Do We Need Asian Immigration? (Responses to Part 1)

In part 1, I attempted to prove America currently lacks an appropriate amount of high-IQ STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) workers. I discussed the possible economic impact, concluding that Asian immigration would not displace an appreciable amount of high ability STEM workers as the current demand exceeds the current supply. In the comments section, I received a number of perceptive counterarguments and I'll address a few of them here.

Anonymous said:

I hate to use the old cliche, but if we can put a man on the moon, we don't need to hire asians to do our science for us.

This may have been true in the 1950's, especially after the engineers spike following Sputnik. As technology progresses, especially related to computational methods, STEM positions undergo a corresponding increase. According to the NSF, "during the 2000–2010 period, the economy as a whole is expected to provide approximately 15 percent more jobs over this decade, while employment opportunities for S&E jobs are expected to increase by about 47 percent." Our growing STEM industry requires a larger workforce which should be comprised of the most able intellectual minds.

Rohan Swee said:

Good discussion, but I'm not sure how you manage to conclude, from the Salzman article, that the problem is simply "we just don't graduate enough able stem workers, and so need to import more." Both from the article you cite, and elsewhere (Salzman and Lowell, 2007), the author(s) make(s) it clear that it isn't lack of enough graduates (to the contrary, he disputes here and elsewhere the worker shortage claim), but more the system of disincentives.

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll first mention that disincentives are likely a cause of the high engineering defect rate. Many view Wall Street or business as more lucrative career paths. In my calculations in part 1, I estimated about half of the capable engineering graduates would choose alternative work, as compared to the 38% Salzman cites. Thus, I even underestimated the number of defects. One can presume that no matter the increase in incentives or attractiveness, an attrition rate of below 50% will be difficult to attain. However, you bring up an important point and I would actually encourage reform in this arena alongside limited Asian immigration.

Second, and more importantly, you are correct that if considering only graduates statistics of STEM majors, we seemingly do not have a shortage. Of course, as mentioned directly above, there will always be high attrition into non-STEM fields. Also, I focused my analysis on objective SAT (as a proxy for IQ) scores because I find graduation rates are an inaccurate measure of scientific and mathematical ability. A college degree, even in a rigorous subject like engineering, is frequently a chimera of ability. College graduates benefit from rampant curves and grade inflation, high graduation rates (56% nationwide, 75% at selective schools, and 95% at Ivy League schools), and less rigorous curriculum requirements. Thus, I contend that graduating from an engineering curriculum, attainable even with a C- or 1.7 GPA, is not a viable means of predicting industry value.

Rather, I propose the SAT-math score is largely predictive of job performance and of innate quantitative ability. Numerous studies support the assertion that IQ correlates with real-world intelligence and predicts intellectual achievement. Thus, a more suitable means to estimate the available workforce is through the number of high scoring SAT takers. Further, as I showed in part 1, only about 30,000 possible engineers with legitimately high scores (above 700) are willing to enter STEM fields each year. This is the portion of potential engineers, the ones most likely to initiate positive change, that requires bolstering by Asian immigration.

Note that I advocate a very limited number of Asian immigrants, just enough to meet STEM demand. Some stated in the comments section that we should welcome even low-class Asian workers. I think we have enough already and I don't want to displace American workers in a sector where the skillset isn't difficult to acquire. Teacher proposed we should replace illegals with Asians, but in my estimation, we have a large amount of unemployed NAMs and welfare recipients who should stop leeching off the state. Anonymous alluded to this, but I surmise most welfare queens are incapable of high level engineering. The shortage exists in the highest level of intellectual acumen and that's why high-IQ, educated Asians will prove to be a beneficial resource.

TUJ said:

So when are the Asians going to reciprocate by offering tens of millions of European immigrants citizenship in Asian nations?

I don't think they need to reciprocate. I'll gladly take their most industrious, ambitious, and intelligent workers. I don't perceive Asian immigration as a boon to our cultural value; I view them as merely economic quantities obtained for the betterment of current Americans. Let's brain-drain their countries and discourage them from doing the same to ours.

Part 2 coming soon.