On a market with free pricing there are, pretty much by definition, no shortages or surpluses.

Instead prices go up or down until supply and demand meet.

So talking about "shortages" in this context doesn't really make sense to me. Yet that's the terminology in this field, and the resulting confusion is unavoidable.

A shortage is a situation, where the market cannot bring high prices down by increasing the supply. For example, if software engineers earn more than equally demanding roles in other engineering fields and the situation persists long enough, there is a shortage of software engineers.

Who decides if the price is high or low? That should be the market. High salaries -> more people decide to pursue it as a career -> more competition -> lower salaries. They are trying to force salaries down quicker

> On a market with free pricing there are, pretty much by definition, no shortages or surpluses.

Remember the "chip shortage" all throughout the pandemic? It's not like the whole world switched to a Soviet style command economy between 2020 and 2022 yet we still had it.

"Free market" folks tend to ignore the ladder-pulls and existing regulations that make it a non-free market.

This example proves OP's point. It was only a "shortage" in name.

If you were willing to pay more than the market rate, there was no problem in finding chips.

That's an interesting case!

ChatGPT mentions some factors for why suppliers didn't just raise prices until the demand met the supply:

1. The industry often has long term contracts that fixes prices months or years in advance.

2. Even without such contracts, the value of stable, long-term relationships with major customers made suppliers keep prices stable.

3. Governments intervened to prevent "price gouging" for favored industries, and even without such intervention, perceived price gouging can be more damaging long term than is made up for by near term profits.

So you're right that there was a real shortage for a time.

But note my original caveat: "On a market with free pricing". Unfree pricing (contracts/regulation) was one factor.

But PR considerations, which I admit I didn't think of, was also a factor. So I learned something here!

So then call the H1-B program what it is - a way for US tech companies to depress wages to the point that you can't afford to live the US, unless it's a bunch of H-1B holders living together in a house share.

The same goes for offshoring for jobs. Lovely for shareholders and the CEO's bonus, but not so great for US residents having to compete with them who are paying US cost of living, not Indian/etc overseas cost of living.

It'd be nice if the US government would pass laws benefiting its own citizens/residents rather than corporations.

It's racist to prefer citizens over non-citizens though. The US government should pass laws benefiting all people of the world equally.

Governments exist to take care of their own citizens—that’s their main job. Citizens pay taxes, follow the laws, and contribute to the country, so it makes sense for a government to prioritize their needs. That’s not racist; it’s just how countries work.

If a government tried to treat everyone in the world the same, it wouldn’t be able to meet the needs of its own people. Things like healthcare, schools, and public services are paid for by citizens, so they have to come first.

Also, preferring citizens isn’t about race. Citizenship is something anyone can earn, no matter where they’re from. Calling it racist mixes up two very different things.

It's hard not to break the rules in replying to something like this.

> Governments exist to take care of their own citizens—that’s their main job. Citizens pay taxes, follow the laws, and contribute to the country, so it makes sense for a government to prioritize their needs. That’s not racist; it’s just how countries work.

Are you trying to tell us immigrants to the US do not pay taxes? They don't follow laws? And they don't contribute to the country?

Obviously, given the context, I am not trying to say immigrants don't pay taxes or follow the law. I am saying the the job of a government is to look after its own. If you have some better term for "its own people" go for it.

I'd also say, immigrants are only temporary non-citizens. If they are immigrating to stay, then it's the government's job to take care of them. Countries like the US and Australia were founded on immigrants.

If their loyalty is not to the country they are immigrating to, and is to their previous country's government, I am not sure why it would be a priority to support them.

I'm not being sarcastic this time. You seem to have missed the zeitgeist, especially among younger generations. For them, it's very much true that the government shouldn't look out for the interests of its citizens over the interests of people in general, and they do think it's racist if the government does this. It's impossible to explain to them the very simple game theory implications of such policy, and it's difficult to argue that the government isn't already doing it (in the United States, in other countries it's impossible to argue that).

>If their loyalty is not to the country they are immigrating to

This goes against human nature. Loyalty would come later, not before or even immediately.

It's nationalist, not racist. Passports and border controls are the practical foundation of all nationalism.

not sure if your comment was an attempt at sarcasm and I just missed it. In case it wasn't - it's not racist for country to look after its own economic interest or the interest of its own citizens.

Huh? There are US citizens of all sorts of ethnic/racial backgrounds.

Preferring US citizens over outsourcing is patriotic, not racist. It's also being a good corporate citizen - supporting the country/people you are gaining your profits from.

House sharing is a problem with the numbers of people that FAANG wants to employ in West Coast communities that aren't having it, not with their identities. When people making $300-500k can't have their own houses, the problem is not money.

If the H1B is paid $400k, is it really depressing salaries? It's more about having employees that are 10-15% better than the competition if you can, which makes you much more likely to beat them.

Yes, even at 400k it's still salary depression. The whole thing is, essentially, regulatory capture that is being used to do a sort of "arbitrage" over people. Big corporations in the West are cannibalizing society because governments are failing at defending the interests of the majority due to the lobbying power of a minority. Mind you I am not talking about an uprising or some bullshit like that, but, for example, the situation around medical service/insurance in the US is appalling.

> I feel like this whole issue could be solved short order if we agreed that not being able to find qualified applicants at a given fixed price does not a shortage make.

It could be solved by realising that letting immigrants in, especially highly skilled ones, is good for the country (and for the immigrants!), independent of anything like a 'skills shortage'.

So you want to depress wages of vulnerable people on visas even more? What is wrong with you?

It seems to me that there is a dichotomy between that or allowing companies to continue to snub US workers for vulnerable foreign labor.

Maybe you could escape the dichotomy by requiring H1-B workers to be in the 5% paid employees at a company or something.

No, what needs to happen is to give workers mobility. H1B workers are preferentially hired at some firms because of their lack of mobility — they're easier to abuse than other workers. Addressing that would let everyone be on an equal footing and share the benefits of agglomeration (immigration increases supply and demand!) It would also be far more just and equitable.

Parents idea is better.

I think from a US citizen perspective, you don’t want to be equitable with people on a Visa program, because the low COL areas where many of the people on H1-B visas come from inherently makes them more willing to accept less than their US counterparts.