

The myth of America's missing software engineers - DamnYuppie
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/immigration-h1b-visas-tech-jobs/?iid=HP_Highlight
Interesting to see some mainstream media finally picking up on this.
======
seldo
"It would make sense that an employer would try to offer a lower salary to an
employee it helped move to the United States since that employee also gains
the benefit of getting sponsored, but the analysis found the opposite."

This makes me want to punch the screen. It is ILLEGAL to pay an engineer on an
H-1B less than the median salary for that position, precisely because people
were worried that foreign labour would be used to undercut wages.

~~~
pekk
No, it isn't illegal.

By 'that position' do you mean the position being replaced, or the new
position created in order to hire the H1B? And are you taking account of the
market price of the additional skills that employee brings, or is that not
relevant?

So here's just one loophole: companies find a lower-paid title, and base the
'prevailing wage' on beginning level employees. Now that the 'prevailing wage'
is set, try to hire young people with advanced education, special skills, etc.
Congratulations, you now have a legal way of paying about half of what a
comparably experienced citizen would cost. Bonus: sponsorship does provide
good leverage.

Consider H1B employees getting paid the prevailing wage. Is this how you
compensate the best talent during a talent shortage? No. It implies you'd pay
less if you were confident you could get away with it.

You can't honestly dispute that the program is being used to undercut wages.
Legally.

~~~
seldo
I absolutely can.

I arrived in this country on an H-1B, and then I co-founded a company where I
repeatedly examined the option of hiring employees on H-1Bs. It never, ever
made sense to hire a foreign employee if there was a local one available, even
though I have absolutely no bias towards hiring American citizens.

The only reason you'd hire an H-1B is if you were out of qualified American
engineers, because it is _so_ _much_ _harder_ to hire foreigners.

The chief users of H-1Bs are big, boring companies that can't attract local
talent at any price. And then they can't hang on to them, thanks to the
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century act, which lets H-1B holders
switch companies if they get a better offer. The purpose of the law was to
prevent companies using immigration status to "trap" employees at lower wage.
Because the immigration system _thought_ of that problem.

The argument that for the same price, you get a more-qualified applicant for a
given lower-skilled position doesn't fly, because

a) the cost of an H-1B is far more than their salary; the legal fees run into
tens of thousands of dollars before you even consider relocation. Foreign
workers are much more expensive.

b) the pool of people willing to up and relocate from a foreign country to the
US just isn't that big; the same market that applies to American engineers
applies to foreign ones, and they are just as demanding.

c) once in America, the H-1B holders don't need to stick around if their
salary is crappy, and they don't. See above.

The fundamental misunderstanding that a lot of people have about talent
immigration is that they think there are hordes of unwashed foreigners beating
down the doors to get in. They're not. Most people stay where they are. That's
why you have to make it easier for them to get in, because _we need them more
than they need us_.

~~~
don_draper
It's used mostly by outsourcing companies:

Rank H1B Visa Sponsor Number of LCA * Average Salary

1 Infosys Limited 15,810 $75,062

2 Wipro 7,178 $76,920

3 Tata Consultancy Services 6,732 $64,350

4 IBM 6,190 $82,630

[http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2013-H1B-Visa-
Sponsor.aspx](http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2013-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx)

Those aren't average salaries for a highly skilled worker in an expensive
American city.

------
jcnnghm
I posted this in response to a comment the last time this came up. That
article was killed, so I'm reposting:

 _Whereas the reason there are open positions for programmers at high tech
companies is that these companies want star programmers_

Maybe they should try paying like stars. What percentage of engineers that
aren't founders or within the first five employees make over $300,000 a year?
The money is in Silicon Valley, Google's 2011 net income was $299,874/employee
[1], but the vast majority of engineers aren't going to be the ones to get it.
How about paying a market wage, instead of offering a "free lunch" to people
that cannot negotiate. I am not interested in playing video games at work, I
have a house for that. Last I looked at it, the difference in pay between
finance and stem jobs is enough to hire a personal chef to deliver lunch to
you at work every day, and cook for you at home, and buy all the games you
want, with a bunch of money left over. Apple and Google are both posting ~25%
net profits because engineers are willing to work for peanuts, and a free
lunch. On top of that, cost of living in the bay area is outrageous, we're
talking $35,000/year for housing, unless you want to live like a college
student.

An average (median) engineer should be making $200,000 a year, and the
"rockstar" (>80th percentile) engineers that everybody is trying to hire for
$85,000 and 0.5% of equity, should be making $350,000+. These are hard jobs
that few people can do at all, and fewer can do well. Great engineers can
create millions of dollars of value a year.

It seems that the industry has shifted focus, now that the collusion
agreements have been squashed, toward importing cheap labor. This problem has
been solved in other industries through partnerships and professional
societies (e.g. in the legal industry, with large partnership firms and bar
associations). In the interim, it seems like the best way to capture value is
to build companies to flip in talent acquisitions, while planning to leave to
do it again as soon as you're vested.

[1] Goldman Sachs 2011 net income was $162,913 per employee. Average pay was
$367,057. It's harder to get data on Google, but it looks like the mid-career
median salary is $141,000.

Google's Gross Profit (Total Revenue less Cost of Revenue) was $24.7B in 2011,
and GS's was $24.5B. At the same time, Google had 32,467 employees to GS's
35,700. Yet, the Google net income was $9.7B compared to $4.4B on the GS side.
The difference seems to be made up entirely by the difference in employee
compensation.

~~~
aryastark
Yep. This is how backwards our industry is. It wants to pay peanuts for
rockstar coders, but doesn't realize that no one is _both_ dumb enough to work
for snack food Tuesdays and smart enough to have a PhD in CS.

The problem is exasperated by these companies treating engineers like
children. "Toss them another Mt. Dew, and they'll work another all-nighter."

With all the VC and buyout money out there, a true rockstar is going to be a
founder or have serious equity in their company. They'd be an idiot for
anything less.

~~~
snowwrestler
So what are these Ph.D. engineers doing, then? Sitting at home with their
degrees waiting for a big enough offer? I think not. They are employed
somewhere, which means that actually they are not counterproof of a shortage.

Raising salary always comes up as the "answer" to the talent shortage, but
it's a highly localized answer. Sure a company can fill all their openings by
raising their salaries--they'll do it by recruiting currently-employed
engineers from another company.

That doesn't "fill a hole" industry-wide. It just moves it to another company.
If there are more holes than qualified engineers, there's a shortage.

To make the case that talent shortages are caused by low salaries, you'd need
to show me a lot of people who are qualifed but currently willfully
unemployed, waiting for the right offer. I'm not aware of many engineers who
fit that description.

~~~
jcnnghm
They aren't unemployed, they entered industries other than engineering, like
finance, medicine, or law, because they expected higher pay there.

------
moocowduckquack
" _Bright.com, a California-based company that uses big data analysis to pair
jobseekers with employers, released a report last month that showed that the
supposed dearth of high-skilled engineers in the United States may be fiction
after all._ "

Which would presumably be a useful result for Bright's business, if it is
true, as it would mean that companies simply are not looking hard enough,
which is Bright's business.

 _" In fact, Bright's analysis reveals that for the top 10 jobs where H-1B
visas are requested, only three do not currently have enough qualified
American jobseekers to satisfy demand._"

Ahh, so it isn't a fiction then. Hang on, just a minute ago they said it may
be a fiction according to a report and now they say that nearly a third of
those roles do not have enough people in the USA to fill them, according to
the same report.

Hmmm. Could this possibly be an advert posing as an article? Is water wet?
These and other exciting questions will be answered in a forthcoming study;
"Look here's some numbers so give me all your money, you pitiful fools."
Available soon for only $666.66. Reserve your copy now while stocks last.

~~~
pekk
In the place of analysis you have put a lot of snark which seems to be
analysis.

If another company with a different business had posted - one with an
incentive to say there is a shortage of high-skilled engineers, like most big
companies hiring engineers - would you be implying their claims are false too?
If not, you are being partial; if so, your method is just to say that whatever
anyone says must be wrong because it was in their interest.

3 out of the top 10 jobs where H-1B requested does not equal a third of
employees, and it isn't clear that those 3 do see a shortage.

Also, in case of a shortage in a specialized area, why do we assume that
companies cannot ever do anything to train employees in that specialization
themselves? If you need piles of Java programmers who know SOAP, get some Java
programmers and let them train on SOAP.

If you are in the business of producing (say) cars, you have to make capital
investments, including investments in human capital - why should software be a
special snowflake?

~~~
moocowduckquack
Ok, without the snark, I am specifically saying that this is not journalism.
It is an advert with suspect claims.

~~~
opendais
Would you at least concede that the H1B process is highly vulnerable to
someone abusing it by re-titling jobs/requirements with a lawyer's help?

I'd agree the data/method/motivation is highly suspect.

~~~
moocowduckquack
With a lawyer's help, many things are possible.

------
cantankerous
I used to have dreams of moving out to the valley after I finished school, but
after checking, rechecking, and then rechecking again the cost of living out
there, I pretty much scrapped the idea. The Bay Area may be a cool place to
live, but it's not a 250% housing-cost-increase cool to me. Moreover, the pay
doesn't match that housing increase. Forget it. For that price I'll wait for
somebody to offer a telecommuting position, move out to me (it's not SO BAD in
Missouri), or move someplace less psycho crazy on the housing.

This story drives me crazy because the market is essentially in the favor of
the engineers, but it feels to me like the big tech influencers are trying to
tilt it back in their favor by shaping policy and changing the game.

Pro tip: If you bring in foreign engineers and pay them peanuts, they're not
going to _be able to live in the Bay Area_ much less _want to_.

~~~
evgen
You will be renting, not buying. This means that they monthly housing cost
differential will be more than made up for in the salary differential. The sad
fact is that if you are not in the top slice of a particular subfield you are
not going to be getting telecommuting options unless you get very lucky: by
being in Missouri you both limit your opportunity to find the lucky break and
limit your ability to get into the social/work networks that serve to bestow
the "this guy rocks" credential. Your only option is probably to be a major
contributor on a well-known open source project; this is not a bad thing to do
in general, but you are limiting your options significantly. If you deign to
lower your standard of living slightly for a short period of time you will be
able to take a real chance at getting the opportunities you are looking for.
You can always leave after doing a few years in the bay area.

You can't win if you don't play. If you are waiting on the sidelines for some
magic opportunity to fall into your lap you are going to be waiting a very
long time.

~~~
nobodysfool
>You will be renting, not buying.

Exactly why the OP won't choose to move there. Why should he have to pay
someone the privilege of living, and get none of that money back when/if they
decide to leave? At least when you buy you get some equity.

~~~
bayesianhorse
Because renting is more flexible and often less expensive...

Imagine you loose your job in a crisis, you have to move/sell your house in a
crashing market.

~~~
cantankerous
If you lose your job in a crisis, you also won't be able to pay your rent and
you'll move/sublet your apartment. Losing your job pretty much screws you
however you decide to live.

------
bluedino
"Qualified applicants" takes on a different meaning if you're looking for
someone to crank out a CRUD app or write operating system kernels.

For example, we've been looking for an entry-level web developer for almost a
year. They actually put "computer science degree" and "2 years experience" on
the job ad. We found a pretty smart kid with an associates that blew the
interview by mentioning he kept up with industry trends on Reddit - so our
boss is afraid he's going to screw around online all day.

The sad part is, 3 of the other 4 developers in the department came from other
areas in the same company, one in shipping and one in billing, and have almost
no formal computer training and don't even know how to upgrade Firefox.

~~~
epoxyhockey
_blew the interview by mentioning he kept up with industry trends on Reddit_

..as opposed to not keeping up with industry trends at all? Sometimes, I feel
like middle management in America is the problem.

~~~
riggins
That's a comment that probably merited further delving into.

There are some decent sub-reddits.

It's a totally different thing if he's following the programming subreddit
than say the gonewild subreddit.

------
FedRegister
From the article:

>To be sure, using data to argue about contentious policy issues should always
prompt skepticism.

Death of journalism right there. Data be damned!

On a more serious note:

>"There is, indeed, a shortage of tech workers in the Bay Area."

That's because it's so darn expensive to live in the Bay Area, and almost
impossible at the wages that tech companies generally want to pay for talent.
They're knotting their own noose and standing on the chair, screaming that
they'll kick it out from under them, really, for serial this time guys!, if
they can't have cheap, underpaid talent to exploit.

~~~
DrJokepu
You took that sentence out of context. This is the full paragraph:

> To be sure, using data to argue about contentious policy issues should
> always prompt skepticism. It's too easy to focus on particular aspects of
> any data analysis to prove one's point and overlook those items that may
> raise more questions.

... which is a very valid point.

~~~
pekk
Since it's too easy to mess up, and all, the obvious solution is just not to
use data.

It does literally say that using data "should always prompt skepticism" \- not
conditionally on whether it was done right or not.

~~~
DrJokepu
I really think you are misunderstanding that sentence. The author didn't mean
what you think it means. His point was that it's not very difficult to come up
with just the right data and statistics to support whatever idea you're trying
to promote.

Data is basically worthless if you can't trust the methodology behind it.

------
dbecker
As someone occasionally involved in hiring, the important question isn't
whether we have "enough" software engineers.

It's easy to fill seats.

The question is whether we have "good enough" software engineers. And, as long
as we're trying to improve as a company, we'll always want better engineers.

~~~
temuze
You're 100% right. Why make it difficult for really smart people to immigrate
to the US? Better engineers are always welcome at any company.

In any case, there's reason to believe many of educated immigrants will become
entrepreneurs and create jobs themselves.

~~~
rayiner
The problem is that you have no way of letting in just the "really smart
people" and end up letting in a whole bunch of people who aren't better than
the ones you already have, who will have trouble finding work when the next
tech bubble pops. Tech is a highly cyclical industry, and it's shortsighted to
start letting a bunch of people immigrate on every bubble cycle.

------
zeteo
My company (which, according to Glassdoor, is paying above-average tech
salaries) recently started offering ~$100 _per lead_ for software engineering
referrals. If the person ends up being hired, their referrer also gets a
~$2000 bonus. A recruiting firm that can truly locate these missing engineers
would be making a killing in the marketplace right now.

~~~
FedRegister
Part of the problem is that the salaries are just too damn low right now. If
you offer a competitive or even above-average salary that's _livable_ in the
Bay Area then talent will beat a path to your door. Try to lowball or meet
other offers and you'll be stuck without candidates.

~~~
dylangs1030
I'm really interested in this. As a New Yorker, I don't find this principle.
Is it superbly difficult to commute to the Bay Area from a less urban
surrounding? In New York City, if you don't have the money to pay for an urban
apartment you can live in the Bronx or Westchester and easily commute to the
city.

~~~
FedRegister
If you expect talent to work crunch hours and give mind, body, and soul
unquestionably then do you really think, at the end of the day, they should
have to schlep out the suburbs because your stingy ass doesn't want to pay a
living wage for the Bay Area? Even if that were the case, in order to qualify
for the H-1B there have to be no qualified candidates in the US which means
either you are doing something nobody is doing (unlikely) our your wage is too
low for your market, even in the suburbs.

~~~
dylangs1030
No, I don't think it's fair (to answer your central point), merely that it's
doable. But I'm not trying to be difficult - I was actually asking if a
commute is possible, not being rhetorical for a point. In New York City it is
possible to commute, but I wouldn't want to work there and commute to the city
from a suburb.

------
epoxyhockey
It's always an eye opener to look up companies at
[http://www.h1bwage.com/](http://www.h1bwage.com/) and compare their salaries.
Plenty of SF companies hire 'senior software engineers' in the range of 78K.

~~~
nvarsj
Base salary is almost meaningless, you have to consider total comp. You'll see
the same seemingly low wages at finance firms that have h1b visa's, but in
reality those people are making significantly more.

~~~
epoxyhockey
We're talking about software engineers here. Base salary is almost meaningless
in most finance and some legal firms, but not at a 30-person software
consulting firm.

I looked up companies that I once worked for on h1bwage and I know for a fact
that my H1B co-workers were not enjoying large bonuses.

A visa application listing a bay area senior s/w engineer prevailing wage of
78K should be outright rejected. Yet, it was accepted.

------
codex
An argument I've never seen made regarding H1B software engineer hiring: is
better for the entire county in the long term for the US to import as many
good software engineers as it can, or is it better to restrict supply?

If any good software engineer were allowed carte blanche emigration to the US,
the US would have more of the world's top engineering talent, which may be a
good thing overall even if it depresses wages. On the other hand, high wages
may encourage more young US citizens to go into computer science--assuming
they can hack it.

I wonder if this is just another nature vs nurture debate. If you presume that
the world's supply of "smart people" is fixed, you want to import all of them
and get them to procreate in the US. If you assume intelligence is growable,
you want to focus on growing it domestically.

------
perlpimp
I think wrong question is being asked. I think there are enough engineers, it
is the quality of product people that is suffering. That often leads to
balooning of engineering teams to crush the code run and make the product. So
lack of engineers is a symptom not a problem. Speaking from my varied
experience , YMMV.

2c.

~~~
rhizome
I'm interested to hear more of this perspective. Are you saying that
imagination on the product side is creating insurmountable technical debt?

~~~
perlpimp
What I am saying is that few product people have the vision of what is needed
- and have the right vision of the end result. Most product people more of
iterative meandering tourists with vague idea of the end result rather than
captains that have exact understanding where they ought to be in a week - as
per having a useful and usable progress that moves everyone measurably closer
to successful product.

Maybe I ask too much of my product people, but that's the reality - there are
only so many steve jobses out there. People like to believe they have the
traits but often lack similar "from the early years" experience of being in
the whole basics of production to managing part that jobs had.

So to sum it up, too much of _Wrong_ kind of technical debt. Sort of buying a
ferrari when you need a house - because your wife will have a child soon ;)

------
ilaksh
I think that engineers need to control enforcement of these policies and what
the policies are automatically. Until law becomes an information technology
you are not going to make any headway on everyone gaming the system and taking
advantage of loopholes like hiring foreign workers because they are cheaper.

So we really need that but another aspect of this is just massive global
inequality which to me is an amazing civil/humanitarian rights issue. Its
amazing that everyone just accepts it.

I think when it comes down to it we should be bringing more brilliant people
out of crappy oppressed resource starved countries into our wealth hogging
country. But we shouldn't have to lie about the reasons for doing it or pay
them less just because we can get away with it.

------
bayesianhorse
I always ask myself if the unemployed engineers are indeed employable. If so,
then there is no shortage. If they just appear unemployable, then maybe. If
they are not, then there is a shortage regardless of the simple numbers.

~~~
redblacktree
Is an unemployable engineer really an engineer at all?

~~~
hga
Given that in this field of "engineering" you become unemployable for
conventional salaried positions at around age 35-40, it's a less debatable
point than you're positing, I think.

~~~
CleanedStar
Absolutely.

Several years ago I was at a company and we were hiring for a position. One
guy came in, who was maybe in his mid-50s. His technical skills were
excellent, he could answer any question thrown at him in detail. Aside from
that he was a normal, genial guy with a solid resume - we has passed on
another guy with good tech knowledge but who did not act normal. I was
desperate to have the position filled as people had quit and I was handling a
large load.

Two managers said they didn't want to hire him. I really protested this - we
had interviewed so many people and had finally found someone decent. I said he
was perfect, what more could they want, what was wrong with him? I asked that
last question repeatedly. Finally one said, "I think if we called him up in
the middle of the night to fix a problem, he would be unhappy with that".
Months later we hired a guy in his 20s, who had less technical talent.

That's the position companies are in. They pass over perfect candidates like
this guy in his 50s, and then bemoan they can't find candidates.

These companies fund think tanks who have economists who tell us that value is
determined by supply and demand, that if there is enough demand for something,
the price for it will rise until a supply comes about. This is their
philosophy, yet now they're saying there is a shortage of engineers. It is
total BS. Engineers are being overworked and underpaid. People talk about high
engineer salaries, they don't talk about how engineers have to pay for their
own college degrees, do all that studying, then go to work, make a starting
salary, then have death marches on projects etc.

Engineers are usually undercompensated for the work they do. The only
exceptions to this are during tech bubbles (say 1999), but those only last for
a short while. They're also made up for on the other side by tech slumps,
where IT workers employable during normal times, but perhaps without a college
degree, are out of work.

~~~
bayesianhorse
I don't believe in the "labor shortage should result in higher wages"
argument. Usually we are talking about a baseline. If companies believed, they
could make more profit by doubling the salary and thus maybe attracting more
talent, they would do so.

Supply/demand is all the economics most people understand. But it's not just
about the labor market, but what the company is doing with the labor.

------
dep_b
I can not imagine anyone that's able to find a pinned shortcut to Visual
Studio and double click it being without a job in the United States if I'm
honest. It's hard for me to visualize what kind of total retards would get
rejected on a regular basis. Could somebody find one of them for me? I would
like to speak to somebody like that.

The only people I can imagine are PDP-11 assembly specialists nearing their
60s. And still I have a feeling there could just as well be even a screaming
shortage for them.

------
ricardobeat
I've just watched the She++ documentary, literally 15 minutes ago. They say
the US only graduates 30% of the IT workers needed every year, and even if a
university like Stanford graduted _all_ their students in CS, it wouldn't be
enough. What gives?

------
shreeshga
Important factor is how many of the "qualified" candidates clear the
interviews? The problem is not the lack of people to interview, it's the lack
of people who clear interviews.

~~~
m_ke
A lot of people assume that learning Java makes you qualify for the title of
software engineer. Every time one of these articles pop up it gets flooded
with comments from upset ITT tech graduates who are pissed that H1-bs are
stealing their jobs.

~~~
jnbiche
If someone knows Java, and knows it well -- and all that that entails (good
engineering practices like code organization, commenting, testing, optimizing
if needed, security, corner cases) -- then why _wouldn 't_ they qualify for
the title of software engineer?

Actually, my problem in this (non-Bay area) region of the country where I now
live is that I _don 't_ have a ten-year Java history, and most managers here
don't seem to believe that my background in C, Python, Lua, and JavaScript
would allow me to pick it up in a very short period of time (and indeed, I've
since picked it up for Android development, and it turned out that the Android
API was harder for me to learn that Java itself).

~~~
m_ke
There's a difference between someone who has ten years of experience and a guy
who just finished a 2 year degree at a for-profit school.

------
sutro
Perhaps the tiny HR detective pictured should try searching for qualified
workers around newer computers, ones without floppy drives perhaps? Or maybe
just search online?

------
cmbaus
As a hiring manager outside the Bay Area (Tahoe), I can say that the hiring
situation is worse than I have ever seen it.

------
wissler
The trouble with this is that no centralized analysis can determine what
"qualified" actually means; only an individual employer can determine that. So
if they say there are no qualified engineers then that's the end of
discussion.

Having more intelligent people in the US is a good thing.

~~~
npsimons
_So if they say there are no qualified engineers then that 's the end of
discussion._

You really believe that? You can't imagine that, hey maybe these companies
_gasp_ lie so they won't have to pay market wages? That some C?O somewhere
cares more about the bottom line than hiring qualified local engineers that
they can't threaten with deportation?

~~~
bskap
From experience, it's not "the companies" that are saying there's no qualified
people. It's the engineers on the teams trying to hire people that interview
those "qualified" people that send in their resume and then can't write
FizzBuzz to save their life, have no idea how to even approach a design
problem, knows all the buzzwords but can't explain what they mean, and have no
idea how the Internet works at even the highest levels.

------
CleanedStar
A century and a half ago, Karl Marx said the only force outside of nature
which could create value was labor. This was not a new concept, but in line
with what economists before such as Adam Smith had thought.

A counter-argument arose from what he may have called the "capitalist
hegemons" that value arose through supply and demand and marginal utility.
That if there was enough demand for something, prices would rise and a supply
would come into being.

Yet nowadays these hegemons seem to be saying something different. There is a
demand for IT talent. There are billions of people in the world, so it seems
obvious that if you set hours at 40 a week and then raise the salary enough,
eventually the demand will be filled.

The bottom line is they don't want to raise the salary.

It is possible other factors are in the way. If, to take one example, Pell
Grants were higher and easier to get, maybe there would be more CS graduates.
The opposite is happening with Pell Grants - they have been cut back, and are
covering less college costs than they have in history.

This means less CS graduates. This means you'll have to pay more for the ones
who come out, because less are coming out.

It's a strange contradictory thinking. Employers preach supply and demand, yet
think it does not apply to their desire for engineers. Set hours at 40 a week
and pay for them. If you want people to work more, you'll have to pay more.

There is not a shortage of engineers. There's just a flood of people who want
a very accomplished, knowledgeable engineer, and want them to work on boring,
brain-dead projects for 60 hours a week, and to pay them nothing and treat
them like junk.

I have 10,000 jobs open right now. I need experts in Java, Python etc. I'll
pay you minimum wage. You need to work 12 hours a day. See, I just added
10,000 new job openings to the shortage. How come I can't find anyone to fill
these jobs?

