A recent article in Computerworld quotes a software industry group representative as saying that immigration reform will be required in order for the industry to continue its strong economic performance in the United States.
According to a spokesperson for the Software & Information Industry Association, not being able to add more workers from outside our borders as needed creates an incentive for the industry to establish facilities outside the U.S.
The obvious inference is that unless we bring in more workers from abroad to populate software companies here, the companies will simply move their operations offshore--leaving more American workers searching for jobs.
That seems to make sense, but when you think about it, this entire line of reasoning is based on a false premise--that skilled and talented workers cannot be found and/or developed here in the U.S. Does anyone really believe that American workers cannot handle the jobs that need to be done? Absolutely not! Does anyone seriously think that American companies are incapable of training people to do these jobs? I have never heard anyone say so.
No. What is really at issue here begins and ends with the almightly dollar (which isn't all that mighty these days). The SIIA says the average annual wage in the software industry in 2006 was $75,400, apparently significantly above the average wage for all workers in the private sector. On the other hand, if we bring in someone from overseas, they might be willing to work for considerably less than an American worker would want. So there's a savings built in for American software makers.
And if the foreign workers get wise and demand equal treatment, the companies can always pull up stakes and move abroad to find cheaper labor.
It's true that U.S. college graduates are not gravitating to computer science these days, but that shouldn't stop the technology industry from offering incentives for America's brightest to enter the field. Especially in specialized areas of technology like insurance and financial services, you would think that American companies would want to recruit and train young people who could flourish in the U.S. software industry and other technology arenas.
The problem is that it's just too easy--and much less expensive--to hire foreign workers or to move the entire operation offshore to gain even more financial leverage. That leaves U.S. workers who want to be part of the software industry out in the cold. In these times of looming recession, however, can we afford to be so greedy that we shove our own workers aside in the name of higher profits for the corporation?
Let's offer incentives to our own workers and train more of them. We need to take care of business inside our own borders before we worry about the global economy.
What's your opinion? We'd like to know.
Comments (4)
I'm a producer, wholly dependent on computer technology, but with little knowledge of IT (I did once know how to program in Fortran, and was intimately familiar with DOS at one point, but have been left in the dust since.). I am a heavily dependent user only now.
However, given the abysmal science and math education our students are getting, I can easily believe there is a real dearth of qualified people for the IT industry to try to attract.
Posted by Bill Lockhart | February 14, 2008 1:29 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 13:29
You and Sam, two of a left-liberal kind! What's with this accusation of "greed"? Go talk to an economist before you wander off the technical reservation! Profit is good (in the absence of coercion and fraud), the more the better, it's the proof that one is doing good in the world by selling something that is worth more to the buyers than it costs to produce, it's the steam that drives the entire economic engine forward, to the benefit of every participant in it. Let everyone do what they do best and cheapest, that's what economic progress is based on.
Posted by Mikk | February 14, 2008 2:41 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 14:41
Wow, that's the first time since the 1970s I have been accused of being liberal... lol. In any case, I would be the last one to argue that profit is not good, but what is the cost to our nation of that profit? And who is to say that we cannot profit with our own workers in place? I'm not against profit, but I definitely prefer the home-grown variety.
Posted by Ara Trembly | February 14, 2008 4:26 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 16:26
Got the following via e-mail from Steve Nelson, an agent:
Q Does anyone seriously think American schools ...are incapable of training..? You said you have never heard anyone say so. Now it can be successfully argued that I am not anybody. I'm just a little guy agent. O.K.
I'll give you that. But here's the truth. The American schools are in the business of turning out kids with degrees that "feel wonderfull" about themselves, yet can't spell, write or do 6th grade arithmetic.
I know because I've been testing job applicants for 15 years- none of whom have been able to successfully answer this question: What is 10% of 75? Documented results show 175 (count 'em) high school and college graduates can't do it. NOT ONE. NADA. ZIPPO. What part of "zero" do you not understand?
How about spelling? Don't ask. My wife has to do the filing or we can't find the files. We are both over 50 by a lot. You see, we were educated by a school system that still wanted to turn out literate students.
Does this make a difference in life? Well consider these numbers. We have a small retail insurance agency selling auto and home insurance. I started it 30 years ago.
I said we are small. Real small. In 2003 we had sales of $800,000, after 26 years of "messing around."
Then I started noticing that all my employees had "defects." You know, like attitudinal problems, failure to be able to read & write, failure to be able to put more than 4 words together to complete a coherant thought, failure to be able to add & subtract (forget about multiplication and, horrors, division) and, finally, failure to be able to relate to ANYONE other than themselves.
So I adjusted by taking all the functions away from them that required a 5th grade education. Do most of the customer contact myself. Do all numbers work myself. Results: organic growth of 35% per year compounding with expenses staying flat.
Since by your picture I am assuming you to be, ahem, over 30 shall we say, you will intuitively just "know" that means over 300% increase in business. Note for those under 30: that means we are more than 3 times bigger like in 1 + 1
+ 1 = 3. People under 30 have no idea what percentages are. Why is that so?
I think it's because the schools are now in the propagada business and owned by the lunatic fringe pressure groups. There is now a movement to block boys from being in math classes so as to make it easy for girls to be in there (can we say affirmative action against boys) ? Now that will really help our economy. How about just banning all boys from being in school in the first place? Come to think of it, we are nearly there now. Consider that most college degrees are already going to girls. Advanced dregrees are overwhelmingly given to women.
Can you see where this is going? I am not against girls getting math degrees; I am against boys being excluded from class.
Steven R. Nelson, little guy agent, degree holder in math, physics, chemistry and history.
Posted by Ara Trembly | March 21, 2008 1:27 PM
Posted on March 21, 2008 13:27