

Ruchi Sanghvi, Dropbox VP, testifies on immigration reform [video] - BIackSwan
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10100789294634021

======
lucian1900
I simply chose not to bother with the US. I find the UK much more pleasant and
it was trivial to study and start working here.

Vote with your feet, as the Americans say.

~~~
smiler
Personally, being British, having looked at the sheer diversity of jobs in the
US job market for software developers, the UK job market really doesn't seem
that exciting.

~~~
objclxt
Having worked in both countries, and being British myself, I'd probably
disagree with you. Of course, in terms of sheer numbers there are more jobs in
the US, but I don't see the US having any sort of USP in terms of the jobs
themselves.

For example, if you want to go start-up there's lots of opportunities to do so
in London, and Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and the like maintain engineering
teams in the UK if that's more your thing. And the UK's a highly respected
base for computing gaming, visual effects, even hardware design (ARM, for
instance). I don't see the UK software engineering market being any less
diverse than the US, but perhaps if you're working in a particularly niche
area this could be true?

From my personal experience, the biggest difference between the UK and US job
markets isn't the diversity, but the work culture in general. The UK has 5.6
weeks paid vacation as a legal minimum, whereas this is very much not the case
in the US (you may view this as a pro or a con).

------
hpagey
The main issue with H1B is gross misuse of it by outsourcing companies like
Infosys, Wipro and body shopping firms that pimp out low quality talent at
higher rate and pocket the difference.

Just ban these companies from applying for H1B. For outsources, create a
separate and temp visa category for them and tax them at higher rate or have
increased fees whatever.

Increase penalty for these body shopping firms. Right now the risk associated
with running a body shopping firm is so less that it makes business sense to
flout all H1B regulations. USCIS is definitely getting better at cracking down
but still lots need to be done.

------
hartator
I guess they forget a lot about immigrant entrepreneurs. I am currently trying
to immigrate in the US, I have a working business in my home country with a
few employees and I am applying to an entrepreneur Visa. But, OMG, the
paperwork is so boring and huge, I don't understand why I have to go through
this. It's already hard to create your business and to change your home
country but to also have to be dealt like a ______* criminal or something,
that's unfair.

------
zpk
Nothing like the CEO's of the top tech firms saying Americans are unfit for
the job, lets bring in the younger cheaper labor. Still waiting to see the
boatload of 35+ H1B's at top tier salaries to come in, since frankly there are
no 35+ American developers ready to do the job. Free trade or we die. Hey
Manufacturing, how lucky are you that NAFTA was passed 20 years ago?

------
DanielRibeiro
Ron Conway also shared this[1], and pointed to a great page where people can
send a letter of support to Senators[2]

[1] <https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/332334439084478464>

[2] <http://www.fwd.us/senate>

------
jsnk
I want to thank Ruchi for this testimony. Like Ruchi, I feel extremely
fortunate to be able to work in US.

US will continue to be 'the' destination for engineers of all kind for many
years to come. Right now, a sheer number of open engineering positions and
superior pay alone are attracting qualified engineers around the world. But
other countries around the world are closing the gap slowly. In order to
continue the domination in attracting engineers, it would be in US's best
interest to simplify immigration process for qualified engineers.

~~~
xsuie
I might be wrong here, but is not their reason to be strict on VISA so that
they give better chance to actual Americans to try and land the jobs which
would be normally be taken up by people coming in from outside US as students
and staying back ?

~~~
davidw
You're writing as if you believe there are a fixed number of jobs. That's not
true.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy>

~~~
cunac
It is more that there is fixed number of people qualified to do job ,
regardless where they are. Main issue I see is that companies are more then
willing to sacrifice quality by paying lower price. I don't mind competing
with anybody in the world but there is a quality/price ratio I will not go
below and that is different for anyone. For sure why would some in right mind
drive price down and hurt himself in long run is for longer debate.

------
CleanedStar
Obviously this is something good for the millionaires and billionaires and
heirs in the US, and bad for workers. Workers are in an economy which is still
at a historically high unemployment rate that has not been seen since the
summer of 1992, and before that 1984. In a profession with a mass of data of
age discrimination over the age of 40, with plenty of able older programmers
looking for work. With interviews where candidates with necessary programming
experience and necessary language experience and even necessary API experience
are nixed because they're not so familiar with the specific areas of the job
required API that people need. Unemployment is at a historic high, and they
want tens of thousands of more open jobs on the market to be whisked away.
Means more unemployment, lower wages, longer hours.

There is no argument here, there is nothing to argue about. It is not like
some scientific enquiry where scientists sit around and argue a matter all
honest and searching for the truth. This is a struggle over how the pie is
divided up. The heirs who provide the majority of money to VC funds and the
public markets are the ones who created and wrote this legislation. It is for
their benefit and against your benefit. If one makes "arguments" against this
in this struggle over money, in this carving up of the pie, it all basically
boils down to the statement "I am, or on the benefiting side of, the
billionaires looking to profit off your labor". Those opposed are those doing
the work like myself. There's no real arguments, just declarations of which
side of the fight you're on.

As for maudlin, mawkish comments about the dreams of immigrants and the like -
fine, we will keep the H1-B cap where it is, and make a lottery of all people
who seek to immigrate, of any skill level, and let more people in that way.
I'm sure immigration will mean more to some poor Guatemalan then some Indian
IIT graduate who can live a decent life in India with his CS diploma. These
mawkish comments about how the H1-B visa is for foreigners never mentions that
these people making maudlin comments are blocking the poor people who could
really benefit the most from immigration from immigrating. Some "humanitarian"
move.

~~~
davidw
> It is for their benefit and against your benefit

Because immigrants just "take jobs" and add no value to the world, right? You
can't think of any Americans who have become wealthy thanks to companies
founded by immigrants?

> This is a struggle over how the pie is divided up.

This is economically illiterate. The economy is not "a pie", because it's not
a zero sum game. The pie can grow, leaving more for everyone.

~~~
Goladus
> The economy is not "a pie", because it's not a zero sum game. The pie can
> grow, leaving more for everyone.

The interesting question is: what causes the pie to grow?

There is really only one thing that can fundamentally increase the size of the
pie and that is natural resource income. The other thing that increases the
_virtual size_ of the pie is improving the efficiency of converting natural
resources to things people want (standard of living).

It's also important to remember that after natural resource income (mainly
energy) the next economic fundamental is food, housing, and basic utilities
(heat/water/sanitation/electricity).

Workers are required to convert natural resources to improved standard of
living. But workers also have wants and needs.

~~~
davidw
Generally, productivity is a better match to a country's wealth than natural
resources. Certainly, at some ultimate level, things depend on the latter, but
what you make with what you've got seems to matter far more in practice.
That's one of the reasons a country like the Netherlands is rich despite not
having a great deal in the way of natural resources.

~~~
Goladus
> Generally, productivity is a better match to a country's wealth than natural
> resources.

It's not an either/or question. The natural resources are still the foundation
of the economy, even if you don't gather them directly yourself. And in the
Netherlands I suspect a very important natural resource for the local economy
is land. I don't have time for research at the moment but I would guess that
simply to live in the Netherlands is very expensive.

