
New Data Show How Firms Like Infosys and Tata Abuse the H-1B Program - mafuyu
http://www.epi.org/blog/new-data-infosys-tata-abuse-h-1b-program/
======
boca
I don't understand why they would compare the average wage of all H1B workers
spread throughout the US against that of a particular job title (Computer
Systems Analyst) in Los Angeles CA. Wages obviously vary by job title and
location. No surprises that wages in CA are higher.

I searched to see what Infosys (1) and TCS (2) actually pay a "Computer
Systems Analyst" and found:

\- For Infosys, there's only one result for Houston where the salary came out
to be ~105K.

\- For TCS, it's around 85K-87K for San Franscisco area. Didn't find anything
for Los Angeles.

I can't vouch for the correctness of data but the site says they get it from
the Department of Labor. Infosys and TCS would probably be using different job
titles on their H1B petitions to try and get a lower wage determination.

(1)
[http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=INFOSYS+LIMITED&job=COMPUTE...](http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=INFOSYS+LIMITED&job=COMPUTER+SYSTEMS+ANALYST)

(2)
[http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=TATA+CONSULTANCY+SERVICES+L...](http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=TATA+CONSULTANCY+SERVICES+LIMITED&job=COMPUTER+SYSTEMS+ANALYST)

~~~
visadoor
The article references data from 2013.

This is a more complete list:

[http://visadoor.com/h1bvisa-by-companies-2014-infosys-
limite...](http://visadoor.com/h1bvisa-by-companies-2014-infosys-limited)

[http://visadoor.com/h1bvisa-by-companies-2014-tata-
consultan...](http://visadoor.com/h1bvisa-by-companies-2014-tata-consultancy-
services-limited)

------
mc32
Can someone explain to me why H1Bs are problematic? They are an immigrant
workforce just like the people who cross the border illegally. Yes,
immigrants, by increasing supply do have a depressing effect on wages, but, in
a global economy, don't we also believe in a global workforce?

People seem to have a problem with H1Bs, but people are happy to enjoy the
benefits of cheap fruit and vegetables possible with labor of (illegal)
immigrants --farmers, even descendants of immigrants oppose amnesty because
that would result in the help actually getting legal jobs which pay more. But
here, in the case of H1Bs, people seem to have a strong dislike for them. They
are just people looking for jobs like anyone else.

Is the implicit argument we should have a different system to allow a greater
supply of tech immigrants but with a more flexible visa, maybe even grant
residency status thus eliminating this kind of soft exploitation?

~~~
307TempRedirect
"don't we also believe in a global workforce?"

Evidently not, as foreign doctors aren't allowed to immigrate to the US and
practice medicine without first going through a costly and onerous relicensing
program. As it stands, all foreign doctors, even from first-world nations with
statistically better health outcomes than the US like Germany or Japan are all
deemed unqualified to practice medicine in the US:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long-
slog...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/business/economy/long-slog-for-
foreign-doctors-to-practice-in-us.html?pagewanted=all)

The real question is why programmers should be singled out for this kind of
treatment when US doctors are the highest paid in the world, price-per-
procedure is the highest in the world, and medical bills remain the number one
cause of bankruptcy.

Further, a global workforce is only one component of free trade. What about a
global retail market? Did you know that there is presently a federal law
barring the re-importation of prescription drugs from nations where they're
sold for pennies on the dollar? That form of free trade is bad for the bottom
line of big corporations, so it is illegal.

~~~
mc32
You are quite right. People don't care if uneducated or undereducated
immigrants come in to the country --except for a few "nationalists". But over
all people don't care or actively support immigration, which is a good thing
-bettering people's prospects in life.

However, it is quite evident that professionals are _against_ immigration of
other professionals because that directly threatens their professional
stability.

So, we know immigration, on the whole is good. We know that immigration from
poor countries allows those people to better their lives -at the expense of
undereducated (blue collar) locals. But professionals don't quite care,
actually, we prefer this since it makes products and services cheaper for us.
But once the immigration threatens our lifestyles, then on, no, immigration is
bad it drives down wages, it threatens quality of work, it allows exploitation
and so on. When push comes to shove, we're all protectionists of varying
degrees.

------
martinald
I find it difficult to understand why these companies would go to such lengths
to save at absolute most 15-20% on salary.

Even if there were no legal or immigration costs (which there definitely is),
it seems to me they could easily do the same by getting someone from a less
prosperous part of the US and moving them to, say, CA. I'm sure this happens
all the time.

~~~
Zikes
H-1B is intended to be temporary, 3-6 years. That means no need for pensions
and no time to accumulate a great deal of raises or benefits.

I would also imagine it's a lot easier to convince an employee to "go the
extra mile" when you're dangling their ability to remain in the country over
their head, especially if they're also applying for citizenship.

~~~
kchoudhu
This is America. Pensions have been dead for at least twenty years.

------
suprgeek
Ron Hira is a charming fellow associated with the EPI. Check out what VivekW
says about him
[http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/28/840005/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/28/840005/)

(wile VivekW is not exactly an "Unbiased" commentator).

So as not to keep this ad-homoniem the data comparison is silly

Avg & Median wages On one side vs Specific SoCal wages on the other?

That said some of the criticisms are valid: TCS, Infosys, Wipro & Cognizant
are terrible at taking care of their US employees. They very rarely get a
chance at a greencard among other exploitative practices.

Unfortunately Ron is sabotaging his own argument by using flaky data & being a
tool.

------
arcticf0x
The bitter truth is, workers from TCS and Infosys are able to do the job more
efficiently than their american counterparts with a lesser pay. This system as
a whole is beneficial for the US economy, I don't think they will change it in
near future.

------
devish
Well then stop buying and manufacturing from/in China, believe me it will
create far more jobs as compared to those "eaten up by immigrants."

------
nnd
Breaking news! US immigration system is still terribly broken.

------
dominotw
in other news water is still wet

------
panini_tech
Pakistani author out to discredit Indian cos. Thats all it is...

------
swatow
People often conflate H-1B visas lowering wages, with H-1B holders earning
less than market wages.

Actually it is possible (and probably) that H-1B holders earn the same wages
as their equivalents. The presence of the H-1B workers increases the supply of
labor, and lowers wages for _everyone_. But it happens simultaneously so that
at no time are the H-1B holders earning less.

It's interesting to me that in order to deal with this inconsistency, people
have basically invented the myth that it's hard to shift jobs while on an
H-1B, and thus H-1B holders are like "indentured servants". The reality is for
most H-1B holders the job market is no different, as long as they have the
visa, which depends on the government, not their company.

------
Potando
It's strange how action which has apparently helped to lift tens of thousands
of poor Indian workers out of poverty is portrayed as a "scandal". There's
clearly a big labor pool willing to work for lower pay than Americans. Give
them a chance at a better life! If Californians dislike foreign workers so
much, why are they still allowing people from the midwest to work there?
Shouldn't they be throttled too to keep wages high in silicon valley?

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's strange how action which has apparently helped to lift tens of
> thousands of poor Indian workers out of poverty is portrayed as a
> "scandal"._

Maybe because it was not intended to "lift tens of thousands of poor Indian
workers out of poverty" but to "lower or keep the same american developer
wages"?

As if those US business owners give a rats arse about getting "poor Indian
workers out of poverty".

If those guys are so concerned about "poor Indians developers" how about
paying them exactly the same as any American developer? It's not like they
have a lower cost of living when they come to the US. So, do they consider
them sub-human or something?

Or maybe they are more concerned for the "I can exploit their poorness
relative to our domestic wage demands and screw me fellow country-men".

Oh, and it works both ways: next time some other country with cheaper wages
than India developers a decent-ish IT education, those "poor Indian
developers" would be dropped like dead weights in a race to the bottom...

> _If Californians dislike foreign workers so much, why are they still
> allowing people from the midwest to work there? Shouldn 't they be throttled
> too to keep wages high in silicon valley?_

Perhaps because of this thing called patriotism, a.k.a. "do not piss where you
live"...

~~~
Potando
> Perhaps because of this thing called patriotism, a.k.a. "do not piss where
> you live"...

Serious question - why patriotism for their country in preference to their
state, country, city, continent, or planet? I've heard that Texas people don't
like the rest of the USA. Perhaps they'd be more inclined to disallow out of
state workers because their patriotism is applied at a different level than
other Americans?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Or for that matter, while we are drawing arbitrary lines and applying economic
protectionism, what's the intellectual argument against bringing back Jim
Crow?

If one wants an economic "justification", I'm sure a quick google search can
find articles a lot like this one - a quick stats dump with no controls
showing that black people get paid less. Look at those greedy employers
lowering wages by hiring black people!

~~~
coldtea
> _what 's the intellectual argument against bringing back Jim Crow?_

Mostly that blacks have equal rights and are people too, so they should be
paid the same. You know, like those Indians employers bring in so that can pay
them less than American developers...

If they are all for equality and against "arbitrary lines", they can start by
paying those immigrant workers the same...

>* Look at those greedy employers lowering wages by hiring black people!*

Only if one believed that black are somehow inferior would that be a logical
conclusion.

In any other case, and assuming you're not racist, the problem is "paying
less", not "paying black people", just in the case of Indian developers the
problem is paying them less than Americans for work they do in the US.

And yeah, back in the day those Jim Crow employers also thought themselves
very generous for giving those blacks a job. After all, like those "poor
Indian developers", they would starve without it, so they would better
appreciate it, even if it's smaller than what they'd pay whites...

~~~
yummyfajitas
Indians born in India are people too, yet people are advocating for economic
protectionism against them. (Really, they are - I live in India, so if they
weren't I'd be super lonely.)

You drew an arbitrary line at "patriotism" before. Why "patriotism (USA)"
rather than "white nationalism" or "patriotism (CA)"? Just your personal
preference?

 _Only if one believed that black are somehow inferior would that be a logical
conclusion._

It's unclear to me how it would be a logical conclusion even if one did
believe blacks are inferior on some dimension. Could you explain?

~~~
dropit_sphere
> Why "patriotism (USA)" rather than "white nationalism" or "patriotism (CA)"?
> Just your personal preference?

Not _just_ mine, but the vast majority of the US.

And "personal preference" goes by a name---voting.

~~~
yummyfajitas
So basically, only thing wrong with Jim Crow is that it is now unpopular? And
if it becomes popular again, we should bring it back?

Democracy is a pretty scary moral philosophy.

~~~
coldtea
> _So basically, only thing wrong with Jim Crow is that it is now unpopular?
> And if it becomes popular again, we should bring it back?_

Why, has there been another measure of good in human history? (If one doesn't
believe in any divine being handing down laws that is).

And I don't get the "moral high ground in hindsight" thing. If you lived in
1890, statistics say you'd most probably be all for Jim Crow too.

> _Democracy is a pretty scary moral philosophy._

Better than the capitalism, which has no morals at all outside what society
enforces upon it. If it could sell crack to small children or use people as
slaves it would (and it does).

Where the main justification is the BS fabrication that "egotism works for the
good of all in the end".

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'm asking whether the popularity of a policy morally justifies it. I guess
you think Jim Crow was morally justified.

Or to take a contemporary example, for reasons I don't understand Indians
really seem to dislike Africans. I guess if we get Jim Krishna laws with
popular support, you'll favor them also?

 _Better than the capitalism, which has no morals at all outside what society
enforces upon it._

Yet capitalists view Indians and Africans as having "equal rights and are
people too", unlike the protectionists.

~~~
coldtea
> _I 'm asking whether the popularity of a policy morally justifies it. I
> guess you think Jim Crow was morally justified._

No, I think "morally justifies it" in the absolute sense (which you use it) is
BS, since it assumes some pre-existing morality framework.

"Morally justified" only has sense in the "is it acceptable by the moral
standards of a society/era". Of course, most people naively only take it to
mean "is it acceptable by the standards of OUR society/era", which they
consider as some absolute definition of morals.

Fact: for the people of time it WAS morally justified. Heck, slave owners
themselves were respectable and celebrated members of society.

Owning slaves was just what one did if he could, just like for business owners
today setting shop in impoverished areas not to offer the same wages as
elsewhere but to take advantage of poverty to offer lower wages (as if those
people are worth less) is "just what you do".

