Often the IT work in the developed world isn't a career, it's just a step to raise enough capital to set them up in what they actually want to do. I've had a number of friends working in IT who have come from India and had the stated intention of just working in IT for a few years to earn the money to buy some farmland or a hotel (which they would then hire other people to work for them). Even those in suposedly permanant jobs have treated them like contrator positions.
Stephen
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
Probably things like disease, unstable political situations, difficulty of obtaining work visas, etc. Or maybe such a concept is too far outside their comfort zone to consider.
I know I would have to think long and hard before moving outside the US, even if I knew that there were no inherent risks. My friends and family are here, and I like the community in which I live.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.