Most PhDs, specially in STEM, math, stats, econ, etc. are not American. And almost all of them end up with a H1B visa at some point if they remain in the US.
It might be lottery based if you go to work at any firm, or quota-free if it is in academia/nonprofits/govt, but it's still through H1B.
Now, what happens if you kill the H1B?
1) Applications from qualified foreigners to US PhDs drop a lot, because they know they won't be able to find a US-based job.
2) Every firm that does R&D, from Boeing to Amazon, will lose out on a large pool of very skilled workers, that are very hard to replace (how easy is it to replace a CS PhD working on LIDARs for self driving cars?)
All in all, I don't think critics understand this side of the value of the H1B to the US. Every year, you guys take some of the best engineers and researchers across the world, and move them to very useful roles in the US economy.
Disclaimer: I'm currently in an H1B, and would like to think my work contributes to the US. So reading all this makes me a bit sad (and unwelcome).
The hard part changing the rules such that PhDs and other productive uses of H1B do not suffer, but the companies exploiting the rules for slave labour do.
I assure you nobody wants to make you feel unwelcome. In fact we are happy to have you here.
i agree with everything you said except for this part. many of the indian workers are still better off economically than they might otherwise be, even if they are not as well off as their american counterparts.
in any case, we should let every person seeking higher education in the US work indefinitely in this country, not just PhDs. in fact, anyone who wants to work hard should be allowed in. all such workers will accrue a net economic benefit, as the new workers will generate more value than they consume.
the problem with this (playing my own devil's advocate) is that it neglects to account for the status disruption it generates for the incumbent workers. the current H1B visa program happens to account for this by it effectively being indentured servitude, which limits the status of these foreign workers. i don't like this fact, but i believe it's why the H1B visa program is actually palatable in the US.
Isn't this obvious? You can be stuck in a job with bad pay and still be better off than if you were in your home country. This is the fundamental condition that was ripe for exploitation.
The solution is to remove any and all incentive and mechanisms for companies to entrap employees and push wages down. I want people who come here to work to enjoy the same salaries we enjoy, and I want them to be able to quickly/easily change jobs when their current employer isn't paying them enough.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of these schemes to exploit bad policy to hire cheap foreign workers. I don't want to live in a country where people associate Mexicans with cheap farm labor and contracting work and Indians with cheap IT workers. This sort of shit seeds to the worst types of prejudices, seeds racist resentment and can leads to drastic/fascist solutions.
Call me an egalitarian sap, but I think we'd all be better off if we didn't have policies that allow companies to profit off of people's prejudices.
Isn't that exactly the main criticism of current H1B system: driving down salaries and standard of living away from U.S. standards down towards India's?
However better off they are economically they would be even better if companies couldn't exploit their status to pay less. And American counterparts would be better off if they didn't have to compete with lower paid competition. Everyone would be better. Well, except the companies.
The issue, of course, is that you can have only one of these 2 things :
1) a global market, easy international travel/living
2) Americans making significantly more than the global average (which I might add is $200/month in actual dollars, $1480 in PPP dollars) (this essentially means you can buy $1480 worth of (cheap) food with it, but only $200 worth of iPads)
Which is going to win here ? There can only be one answer, sadly.
The H1B visa is for 6 years temporary stay, but the H1B worker pays for SSN which he have no use of.
This is the discussion that's always missing whenever H1B is discussed anywhere. It always gets hijacked by Indian IT companies abusing the system. Does the administration have a plan on how to deal with students who get their degrees from US universities, who also seek H1Bs to work? If they don't make this distinction and club every applicant together, I can assure you US universities will become extremely unattractive to foreign students. Guess who benefits then? Not the US.
Another is that just because you studied here doesn't mean you're actually unique talent -- there are Americans who also need work at the low-to-mid levels whose industries have been displaced and are now jobless.
Obviously there alternative paths to citizenship, and being educated accelerates your prospects. It's not like the H1B or J1 are the only way -- I've known many get the O visa because they actually are unique talent.
If demand at US universities goes down, they might just have to reduce prices.
Yeah that would certainly suck for the millions of recent college grads working gig jobs, indebted with tens of thousands of dollars.
I think parent is right, no international students likely means higher tuition for everyone else. If you're in doubt, ask someone who works in admissions, I expect they'll tell you the same thing.
I think this is even worsened by the fact that foreign students pay directly towards the university and become a primary source of revenue and the 'regular' students money is tertiary (state) or secondary (scholarship) which has conditions and delays attached.
I guess it is probably the same all over the world.
It is higher, but for out-of-state and international students. That's how public universities have been able to offset low in-state tuition and raise more financial aid.
I'm pretty sure these Americans plan on working in America after residency.
I presume that a figurative "ton of Americans" would be many more than that, because it seems like American enrollment in India's medical schools should be more than just 12.
None of those, at good universities at least, pay for tuition (be it from research grants or TAships). So I would expect the effect on prices to be minimal.
A country is more than just an economy of value-producing workers.
Working hard and being smart isn't what makes America great. Bangladeshis are smart and they work incredibly hard, but Bangladesh isn't great. It is the virtue of ordinary American people that makes our society function so well. It's the supermarket employee who goes to work the day after her preferred candidate loses an election instead of participating in a violent strike, or the telephone company worker who doesn't demand a bribe to install your phone line. You threaten to lose that if you allow "anyone who wants to work hard" to move here with no other considerations.
I too followed a similar path with parents migrating from South Asia.
What seems clear to me is that behaviour is a function of environment.
The same Bangladeshi that needs a bribe to put in the phone line isn't going to be demanding one when he sets it up for you in New Jersey.
(I don't think you even disagree with that)
I'm advocating rate-limiting immigration to a level that allows us to comfortably absorb and Americanize the people coming in.
> What seems clear to me is that behavior is a function of environment.
The "environment" is created by people. If you plop 10 Bangladeshis into New Jersey, they will conform to the environment. If you plop 10,000 Bangladeshis into New Jersey, you will have imported the environment from Bangladesh to New Jersey.
Do you think other countries should do the same? Do you think it would work out well for all of them?
That shows a great sense of self awareness, and objective reasoning. I wish more people did that. :)
That and given the log of the current administration's initiatives, we can be rest assured that this reform will be as reckless and uninterested in details as possible and will do more harm than good to the US. Or there will be no reform at all.
If someone's got an H1B, it's because there's demand for the job, unsatisfied by US workers, wether at the original company requesting the visa or in the industry in general. Companies will pay them correctly when foreign workers are free to leave for the competition. And when they do, they're not unfair competition for locals anymore. With equal pay, companies will prioritize US workers over visa hassle.
Also, ban H1B outsourcing.
I strongly agree on the general sentiment. But I think you'd continue to need some restrictions, otherwise it'll end up as a means to pay companies to get a US visa. Get visa, switch to a different company with way lower salary, etc. Similarly you could have arrangements where companies move people to cheaper subsidiaries after getting the initial visa.
I presume you'd have to have continuing salary requirements, possibly requiring that the next job's salary is higher than previous ones. That'd have the issue that you could trap somebody by giving a way above market salary, but that seems a fairly remote problem.
> Also, ban H1B outsourcing.
Not sure about that in general. There's plenty of work where it just doesn't make sense to have a full-time employee in a company, but you want somebody available on a regular basis. But it's also quite commonly misused.
No need to ban it. Just adjust the salary to REAL IT salaries.
From the article:
> The Economist found that between 2012 and 2015 the three biggest Indian outsourcing firms—TCS, Wipro and Infosys—submitted over 150,000 visa applications for positions that paid a median salary of $69,500
Essentially, these Indian firms are wage dumping by paying lower than US market.
If they had to pay 90K+ USD for these H1Bs, the number of applications would drastically reduce.
The alternative at many tech companies (including mine) is to outsource to the cheap overseas labour while they continue to work remotely from their home countries. Still competing against US workers, but no US income tax paid. H1-B's seem like the lesser of two evils for the country. Not having a US visa does not stop said person from working for a US company, in this day and age.
If the companies could offshore everything, they would have already done it. If they can't, they can afford to hire Americans for the few onsite employees they've got left.
Otherwise, they should move their whole operation - the executive board and their families, included - to S. India.
No one gets to have their cake and eat it too.
Too much time difference (9-12 hours). You never work at the same time, you can't communicate, you can't have any meeting.
Steve Bannon has explicitly said otherwise, and it's safe to assume he and the President share many of the same opinions, so I would not be too sure about this.
Companies all start paying the premium for these most-sought-after and most-specialized technologists, as they should, which then causes more native-born people to pursue these jobs, knowing they won't be arbitrarily undercut by the lottery, and reaping the benefits of a top-dollar US-based education. To me, it's a national investment argument. Does a nation NOT want perfectly capable native citizens to get these lucrative types of jobs, and US-based academic institutions to get the tuition to educate them? No, it wouldn't happen overnight, but we don't have to cut it off all at once, either. The market can, and would, adjust.
My problem is that I see a lot of H1B's doing clerical jobs that don't require anything more than a 12th-grade education. Some even have MS degrees, but they're doing things that, at their most-technical, would take a trade school programming intern to do. I also know several under-employed people, who don't have college degrees, but who would be GREAT at those jobs, but can't get them because of the H1B system. None of this makes sense to me. You think only Ph.D.'s can deal with LIDAR systems? Fine. But dozens of H1B's working around me are doing their jobs without the need for even an Asscociates degree's worth of education. It seems like blatant abuse to get overqualified people on the cheap who can't leave.
(which for TCS "Java developer" type of work is just fine and dandy)
I have no problem with specializations but how many are in the US doing full stack web or general application development. It seems to me the problem is not surrounding engineers who specialize in a minority field like LIDAR. The problem is when you have a team of 15 engineers building a web application platform and 13 are H1Bs.
Also, don't take this the wrong way because I welcome you and any other H1B with open arms. I do however, personally feel there are a more companies taking advantage of the situation than not.
Curious what you or any other H1B employee feels about this point of view?
I'm quite biased, because I failed the H1B lottery. Took me a good while to get a different work visa (and LPR now). So take this with a grain of salt.
From the perspective of somebody working in a niche where I (via companies I work with), would immediately hire anyone qualified in that niche, be it a USian or not, I agree. Trying to hire specialists (abroad, because there none available in the US) and then being unable to get H1Bs for them, is quite frustrating; especially when you see companies/people getting H1Bs in roles with plenty local candidates/low specialization.
Is there really an abundance of really qualified full stack web developers? I met a lot of incompetent US citizens claiming to be full stack devs.
I interviewed over 15 applicants for just front end development last week and not a single one of all the 6-page résumés from candidates who all apparently have their masters was honest: only 5 even knew what JSON is.
That's all the excuses I can think of. Some of them may be honest, just ignorant.
I suppose it's OK to not be able to debug a hypervisor.
On the other side of things, probably you also ought to be a competent artist and writer.
That rules out 99% of people who are successfully doing the work right now.
I guess there has been a sort of grade inflation on "full stack". When I go looking in the "Who wants to be hired?" threads for people, my reaction to seeing "full stack" is that the person is almost certainly exaggerating to an extreme. Real "full stack" is super uncommon, but it sounds impressive I guess. It's just not very believable.
Either way, aren't debugging crashes with c/ASM still taught at uni? Or is the idea of using gdb too much these days?
crash of the kernel => google the last error lines (hope you have one)
Does this imply that H1B employee's are guaranteed to be more competent? I don't think it does and also extrapolating your experience to conclude on an entire population of people is hardly justified.
I was just sharing an anecdote.
I don't know of any serious active effort to kill the H1B. I think that would be a disaster for the tech industry as large companies like the ones you mentioned rely on foreign talent.
The only effort I'm aware of is to raise the minimum salary to qualify for an H1B. Right now, the minimum is $60k, which, in the US, is very low for a legitimate programming job. I'm certain that H1B workers at Boeing or Amazon are getting paid more than the minimum right now. However, there do exist shops out there who exploit H1B visas for cheap labor; I've experienced them firsthand. They aren't as uncommon as you might think.
There is talk of raising the minimum to something like $120k. Surely, a PhD trained researcher at Boeing or Amazon is worth at least that. They are probably already getting paid the prevailing wage for their labor, which is a legal requirement of an H1B. In these cases, raising the minimum will not affect them at all.
Recall that the original purpose of the H1B was to fill a demand for high tech, specialist roles. Is there any high tech, specialist role that is only worth $60k these days? I don't think so.
"H1B will not be killed. It will be changed. The loophole will be fixed so that Indian outsourcing body shops will be able to completely flood the market without any restrictions at all. Currently, not all of the H1B visas are hoarded by Indian outsourcing companies such as Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, Wipro etc, for the purposes of depressing wages in the US.
The real threats to low wages, such as US-educated PhD graduates must never be allowed a visa, unless they sign in blood a contract to work for bread, water and a single bed for at least a decade, after which they'll be required to leave the US. Companies will be allowed to provide bonuses such as a weekly slice of cheese or a bed sheet for software developers, or those who put in more than the customary 252 hours of work per week. The new system hopefully will keep wage depressing suckers and prevent those "educated" upstarts from claiming more of congress' profits".
But H1B abuse needs to stop. It would even help you if there was a proper alternative.
The solution (which we'll never see) is just to de-couple the H1-B from a particular employer. Go on the open market, get a job at market rates, but don't play the indentured servitude game they're forcing you into now. That's all.
Do we simply not bring these talented people to the US?
While I'm sure you are exceptionally talented, there's more to the story than "Americans just can't do the job!" The h1b narrative is exactly what you just described. I would say that your company has recruiting issues if you truly can't find qualified Americans to work on embedded security. (Is this a Big 4 company with a crazy hiring bar? That might make sense)
There's always more to the story.
Indian outsourcing firms are notoriously spamming the H1B with low-salary petitions completely offsetting the chances of these post-grads looking for work. What you end up getting is doctors and engineers not being able to work in the US and you have some low level programmer that can't even do their work well without you babysitting through the work they are supposed to be qualified to do.
Thats what I did.
Brain-drain is a myth. I'm taking an x64 assembler course at an accredited institution right now; the 2 Indian foreign transfer students were worse than the 1 kid in class that literally plays WOW during lecture. They didn't pay attention, they didn't work, they tried to cheat their way through, and eventually dropped. Literally, I have teachers who randomize and change their assignments to catch people like them, and while I'm not going to hang the entire institutions cheating problems on those 2 kids, I will be willing to bet dollars to donuts most of the kids we are getting are rich kids with similar problems.
When I, as an American who's family goes back to before the war for independence, hear of "Rich Foreigners Kids" I think either Russian Mob or some corrupt Russian businessmen, or an Afghani Opium farmer, or some Indian Kshatriya. Call me jerk all you want, but facts are facts. Poor Geniuses from India don't have the resources to come here are foreign transfer students. Recently I had an assignment from my boss to go stalk a Chinese railroad construction company who was putting down roots in the US. Turns out all the people they are hiring state-side are, surprise surprise, Chinese foreign transfer students or people disgruntled with US institutions they want to steal technology from. If poor kids make it into US educational institutions, that is how they get in. Some foreign Government's interest in something in the US. Either way, their background is diametrically opposed to what it is to be American. Being American is not about drawing a nice paycheck; it's fundamentally about fighting for your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Take a 2nd Generation Mexican down to the gun range sometime, all of a sudden they realize they aren't 2nd class citizens anymore once you explain to them if the cops take your guns and arrest you for your skin color that's a great pay day for you., They understand, intrinsically, because their home country, Mexico, is unbelievably messed up, why firearm ownership is meaningful. If everyone has an AK47, the drug gangs are incentivized to be extraordinarily polite, mass graves do not happen.
You will never, ever get the poor kids who work their way up through their education system or business magnates who persevered without a college degree coming here as transfer students; that is what H1B is for. No Business magnate from Russia is ever going to come to the US to participate in our Ideology; whatever area they are in, they own it lock stock and barrel. The poor kids have to be financed by someone; business magnate or government, pick one. Both of those expect loyalty.
That is what H1B is for. Business managers will argue that they need "IT Geniuses" and honestly, they have zero capability to tell the difference between an entry level "Genius" and a bonafide professional. H1B is not for bringing in entry level people. What it is there for, fundamentally, is when you get the 3rd Reich starting up and they begin burning the Jews, typically, educated people see that coming a-ways off. Economic calamity often leads to political instability; If you're going to get into a war, best to grab as many educated people as possible from that foreign country as you can get. Maybe they get the ideology while they are here, maybe they like it and stay. Who knows. Moving away from your family and friend requires some serious motivation.
Indians by and large do not come here through H1B because India is a horrible hitler-esque dystopia. They do not come here because they urn to be free. They come here to scam, it's an empirical fact, Plain and simple. Let me prove it. Wipro, TaTa, WNS. Whenever Americans are being outsourced, it's one of those companies doing it, it is a scam, it is dishonest, it is asset stripping people's paychecks.
We, like idiots, encourage that scamming blinded by these fantasies about foreigners thinking so highly of of our technology, money, and world power that they want to come here from their whatever shazbot-hole country they come from; it's as if everyone has been infected by the thinking of King George of England. Nowhere anywhere in Mainstream Media, do you ever see anyone quoting an immigrant these days who wants to come here to share in our Ideology. That Ideology is the reason for the economy, capital, and technology and military, and we forget that.
If you're here for the economic incentive, Get the F@##$!@$k out. I don't have time for your kind.
If you're here to be American and contribute, Welcome. We've got a lot of idiots here. Buy them booze and get them hammered. Do that a few times, you'll find friends willing to bury a body with you.
> come here to share in our Ideology. That Ideology is the reason for the economy ... If you're here for the economic incentive, Get the F@##$!@$k out ... If you're here to be American and contribute, Welcome
You mean the American Dream of working hard and earning lots of money for doing so? Isn't that the same thing as coming for the "economic incentive" under a capitalist ideology? I'm a Canadian who'd like to emigrate to the US eventually to earn more, following my economic incentive is the same thing as going to the US to work hard, participate, develop technology and engage in mutually beneficial trade to further the nation.
Also, counter-anecdote, I'm a university student and the Indian transfer students I know are just as smart and nice as everyone else and fit in excellently.
Would you support sorting H1-B applications by salary and taking from highest to lowest until the cap is met? That sounds like it would address your concerns about Tata and Wipro.
It's preventing lots of extremely qualified European to join the USA.
1. Indian consultancies have provided valuable labor in large quantity to US firms.
2. This has helped US firms remain competitive in the world. From ATT or Bank of America to Toyota and Sears everyone has super large outsourcing centers in India which help them keep costs low for American consumers.
3. Cheap labor with high skills coming to USA is a good thing. It makes the economy get more efficient and grows the size of pie where everyone gets employed.
4. US Tech sector has outperformed all sectors in terms of both growth and employment numbers. Most of the H1Bs goes to tech companies and guess what ? They have the lowest unemployment rate.
There are no job losses because of H1B. If H1B program is completely shut-down US economy would take a pretty bad hit and total number of jobs in USA will go down and more jobs will simply move to India.
The consulting company used to send really low quality candidate. The kind who might not clear high school maths and have some worthless degree from a remote college in India. Then I asked them to get their best people. Their best people were pretty bad. I mean the kind who would get rejected on telephonic screen within 10 minutes. Eventually the model that worked is that I would find great candidates and then this company would bring them on contract (some people prefer working on contract vs full time).
The amount of money waste on such consultancy projects was unbelievable. Companies prefer this because of some tax savings of CapEx vs OpEx. There would be a huge team of people doing near clerical work. I am confident that there are other citizens available who can do that job, at probably an higher cost.
May be that is where the value of these candidates lies. But hey they are valuable in that sense else no one would have hired them in first place.
That's completely ignoring the fact that if you have cheaper workers, you end up being underpaid and/or doing a job you'd rather not be doing. Unemployment rate alone don't tell the whole story, and failing to acknowledge that sounds like poor/partial journalism to me
Indian universities are terrible but are getting slightly better, US universities have been getting worse over time but are still better.
But the process is about just getting enough numbers - why improve an education system when you can just harvest the small percentage of people who learn despite the poor quality - you only need so many skilled people, after all. The people running this don't care about your average American or Indian but they know there are a lot of Indians.
Training people the usual way costs money and requires an education system where the educators aren't disposable themselves. That's not in the spirit of creating a few highly skilled, energetic, disposable folks who will work 14 hours/day for 10-20 years, squandering their only relatively high salaries until they are replaced by the next batch, with the entire workforce indentured by debt (or visa conditions) despite the poor quality of the education involved.
That's a very broad statement. They are so terrible they manage to produce engineers and scientists who then come here and other parts of the world for higher degrees.
After doing a little hiring of Indians and working with them I get the impression that the top tier universities are pretty good, but the second tier and below are a lot worse in comparison to similarly ranked institutions in the US.
[edit:] Real villain is Microsoft, which has the largest lobbyists machine among the software companies in D.C. to make sure they are able to keep their indenture servants for as many years as possible.
Google spent almost twice as much as Microsoft in 2015, for example.
I also don't really see how either act causes the problems you are describing.
This is especially true for people trying to get a green card. The employer can use the green card process to ensure the worker has no career mobility. And this process can take many years.
Interestingly it is NOT Tata/Infosys/WIPRO who are using the green card trick. They don't sponsor green cards. They just rotate people to and from the US and are very upfront about it. It's MSFT, Google, Apple, etc who are using the green card process to indenture their employees.
There was good reasons why it was outlawed along with slavery in the 13th amendment.
Having to jump through some hoops to switch jobs, or having to leave the country if you quit/get fired is not nearly the same thing. Not even close.
Getting an I140 takes about a year, and you can transfer it after 180 days. Yes it takes a long time for Indians to get the actual card. That's not a result of companies trying to get you into servitude, it's a result of poor immigration policy and massive demand from India.
It's far from being exactly the same. A H1B is free to break his contract and leave USA at any point, while IS was forced (i.e. hunted down and brought back to the workplace) to fulfill it.
disc: Work for Microsoft, run here from real body shop by using AC21 rule
First, to the best of my knowledge, my salary was not lower than that of my colleagues with citizenship at any point. Nor did I get fewer perks, formally or informally (ability to take days off as and when needed etc).
Second, my H1B status was never used as leverage when talking about raises, amount of time spent at work, and so on. I was never pressured to work more "or else".
Third, Microsoft fully sponsored my green card application, including all direct and indirect filing and legal fees. They were clearly interested in getting me off H1B status as soon as possible.
This is an anecdote. However, all people I know in MS who are or were on H1B have similar experiences. All either have green cards by now, or are in the process of obtaining them, with very few willing exceptions (as in, people who voluntarily decided to not apply, despite all the prodding to do so).
In other words, if people with that skill set were more scarce, compensation would be higher and eventually more U.S. residents would be attracted into to the field.
There may be good points against that contention, but this thread is mostly talking past it.
Actually, that is exactly the contention for many. Even if you look at other comments on this story, there are numerous claims that H1Bs are paid less.
Which is true - most H1Bs (the ones employed by "consulting" shops) are indeed paid significantly under the market, because of the leverage their employers have over them making it hard for them to negotiate for better salaries.
Your point is valid, but it's neither the most significant effect of the H1B program, nor the one that's most obviously unfair. More people competing on equal terms is a very different proposition.
Your response is useless in the context of the current conversation.
Did you know that any employee at these companies can claim to be a Multi national manager and get a Green Card within six months. That person might not have the qualification to pass high school.
They knowingly bring people with fake degrees. They knowingly break the laws. They claim that people are working at their site while they are really working at the client site. The list goes on and on.
The history is that during Bill Clinton's Presidency (in the 1990's), there was an attempt to split MSFT up into 3 because of alleged monopolistic behavior. MSFT responded by building up the most formidable lobbying operation DC has ever seen from any Tech company.
After the threat of splitting up MSFT was defeated, they turned their attention to Immigration policy and got passed the AWICA and AC-21 acts which directly resulted in our indentured servitude.
MSFT lobbyists are the founders and architects of the "indentured servitude". They have been very unhelpful with any attempts to free people.
Because MSFT has this formidable lobbying infrastructure, in matters of common interest (like H1-B), all Tech companies essentially follow MSFT's lead (or just outsource their immigration lobbying to MSFT).
It would cost a little more for the outsourcing firms, sure, but it would be a net drain on the US economy (especially since it would keep real job creating entrepreneurial talent from coming to the US).
I wouldn't say that the L1 visas are easier to get. The only material differences I've noticed between L1 and H1B visas are
* the first is not lottery based,
* you must have worked for the company in another country for at least a year (time spent in the US while working for the company doesn't count),
* that an L2 holding spouse can have an Employment Authorization Document pretty quickly (instead of H2B visa holders, who can only apply for an EAD fairly late in the process after being in the country for years),
* L1 visa holders cannot change jobs, while H1B visa holders can (as difficult as that process can be).
I can attest that the "leave the country immediately if you lose your job" situation is a very odd thing to have hanging over you every single day.
It's exactly why I think the H-1B limits might be a bad idea, but equal market pay for the migrant workers is more sensible regulation. (I'm ignoring the obvious cheat, companies can do, i.e: lower the job grade/title and then ask the hire to do the higher work too, but assuming that'll eventually get evened out with cultural assimilation and the hired workers getting upto speed about market rates vs roles vs responsibilities.)
Cheaper labor is good just like cheaper raw material. Trump wants American companies to buy expensive American steel instead of cheaper Japanese or Chinese steel of same quality. This is a net loss for American economy and a state sponsored coercive benefit for the American Steel industry.
Personally it is both productive and economically beneficial to hire a SAP experience guy from Infosys instead of an American college kid who needs to be trained and who will leave in 1 year any ways. Of course I would hire the college kid for half the wage but then there is this sense of entitlement.
Not for the vast majority of Americans who's only source of income is selling their labor (physical, creative, intellectual, etc).
First hand experience: If you have an open request to hire, you are required to first look to one of the few outsourcing firms we have a contract with. You cannot post the job for external until you have searched for the "best" person within their ranks. The "Best" being somebody super cheap & not qualified, but they assure us that person will learn on the job. I'd rather hire a full time College or High school graduate from the USA at a reasonable cost, train & maybe they will stay for the duration, but I know I'll get great work out of that person, better than the outsourced person.
America is being scammed by the our own American Corporations. I've seen too many people lose their jobs because of outsourcing & they didn't fall back on their feet.
I'd like to see the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates come out of providing good paying jobs to US Citizens.
These companies are going through the red light. They are intentional manipulating, gaming, and deceiving in order to make huge profits off their own country people by engaging in nothing more than 21st slavery.
The companies that hire these body shops have the old bait and switch pulled on them. The first initial consultation the A team developers are doing the work. These are ones that are paid on par or higher than their native counterparts. Then the company pulls out team A and sends in the 21st slaves. And you don't think the company that thought they were going to get the A Team developers for the duration of their project instead of just the first month, is because of their greed? That "greedy American corporation" is still paying the 5 million dollar contract. But the body shop, they just walked away with 4.5 million dollars. Who is greedy here?
Why not? Are they not run by adults? Are those adults not capable of taking responsibility for their own actions?
Edit: Changed country.
A minimally decent person would notice that the obviously correct thing to do would be to remove the requirement that blacks get an H-1Black license before being allowed to work. The ethical intuition that leads to this conclusion, I think, is that one shouldn't be discriminated against based on one's circumstances at birth. Everybody (at least on HN) seems to agree that if an employer is willing to hire me, third parties (i.e. other people who also wanted the same job) shouldn't be allowed to prevent the employer from hiring me just because I was born the wrong race or the wrong gender. But people seem to think that if I were born on the wrong side of the border then its totally fine for third parties to demand preferential treatment.
Can someone explain the logic to me? Why is it not okay to discriminate on the basis of race or gender but okay to discriminate on the basis of citizenship/country of birth? Would it be okay if NYC started requiring people outside New York to obtain a highly scarce license to be able to work in NYC? Could whites start requiring non-whites to obtain a license?
FWIW, the same assumption would eliminate your ability to object when a foreign army wants to peacefully enter on the pretense of just wanting a better life.
And if you assume away the legitimacy of property rights, you look pretty atrocious turning away the homeless from your property.
I don't think it's hard to see why national and property borders might be not objectionable, but blanket racial job restrictions would be.
The correct analogy is not that you're being forced to accept a homeless person into your property. Its that if I want to accept a homeless person into my property, you shouldn't be allowed to prevent me from doing so. Unless you make a convincing case that they're going to invade you. Which I don't think you have.
People moving into your neighborhood to conduct a violent overthrow is not a risk because the national borders have already filtered out people who could draw in a bottomless resources from a foreign power. And you can in fact form neighborhood orgs that restrict who can move there. If anything, you have fewer rights to filter it by race than in an ancap world.
>The correct analogy is not that you're being forced to accept a homeless person into your property. Its that if I want to accept a homeless person into my property, you shouldn't be allowed to prevent me from doing so. Unless you make a convincing case that they're going to invade you. Which I don't think you have.
Sure, admittance to your neighborhood is not admittance to any one person's house. But it is admittance to the public part of it and whoever lets them in. Allowing a foreign army to fill up your country without impediment until their first overt acts is still pretty questionable. But then, once you see why an "immigration policy" against that attack vector is justified, you have to accept the whole regime necessary for trivial permutations of that plan, like rate throttling, a requirement to assimilate, etc.
And, you are part of a social contract between these other people you live with (e.g. your countrymen) where you can't just override them.
If you had your own country where nobody else lived, where you had no social contract with anyone, it would be fine for you to let anyone in (of course, you wouldn't have a country for long).
If you respond by saying that the social contract of the country (which bans discrimination based on race) supercedes the social contract of my neighborhood then I'll say that the social contract of the world supercedes even that.
You're imagining a global social contract because it makes you feel good. Pure wishful thinking.
In reality, nobody in India or Africa believes they have any responsibility to you in the slightest. They would gladly loot everything you have without the slightest concern for your rights. So it is with perhaps 85% of the world population (e.g. the part outside the West). If they feel themselves to have no responsibility for you whatever, there is no contract, because contracts have two sides.
Because, a country and it's city, and infrastructure have been built by money spent on by a bunch of people who paid taxes. For a another country, person to come in enjoy the infrastructure, make money and compete with the ones who paid for the infrastructure is unfair by design.
Disclaimer: I'm an Indian working in India.
An adult foreigner coming to the US has, if anything, better fiscal implications for the US than the children of American citizens since children need are very likely a net fiscal negative for say the first 18 years of their lives. New Americans, whether they are formed by birth, or by immigration enjoy the existing infrastructure without having paid for it.
If you say that American parents have already paid taxes on behalf of their children then I'll say that American employers have already paid taxes on behalf of their foreign employees. I'm fine with having a consistent 'entry fee' for all new Americans as long as said entry fee applies uniformly to both children of Americans and foreigners who wish to immigrate.
Globally, labor isn't scarce. If there were a true global labor pool, wages in USA would be further depressed.
People have no intrinsic right to immigrate into the country of their choice (they do have a right to leave their country if another will take them, however..)
An easy to understand introduction is to look at the Stolper Samuelson theorem.
This isn't a recent development. It precedes the existence of the United States as a nation. Textiles in the U.K., mill workers. It's been done before.
Protectionism is often just a straight subsidy from whichever society is being protectionist to the members which are being protected.
Or, as people on the Internet are prone to saying: if you can't compete, legislate. If you're somehow losing your job to Infosys, you can't be that good. Real loss for society occurs when a good candidate can't get into the US because Wipro took all the visas.
Anyway, my point was that protectionism and free trade have been fighting a war for centuries. It is not true that this won't be studied. It will and has been. Because it's nothing special and new. This is garden variety protectionism.
Blacks have no intrinsic right to move into the white neighborhood of their choice (they do have the right to leave their ghetto if another will take them, however..)
Your house is for your family, including children who have never done anything to earn it. Why can't other people come in, eat your food, watch your TV, and sleep in your bed? Why should other people, or other children, not have the same rights to your home as your children do, just because of the circumstances of their birth?
So, you can see that "one shouldn't be discriminated against based on one's circumstances at birth" is not actually a universal principle at all. It's a general goal, but must be tempered by other concerns.
In this it's like honesty - as a general goal, we should try to be honest. But being 100% honest every moment would be foolish and harmful. Morality is more complex than applying simplistic rules without exception.
People have communities which they care about more than other, more distant communities. Your family, then your neighborhood, your city, your province/state, your country, humanity, all of life. You can mix in your tribe (if you have one), language group, class, race, sports team fans, or whatever else you like in there. The point is that an eternal part of human life, since our earliest beginnings, has been to form concentric in-groups with loyalty and concern falling off as you move away from the self.
Why? Since other people are loyal to you the same way, that creates the possibility of a mutual structure - a tight family with strong loyalty in both directions, then a country of people with good mutual loyalty, then a world of humans who care about each other somewhat. We all benefit from this, and it's also sustainable.
If you want to be suicidally moral, you can start treating every human as well as you treat yourself. In some sense, I'd applaud you. But what you're doing won't last and won't have a long-term impact on humanity. You'll rapidly exhaust yourself as you give away your resources while nobody gives anything to you. In the end, your behavior will be wiped out by unstoppable Darwinian forces.
If you want to be sustainably moral, you need to set up loyalty and care that runs reasonably symmetrically across relations, so it can be maintained that way.
Because morality is not absolutes. It is a negotiation between Darwinian principles and our desire to be more than apes, murdering and raping and pumping out as many kids as we can. You cannot ignore either side of this fundamental tension.
Similarly two strangers have the presumptive right to associate with each other (as employer-employee or tenant-landlord). Do you agree that there is such a presumption? If there is, what if your view is the needed to overcome this presumption?
However, the US government can decide who is eligible to work in the country, just like it can decide who is eligible for legal residence, citizenship, etc.
And I'm not even asking that you don't "encourage" American companies to hire Americans. I'm simply asking that you don't ban (or make it extremely difficult) American companies who do want to hire non-Americans from doing so.
As to your "White company" question, I'm just going to guess that you haven't heard of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution...
If businesses were free to reap America's rewards without contributing to America's "costs", then America's economy would (continue to) crumble as businesses (continue to) exploit that loophole.
Think of it as a "If you want to use America's resources to thrive, then you should contribute to America's economy" tax.
God is watching--do you honestly see why that policy exists? Or can you still not fathom why the policy is a good idea? Your "white" counterexample is non-nonsensical, primarily because of the Equal Protection clause of the constitution--it has always been illegal/unethical to make a racial distinction...surely this is something you've known since high school gov.
You seem to ascribe very special moral rights to this particular association of people that we call democratic states. Why is the USG allowed to ban foreigners from coming to the US if they undercut American wages? Is New York State allowed to ban people from NJ from working in NYC by a majority vote (or a super-majority vote)? Again, I'm not asking whether the US constitution allows this - I know that it doesn't. The question is regarding ethics not law.
It's in the interest of a nation to implement rules that boost its economy. Wanting foreigners to prosper over your own countrymen is akin to betraying your country. How is this ethical point even a question?
Your argument proves too much. Surely, you agree that its not okay to murder a foreigner if it boosts your country's economy. But you do think its okay to prevent your fellow American from hiring an Indian if it boosts America's economy. Why?
Note that I'm not arguing that you should be required to hire an Indian. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be allowed to prevent Bill Gates from hiring an Indian just because said Indian will do your job for half the money.
I believe the logic comes down to the highest constitution you bind yourself to.
By birth we are bound to our country of birth's constitution and once we become an adult we have the ability to renounce that constitution and apply to be bound by another countries constitution.
Personally I find this line of thought (cliche?) frustrating. Not just because apparently us proles should be making our policy decisions based merely on whether we just might get to bask in some future billionaire's magnificence, but also because, isn't this a somewhat empirically testable proposition? That is, how many Musk-like or Brin-like individuals have come through TCS or Wipro or Infosys on a H-1B so far?
Which makes me doubt whether this step would make any difference to the problem of H1B abuse. However, it would make a HUGE difference for those who are not abusing the system.
Disclosure: I'm on an H1B visa. Of course I want it to be easier to change employer. Who doesn't? Its like a fundamental right.
By improving portability of H-1B the government can make market fairer and less prone to misuse. Simply banning the visa will just lead to a rush of outsourcing/offshoring draining the economy of secondary benifits.
In most cases, it really isn't equivalent and the price difference isn't that much for really qualified people, but shutting out lots of talented people might tilt things in that direction.
It's poor rhetoric. In fact people do that all the time, "we might be letting in the next terrorist" and are derided for it.
The reason for this is that a larger portion of a manufacturing company's competitive strength comes from having great manufacturing equipment, ins into markets, etc. vs. just great engineers or scientists. H1B is necessary because many of these special-skills engineers and scientists are foreigners.
This is also the same reason that hedge fund managers or doctors are paid much more than software engineers- the individual's contribution is more important than in other professions. Does this mean that hedge fund managers are more valuable to society and should be preferred over software engineers in a H1B lottery?
I don't care enough to validate if everyone on that list held a H1 at some point, but they're all born in India and went on to start large companies in the US and were likely on a H1 at some point. And this list ignores people of all other nationalities and only limits itself to companies valuing > 1bn.
An aside - I wonder if any founders in that list came in on investor visas?
I don't have a lot of experience with Tata and their ilk, but from what little I've seen, and everything I've heard, it sounds like they are just as bad as the typical low-level enterprise corporate IT drone you'd expect when that's what you're asking for -- and that's typically how they get involved. I'm sure they have other skill sets, and I'm sure there are some very talented people mixed in that pool, but I'm not convinced that the best of the foreign talent that we want to target is coming through those routes in significant numbers.
That is, how many American students meditate on the ineffable mysteries of the efficient market hypothesis and then decide, hey, marketing is an easy major and the job prospects aren't that much worse than tech. Better -- how many did that in 2002?
You don't know, these people are forced to be in underpaid H1B slavery for decades and are not be able to use business opportunities.
[edit - fixed grammar mistake which mangled intended meaning]
These laws against sewing in sweatshops will only lead to them moving abroad and taking the jobs with them. A better change would be to allow them to stay, but ensure they feed their workers properly. For within these sweatshops may lie the next JFK or Rockefeller of fashion design!
But there's a knock on effect -- if you go to the effort of sponsoring an H1-B with the intention of underpaying them, then changing the rules to allow visa holders to leave you for a job that pays job (or better work-life balance or has a mojito bar) would leave you holding all the processing expense and none of the profit from underpaying people.
Free movement between employers would likely free up only places like Wipro, Tata and the like, whose business models appear to rely on disparity of pay.
We should just have 3 year visas that allow you to apply for a green card if you are gainfully employed.
My grandparents immigrated here without any strings. No pimp-like employer, no restrictions.
You're asking to see results for something that is prohibited and presenting its absence as evidence.
That's what the article wanted to implement. The Indians at the helms of most companies in SV are here because of the H1B(& gradually progressed to green-cards) for higher education from US.
My roommate's on an H1B but he can't just quit his tech job and work on a startup, despite having a few hundred thousand dollars in the bank and being a very successful developer.
Yet there are organizations like Define American, whose founder is an undocumented worker, encouraging people to give sanctuary to people who live here illegally. In 2015, LA allowed undocumented workers to get driver's licenses and 800,000 were issued. There's something like 2-2.5 million people living here illegally.
I have compassion for those who arrived here illegally and have families and lives. And I hope we can find some solution to fixing that problem. But it seems incredibly unfair that we make it hard for smart people to come and work in the US. If you can qualify initially for an H1B visa, I feel like you should be granted a green card with a path to citizenship. I
I'm not just making this up, these are terms that are very clearly defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
I've stayed in the US as a collage student, then graduate student from a top university then starting my company for a total of 9 years. I lost the H1B lottery twice and have been on F1 then F1-OPT, then F1-OPT-STEM_EXT in the first 8 years. I recently successfully converted into an O1 this year, therefore finally bypassing the H1B lottery. I consider the O1 visa a life saver but not everyone is that lucky to be able to apply. Now the thing is, my O1 visa is a single-entry visa, meaning I have to stay in US for 3 years until it expires and I can't leave the country otherwise I can never come back to this country again.
Edit: Obviously someone found out that O1 is single entry for Chinese nationals, and it might not be the case for most other nationals.
It has to do with some US-China reciprocity agreement.
It confused a whole lot of me the rationale behind single entry O1 visa - it does create a lot of inconvenience as we do have a subsidy in China that I'd wish to be able to travel back to.
Edit: just noticed @seanmccann's comment. Dang that sucks. Apply for your EB1 asap! Under the O1, the requirements are pretty colinear, and you can skip the nationality queue that has an 8 year backlog for Chinese citizens on the EB2/3/etc.
O-1 is dual intent. So while you're in the country you can apply for a green card through EB-2/3 (PERM or NIW) or EB-1.
Is "free" trade possible without "free" labor mobility? Currently, 11 of the top 15 tech companies in India are American. For most of the multinational US companies, India (not EU, not China) is the biggest consumer (after US) or growth region. So how many Indians should be employed by the American companies (both tech and non-tech) active in Indian market? Should Indians be working on localization only or on the core technology? It seems to me, at current H-1B levels, the balance is heavily skewed towards trade rather than labor mobility.
Also how does H-1B decrease the salaries of Americans? H-1B makes American companies more competitive. And they are able to sell products in more markets. A cut in free labor mobility will lead to cut in free trade from the other side. Imagine you are a startup founder. You go to a VC and tell him/her that you plan to hire only natives and sell only in the local market. Do you think you will get any funds from the VC? If yes, then will you get more funds (and more revenue and salary) if your startup hires at the best talent/cost and is able to sell all around the world? The point being that there is a reason that as software engineer you earn 150k in US, not 40-70k as earned by software engineers in other developed countries.
And then there are studies showing that each H-1B creates 2-5 jobs in the US (some studies quote a much higher number...)
Isn't this an example of win-win?
American corporations want to make profit year over year. (The announcing the quarterly or annual reports ? )
IT jobs has a tradition of being highly paid. When the revenues are less, the course of action is to cut the expenses and hence the salaries. So if a corporation want to make profit, they can hire workers with the minimum lawful wage. Indian bodyshops are catering to that demand. Its that simple.
Cutting salaries or firing American workers will lead to PR nightmare. So American companies hire bodyshops or majorly Indian IT outsourcing companies like TCS or Infosys to do the IT jobs.
Most enterprise IT do not need high skills. ( I mean who wants to know about data structures or Big O to make a CRUD application or write queries ? ). So a major chunk of Indian IT workers fit in that category.
So American enterprises get the work done at a cheaper rate in India or through the H1B worker. So no firing or salary cuts for the American worker.
Fire an H1B worker, he will keep silent and go back to his country if he is a fulltime worker. If he is from a bodyshop, he will be deployed to another location in the US. No PR nightmare for the corporate company.
In a nutshell:
Indian outsourcing firms are only here because American corporations want more profit and revenues are not that great. Stop being greedy and outsourcing will end, that includes H1B too.
For example, l3m0ndr0p (yeah, I'm totally him/her) made an "America first" type of comment. I know that doesn't play well with a lot of HNers, but seeing it instantly downvoted to dead was weird, too.
I know there's a left-ish bias here, I'm a bit left, but this feels different.
on the topic of "America First", i wonder if there's a double standard.
if Apple/Facebook/Microsoft/Google/et al say "if we don't reform immigration policies to allow more talented people to enter the US, America will lose its position of technical leadership" that's basically an "America First" argument. but in reality these companies are basically motivated by their own desire to make more cash. and it's not very controversial.
by contrast, if some individual middle class US resident says "H1B visa holders are costing me money by depressing salaries" that's basically an "America First" argument too, even though that person is basically motived by their own desire to make more cash. but it's quite controversial.
is corporate greed somehow more acceptable than individual greed? is there a kind of bias against the little guy?
why isn't everyone equally entitled to advocate for their own greed?
we might be the only country like that.
for another, the US seems to have evolved both the strongest individual free speech protections and some of the freest immigration policies and practices.
because of its global familiarity, in the last 30 or 40 years, many people from around the world have come to the US and felt comfortable exercising that freedom. maybe people think "if the US feels free to reach out and impact my part of the world, then i'm free to go to the US and impact it."
i don't know if there are other countries in a situation like that. maybe the UK? maybe China and India, if you consider the poor rural workers who've migrated into the big cities?
What I find harder to understand is how they ended up in that position in the first place. Their comments aren't exactly in lock-step with the general HN view of the world, but they're not that far out either. If anyone thinks I'm being OTT here, go and see for yourself. Diversity of opinion is a good thing. I'd hate to see HN turn into another mindless echo-chamber.
The "silent" part means the user is cajoled into believing they're not banned. One of the ways to do this is to not kill their comments until a couple people reply to them. That way the system can tell them they have +3 votes or whatever when in reality nobody after the first 2 minutes even sees their post. If nobody ever replied to them it would look suspicious.
Not totally sure that's whats happening but it looks like it
Personally, I would like to see HN quit the juvenile, passive-aggressive shadow ban. If for no other reason than it seems it is buggy at times, and banning accounts that don't need it. But I don't make the rules.
Yeah, I'm not really invested in some of these less-than-popular sentiments, but it pains me to see against-the-grain comments consistently downvoted in some threads.
I don't really feel an obligation to not speak about it though, I didn't choose to get showdead privileges and never heard anything about it.
And a quote from the NYT article:
“This does nothing,” said Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “Like all the other executive orders, it’s just words — he’s calling for new studies. It’s not going to fix the problem. It’s not going to create a single job.”
The hypocrisy here is truly disgusting. One moment, executive orders are the end of the world. The next moment, they don't mean anything at all.
If a person can't see past this man's partisanship, then they are hopeless; when reason and logic are out the window, it's over.
For those who want evidence from the mouth of Chuck Schumer himself :
>Schumer said that he called Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly on Saturday "to urge the administration to rescind these anti-American executive actions that will do absolutely nothing to improve our safety."
>"In fact, they will do the opposite. We have a long and proud tradition of accepting refugees who seek safety in the United States, after a long and thorough vetting process. That tradition should continue," he said.
>“These executive orders were mean-spirited and un-American in their origin, and implemented in a way that has caused chaos and confusion across the country. They will only serve to embolden and inspire those around the globe who would do us harm. They must be reversed, immediately," Schumer added.
It's like politicians aren't even pretending anymore. The thing that kills me is that people actually buy this stuff. Maybe Chuck is right about the executive order on immigration. Maybe he's right that executive orders do nothing at all. But he's definitely not right about both things.
On the same topic. It doesn't matter what he says, these people will shut him down. Result? he might be bad, terrible - who knows. Nobody trusts anyone or anything anymore - because all sources lies so much it's too unreliable.
Perfect example is the Spicer gas thing. Had he said Hitler didn't use gas on the battlefield, he would have been completely right. In WWI they used gas a lot and everyone expected Hitler to do so. Many theorize it was because Hitler himself was gassed in WWI. What else did Spicer say? You'll have to watch the press conference to find out, the news sure isn't going to tell you. That's subversive as hell.
I don't particularly care for Trump, nor any politician for that matter, but I don't like being treated like a child by the news (left and right).
For what it's worth, many companies have been using H1B to lower wages. That's all that's on their spreadsheets. They're sold on other things like, "you can ramp up when you need it," and, "you never have to worry about losing people because we have redundancy and will train the new person," but that's all BS. I think it will raise US wages and equity packages for at least the next 10 years or so. 10%, 30%, 50% maybe. I'll take that. They've been suppressed for 20.
"shall, as soon as practicable, suggest reforms" is the actual meat of it.
Was the executive order on immigration "just words" to Chuck Schumer? No. The answer is no. Just plain no. Chuck Schumer is a hypocrite, and if you align with him on both issues, then you clearly don't think for yourself.
Could it not be that some executive orders are meaningful (e.g., orders on immigration) and others aren't (e.g., kinda hand-wavy orders on "creating jobs")?
I really hope Trump follows through with his ideas about the H-1B program. But I'm also not mindlessly aligned with one side of politics, so I can understand that his order today will probably have no effect.
A few weeks later, after Trump does thing A: Chuck Schumer says "thing A is meaningless. thing A doesn't matter at all"
I truly don't understand how people can read the comment above yours and
then disagree with you.
That's a bit of a simplification, of course it's valid to say one executive order is bad and one is a waste of time - they're different orders that do different things!
It's true that Trump's executive order accomplishes nothing in terms of how H1-Bs are processed. It's also true that his rhetoric has a chilling affect on potential immigrants and companies who do business with them.
Schumer is right.
If that sentence isn't a contradiction to you, then I won't be able to convince you. Think for yourself. Schumer overstepped in the name of his political ends.
Talking about different orders which say different things, one which actually does change rules and one which simply directs an agency to "perform a study", doesn't seem hypocritical at all.
>If a person can't see past this man's partisanship, then they are hopeless; when reason and logic are out the window, it's over.
It doesn't seem to be quite reasonable or logical to treat two things which say different things the same.
>It's like politicians aren't even pretending anymore. The thing that kills me is that people actually buy this stuff. Maybe Chuck is right about the executive order on immigration. Maybe he's right that executive orders do nothing at all. But he's definitely not right about both things.
They're two different orders. Is it not logical that they could have two different effects?
He didn't distinguish between two different orders here, he said all of the other ones were just words.
Schumer is the Democratic leader, the leader of the party that 80 years ago was very well-connected to working Americans - even in the south. Trump is playing him and the Democrats like a fiddle. This is what the Democratic leadership stand for? Infosys and Tata? Taking a more war-like stance against Russia?
One additional point of Trump's cleverness is he did it in such a way that screws the most disliked element, Tata and Infosys, while not harming too much those actual PHDs that Google, Microsoft, Oracle etc. hire.
And people wonder how Hillary lost to Trump. You all should queue up that video Michael Moore made before the election about why Trump was going to win.
Moore put into words the devastating alienation the Rust Belt feels from the rest of the country. How they laughed at midwesterner's baseball caps was a big one. And they aren't getting any better. Scary.
Not that I agree with Trump, but Schumer is a complete hack.
Its the companies like TCS that get the profits while kind-of-abusing their H1B employees who get stuck for 5-10 years because they want to pursue the American dream
1. Increase the minimum salary a bit - but not too much - you don't want to kill startups
2. Remove the H1B restriction on changing employers
3. Impose a rule to make sure that the employer does restrict movement by imposing any other policy.
4. Let those H1Bs stay in the country, without a job, for max 6 months. This will allow them to circumvent certain irrevocable binding policies from previous employer
5. Also ensure that the H1B employee movement is not restricted by company's policies in other countries. If they want to - make them pay 100K minimum. Example: If TCS is not able to create an employee-binding policy in US, it certainly will do it back home in India.
PS: Even as an Indian, I would love to see some blanket H1B restrictions imposed on Indian IT companies, for a multitude of good reasons (for India). I believe that short term pain is necessary for India to get big gains. Unfortunately, this is not something Indian govt can do at the moment.
1. Do not provide a lottery. Approve by highest salary per occupational code/section. This will make sure wages are "high".
2. Mandate that beneficiaries of the H1B actually start employment and receive pay within 2 months of approval. This will ensure that companies don't just "hoard" H1B's.
3. Mandate a minimum of 1 years' work in the US per entry into the country unless employment is terminated due to forced loss.
The program has been misused. It's high time that is rectified.
By auctioning based on salary you're preferring areas with absurd costs of living - which is a) not where you necessarily need to get more people making the problem worse b) reinforcing economic inequality between areas of the country.
If there's a company needing some specialist somewhere with a saner cost of living, and they tried to find such a specialist, offering above market wages, what exactly is the benefit of not them having to pay twice or thrice the effective salary of somebody in SF/NYC?
IMHO blaming immigrants/the companies that hire them is not productive. Businesses try to maximize their profits; that's given. They aren't hiring immigrants through benevolence towards immigrants or aversion towards natives. The US should fix their social problems before blaming the immigrants/corporations.
i would add medical care to that list
Simultaneously, jobs with a potential for creativity — tech, artists, entrepreneurs, lawyers, and so on — would have unlimited open borders, perhaps with a minimum salary requirement of $100K, say. If you have a job offer that meets these requirements, a visa can be denied only if the government can provide a reason, like a criminal record or terrorist links or having committed fraud. Otherwise, the US govt would be required to let you in.
This will have the effect of safeguarding local jobs where it's hard to imagine creativity or skills making a difference to the outcome, while having an open market in areas where creativity and skills make all the difference.
I'm using the US as an example, but the principle would apply to all rich countries, or even all countries, if you consider Bangladeshis moving to India, for example.
Working at starbucks with a huge debt load is landing on your feet?
We should unequivocally be "America First". Period. Especially after a great depression like we just had. Maybe when we're prosperous and on-top again economically, we can lax the rules. But when shit hits the fan one should generally keep the doors closed.
Just because Elon and Sergey are one in a hundred million in terms of wealth, it doesn't mean that they're also one in a hundred million in terms of talent. In fact, that's extremely unlikely statistically.
I think that Elon and Sergey are in the top 0.1% of the population in terms of talent. This is a good ratio but when you look at it this way, you understand that there are a lot of people who are qualified to be the next Elon or Sergey and the fear that a few select individuals will "miss out" on their rightful position on the Forbes list (based purely on skill/merit) is ridiculous.
Which means that Infosys, TCS and the like are contributing a rotating pool of about ~30k-40k "migrant" software labor consisting of individuals who live in the US for a maximum of a couple of years. Could this be the reason why Americans wages are depressed? Well, let's run the numbers. There are 3.6 million software developers in the US. 40k is an insignificant fraction of that. So no. That's not it.
Yes, in 2013, it was 775,957. So by now, let's say it's closer to 1.2 million. That's a third of all software developers in the USA.
So Yes! This is exactly the reason that American wages are depressed in the job markets that H1Bs work in.
Every country has its exports, lets say for a moment that India's export is IT services, and the market is global. The work visas allow them to "sell" into the US market, in a very limited way. Its as good as it gets in terms of protectionism for the US. If we were told J&J could only sell 100 shampoos each year in China or India, that would sound weird and bizarre. I don't believe IT services any different in principle. Its just that when you purchase an iPhone the hundred Chinese employees who worked to produce it are not seen. But they have technically displaced/depressed American wages just like every other import.
Green card applications for Indians (and to a lesser extent Chinese and Mexicans) are backed up for decades. So you're looking at people who filed PERMs in the last decade and are still waiting for green cards. They're allowed to stay on the H1B, which is why we have 800k people on H1Bs today. But these people are not working for Infosys, they're working for Google and Microsoft.
The 86,000 number contains 20,000 visas allocated to people who have graduate degrees from US universities. I don't think any of these folks are working for Indian consulting firms. So that leaves about 66,000 visas and 40,000 of those, at most, go the consulting firms. I did make an error in my math, which is not accounting for the fact you can stay for 6 years on this visa. Anecdotally, I know that most people of these people leave after about 2-3 years, when their "project" ends. But anyway, let's assume the worst case. You may have 240,000 people in the US on an H1B and working for an Indian tech consulting firm. That is still a small fraction of 3.6 million.
240,000 is way more than your initial 40,000, yet you still say it's a small fraction.
So many articles say differently. I guess they could be all wrong.
I have plenty of friends who work for Infosys and TCS. None of my friends even applied for a green card and they all went back to India after a couple of years here at the most. Many postings in the US at these companies last only 9-12 months. And neither TCS nor Infosys have any interest whatsoever in helping people immigrate to the US. (You need an employer to file a PERM application if you want a green card. A green card is required if you want to stay here more than 6 years.) That is the exact opposite of what they want to do.
The article you've mentioned says nothing about H1Bs. Outsourcing is not going to go away even if you eliminate H1Bs. And yes, all these articles making noise about this epidemic of H1Bs are in fact wrong. They're written by a bunch of poorly-informed Americans who wouldn't know the difference between an I-140 and an I-20. And their goal is to just generate clickbait to cater to nativist sentiment in the US. There's a lot of conservatives who emphatically don't want more Indians in this country. But they know they'll never win if they argue that they don't want Google and Microsoft employees here. So instead they've come up with this nonsense about Infosys and TCS stealing American jobs.
What fraction are looking for work at any given time? That's where the race to the bottom takes place.
All this data is out there and is released by Department of Labor every year
If there is genuine skill shortage then the company in need of the said skill can hire the engineers directly instead of going through a middleman whose business model relies entirely on keeping wages low.
The whole narrative of low skilled and cheap foreign H1-Bs taking American jobs exists somewhere in a parallel universe. In reality, it is hard to find even simply qualified people, regardless of their origin.
So, stop whining and leave H1-B alone, or better increase the cap, like the article suggests. The real danger is your job simply going overseas and being done remotely.
It sounds like you have a cushy gig at a Unicorn and you're projecting your status and opportunities onto everyone else.
The stories I hear about are very often the IT departments being outsourced. This will happen with or without H1-B. These jobs are being replaced because they are relatively low skill and easy to replace.
If you had an immigration system that prioritized highly skilled immigrants, you wouldn't need special visas. And you'd relieve pressure on the bottom 20% of the population that's being hammered by competition from low-skilled immigration, both legal and illegal.
So it definitely happens, I'd say it happens a lot.
There are also great H1-b hires like the one I'm working with right now. He is incredibly skilled. He also cant work for another company unless he reapplies so he's stuck.
heck ! ask him to apply Canada express entry and forget H1B. There are good IT in Canada too if he is skilled enough.
Their strong point is that they work for less. That's not a virtue.
some rent, some sleep outside. whatever works.
the ones outside the bay area (of course, not all), i bet, aren't all that qualified.
From my experience working with a lot of tech immigrants, I can say that compared to the native population, they seem about the same in terms of competency. The only issue is the language thing. In tech (especially at large companies), so much of what you do is communicating with others and not having a good command of the English language can make an otherwise capable dev a lot less so.
If I were hiring, I would never consider a person that didn't have a good command of English unless they were really a rock star in something that didn't require much communication.
The first time an American said to me, "Heads up!" I looked up at the ceiling.
1. Who decides this is an abuse?
2. What is being abused? The possibility of a visa being earmarked for "High skill" being used for "low cost low skill jobs"?
3. If the companies that do have a need for high skill, what is preventing them from "rushing to the queue"?
4. Is it that Indian companies have learnt the ropes of how to get a H1 visa (which has its own calendars, short open-and-close gates)? Is it that hard for, say a Google to replicate and act on this knowledge?
I am an Indian, who had been on H1 work visa early in my career, and was mostly engaged in the the R&D end of the tech world than say Manual QA.
For an IT graduate, a German blue card only requires a minimum salary of €39,624. Workers can switch jobs easily and there is no lottery - if you have a degree and a job you are pretty much guaranteed a blue card.
There is a language barrier, but my guess is that's not a big problem. There should be plenty of Indian graduates willing to learn German for a year if it leads to a 500% increase in salary.
Also, US has won the mindshare as the country to immigrate to. It is due to a combination of being the biggest economy, having the largest tech industry and research universities, and the "American Dream" being sold in the media.
Objectively, I would rate Canada and Australia as being more favorable destinations for most potential immigrants. But I must admit that ultimately I chose the US as well. But my reasons were slightly different, I fell in love with the national parks, the interstate highways, and the US constitution (especially the 1st, 2nd, and the 4th amendments).
I have to ask, every time someone says they have lots of open positions and says they can't find qualified people: Why would someone want to come work at your company? I do not ask this to be snarky or mean, I sincerely ask. Because you need to know the answer to that question, and know it in the context of there being other companies around that probably also provide the things that you're going to say.
Make it simple for H1B holder to switch jobs
Wouldn't this lead to non-locked in H1B holders acting naturally on the market => being not more interesting that comparably expensive locals => skillset decides
: i know that you can transfer a H1B visa and it's not crazy complicated - but thinking even easier than that.
And it's impossible if you have non-tech requirements (like the native foreign language teachers we tried to bring in when I was on the school board -- the allotment ran out in October yet teachers are recruited in march-may to start in August).
With emotions so high it's hard to say "the big consultancies are abusing / destroying H-1" without people thinking you're saying either "H-1 is bad for America" or "I'm a troglodyte who hates H-1". H-1 is pretty good for all concerned, actually, if you follow the rules.
Note (not really a disclaimer): despite saying, which I believe, that the big consultancies are abusing H-1, I have friends at Infosys, Tata, Birla etc.
H-1b recipients will be mostly Indian because India born immigrants have no option of diversity lottery or direct F1 to EAD (through a green card application thats started well before graduating).
If a start-up isn't economic without underpaying then it does not deserve to exist and is wasting capital.
H-1Bs don't "go" to Indians; it does not have any preference for nationality (unlike skilled immigration green cards, which have per-country quotas, which biases towards smaller countries favorably)
I would think that there is a percentage of the spots going to people who put in multiple applications, but that affects everyone equally (and that sort of fraud is an equal opportunity employer).
Indian outsourcing companies flood the applications with Indian nationals, because there is an enormous demand in India (AFAIK). On the other side, Europeans usually don't apply to outsourcing companies, but to tech companies themselves - for whom it is expensive and uncertain (will they get a visa? in how much time?) to make an offer to an European worker. So visas don't exactly go to Indians because they're Indian, they go to Indians because they benefit from (but also, are victim of) the outsourcing companies system - whereas an European worker has to convince an employer to go through the uncertain visa process to hire him/her.
Most tech folks I know over here pretty much gave up on getting hired in the US until things quiet down, or change in their favour - especially since the express lane system was shut down.
How is that fair to individual applicants?
Have you also thought about why Indian American kids win spelling bee's or Jews win Nobel Prize disproportionately when compared to their population?
Comparing Indians or Asians to blacks is not fair. They are mostly recent immigrants (except few brought in as labourers) and did not have to suffer through the horrors of slavery which left blacks with broken family structure and other things (It is complex, like housing seggregation where the black neighbourhoods did not increase in wealth when compared to white neighbourhoods, criminal justice system)
So, you do realize that Indians have been coming to the USA for a long time? You do realize that there were pioneers from India in the USA that fought for rights that you are just dismiss as trivial. Here, read something - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_...
Lastly just because someone has more degrees doesn't make them smarter or more intelligent.
I did not say more degrees makes you smarter but there is a direct correlation between education and income. That was the point being discussed
Because their parents and education system still focus on rote learning, we moved on from that waste of time decades ago.
> we moved on from that waste of time decades ago.
No wonder Asians are taking over.
Just because the rest of society is going crazy about this stuff doesn't mean you get to ditch your manners here. We've warned you about this before. If you want to keep posting here, please fix it.
The problem really is that you are comparing a geographic (Indian) to followers of a religion (Jews). Indians can be Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Atheists, Christians or even Jews. It's wrong to compare 1 billion Indians of various ethnicities, cultures and religions with followers of a single religion - Jews.
> Of course you will see a generally smart group of people when you specifically only let in the top 0.0001% of the Indian population to begin with.
Also saying that top 0.0001% of Indian populace go to the US is another fallacy. Firstly, you are making an assumption that the top 0.0001% of Indian populace apply to the US in the first place. There is no data to back this up. Secondly, most of the top/successful Indian businessman are from India and not Indian-Americans. Sure, Indian-Americans are on average more successful and wealthy than the average Indian on account of being in an already developed country. That does not mean they are crème de la crème. There is not even a single Indian-American who is as successful, influential or powerful as Ratan Tata, Anil/Mukesh Ambani, Gautam Adani, Azim Premji or even Narayan Murthy. Show me one Indian-American founded company that can compete with the scale of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku6SAMsyHbo
Wrong. Keep telling yourself what you want to hear. I'm talking about Jewish ancestry (i.e., genetics), not Jewish faith. Essentially all of the genius Ashkenazi Jews were non-practicing:
- John Von Neumann
- Albert Einstein
- Bobby Fischer
- Richard Feynman
- Sigmund Freud
- Hans Bethe
- Eugene Wigner
- Milton Friedman
- Karl Marx
- Noam Chomsky
- Scarlett Johansson
You can even read this astounding section on Wikipeida: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#Notable_Ashkena...
This has nothing to do with genetics. If genetics was at play, you would have had Jews inventing and discovering prior to 20th century too. That is not the case (at least not comparable to amount of discoveries/inventions that happened in the 20th/21st century). This was because the Jews had a level playing field. The section of Wikipedia you quote also confirms the same: "In those societies where they have been free to enter any profession, they have a record of high occupational achievement, entering professions and fields of commerce where higher education is required". The important part is "free to enter any profession". Were Indians "free to enter any profession" during the 19th-20th century?
The Jews have been migrating to the West for centuries (since at least the 17th century). Indians have been doing so only for the past 40-50 years. Those Indians who were lucky enough to get to travel to the West for education opted to become Barristers to fight the British Colonial rule legally (studying Science/Technology was the last priority for most Indians during that time). Formal education was also denied to majority of Indians during the British Raj (which wasn't the case for Jews in the West). It wasn't as easy for Indians to migrate to the West as it was for the Jews (as wealth, language barrier and travel risks played a huge role). Getting access to quality education was pretty much impossible for Indians until we gained Independence from the British Raj in 1947. I can actually turn around and say that it is quite astonishing that Indians have been so successful considering we gained freedom only 70 years ago.
I'm sure our future generations (2-3 centuries from now) would be studying about Indians in the same way as we are studying about Ashkenazi Jews today. I'm hoping they wouldn't label it as genetics and instead simply attribute it to access to quality education, wealth, prosperity, freedom and liberty.
That is truly repulsive, man. I'm not sure why you have such a wet dream about being the smartest and most successful race/ethnicity/whatever, but I want nothing to do with it. It's honestly really off-putting.
Also, you're COMPLETELY wrong about Jews having a level playing field prior to the 17th century. Jews were prohibited from nearly every trade in the middle ages.
I said in the 19th-20th century. You have trouble reading my answers because you have a prejudiced mind. I never said prior to 17th century. So do not twist my answers to your liking (First you changed from "Jews" to "Jewish ancestry" after calling you out on your ridiculous comparison between Indians and Jews and now this). Jews had 3 centuries (starting from 17th century) to adapt and learn all the best things in various fields. Be it science, arts, philosophy etc. Indians have had only 70 years. This is a hard fact and no one can deny this.
> That is truly repulsive, man. I'm not sure why you have such a wet dream about being the smartest and most successful race/ethnicity/whatever, but I want nothing to do with it. It's honestly really off-putting.
We aren't. I'm clearly telling you that we had only 70 years to get to where we are today and we'll need 2-3 centuries more to make it (which is clearly why I said future generations 2-3 centuries from now). And I'm proud of it. It's repulsive to your prejudiced mind that's not my problem. I'm glad that my comments are off-putting to bigots.
And what is more retarded is that you say exactly opposite to what I said: "I'm hoping they wouldn't label it as genetics and instead simply attribute it to access to quality education, wealth, prosperity, freedom and liberty."
I clearly state that it shouldn't be attributed to genetics. Only those who think their race/ethnicity/whatever is superior talk about genetics. You have a wet dream about Jews being a superior race. Read every answer of yours and you'll realize that I'm right. The fact is that most Jews were in the right place at the right time. Given the same opportunity to Indians we would have achieved the same. If you go back in history, you'll find that Science and Mathematics was way more advanced in Ancient India (called Bharat) than in any other country in the World. It was no coincidence that many nations tried to invade India. Even America was founded mainly because Christopher Columbus mistook it for India. Our civilization was destroyed by the invaders (first Islamic invasions and then followed by the British). Our thirst for knowledge, science, philosophy, astronomy and spirituality was replaced by defending our borders and fighting endless battles. We have suffered more than even the Jews. Read about the Biggest Holocaust in World History (And it's a Jew website.. Irony just died a painful death huh?): http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/12/31/islamic-india-the-bigge...
Quoting from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statisti...
"Bose adapted this lecture into a short article called "Planck's Law and the Hypothesis of Light Quanta" and submitted it to the Philosophical Magazine. However, the referee's report was negative, and the paper was rejected. Undaunted, he sent the manuscript to Albert Einstein requesting publication in the Zeitschrift für Physik. Einstein immediately agreed, personally translated the article from English into German (Bose had earlier translated Einstein's article on the theory of General Relativity from German to English), and saw to it that it was published. Bose's theory achieved respect when Einstein sent his own paper in support of Bose's to Zeitschrift für Physik, asking that they be published together. This was done in 1924."
The worst part was that Nobel Prize was awarded for research related to concepts of Higgs-Boson, Bose-Einstein statistics and Bose-Einstein condensate. However, Bose himself was never awarded the Nobel Prize.
Quoting from the same article: "SN Bose's work on particle statistics (c. 1922), which clarified the behaviour of photons (the particles of light in an enclosure) and opened the door to new ideas on statistics of Microsystems that obey the rules of quantum theory, was one of the top ten achievements of 20th century Indian science and could be considered in the Nobel Prize class.
When Bose himself was once asked that question, he simply replied, “I have got all the recognition I deserve”— probably because in the realms of science to which he belonged, what is important is not a Nobel, but whether one’s name will live on in scientific discussions in the decades to come."
There are many such Indian scientists in the 20th century who made immense contributions to Science and Technology but were never recognized by the West. Maybe it's racism, maybe it's indifference. But I'm sure the future generations will recognize these contributions without any prejudice whatsoever.
Or is it both? Or maybe Indians are lizard people that eat babies.
White people don't have a monopoly on racism.
Also, ancedata, I've seen engineering departments evenly split between Indian and Chinese, marketing and sales mostly towards Caucasian.
Maybe Caste needs to be added to the protected classes as we did in the UK I know one of the MP's that was involved in this
And do you have any evidence that is more than anecdotal?
FWIW (not much) I am finishing up a CS PhD, and there are many Indian students in our grad department, and many Chinese in undergrad. Haven't seen much favoritism towards these groups at either grad or undergrad (by my observations TAing) over the 5 years I've been here.
It's crazy to me that not only you think there is epidemic cronyism, but that you also have "no doubt" about your beliefs...
> If this is what you believe you most certainly are not welcome.
I'm late to this thread but need to tell you that if you post like this again we will ban you. Racial and national flamewars are not ok on HN.
That's not true. The American Universities don't choose to admit foreign students just because. The good schools always try to balance the mix of students admitted into the program.
> you're not welcome
This makes me sad.
Then why do Indians make up more than 30% of my school's CS program, despite them making up less than 1% of the US population?
So in a classroom, you and they may occupy chairs, but to each it's like the other people might as well not be there. This puts you farther from the front of the class and gives you less time to interact with the instructor, but you gain nothing for your loss. The hallways are more crowded, but with fewer people you know. It's the same in the cafeteria, where you might want to meet people. The dating scene is cut in half, assuming 50% non-American.
Smart and wealthy - not everyone in India or China can afford to study in US.
If you look at the post graduate programs of top universities, it is still dominated by non US students.
Why do you think that is the case?
For an American CS graduate, the opportunity cost of joining grad school is too high. It makes more sense to join the industry immediately and start paying back the massive loans.
For an Indian college graduate, it makes more sense to spend 2-5 years in the grad school if it means getting a job in the US later. With little or no loans to pay back, the earning potential is worth the extra few years of study.
Also on average, Indians and Chinese people tend to value higher education more than their US counterparts. Anecdotally, I have met few Americans who would prefer their spouse and children to go to grad school instead of working full-time after college.
Just look at all these articles on cheating in India.
Let's be honest. Americans cheat too, but not to this level.
One more thing, I've seen a lot of people who go to undergrad in China or India, then go to graduate school in the US. The name of their undergrad doesn't matter, but really it's about getting a reputable name that US companies trust so a US company will hire / sponsor them. On this level, they are usually treated on par with someone you don't have to sponsor with a good undergrad degree.
I assure you, most american-born students get a free pass in stanford/berkeley/CMU if you pit them against a foreign-born. the fact there are almost zero americans mean nobodywants to study it.
It's true for not so good schools.
I was hired because of all the extra-curricular projects I pursued in electrical engineering, embedded systems, and most notably, security. There is nothing _at all_ preventing an American from doing what I do, but my field is dominated by Europeans. It could be laws, it could be culture. Whatever it is, American companies need these skills and they can't find them in the US.
You may have a valid point (at first) but then it gets ugly. There isn't a reason to make someone just trying to get the best out of life feel bad.