> There are over a million Arabic speakers in the US, hundreds of thousands of whom are legally able to do the work. I strongly suspect that a number sufficient to handle the city of Detroit's translation needs
That's an argument that there is not an actual shortage (which, I suspect, is correct), not that an actual shortage could be addressed by bidding higher with wages (which it could not, by definition.)
> What exactly are you arguing here?
Your incorrect statement about an actual shortage being addressable by bidding higher with wages.
> In what situation would a shortage truly require importing labor at low wages?
I wasn't arguing that would occur, but since you ask, a sudden supply constraint or demand surge (perhaps from a debilitating epidemic that spreads particularly well in conditions associated with a particular job) in an essential, common, but not completely unskilled job might require that to avoid massive economic disruption.
> As they are now, H1Bs suppress wages, especially immigrant wages.
I'm not sure I agree with the “especially” part, but, yes, I've said elsewhere in the thread that that is what H-1Bs do, and by design even if it's not the sales pitch.
The thing with H-1B visas is they tie the immigrant employee to a specific employer, thus giving the employees little ability to negotiate for raises. It also results in H-1B visa holding immigrants being paid significantly less for their contributions.
In contrast, adrr's suggestion above to "stack rank h1b applicants by salary instead of using a lottery system" would result in a system where H-1B holding immigrants are well-paid and "shortages" result in rising wages over time.
Re: sudden shocks, I agree with you. Market pricing will tend to fix imbalances over time (barring extreme regulation or other distortions), but it does take time. In a truly extraordinary situation such as you suggest where huge swaths of the population are suddenly dead or incapacitated, you'd have a reasonable argument against market pricing. I don't believe the H-1B was ever intended for such catastrophic scenarios, though.
That's an argument that there is not an actual shortage (which, I suspect, is correct), not that an actual shortage could be addressed by bidding higher with wages (which it could not, by definition.)
> What exactly are you arguing here?
Your incorrect statement about an actual shortage being addressable by bidding higher with wages.
> In what situation would a shortage truly require importing labor at low wages?
I wasn't arguing that would occur, but since you ask, a sudden supply constraint or demand surge (perhaps from a debilitating epidemic that spreads particularly well in conditions associated with a particular job) in an essential, common, but not completely unskilled job might require that to avoid massive economic disruption.
> As they are now, H1Bs suppress wages, especially immigrant wages.
I'm not sure I agree with the “especially” part, but, yes, I've said elsewhere in the thread that that is what H-1Bs do, and by design even if it's not the sales pitch.