Slashdot Mirror
LinkedIn Study: US Attracting Fewer Educated, Highly Skilled Migrants
vinces99 writes The U.S. economy has long been powered in part by the nation's ability to attract the world's most educated and skilled people to its shores. But a new study of the worldwide migration of professionals to the U.S. shows a sharp drop-off in its proportional share of those workers – raising the question of whether the nation will remain competitive in attracting top talent in an increasingly globalized economy. The study, which used a novel method of tracking people through data from the social media site LinkedIn, is believed to be the first to monitor global migrations of professionals to the U.S., said co-author Emilio Zagheni, a University of Washington assistant professor of sociology and fellow of the UW eScience Institute. Among other things, the study, presented recently in Barcelona, Spain, found that just 13 percent of migrating professionals in the sample group chose the U.S. as a destination in 2012, down from 27 percent in 2000.
I have highly educated friends that are getting kicked out of the country after losing the H1-B lotto, I don't think it's an issue with not being able to attract people.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
The study, which used a novel method of tracking people through data from the social media site LinkedIn
found that just 13 percent of migrating professionals in the sample group chose the U.S. as a destination in 2012, down from 27 percent in 2000.
Pretty impressive finding results from LinkedIn back in 2000, considering it didn't launch until 2003.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Yes. There are many established players setting up shop in Africa.
Gaborone, a major african city, has complexes for many tech and industrial giants.
Check out the wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
I would expect quite a bit to come from there in the coming decades.
Well, unless you secretly work for Google or some such, this is not about you. They're the ones who can afford to attract the best people from around the world.
The other people claiming to be in tech usually mean H-1B visa recipients. And the real reasons to hire them are:
1. They're cheaper than hiring US citizens.
2. They cannot change jobs as easily as US citizens. No matter how many hours you demand that they work.
3. They're easier to dispose of. You just send them back home. No need to worry about wrongful termination suits or such.
If you cannot afford to hire the people with the training necessary then you need to look at your business plan.
Complaining that the local people who will take the job at the pay you're offering lack the education necessary says more about your pay than about the skills of the local people.
It has been obvious for some time that the US is on the decline. As a worker in the late stages of my career, I find that saddening but I don't know what we can do about it. In the 60's it was all about technology and progress and science. Kennedy made a speech where he asked where the US would get all the Engineers that would be needed for the future. Nowadays it is all about financial instruments and inventing ways to manipulate the numbers to look like you have more money than you do. And it is also about rejecting science when it doesn't agree with your religious leanings (sort of sounds like some other religions in other parts of the world, doesn't it?). I don't personally see the will in this country to continue the leadership into the future. It will probably take a generation or two, but then we will be another Spain or UK which was once a dominant world power. Let's just hope that the next big power is benevolent, or it is likely not to be very pretty.
I'm one of said H1B visas, now with a green card. Been here almost exactly 10 years now, after Apple bought my company. I came here for the money and the weather, not for anything else. Frankly I don't think the US society is as "free" as people here seem to believe.
I've mentioned this here before, and (understandably, no-one likes bad news) I tend to get down voted for it, but the simple honest truth of the matter is that the USA isn't geared for looking after people, it's geared towards controlling people. There's things I like about it (the job is great, the weather is excellent, the people (as individuals who I meet day-to-day) are generally wonderful unless driving, the money is still good, I like my house and I met my wife here - my son is dual American/British).
There's things I don't like too, (the militarisation of the police, the lack of any reasonable healthcare, the "I'm alright Jack, screw you" attitude of a *lot* of people - weirdly enough those who often really *aren't* alright, the schooling system, and for lack of any better term, the country's soul). As time passes, and I get older, these seem to be more important. I can't see myself retiring here, and in fact I can't see myself here in another 10 years. That's not the attitude I came to the US with, it's something I've developed while I've been here.
Let's be frank here, I'm not trying to boast, but I'm one of the 'have's - I have a million dollar house (which sounds a lot more impressive than it really is in this neighbourhood) which is almost paid off, I have a high six-figure income, and I've money in the bank. I'm not a "1%er" but I'm up there with the rest... however, even with all of this, I'm not happy with the way the country is going. There's little-to-no safety net for joe public, and seemingly (*both* houses Republican, seriously ?) no desire for that. I think the USA is far closer to oligarchy than democracy, and the long-term trend just looks like it gets worse from here on out.
[sigh]
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
In the IT sector, I can see a few things driving this:
- Infrastructure and dev jobs are increasingly being farmed out to cloud providers and outsourcers, meaning fewer on site jobs are needed, at least at the low end. (Which is a pity, because you don't get good high-end people if they can't start out at the low end like they used to.)
- In general, economic growth is still slow in most sectors, so a lot of the traditional demand for IT isn't there.
- Tech Bubble 2.0 is increasingly eating up resources building web-based services and phone apps. Startups want young hungry coders who are exactly like the founders, which may lead to fewer foreigners being employed.
- The US isn't exactly welcoming to foreigners these days, given the debate on immigration. Even if someone is the best and brightest, it's possible they would feel lumped in with everyone else.
In STEM, it's bigger trends that are probably driving it:
- Other countries are more science friendly -- they fund it well and there's less of a cultural bias against "smart people".
- Science in general is a bad career prospect given the imbalance of graduates and permanent research positions. Most big corporate labs are shells of what they once were, and academic institutions seem to want to keep everyone on permanent postdoc status. I would have to have a total passion for my work to accept tenuous circumstances like that, and would probably be nearly broke for most of my life.
This, plus the abuse of the H1-B program by IT companies, is probably a good starter list of reasons. For every great H1-B hire, there are many stories of junior guys with questionable skills and credentials being run through a large technology company's meat grinder churning out code or performing low end tasks. It's definitely a misuse of the program in this case, since it was designed to correct a critical skills imbalance.
One thing that might reverse the trend is the fact that fewer domestic people are going into STEM fields, given the cost and the fact that it's no longer a guarantee of gainful employment. It's counter intuitive given how well _successful_ STEM graduates do compared to the general population, but once a precedent is set, it's hard to change people's minds. Think about how many IT people you know who actively say they're telling their children to avoid following in their footsteps.
Here is a list of reasons why many Europeans won't come. You are not one of those socialist European countries with a public healthcare system. You have 12 times more people shot per year and per inhabitant then any EU country. There is a lot of racism in the US. Your immigration procedures and your fear of terrorism.
All in all your image sucks. You are no t the country of the free and brave. You are quite the opposite. There is also a lot if violence in your country. All causes not to come. And for EU citizens the lack of a welfare state shocks us even more than the high rate of gun possessions.
Only deeply stupid people who've internalized wingnut propaganda call Obama a "socialist." I can see why you derped as an AC.
All those princes trying to wire money out of the country need some kind of IT support, so of course they'll get some high tech start ups there.
XDInd
The talent is already here, just that it resides with citizens (full and naturalized) of the United States of America. Where it does not exactly exist, citizens are more likely to start from a competent, trainable background - unlike the majority of guest workers. The only problem is that employers see freedom as a cost when someone else has it as opposed to a benefit when held by an employer.
More good would be done by repealing the 1965 Immigration Act and removing the regulations it enabled. Then if someone is really worth it, they will pursue citizenship. If we're lucky, pass a federal version of Arizona's SB1070 to put some fear into illegals and those who aid/abet/hire/contract them.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
You do realize that people can list their former places of employment and habitation, even prior to the site's founding? To say "I worked at company X in country Y in 2000" does not require that the website you say it on have existed in 2000.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
While it may be a fact of life, entitlement is only part of the equation. The other is pure economic pragmatism, such patterns can only work so long before you cut off your feet. They tend to make a few people richer in the short term but as more and more companies/industries do it they start finding their customer base evaporating too, at which point earnings get eaten from the bottom up. It is a classic game theory problem, the economy is strongest with well paying jobs kept local, but any single company gets and advantage by getting rid of its well paid jobs while other companies still have them, so companies that have behaviors that are healthy for the overall economy (including themselves) are economically punished.
That means tax imports, all imports, with a flat tax.
Last time we tried that we got the Great Depression, and World War II. The problem with tariffs is that when we impose them on others, they retaliate, and impose them on our goods and services. So trade stops. Countries use their labor forces to do things that are more productively done elsewhere. Everyone loses. This has been well understood since at least the time of Adam Smith, and there are plenty of historical evidence that protectionism is really really stupid. But there are always plenty of morons looking for simplistic answers, especially when they can blame "foreigners" for their problems.
I await when CEO jobs can also be outsourced 'elsewhere' since I'm sure they can be paid a lot less for their leadership skills than they can in the U.S. Funny, outsourcing is only for the lower ranks but not in higher management. Are you saying that someone from these other countries can't do as good a job as a U.S. corporate management team?
Norway is the third richest country in the world by per-capita GDP, it's highly protectionist
Norway has been a member of the WTO since 1995, and is a member of the EFTA. It is one of the least protectionist nations. Most of its imports are completely tariff free. But comparisons with Norway prove little, other than it is a REALLY good idea to find massive offshore oil deposits in your territorial waters.
Every job I've had for at least 10 years is in competition with people in low cost of living areas. Even so, I remain employed, and well paid. There's value in working local, and there's value in being good at what you do, so there's some premium to be had vs the cheapest place available.
Meanwhile, home prices in Bangalore are higher than rural America now - I would expect other factors of cost of living to follow.
You can certainly compete in a global market, if you're talented. If, however, you're doing some mindless job that anyone who can fog a mirror can do equally well, from any place in the world, then there's just no valid moral reason for the job to stay here. Further, it's only a matter of time before no one, will have that job. Technology means automation, and automation is why technology improves everyone's standard of living. The future is bleak for unskilled labor, worldwide, but that's not an outsourcing issue.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Who wants to leave one socialist country to come to another?"
You can bet basically nobody from a properly run "socialist" (by your standards) country (i.e. Northern Europe) would want to go to what USA has become in the last 30 years.
And no, neither Obama nor USA is in danger of being anywhere near to be considered socialist.
"Socialist", despite of what you think, is not a swear word.
Have you noticed the thing about technology? It improves your standard of living. And no, "technology" doesn't mean iPhones, it means more efficient ways to produce everyday goods, cheaper in terms of labor, energy, and raw materials.
For 150 years now people have been complaining about how technology will make all the jobs go away and everyone will starve. Not so much, as it turns out. Making stuff cheaper always creates new job making more stuff, so the first world benefits, and the economies of India, China, and Brazil keeps growing (although China has it's own bubble to work through these days), and the middle class in each nation keeps expanding.
Again, it's not a zero-sum game. You want the course that makes the pie grow the fastest over time, rather than squabbling over who gets what slice. Exponential gains always trump linear gains over time.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
OMFUG! An economic LITERATE amongst the Randian clueless clones.
When did the web start growing up?
I mean, idiots are still calling for lower taxes, like 34 years of 78% lower taxes on the top 10% somehow created a lasting peace time boom (not).
You and AC are both wrong. Tariffs indeed caused it. Look at the unemployment rate for a good six months after the stock market crash. It was basically the same as what we saw in 2008. Not good, but not particularly bad. The depression didn't begin until Smoot-Hawley passed. Imports and domestic production rise and fall with one another. This is something even the most liberal economists agree with. So if you squelch imports, guess what happens to unemployment?
Currently, that would more than halve our trade deficit, not a terrible thing,
It would also cut our GDP in half.
History has always shown that if you kneecap imports in *any* way, you also do the same to domestic production. It doesn't matter if the other trade partners retaliate or not; the whole purpose of imports is to acquire goods that can't be acquired domestically (either they flat out aren't available, or the domestic knowledge and/or infrastructure isn't present, so the foreign companies can create it cheaper.) These imported goods are then used as capital for domestic production.
If that wasn't true, it wouldn't ever be economical to import; we'd just rely entirely on domestic production.
Of course it is a zero sum game.
you cannot profit unless someone else LOSES that profit to you
It is possible to 'grow the pie', but not by eliminating customers
If you can grow the pie, then by definition it is NOT zero-sum. I don't mean to ad-hom, but what you said is just insanely stupid.
Lie, Lie, Lie. The crash AND ALL THE LOST CAPITAL came from Speculators.
The Depression began 8 years before the 29 crash, that is where all those Oakies came from
I suggest you read an actual history for once. The BOTTOM of the Depression occurred in 1933. The collapse of the market happened three years earlier!