Import replacement would be finding ways to supply the same needs using domestic employees.

Also, the whole point of the analysis is that nations like the US are the wrong units to look at. It's not a question of whether the US can keep up with the demand for various kinds of workers; it's whether individual cities or city regions can. The Bay area, for example, seems to have no problem making use of qualified employees from anywhere in the world.

> is being a conventional worker like being a "supply region?"

Not necessarily. I think the key question would be, does the worker do anything to develop their "resources" (their skills and knowledge) so they can respond to changes in supply and demand by changing what they do or how they do it? Or do they just expect to keep being paid for doing the same thing forever, even if it is no longer economically viable?

I agree with your point that it is incumbent upon every individual to continually improve themselves. However, I like point out whenever this sentiment is brought up (including by myself) that while individuals must continuously improve, it does not necessarily follow that organizations will improve. Even if those very organizations are crammed with lots of those continuously-improving individuals. Especially large, monopolistic or duopolistic organizations with a lot of staying power over long periods of time.

It means you're missing the root reason why people want to import qualified employees: Because they're more exploitable. If they (the employee) is dependent on their employer to not be deported, then they don't have the employment mobility to negotiate a better salary with.

Is that really what's happening? If so, why are wages stagnant? The "importing" is not because of a true lack, but because it's a way to seek a lower price-point than they could get domestically. (If not in H1-B land, then at least in agriculture.)

Also, "demand to import" seems a little weird. It's like saying "the demand to recycle aluminum". What's actually demanded is aluminum as a good. Recycling simply happens to be one possible way that it can be supplied.

Isn't this what a lack is? There are very few situations in which a needed thing doesn't exist at all.

In contrast, "our profit is low because oil is expensive, let's lobby the government to build a new oil pipeline" is somehow different.

Fix our educational system and train our own citizens? Seems pretty straightforward.

A simplified tax code, where it's still progressive, i.e. tiered, but no deductions would get rid of the feeling that we're paying more than our fair share because there would be fewer ways for people to game the system. It would also potentially recuperate the waste on the tax preparation economy.

And for people who don't think taxes/money is the solution to the education issues in the US, look at the difference between California's performance before prop 13 and after prop 13 passed. Prop 13 capped the amount that taxes could be raised on property for both individuals AND corporations, strangling the educational systems main revenue stream.

I disagree quite a bit on taxation. But, what I will say is that by making taxes a mandatory (and often-argued about thing), we have put ourselves in a position where people will probably never come to see that with no "money", nothing that they want will get done/bought.