Fissures within US president-elect Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) coalition have appeared sooner than expected. By the end of last month, the tech-billionaire wing was in open warfare with MAGA’s nativist wing over the US’ H-1B visa program, which enables US businesses to employ some 600,000 skilled foreigners per year on a temporary basis.
Speaking for the billionaires, Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla (a top H-1B employer), argued that: “There is a permanent shortage of excellent engineering talent. It is the fundamental limiting factor in Silicon Valley.”
Likewise, Vivek Ramaswamy, another tech billionaire advising Trump, claims that US companies need H-1B workers because “our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long (at least since the 90s and likely longer).”
In response, MAGA activists such as Laura Loomer and Steve Bannon — but also democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders — countered that the program helps large US corporations at the expense of US workers.
Who is right? While economic research makes clear that immigrants bring sought-after skills, creative dynamism and useful knowledge that also helps domestic innovators, that does not mean there is no downside to a heavy reliance on H-1B visas. For example, the argument that the H-1B program helps employers secure STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) skills ignores the fact that if there were no such program, US educational institutions would feel greater pressure from business to address this need.
The idea of elites pushing the education system to produce workers with useful skills and attitudes goes back at least to Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis’ influential 1976 book, Schooling in Capitalist America. Applying their argument to the present, one would expect corporate America’s growing need for skilled STEM workers to translate into advocacy for, and investments in, STEM education. However, an overreliance on the H-1B program might have broken this link and made US elites indifferent to the widely recognized failures of the US education system. Put differently, the problem might not be a cultural veneration of mediocrity, as Ramaswamy argued, but rather neglect on the part of business leaders, intellectual elites and politicians.
This is just a possibility, of course. We cannot say for sure that the response from the education system would be adequate even if it did feel more pressure from the business community. However, whatever the case, surely US policymakers should pay more attention to the program’s potential secondary effects.
A similar argument applies to choices about technology. Even as H-1B workers boost innovation, their presence might affect the direction innovation takes. My own work shows (theoretically and empirically) that when the supply of skilled labor increases, technology choices start favoring such workers. Over the past several decades, businesses have increasingly adopted technologies that favor high-skill workers and automate tasks previously performed by lower-skill workers. While this trend might have been driven by other factors, too, the availability of affordable high-skill workers for the tech industry plausibly contributed to it.
Again, this effect reflects indifference on the part of business leaders and policymakers. It also suggests that if the US is going to rely on H-1B workers, policymakers should consider other adjustments to ensure that corporate strategies and the designs of new technologies seek to make use of workers without STEM skills or college degrees.
A final relevant question is whether programs such as H-1B could harm source countries by creating a brain drain. This, too, is open to debate. Such programs could be a win-win if destination economies have technologies, institutions and other skilled workers that are especially complementary to high-skill immigrants. In this case, an Indian STEM worker would contribute more to global output or innovation from the US than from India, and some of the additional scientific and technical knowledge produced would flow back home.
In fact, there is evidence suggesting that such knowledge exchanges already occur through cross-border ethnic networks. However, this win-win scenario would not take place if nearly all skilled, innovative workers departed the source country, because there would no longer be a critical mass of workers left to benefit from the knowledge flows.
Moreover, for this win-win scenario to become a reality, the sharing of knowledge about new innovations and technical expertise must not reach such a scale or pace that it undercuts the US’ own comparative advantage (which is rooted in innovation).
In economics literature, this issue is usually explored in the context of technology-product cycles. While we have little evidence about what constitutes a flow of information that is too fast, some believe that China has benefited unduly in this respect, improving its technologies rapidly at the expense of Western companies.
Thus, a win-win scenario depends on sufficient numbers of skilled workers remaining in each source country, and on adequate international protections of intellectual property rights, so that innovators could reap the rewards from their contributions, at least for a while.
The H-1B debate within Trump’s MAGA coalition raises some important questions for how the US should think about education and technology in an increasingly globalized knowledge economy. There are configurations that could ultimately benefit advanced economies and poorer countries alike. However, whether they would be found over the next four years remains to be seen.
Daron Acemoglu, a 2024 Nobel laureate in Economics and institute professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a coauthor (with Simon Johnson) of Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS