

Senator To Microsoft: What Was That You Said About Wanting More H-1B Workers?  - ekrangel
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/senator-to-microsoft-what-was-that-you-said-about-wanting-more-h-1b-workers-msft

======
Dilpil
"Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting
them first during these difficult economic times."

That senator, is where you are wrong. America is not a fraternity. Microsoft
is not a public works program. Microsoft is a private corporation. Once upon a
time, republicans understood the difference.

Conservatism is dead, long live conservatism.

~~~
falsestprophet
"That senator, is where you are wrong." (Okay, calm down Keith Olberman.)

No, the United States is not a fraternity; I think a better metaphor is that
it is the biggest baddest street gang there is. It should be no surprise that
we are inclined to look after our own first.

I agree that Microsoft has no obligation other than following the rules and
paying its protection money.

But America has an obligation to protect American workers ("by the people and
for the people" remember?) "by putting them first during these difficult
economic times".

So, they should change immigration law. And populist talk like this is often
the first step towards that end.

In the end, I don't think it is meaningful to label this idea conservatism or
liberalism. It is simply political pragmatism.

~~~
newt0311
"But America has an obligation to protect American workers"

Classic make-work fallacy. American interests are best served when
corporations (Microsoft in this case) are as efficient as possible. If that
means immigrant workers, then so be it. If MS (and other corps) are forced to
hire less-qualified or more expensive American workers then the cost of these
measures is paid by their customers who are ... Americans and in lost market
share which results in a cost to MS' investors who are ... Americans. The
difference is that the plight of the unemployed programmers is obvious and
easy to see while the plight of the customer and investors is obscured but
that does not change the loss that they experience.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
" American interests are best served when corporations (Microsoft in this
case) are as efficient as possible."

That simply doesn't pan out. It is in the capital-owner's best interest when
their holdings operate as efficiently as possible. Most americans are not
capital-holders.

~~~
newt0311
Look again at how your pension fund is invested. Most americans have an
interest in the stock market (Exxon, GE, Walmart, and index funds are
particularly polular among large pension funds like CALPERS). Furthermore, all
Americans are capital holders in the sense that they own (some) US dollars
which can be used to buy from the US economy. If the economy becomes more
efficient, they can buy more and therefore, are aided by the increased
efficiency. That is, until the dollar is devalued even more.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Pension fund? Oh, you mean that ponzi scheme of Social Security?

Also, most Americans are in more debt than they have assets. They are not
capital holders. Don't conflate holding some currency with controlling the
means of production.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Why was I down-modded?

------
jonas_b
The Senator may not realise it, but much of the productivity growth in the US
has come from technological breakthroughs of first or second generation
immigrants. Short-sighted populism is what I would call this.

~~~
jimbokun
So what?

Why should an American worker give a damn about productivity? We just
experienced a decade with robust productivity growth along with steadily
declining standards of living. Improvements to productivity have almost
exclusively benefited people who are already wealthy over the past 10 years.
This may be slightly hyperbolic, but certainly not by much.

There are opinions being expressed here that American workers have a sense of
entitlement, wanting to maintain their current standard of living. Well, what
about American capital? Why do they feel a sense of entitlement to make their
capital even more valuable via access to ever cheaper labor? Why do they feel
a sense of entitlement to keep the standard of living their capital gives
them, instead of having it taxed and distributed to others?

Ideologies are not ends unto themselves. The American people believe that
driving down the cost of labor is not serving their interests now, and are not
compelled by arguments that they should sacrifice their interests in homage to
pure libertarianism. If those who think that the median citizen will benefit
from increased immigration, make that argument in terms that addresses that
citizen's self interest. That is how debate in a democracy is supposed to
work.

~~~
Xichekolas
> _We just experienced a decade with robust productivity growth along with
> steadily declining standards of living._

This sentiment always confuses me. Granted, my experience is limited (memory
only serves me for about the last 15 years), but it seems like things are
getting better all the time. More people have more televisions, air
conditioners, dishwashers, etc than ever before. Life expectancy is steadily
increasing, food supply has become more or less a non-issue, etc. In what
material dimension are we noteably worse off now than we were 20 years ago?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm honestly curious. The only thing that
remotely comes to mind is the cost of higher education, which has been
increasing in cost faster than wages grow.

> _If those who think that the median citizen will benefit from increased
> immigration, make that argument in terms that addresses that citizen's self
> interest._

Just because incomes have "stagnated" (which also seems to depend on how you
slice and dice the numbers), doesn't mean standard of living has gone down.
The constantly decreasing prices of material goods plays just as much of a
factor. My wages could be cut in half and I could still afford the same amount
of TV screen as two years ago. Granted, not everything gets cheaper at the
rate consumer electronics do, but cheap immigrant labor has a huge effect on
the prices of stuff you buy all the time, which benefits you as well.

~~~
jimbokun
"In what material dimension are we noteably worse off now than we were 20
years ago?"

My window was 10 years.

"Just because incomes have "stagnated" (which also seems to depend on how you
slice and dice the numbers), doesn't mean standard of living has gone down."

No, it just means standard of living has stagnated, too.

"The constantly decreasing prices of material goods plays just as much of a
factor."

We've had a lot of inflation, up until the economy cratered.

~~~
Xichekolas
Well my question still stands for 10 years. Of course, if the window gets too
small it becomes meaningless. Progress is never constant and moderate, there
are always bad times and good, as long as the long term trend is upward.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Real wages have stayed pretty flat, but housing costs have skyrocketed, we are
working more hours and not getting more vacation, and healthcare remains
abysmal.

------
Prrometheus
>"Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by
putting them first during these difficult economic times."

One loses track of all the moral obligations of corporations these days. While
trying to meet them all, it can be hard to find the time to make a good
product and earn money.

~~~
rbanffy
"it can be hard to find the time to make a good product"

So that explain their last decade!

------
einarvollset
Nobody ever wins votes by championing the cause of immigrants. As usual
though, it seems like immigration bashing is high up on the todo list of
politicians where hardly any immigrants live, particularly when the economic
shit hits the fan.

~~~
eru
> where hardly any immigrants live

Applies in Germany, too.

~~~
eru
I.e. the inverse correlation between immigritant population density and
dislike for immigrants.

------
vaksel
why does this guy care? He is a senator from Iowa...are there any "high tech"
jobs in Iowa that would get affected by the H1-B program?

H1-B program is very important to this country. It keeps us ahead of the curve
by draining the talent worldwide and adding it to United States brain capital.

~~~
potatolicious
I say we don't go far enough with the H-1B program. Many people I know are
uneasy and unwilling to sign their lives away to a single company, to do with
at their whim, for a chance to _maybe_ become a legitimate US resident in a
decade.

The problem is that, once you are in the US on a H-1B your life is in the
hands of your employer. This is ripe for employee abuse (and one of the major
contributors to wage depression in immigrant labor).

What the US really needs is a legitimized skilled labor immigration program.
Something whose job is _actually_ to steal talent from abroad and add it to
America, instead of this "job shortage" excuse and subverting a different
system to accomplish the same ends. If you can bring people into the country
and give them employment mobility (the same way my parents came into Canada),
the US would be far better off, and wage depression due to immigration would
be reduced.

[edit] As a more concrete issue: here in Canada we have significant problems
with skilled immigrants coming and not being able to find jobs, and thus being
a drain on our social systems. This can easily avoided if certain classes
(i.e. anyone not exceptionally talented) would need an employer sponsor to
apply for immigration. You would need to secure a job before entering the US,
but once you're in you are mobile.

~~~
Xichekolas
While I'm generally all for the change you propose, you have to be realistic
and realize this could be abused.

I could set up a company that would, in exchange for buying $3000 of my
plastic toys, hire someone and let them resign a month later. I can even let
them do the month's work from their new home in the US. Then they can go off
and do as they please.

Granted this is just an enforcement issue, and enforcement is part of whatever
system we have, but I think you could save a lot of effort by just instituting
some kind of entrance exam system to certify them as a 'knowledge worker'. (At
which point they can enter and leave freely, with full job mobility.)

As an added bonus, you could administer this exam to citizens as well as a
form of professional certification, which would probably be more useful to
employers than the existing degree system.

~~~
sethg
_I could set up a company that would, in exchange for buying $3000 of my
plastic toys, hire someone and let them resign a month later._

There are ways to prevent that. For example, the government could require that
(a) the employer sponsoring a new immigrant has to pay six months of the
immigrant's unemployment insurance in advance (perhaps put into an escrow
account), and (b) if the immigrant is neither employed nor collecting
unemployment insurance for more than, say, two months, then the visa is
terminated.

Another possibility I've seen floated is that the government make only a fixed
number of work visas available, but auction them off. Then the immigrants let
in would be the ones who are likely to add the most value to their employers.

~~~
potatolicious
Actually that's also how we solve it in Canada for relatives of immigrants. In
order to bring kin over into Canada one must sign a commitment to cover their
social welfare expenses (if any) for a period of 10 years. This has done
wonders to curtail people bringing in elderly relatives who do nothing but sit
on welfare checks. This also holds someone accountable without leaving someone
behind.

------
ojbyrne
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act>

Every politician in every country right now is trying to raise barriers, buy
at home first, preserve jobs for Americans/Canadians/Chinese/... . It's even
more the wrong thing to do now than it was in 1930, because trade is so much
more than it was in 1930, and should be resisted over and over and over again.

------
sgman
Give every Masters/PHD student a green card with their diploma. Then let them
find a job, start a business, whatever. Else it's only a matter of time before
they move a a country that gives them this freedom.

------
awt
What I don't understand is why he wouldn't want Microsoft to be able to hire
the best people for the job?

~~~
potatolicious
It's because of the "they're stealing our jerbs!" mentality that I see on a
lot of other websites (who shall remain unnamed, the worst of which is named
after punctuation)...

"But there's tons of unemployed home-grown talent here!" I hear many people
say. I argue otherwise. I have met these vaunted whiners who claim to possess
all the skills they need to work at MS and beyond, and I can safely say that
the vast majority wouldn't make the cut. Most are mindless script monkeys who
couldn't hack their way out of a wet paper bag.

I have yet to see a major US corporation favor immigrants in their hiring. In
fact, almost every single American company I've had dealings with pay
immigrant labor the _same salary_ as their American counterparts. With all the
extra legal hassle and costs this actually makes immigration _more expensive_
for the employer.

The talent shortage in the US tech sector is _real_ , and instead of bemoaning
the loss of jobs to immigrants, maybe American colleges should look at why
they're producing so many people who don't make the cut. And perhaps these
people who feel their jobs have been "stolen" should do some introspection and
figure out just how hard these other guys are working compared to themselves.

~~~
clintjhill
Most of the immigrant workers I work with also got their education in the U.S.

~~~
potatolicious
You make a good point. I didn't say conclusively that it's the colleges'
fault, but it's worth looking into nonetheless.

The way I see it it's not really a lack of education but rather the mentality
that hard work isn't worth squat and people will get the world handed to them
on a silver platter for just Being Awesome(tm). It's a mentality that many
kids in my generation grew up with, what with gold stars and the constant news
of Wall Street investors striking gold by making a few lucky bets.

More American talent can be exposed if we can rid ourselves of this false
sense of entitlement and convince people that if they want to get rich (or get
a decently high paying job) they need to get their ass in gear and start
working and learning.

------
critic
MS are not the ones who f __*ed up the economy or failed to provide the
oversight.

------
known
Globalization will only succeed when wage slavery (in Agriculture,
Manufacturing & Services) is prevented in the developing nations.

