I think it's useful to rephrase the emotive, and unclear language used in this debate (like "driving down prices") into the language of economics.
Let's assume there are two types of programmers, normal and great.
Now in a competitive market (which the labor market basically is, especially since the collusion issue has been dealt with), wages and employment levels are determined by supply and demand for each type of programmer.
The current H-1B system allows in both kinds of programmers, increasing the supply of both kinds, and thereby lowering wages. It's important to note that pg makes a mistake when he conflates lowering wages, with H-1B employees earning less than Americans. In fact, if wages stayed the same then the H-1B program would have no effect. When startups complain they cant find the right people, what they mean is they can't afford the effective wage needed to steal people from Google or Facebook (there is always a number that would make them switch).
Now in this framework, pg's proposal can be rephrased as "use H-1Bs to increase the supply of great programmers, instead of ordinary programmers". I agree this is a good proposal, because this gives the best tradeoff in terms of cost (i.e. whatever it is that makes the US limit immigration in the first place) vs benefit (reduced costs for employers).
When analyzing this situation, it's very important to note that high wages are a bad thing in themselves. Just like high prices for milk are good for milk produces and bad for milk consumers, but given the option to create cheap milk (e.g. artificially) society should always take it.
Some people like to compare programmers' situation to, for example, doctors. But to the extent that the AMA artificially limits supply, this is a bad thing for society. Trade unions or professional organizations that use political lobbying (or violence) to artificially limit supply, are harming society for their own benefit. People sometimes claim that tech is full of clueless nerds. I would argue that the "nerdiness" of tech workers also correlates with a decreased capacity for the self-deception needed to support AMA style unionization, and that this is a good thing. It might result in lower wages, all things being equal, but it also results in a better industry overall, and higher growth that itself creates higher wages.
High wages are only a bad thing from the perspective of capital. From the perspective of the middle class, they distribute capital (and reward effort) more equitably.
So the theory (see "general equilibrium theory" of "welfare theorems of economics") is that increasing the supply of labor (or any other input for that matter) results in greater total output. And since the more expensive labor is the the labor of "great" programmers, increasing the supply of great programmers results in a greater increase in total output.
In general, economists (including myself) assume that increases in total output are always worth it, because the taxation system can account for the redistribution effects. This isn't guaranteed, since redistribution isn't free (some estimate that $1 of tax revenue costs $1.30 to the economy), but I think it's a very good rule of thumb.
So if you want to help the middle class you should support a more progressive taxation system, not higher wages [1].
[1] and by higher wages I mean higher wages for their own sake. Making workers more productive, which might raise wages, is also a good way to do this.
Let's assume there are two types of programmers, normal and great.
Now in a competitive market (which the labor market basically is, especially since the collusion issue has been dealt with), wages and employment levels are determined by supply and demand for each type of programmer.
The current H-1B system allows in both kinds of programmers, increasing the supply of both kinds, and thereby lowering wages. It's important to note that pg makes a mistake when he conflates lowering wages, with H-1B employees earning less than Americans. In fact, if wages stayed the same then the H-1B program would have no effect. When startups complain they cant find the right people, what they mean is they can't afford the effective wage needed to steal people from Google or Facebook (there is always a number that would make them switch).
Now in this framework, pg's proposal can be rephrased as "use H-1Bs to increase the supply of great programmers, instead of ordinary programmers". I agree this is a good proposal, because this gives the best tradeoff in terms of cost (i.e. whatever it is that makes the US limit immigration in the first place) vs benefit (reduced costs for employers).
When analyzing this situation, it's very important to note that high wages are a bad thing in themselves. Just like high prices for milk are good for milk produces and bad for milk consumers, but given the option to create cheap milk (e.g. artificially) society should always take it.
Some people like to compare programmers' situation to, for example, doctors. But to the extent that the AMA artificially limits supply, this is a bad thing for society. Trade unions or professional organizations that use political lobbying (or violence) to artificially limit supply, are harming society for their own benefit. People sometimes claim that tech is full of clueless nerds. I would argue that the "nerdiness" of tech workers also correlates with a decreased capacity for the self-deception needed to support AMA style unionization, and that this is a good thing. It might result in lower wages, all things being equal, but it also results in a better industry overall, and higher growth that itself creates higher wages.