Not True.

In the 90s, the Tech Industry in the US grew at such a pace that you simply did not have enough supply of domestic college grads. It was the H-1Bs who saved and cemented the US's dominance in the Tech Industry.

See also U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age (2001) - https://issues.org/jorgenson/

▲

zerosizedweasle 8 hours ago | parent [-]

We aren't in the 1990s last time I checked.

▲

leakycap 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Hey where'd I put my math co-processor?!

▲

rramadass 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not the point. The rest of the world (specifically EU and China) has played catch-up and if the US wants to maintain its Tech dominance, you still need H-1Bs to maintain your momentum.

▲

mgh95 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the combination of birth rates in China and Russia banging on the door of the EU is going to help the US more than H1Bs for the US. With current demographics, the US is slated to be more populous than China at the turn of the next century.

▲

fakedang 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Doesn't matter if you guys shun out the immigrant population and let ignoramuses multiply, while forcing American universities to toe the federal government's line for federal funding.

In China's case, the population decrease is actually a positive for them since they are primarily an exports-driven economy. A lower population means investing into automation at an extensive degree to retain the same production levels, without the need to feed that much of a population. And if China really needs an extra labour pool, they have no qualms doing the Middle Eastern playbook and bringing in tons of workers from low-wage countries to do the dirty jobs - in fact, they already do that with Africans.

Russia is in trouble though, but given that their industries are slowly being eaten by Chinese conglomerates, they are a has-been now.

	▲	mgh95 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok. I think you drink the coolaid of China far too much. The problem with Chinas production has much more to do with the fact it has a substantial imbalance in consumption and production. This is what is at the root of why the involution crackdown has by in large failed to yield results (.4% contraction CPI; 2.9% PPI); countries are increasingly shutting out the state sponsored production endorsed by the CPC in favor of domestic or better balanced trade partners. Without the large population not to perform "dirty jobs" but to participate in Chinese society to generate domestic demand, it is unlikely that China will continue to require ongoing stimulus just to keep the economic model functioning. See this (https://www.omfif.org/2025/03/china-has-just-raised-its-debt...) regarding the increase in debt held by China and its localities. This need for "permastimulus" just to keep the economic model working is the problem: China needs to be rebalancing its economy away from production and into consumption. Unfortunately, a declining population also has declining consumption.