The NYT perpetuated the silly debate on whether H-1B visas lower the wages of highly-skilled U.S. workers. For those of us who believe in markets this is a straight no-brainer. If you increase supply, you lower the price, in this case the wages of highly skilled workers. But, the NYT does the old Keystone cops routine. It presents the different sides of the debate. It tells us, "the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said that thousands of H-1B workers have been paid less than the prevailing wage." Can we get a big "duh" here? The article also reports that some "high-tech companies said that the wage standards in the Durbin-Grassley proposal would, in effect, require them to pay some H-1B employees more than some equally qualified American workers who are performing the same duties." That seems to invite the obvious -- put the measure into effect and see if the high-tech companies continue to hire people with H-1B visas. If they are being truthful, then these high-tech companies would stop using H-1B visas. To those of who believe in markets, the debate over H-1B visas is very simple. Are we going to put more downward pressure on the wages of workers who are allowed to enter the country under these visas? It would be good if the NYT could report on this issue more clearly. (BTP readers know that I do not object to seeing computer scientists subject to the same competition as custodians and textile workers.)
--Dean Baker
