The "NYT opinion article" is written by a Nobel prize winner, and he's describing the opinion that most economists hold towards the lump of labor fallacy.

If you're curious to learn more, there's plenty that come up in a simple Google search.

> It's pretty hard to imagine how more developers wouldn't lower salaries though

This is the textbook definition of the lump of labor fallacy.

I mean, it's also not the case that labor markets are immune to supply and demand. As always, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

The whole point of the "lump of labor fallacy" is that growing the workforce will increase both the supply and demand. This is why unemployment is comparable across 1900 and 2000 America, despite the population exploding.

The answer isn't always somewhere in the middle. If someone tries to convince you that the Earth is flat or that climate change isn't happening, I would hope that you will lend more credence to the experts instead of believing the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Utility is maximized for society as a whole when the workforce grows. However, my utility is not equal to society's. In fact, selfishly speaking, I would be better off if h1b was shut down, licensure roles introduced, etc etc.

As someone who's hired many people on H1B visas, I strongly disagree. There was always local talent that could do the job I needed, I just didn't have budget for them. If hiring an H1B worker wasn't an option, the company would have had to pony up for the more expensive developer.

H1Bs also distort the market because getting a sponsored visa is a huge deal for a lot of people. Yes they may make slightly less than market but they have the ability to come to the US legally and have all of the paperwork filled by the hiring company (and legal support).

As another commenter mentioned, they're also locked into your company and can't quit without leaving the country. Another win for hiring managers.

None of this is good for local talent though. It's absolutely naive to believe that the supply of labor has no impact on its cost.

> There was always local talent that could do the job I needed, I just didn't have budget for them.

So you're saying that you willfully violated federal law by bringing in guest workers for cost reasons alone.

There's always domestic talent available. You just need to pay for it. Most companies look for ways around that including H1B and hiring jr developers and hoping for the best.

"Being able to hire H1Bs helps hiring managers" for sure, but H1B need to be sponsored by the firm they're working for, with the implied threat of losing their residency right if they can't keep that job. It's blatantly exploitative and not a free market at all, so the "lump of labor argument" doesn't apply in this case. Basically, any support for the H1-B program in its current form means you're supporting a race to the bottom in workers' rights.