Bill Gates continues his crusade to allow more high-skilled immigrants into
How to Keep the U.S. Competitive, by Bill Gates, Commentary, Washington Post: ...Innovation is the source of U.S. economic leadership and the foundation for
our competitiveness in the global economy. Government investment in research,
strong intellectual property laws and efficient capital markets are among the
reasons that America has for decades been best at transforming new ideas into
The most important factor is our workforce. Scientists and engineers trained
in U.S. universities -- the world's best -- have pioneered key technologies such
as the microprocessor, creating industries and generating millions of
But our status as the world's center for new ideas cannot be taken for
granted. Other governments are waking up to the vital role innovation plays in
Two steps are critical. First, we must demand strong schools so that young
Americans enter the workforce with the math, science and problem-solving skills
they need to succeed in the knowledge economy. We must also make it easier for
foreign-born scientists and engineers to work for U.S. companies. ...
Our schools can do better. Last year, I visited High Tech High in San Diego;
it's an amazing school where educators have augmented traditional teaching
methods with a rigorous, project-centered curriculum. Students there know
they're expected to go on to college. This combination is working: 100 percent
of High Tech High graduates are accepted into college, and 29 percent major in
math or science, compared with the national average of 17 percent.
To remain competitive in the global economy, we must build on the success of
American competitiveness also requires immigration reforms that reflect the
importance of highly skilled foreign-born employees. Demand for specialized
technical skills has long exceeded the supply of native-born workers with
advanced degrees, and scientists and engineers from other countries fill this
This issue has reached a crisis point. Computer science employment is growing
by nearly 100,000 jobs annually. But at the same time studies show that there is
a dramatic decline in the number of students graduating with computer science
The United States provides 65,000 temporary H-1B visas each year to make up
this shortfall -- not nearly enough to fill open technical positions.
Permanent residency regulations compound this problem. Temporary employees
wait five years or longer for a green card. During that time they can't change
jobs, which limits their opportunities to contribute to their employer's success
and overall economic growth.
Last year, reform on this issue stalled as Congress struggled to address
border security and undocumented immigration. As lawmakers grapple with those
important issues once again, I urge them to support changes to the H-1B visa
program that allow American businesses to hire foreign-born scientists and
engineers when they can't find the homegrown talent they need. This program has
strong wage protections for U.S. workers: Like other companies, Microsoft pays
H-1B and U.S. employees the same high levels...
Reforming the green card program to make it easier to retain highly skilled
professionals is also necessary. These employees are vital to U.S.
competitiveness, and we should welcome their contribution to U.S. economic
We should also encourage foreign students to stay here after they graduate.
Half of this country's doctoral candidates in computer science come from abroad.
It's not in our national interest to educate them here but send them home...
During the past 30 years, U.S. innovation has been the catalyst for the
digital information revolution. If the United States is to remain a global
economic leader, we must foster an environment that enables a new generation to
dream up innovations, regardless of where they were born. Talent in this country
is not the problem -- the issue is political will.
On High Tech, the fact that more graduates major in math and science in
college than at other schools (29% versus 17%) is not, in and of itself,
evidence that these schools work since a high degree of selectivity bias is
likely present (those who like math and science are more likely to enroll in a
"High Tech High" than other students, the web site says they get 3,000 applications for 300 slots). I agree completely with the message on
education, but worry that instead of building upon what works, we are too ready
to tear it all down and start over. We have a Gates Foundation small schools
initiative here in Eugene that broke an existing high school into three smaller
specialty schools (an International High School, a school specializing in
Invention, Design, Engineering, Arts, & Science, and North Eugene Academy of
Arts). If it works, great, but these are kids lives we are playing with and if
it doesn't work and outcomes deteriorate, the price of innovation, the risk,
becomes very localized and very steep for those students who participate in the failed experiments (and
it's not always voluntary). I wish there was a better
way to spread the risk of these experiments across the population rather than
localizing it in schools that are already, for the most part, having troubles.
As for immigration, I am generally supportive of open door policies. However,
I do want to point out that there is another solution for Gates and others. They
believe that there is plenty of talent in the U.S., that's not the problem, it's
just that workers lack the training they need. Microsoft could provide the
training itself instead of free-riding on the educational system. It takes a
little longer and costs more, of course, but consistent with advocates of
privatization and efficient markets, it forces Microsoft to internalize the
costs of training its workers, particularly specialized training. But I can't blame Microsoft for wanting to avoid
these costs if it can, and for wanting to increase the supply of labor as much
as possible by opening the borders to more high-skill immigration.
The shortage of U.S. graduates in this area may be because students have no certainty that
specialized skills in these areas will retain their value in the future, a
consequence of changes in technology that undermine existing skills over time,
digital technology that allows collaborative work to be performed outside of the
U.S., and the prospect of more temporary visas being issued in the future.
My observation is that there is a large set of talented students who respond
strongly to expected employment prospects when they choose a major, though there
is, of course, a time-delay between the appearance of shortages and surpluses in
particular areas and changes in the number of majors. But the effect is there.
If U.S. students perceive that an investment in computer science training
relative to investing their time elsewhere will have the largest long-run
payoff, any shortage will take care of itself. [And, as noted in comments, access to education may not be equal so
that another way to increase supply is to increase educational
opportunities within the U.S.]
In the long-run, due to technology and globalization and to comparative advantage, trying to close doors
to high-skilled workers is, for the most part, a losing battle. We can create
artificial barriers to foreign competition and steer our students in particular
directions but there is a danger that in doing so, we set them up for a bigger
fall later. If the walls keeping out foreign competition cannot be maintained in
a digital age, and if we artificially direct students to particular occupations, once the walls do come down people employed in these areas will be
very exposed and in danger of a large fall in income and employment prospects due to the increased
competition. For that reason, I think we are better off letting the walls come
down now, within reason of course, and allowing prices direct our students to the
places they will, so far as markets can predict, be most highly valued in the
Update: Dean Baker also comments in Bill Gates Comes to the Coward's Corner. PGL too.