But are they? Or are they just willing and here for the money and foot in the immigration door? Sincere question, though I have negative views of the whole H1B thing in general (not a US national, though).
The alternative isn't that rural communities get doctors born in the US, it's that they get no doctors.
(But I don't know how it really works, maybe it was residency only?)
1) Why is that the dichotomy?
2) Do you say the same thing about well-paid oilfield workers living in RVs, away from their families and social networks?
3) Do you think the foreign workers are happy to be in Alaska for the sake of the Alaskan experience?
For some reason, people are convinced that teacher salaries have to be suppressed, lest the "wrong people" take the jobs. As if stressing about making rent is a critical signal of virtue, exclusively for teaching.
2) Pay alone can’t make people happy, which is why there’s a very high alcoholism/suicide rate among oil workers, despite it typically being a more temporary gig than teaching and paying considerably more. I also hold teachers to a different standard for on-the-job demeanor than oil workers.
3) Per my brother in law, they’re happy to be in Alaska for the American experience.
4) Foreign teachers in Alaska aren’t suppressing wages. That would be true for free market jobs where schools can simply decide not to teach students if it’s not profitable, but teaching isn’t like that.
2) Pay attracts workers. "Happiness" is a separate and personal issue.
3) Anecdata.
4) The fact is that far higher wages would attract American teachers for short periods. It is a free market, until exploitable labor is introduced. Foreign teachers absolutely are suppressing wages, as evidenced by the fact that the wages aren't high enough to attract American teachers.