I think the linked CNN Money article provides a better explanation of the motives behind this change http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/23/technology/h1b-visa-abuse/in...
>That's when firms bring on H-1B visa holders but don't give them work and don't pay them the required wages while they wait for jobs.
I can 100% guarantee that the top Indian companies do not engage in this practice. Every single one of them have a policy that if the H1B employee doesn't have a project for 2 weeks to 1 month, they must go back to India. And they get paid the full amount mentioned in their offer letter for the duration they are in US. And they are also paid for expenses that arise from having to go back to India. This includes lease breakage, air fare for the H1B holder and their family and a few other expenses. For "benching", the only exception I have seen is the Indians they hire from US. Those people get to stay on bench until the company can find a new project for them. But they are still paid in full.
>if an employer can't prove the H-1B holder is "more likely than not" needed for the full three years, the government might issue the visa for fewer than three years.
This has already been the case. I have seen many H1Bs getting visa approved only for 1 year.
EB1-C is a Green Card category for multinational managers. It is supposed to be used to move job creating foreign nationals to US.
Till 2010, the body shop and consulting companies didn't use it much. However as rule tightened since 2010, these companies started using EB1-C to most low cost labor to US and delaying Green Card for everyone else.
With EB1-C you can get Green Card within an year, cutting in line in front of everyone else from India.
With this ruling, these companies are going to double down on EB1-C.
Even if these companies wants to double down on EB-1C, it’d still be much harder to bring in low skill tech workers as “multi-national managers”
There are financial and legal reasons why a company might not hire you if you were in this situation. There is more hassle for the company, and additional expense. They may or may not think any particular candidate is worth the additional hassle and expense. So it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask ( again, assuming it is asked in an appropritate manner ).
This is complicated a little for transferable sponsored visas like the H1B. Someone already on an H1B might reply ‘yes’ to the work authorization question, but with the caveat that you would need to take on their sponsorship. Technically, their answer should be ‘no’. They aren’t authorized to work for anyone other than their sponsoring employer, in a specific location, with a specific job title. As I say, the point is that if the answer is ‘yes’, not ‘yes but’, or ‘no’, then you’re not permitted to discriminate. Asking someone with work authorization questions about their visa type should be as much of an interview no-no as asking a candidate if she’s pregnant.
Only exception is certain jobs can place citizenship requirements because of security clearance requirements.
I am not sure but in the UK employing some one without the legal right to work has no defence even if they had perfectly forged passports/documents.
I had to (as some one with all 4 grandparents being natural born uk citizens) have had to take my birth certificate to register at a local high street agency.
It's most likely (almost certainly) a legal obligation. Each time I had to furnish a SS card as well. A non-citizen SS card has a disclaimer on it saying it's not valid for work authorization alone.
You probably have been asked for documentation that gives you permission to work. The Department of Labor has a list somewhere (can't find it right now) of what constitutes a work permit, and the employer has to accept anything that conforms.
My wife ran into a particularly obstinate HR drone once who wouldn't accept what she had. She asked company counsel if her documentation was in order and received a phonecall from HR to please come in and sign paperwork before the day was over. Yes, federal law has teeth.
If the way Infosys and Tata use the H-1B visa is abuse then so is how Microsoft, Google and Facebook use it.
> If the way Infosys and Tata use the H-1B visa is abuse then so is how Microsoft, Google and Facebook use it.
Infosys and Tata enable companies to abuse H-1B laws. Disney use them.
Your statement also imply that Microsoft, Google, and Facebook is abusing too and no difference between Infosys and Tata. There is a small difference that I've stated but all of them are abusing it.
The point of contention is not that the Indians are stealing our job. The point is the people who are using H-1B visa are unable to negotiate wages which depresses their American counterpart wages.
That's just a rephrasing of "they're taking our jobs": rejecting foreign competition of similar qualification because it's cheaper.
I don't think there is nothing wrong per se with this position; it would be impossible to maintain any decent standard of living for the middle class citizenry with an open border policy where everyone from Afghanistan or Centrafrican Republic can freely enter the country and claim any low level job available. Many of such jobs, the result of government spending specifically aimed at economic development and creation of opportunity, so in limited supply in the short run.
Where this policy backfires and turns to rent seeking is protecting very well paid professionals from foreign competition simply because they have the adequate lobbying power. The economic progress is retarded and consumers pay much more for the services of those professionals - doctors are a good example.
Ideally, the visas should be granted simply to anyone making a high enough paycheck (with criminal liability for anyone artificially inflating it). If you are making more than $100.000 net per year, you are in absolutely no need of protection from unfair foreign competition, as such a measure pushes the increased price of your work onto the rest of citizens who earn less, possibly much less.
Note that I am making a distinction between Google eng roles and those tech roles which Infosys and TCS hire for. For the latter the play is cost arbitrage such as replacing Disney engineers with Indian eng who can do the same work for lower cost.
However, I want you to be aware of the real talent shortage which is present there on the high end tech side.
Did you really think this response was going to convince anyone of anything? If you are so smart maybe try applying that intellect to your reading comprehension and communication skills.
Your response about false positives and false negatives is a strawman argument. Why does a low false positive single out non Indians and not Indians? Also, this is not only a phenomenon with Google - the same is true for Facebook, Amazon, Netflix etc. All have 100s (if not thousands) of eng roles open right now and is up for grabs whoever is qualified.
How is helping all people of the world compete fairly abusing the law? Aren't we all free people of the world? Why should anybody be privileged just because he was born in a certain country?
This is largely true. These days Microsoft and Google do not outsource to Infosys and Tata. They set up their own centers in Bangalore, that way they can even quality control at many levels and the net result is the same.
The fact that Infosys and Tata aren't involved is just a minor detail here. Practices as a net do not change.
I have been in US for 15 yrs now. Came here for my masters and still on H-1B today. I’m one layoff away from having to uproot my family and moving back. My girls have only known this as their country.
I earn way above market and have paid plenty in taxes over the years. Because for tax purposes you are considered a permanent resident after 1 yr. Someone brilliant came up with this.
I never complained about my situation because I always have a choice to leave US and it is my decision to stay. Most in my situation feel that we deserve to be bumped up over random lottery and unskilled immigrants. I don’t because I don’t feel this entitlement. Maybe the current generation is unskilled but their future generations could go on to create a lot of value. Some even become President.
Finally this year I’m considering moving out of US. In media it sounds like an awesome place but a glance at the indexes show a different story (education, social security, health care, even freedom). Every time I drop my kids at school I’m worried about them. It all seems not worth it anymore.
I left after being in the US for 5 years. I pretty much felt the same way.
Probably even a cheap one is better than any public school?
And I say this as an Indian H1B worker who's actually left the US because of the broken immigration system.
I spent 8 years working for a big tech firm, and left the country when I realized that I was essentially never going to get a green card, despite my application being approved 4 years ago. The queue is now decades-long.
I worked directly for a giant tech company that you all know, and was paid a very good salary, easily at par with a US Citizen. I know of so many people who gamed the system, working in cahoots with consulting companies that exist solely to scam people.
Now I live in Canada, working for the same company, making the same amount of money, but as a Permanent Resident here. Life is so much simpler because I don't need to worry about capricious immigration policy, and being treated with suspicion at the border every time I fly back home.
Your system is broken and needs to be fixed. Now, I don't think your current administration is going to fix it, but who knows.
I couldn't agree more. The solution here should be to lift the per country cap on each visa category, which is a remnant of the pre-1965 overtly racist national origin system, and increase the overall number of employment based permanent visas. EB-2 and EB-3 (not including other workers), which are the main categories for high skilled workers, are only allocated around 70,000 visas per year. Compare that to the lottery system at 50,000 or siblings of US citizens at 65,000 per year.
While I am totally in favor of permanent resident visa programs being fixed, and am in general in favor of increased immigration including of high tech workers, the H1B is being abused. Not just by the Indian BPO companies like Infosys and Tata but also by multinational consulting companies like IBM and Accenture. If and when the EB2 and EB3 backlogs were cleared, I'd support: 1) eliminating the exemption rules for determining H1B dependent employers, 2) barring H1B dependent employers from filing any further H1B petitions until they were no longer dependent, and 3) apply the attestation requirements to any employer regardless of size that files at least 1000 petitions in a visa year.
I understand that pre-1965 it was used in a racist way, but isn't a per country cap a good way maintain a diverse group of immigrants today? I'd keep that, and add a gender cap, forcing a relatively equal distribution. I'd also greatly increase skilled immigration overall.
The per-country caps only have the effect that some people need to wait longer than others for their rights, while still living here and paying the same taxes as you do, but not being easily able to switch jobs, not being eligible for certain jobs (eg. SpaceX), or certain research grants (eg. NIH), and being one layoff away from having to sell their house, sell their car, take their kids out of school, and leave on short notice.
If diversity is the goal, then the entire pipeline (H1/L1, potentially F1) should have per-country caps - that way, nobody living here is denied their rights based on where they were born. Raising the per-country caps on green cards to 100% to match the H-1B caps (aka eliminating them) is one way of achieving this, and arguably the most egalitarian - but it isn't the only way.
At this point now, I suspect some companies prefer hiring people from India/China because they know they'd be indentured. That aspect should be removed.
I for one prefer the diversity of immigrants we get with the cap.
Making Indians wait for up to 70 years (a de facto Indian exclusion act) is extremely racist.
Plenty of Indians can come to the US, we just want to leave room for others as well.
(2) India itself is very diverse: ~30% speak the same language (Hindi) with different dialects. Rest speak over 16+ regional languages with distinct scripts and a 1000+ dialects. Someone speaking Tamil won't understand a Punjabi speaker and vice versa.
(3) If someone was born just 5 kms from say Gorakhpur in India , across the border in Nepal, they suddenly meet the diversity bar.
(4) Not sure why two immigrants from Austria and Germany are 'diverse' but two immigrants from India's Nagaland and Gujarat, who have different religions, cultures, languages (even facial features, if those count) are clubbed together.
(5) Logically extending your argument, you'd also agree with a quota system in all jobs classifications. For example, we should have a 12% quota for African Americans in Google's engineering team.
This is an asinine argument.
Merit, fit and an ability to contribute to the society should determine America's immigration policy not some racist concept determined by the accident of birth.
That's an interesting point. When asked by others where I am from I normally respond with "I am from India" - but it would be more appropriate to say "I am from Tamil Nadu" (an Indian State north of Sri Lanka).
And if they were born 9000 miles away in the US, they'd already be a citizen, so what's your point.
Listen, no system is ever going to be "fair" for every person.
And considering how often people talk shit about the US on HN, I'm surprised people don't just go to Canada or Australia instead.
Arbitrary country lines don't count for diversity, as somebody else pointed out. China and India have huge populations, and China at least has a huge land mass.
Why wouldn't we not "leave room" for others, especially if they weren't as skilled?
If Americans don't want H1Bs, its all fine. Kick all Indians out. But why a nation that claims itself to be the land of freedom, who routinely criticizes other nations including India for human rights violations, allow such a visa system to exist all these years, I don't know.
I think going to Canada is the most rational thing for tech workers and people without papers too. I keep wondering why it hasn't been happening more.
We've lost our collective shit over immigration in the us. Trump is a temporary aberration, either that or our country will have to fall apart eventually, and we'll split up into different countries, and a lot of us would immigrate to Canada or something.
Our years of easy economic growth and high salaried and widespread middle class jobs is ending (even before we lose most trucking jobs) and we are worried collectively about the future. A more rational approach would be improve education, figure out how to get better paying jobs and help industries-its more than cutting taxes on rich people and re-train people that don't have good jobs. We are stuck in a different direction, blaming others, with backwards policies that are supposed to increase employment opportunities in many decaying industries that are mostly or completely pointless.
Our visa policy has been screwed up and we've had this insane split about immigration for years - fears of people coming in from 'outside' and taking our limited number of new jobs, but needing at least lots of farm workers and low skilled workers. Never mind that when my forebears came to the us that was 'good immigration' from today's view, even though we've always had mixed feelings about it.
So as our lack of good jobs becomes more acute, the pressure against immigration planning just increases. And since we failed to do much to help the people who have lost their jobs for whatever reasons the last 40 years, all those people are feeling ever more desperate and subject to huckster political claims.
I think unless there is an amazing massive failure of our current political leadership, and probably even if that happens, we will have a really hard time changing our immigration "strategy". I mean we already had the iraq war 2 debacle, destruction of that country, thousands of americans died, the economy crashed, and we still ended up where we are now politically.
Because you can easily double your salary working in the US. That and the fact that Canadian winter can be brutal for months out of the year.
Do you know how much paper work has to be done to file a petition. I have around 20 pounds in weight of past paperwork!. Every petition is 100s of pages. Even if you have an approved petition, you have to go for Visa stamping where there is a 8-10 page questionnaire, waiting in line on 2 separate days and answer questions.
It's all really fucked it. You can do it for maybe 1-2 years. Not for decades.
There are many Indians in US, who would be screwed if they lost their jobs in US. They work for the outsourcing companies and if they have to move to to India - their quality of life will take a big dive. There if they make 80k USD, they will make 20-30k USD in India and have a much worse quality of life. These people wouldn't go back unless they are forced to. And they save every penny they can, because they are trying to be ready for the worst case scenario.
However, anyone who is highly skilled - they can get a job anywhere.
Being in US is like being in a decades long dating relationship where you counterpart raises questions on the relationship and threatens to throw you out every few years. However, some people want to get married and settle and it makes sense for them to move on!
Because the US still has the vast majority of prestigious tech companies and still has the edge in innovation. That may be changing long term, but at least on the short term, this is the truth. The opportunities you get at Microsoft or Amazon are unmatched.
People will gladly prioritize wealth and career at a Big 4 company vs a nice stable life at some not well know Canadian company.
> If Americans don't want H1Bs, its all fine. Kick all Indians out.
If you like the Canadian system then you should love Trump. That's exactly the direction he wants to take the US.
I am 100% for more immigration, hell I favor open borders completely. However as much as I am in favor of more immigration, and I am staunchly opposed to the H1B program.
I am for individuals, not corporations. Ever wonder why large companies are always pushing for more H1B but never for Full Immigration reform.
They like the power in balance H1B creates
And this is not new with trump. Been on h1b for years. It just got worse over time under obama. Americans dont care about indians. Either we don't get our voices heard too much, or we are just a slightly wrong shade of brown ("people of color" - ha!). Go care about illegals.... I'm just tired of dealing with immigration and then getting shat on by "pro immigration" people who dont care about Indians (and frankly Chinese).
To my american friends, you dont realize how racist the immigration system is currently. Forget refugees and "muslim bans". Those are really nothing compared to how Indians and Chinese are treated. I'll show you: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/v...
Do a search for "FINAL ACTION DATES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE CASES"
See that table. There are a few salient points:
1. That table shows where the queue pointer is right now. "C" means at the head of the queue (no entries, everything being processed). If it is a date, that is the date that is currently being processed (for all intents and purposes).
2. Notice the special columns for the different nationalities. So they discriminate based on national origin. But, only 5 to 7 countries are special cased. Everyone else (including all refugee countries, muslim countries, etc) fall under "Rest of World" ("All chargeability areas..").
3. Now notice the INDIA column. The date is 01Jan07 for EB3. This means, for someone with a Bachelors degree, they have to process people who applied 11 years ago. Let that sink in. No other race has to face this discrimination. EB2 (masters or phd) is not much better either. You have to be a genius (EB1) to get a greencard 'now' without a queue ... at the same level as a Bachelors graduate from Iran, Saudi, Somalia, whereever. .
Anyway, hopefully you can empathize a little bit with Indians and Chinese who did things by the book and stop focussing so much on illegals.
Would have thought this was obvious.
It’s fairer to the rest of us.
If there was zero discrimination on country of origin, each qualified individual applicant within a given VISA category would be situated equivalently regardless of nation of origin.
India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines (I may be missing one or two other countries) would see an increased number of total immigrants to the US and other countries less, but that's because the per country of origin limits currently put individuals of those countries in a worse position, not because the present system is fair and removing the per country limits would be unfair.
If whole of Europe gets a single EU passport, does it suddenly make them any less diverse?
If race does not matter, then why does "diverse" mean as many races as possible. Shouldn't it mean diversity of thought instead? If nationality does not affect personality, then why should diversity be about diversity of nations?
If you remove the national origin quotas (it has little to do with race and everything to do with where you were born), then it would be the exact same process for green cards except you only have a limited number of chances before you cap out the time on your visa and get sent back. How is that a better, less capricious system than the current one for anyone who isn't Indian or Chinese?
The US political system gives disproportionate power to states with smaller population. The US immigration system is disproportionately more difficult for countries with lots of applicants. That's what the US looks at as fair - giving each state or country a fair shot, not each individual.
Yeah, those things aren't correlated at all. Come on.
> then it would be the exact same process for green cards except you only have a limited number of chances before you cap out the time on your visa and get sent back.
No it wouldn't. There's a different system in place for permanent visas than for temporary ones. Viz. a waiting list. The grandparent post linked the visa bulletin which explains how it works. You have the tools at hand to educate yourself, there's no excuse for ignorance.
> How is that a better, less capricious system than the current one for anyone who isn't Indian or Chinese?
Because human being are human beings, not 1 billionth of India or China. It is a bedrock principle of contemporary liberalism (small l) that people ought be to treated as individuals. The remnant of the pre-1965 racist national origin system is a disgusting anomaly of a worse time.
> The US political system gives disproportionate power to states with smaller population. The US immigration system is disproportionately more difficult for countries with lots of applicants. That's what the US looks at as fair - giving each state or country a fair shot, not each individual.
One terribly unjust system originally put in place to protect slavery doesn't define the United States' entire notion of fairness.
In any event it is nonsensical to talk about giving a country a shot. Countries aren't going to immigrate to the US, people are.
You should perhaps learn a bit more about the history of the country which you want to immigrate to. Slavery had nothing to do with representation in the senate. It had everything to do with protecting Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey from New York, Georgia, and the Carolinas.
The green card diversity lottery is based on exactly the premise I mention. Applicants from countries with low rates of immigration to the US have a great chance of winning. Applicants from countries with high rates of immigration to the US are ineligible to apply.
Sure. But that has nothing to do with employment-based green cards.
By all means, choose for diversity when it comes to other types of immigrants (extended family, lottery, etc). But it makes no sense to consider country of birth for skilled worker green cards, where employers hire based on talent - and especially so when the beneficiaries already live here and pay taxes here.
> The alternative is to turn the green card backlog into a problem for immigrants of all nationalities rather than a problem for immigrants of some nationalities.
Sure, but a 3-4 year wait for everyone (while living here) is literally an order of magnitude lower than the current 60-year wait for those born in India. Problems like not being able to switch jobs, kids having to leave when they turn 21, etc, are just less likely to occur when the wait is shorter and more transparent.
In order to prevent a shock to the system, per-country caps should be phased-in over 2-3 years. That way, those currently in the system will all get their green cards in the expected 1-1.5 year timeframe, while future applicants will know, prior to applying, that the wait will be 4 years for everyone. HR392 does this.
Think a 4-year wait would be too long? First, let me point out the hypocrisy. Second, a solution then is simply to increase the employment-based numbers, from 140K currently, to around 220K (these numbers include immediate family: spouses and minor kids). This is hard politically, because Democrats would also want to increase chain migration and other categories.
The fact is that the backlog will get longer in every year that more foreign temporary workers apply for green cards than there are green cards available. So what might start out as a 4 year backlog in (say) 2020 will get longer each year by as long as 1 year (if there are, say, 280,000 H-1B petitions every year and the worst case of 100% of them applying for greencards occurs).
If it really is a matter of going from <2 year wait for non-Chinese, non-Indians and a multi-decade wait for Chinese and Indians to a <4 year wait for everyone, forever, because there will no longer be an accumulation of a backlog, then it is a no brainer for the US to make that change in policy. I believe that that scenario is a fantasy and the actual result of HR 392 will be a multi-decade wait for everyone. The solution to that will, IMO, turn into a lottery similar to today's H-1B process.
Because no one could possibly be opposed to per country caps unless he were a disgruntled Indian.
I was born in New York. My parents were born in New York. Three of four of my grandparents were born in New York. The fourth grandparent was born in Germany. His parents died in a concentration camp because they couldn't come to the US with their teen children. You see they had be been born in Eastern Europe and the racist national origin system was designed to prevent too many people born in Eastern Europe from coming to the US. Kind of like how you don't want too many people born in India or China to come to the US.
> The green card diversity lottery is based on exactly the premise I mention.
With your encyclopedic knowledge of American history I'm sure you are aware of the political origins of that program.
That's not true - anyone with a submitted I-140 can renew their H-1 or L-1 visa indefinitely in yearly increments. See sections 104 and 106 of AC21.
If there weren't country caps, then someone born in India would have an equal chance as someone from Sweden.
I argue what you're proposing isn't fair at all - it's clear that limiting by country is discrimination, not the other way around.
Now what I will grant you is that it'll skew population statistics for immigrants to the more populous countries. But that's just a function of global population distribution by nation.
Which again, isn't the fault of the applicant.
Or to put all this another way, should someone born in Vatican City have an extremely high chance to get in, versus someone from a country with several million in population? No.
I'm writing this form a throw away for obvious reasons. The H1-B system or the green card system does not distinguish between TCS/Infosys/etc.. and bay area engineers making a lot of money.
I made over $300k+/year at one of the large tech firms. Because the US limits green cards from people born in a single country to 7% (same upper limits to India / China and Montenegro), me and many of my friends have to wait 70+ years. (https://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigr...)
I paid a lot of money in taxes for a long time. Over a decade, this was taxation without representation.
Many of my american friends could not believe how bad the system was. It took several beer chats with hours of question answering before they realized that you had no way around this if you were born in India. Before anyone says EB-1, remember that EB-1 was meant for nobel laureates and requires a lot of luck to work out. It's ridiculous - a person I used to lead in my job who was born in Spain got their green card in under 2 years because of where they were born, while I had already waited a decade.
Life is short and there's no point waiting for 70+ years paying taxes without representation.
I'm back in India starting a company. The access to venture capital here is improving, and it's so much easier to be creative without having to worry about immigration status. If I hadn't move back to India, I would have moved to Canada. They have really got their immigration system right.
As someone who doesn't know a lot about american immigration laws, that sounds surprisingly insane. Probably a stupid idea, but might it be preferable to become a citizen of another country - let's say Estonia, which seems to embrace immigration - just to use that citizenship to apply for a US green card?
Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I understand the greencard path for H1B workers seems unrelated to the number of H1Bs issued but more to which nationality H1Bs go to. Since Indians are more likely to apply in the first place the wait time will stay ridiculously high unless the actual quota for greencards is increased.
However, this issue stems from the fact that the US has no real high-skills immigration path the way Canada, Australia and a bunch of other countries have.
Because of this, an H1 worker from a body shop is equal to a rocket scientist from MIT if they're both Indian.
Look, I have nothing against the body shop H1 worker who's only trying to make a better life for himself - what I don't like is companies that exploit Indians (and other nationalities) and the American public alike.
We all get screwed together, and the US should have sensible immigration policy that works to improve the lives of its citizens.
Of course Americans shouldn't be exploited.
Of course you should be trying to attract the best and brightest - but also lower skilled workers who can fill jobs that have a low supply of labor (all the illegal immigrants are working away in this space).
Immigration is an important aspect of public policy, and by having a broken system, your government is not doing its job.
That said, the Canadian system, while definitely better than the US system, still isn't that great, and not something to model after. Specifically, it gives too much weight to credentialing, which is unfair in its own right, and still very much subject to gaming.
I personally believe in complete free movement of labor (which totally existed before, the current state of things is relatively young), but that seems politically infeasible around the world right now. Brexit is an example of even taking a step back from it. Maybe this will someday happen in my lifetime.
The system is definitely broken, I want to see change immediately.
It's sort of strange you even write this. Almost all engineers from India 'gamed the system' in some way both back home and in the US to do anything they have done in the US.
The only thing not surprising to me is the way you talk. All Indians/ex-Indians I met while I was in US believed they deserved to be there and others do not. Therefore they should go back, giving them a chance. And of course everybody thought, everybody else should go back and only they deserved to stay. Not surprising, because Indians live the crab mentality day in and out.
Also the 'consulting company' bogey is so broken to repeated in these situations. Why do you think you deserved to be there and they don't?
I feel so great for you! Finally, I am moving out. Enough dealing with the immigration crap here!
I waited for 8 years too. Didn't let immigration stall my career. Built a company, sold it to one of the top tech companies in Bay Area. Building another company to solve a really tough problem. But man it has been stressful! USCIS keeps getting hung up on technicality and makes it as difficult as possible to live here.
Meanwhile I have paid millions in taxes in US.
People who are in the lowest part of the value chain, will always find a loophole - there is too much money at stake and they don't have any other choice!
Accomplished people will move out or stop coming! US, keep doing this and eventually H1B will be just be a tool for cheap labor! Best talent from India, doesn't come to US anymore! And most of who are still here will move out!
I applied for EB-1. They need 3 criteria. Accepted 2 criteria (extra ordinary contribution to my field and leading role in organizations). They rejected the media and press criteria because most of the press about my company's acquisition, while mentioned me by name, was about the company and not me. And BTW I was Founder of the company and built it from scratch.
In any other country, one of the criteria that they accepted would have been enough.
If you are talented and from India, don't waste your life in US. Where ever you go, jobs will follow you. Move out as soon as you can!
Good bye US!
When the system allowed segregation, whom do you blame more - the system which allowed it or the general people who were taking advantage of it.
That is easy - the people who were taking advantage of it.
E.g. I have the right to be a racist dirtbag - but if I act like a racist dirtbag that is on me and not on the system.
That is such BS. I was gonna try (I have some publications and stuff) but that's about it. Now I feel like I am rotting away here.
It really a luck thing. And if you have to go premium. You will find out sooner!
But if the case is really strong, and the petition is really strong - it's possible that you might get lucky and they might approve it.
It depends on which officer did you get, which side of the bed they woke up and did they have a fight with their spouse recently!
It really sucks!
Also depends on the company and the leverage you have with the manager in the company. Plenty of people from India have gotten GCs in that category in months after arriving to US.
So yeah, Its luck by most means. Life is unfair, if its any consolation, think about this aspect of luck. There are likely more merit people in India who haven't even gotten as far as you. Is it unfair for them and their lives to be compared to you.
Don't get too disparaged by this example. It depends a lot on the individual reviewer. Yes, that sucks, but it also means that in many cases it's not as hard as the in the quoted case.
I thought EB-1 was more definitive and I felt that I was the right fit for it.
However at this point I am kind of done!
So, EB-2 NIW - doesn't help people from India - because it is really easy to get a EB-2. I have 2 approved ones which are useless!
Did you use an immigration lawyer for that?
Are you paid/employed in cad or usd? If the latter is it hard with PR?
I'm lucky - my employer was sympathetic to my situation, I had built good relationships with senior management, and what I do (I'm not an engineer) is a skill that they don't have in abundance, and I had a global role in any case.
All these factors contributed to them moving me to Canada without a major hit to my salary.
There is a difference (I get paid about USD 10K less), but that's more than made up in the lack of healthcare costs (I pay absolutely nothing for healthcare coverage in Canada), and most importantly for me, peace of mind.
Also, I couldn't realistically switch jobs in the US without tons of paperwork. As a PR, I am treated exactly like a citizen and could easily switch if I got a better offer.
My spouse started working too unlike in the US where she was not "authorized" to work on H4. We are well ahead economically than was in the US and planning to buy a home soon and settle.
Seriously, what kind of country says that just because someone is on a work visa that their spouse cannot work !! Why cant ACLU take this up because DACA gives more PR for them ? Take cue from Canada, they too have temporary work visa, but the dependent spouses are free to work. The plight of H4 spouses..sigh.
The right to work is a basic human right. And they say other nations violate human rights because they block social media !! but wont allow my wife to work because she was married to me and on an H4 visa. Hypocrisy at its best.
So I left all those bullshit behind.
However, my out of pocket costs are zero. My employer pays for prescription drug coverage and dental care, but that isn't deducted from my pay check. It's over and above my salary.
In the US, I was paying nearly $600 a month from _my_ paycheck for equivalent healthcare.
No your out of pocket costs are hidden, abstracted away, and hard to quantify so you never know if you are actually getting a better value, it only seems that way because you lack the proper levels of information to make an informed opinion.
Similar to how the True cost of National Defense is abstracted away and shifted to the US by virtue of your proximity to the US... Canada has a much much smaller national defense cost (which they can use that saving for national healthcare) because they know the US would never allow an invasion/attack to the Continent of the North America,
The demand to immigrate into the US far exceeds that limit while in Canada there are many years where they don't even hit the limit.
The USA typically allows about 0.3% per year. Canada is around 0.8%. Per capita, Canada allows many more immigrants than the USA. (Since the USA's population is so much larger, USA allows more in absolute numbers.)
About 21-22% of Canadian residents are immigrants. About 14% of American residents are.
The USA typically allows about 0.3% per year.
I’m grateful. I made my life here. But I think it’s not worth it, the America we all romanticized is long gone.
That's when all that Suburban sprawl started and we all think of maybe when we think of "great USA." Nevertheless, I do think that propaganda (mainly Hollywood) is adding to that positive image.
The America that I was dreaming of, might never exist in the first place. However, it is painful, now even a little bit enthralling to see it disintegrate at this speed.
If you asked Trump supporters, he turning the US back to what many people romanticized.
And if you don't like the direction of the country, vote with your feet.
But really, the system is broken. A lottery is a horrible way to decide value or qualifications. Let in the people who truly deserve it, not the ones who flood the system with applications.
Point system, please.
The only role that appears to make sense for corporate involvement is that perhaps a company could select from individuals who have applied and are awaiting entry.
MBA's her originally designed for high flying corporate types in their mid 30's who where tapped for advancement.
Why does the system have to be simple or even fixed?
I think this aligns with most other modern economies out there. If anything, we're the outlier allowing randoms to come in without regard to skills or means.
FYI: the immigrants who are chosen at random by the lottery are thoroughly vetted. They go through criminal and medical screening. All they win is the opportunity to be interviewed at a US consulate/embassy after the screenings; the interviewing officer (a US diplomat) considers skills and resources and decides whether or not to grant a visa. It's not as if they win today and buy a ticket tomorrow.
However, as others pointed out, the DV is a small fraction of green cards granted, and the process for family based immigration may differ.
Source: I went through this process.
This is wrong; they use their judgement to gauge the likelihood of you ending up being a "public charge". Even if you meet the bare minimum (high school), but have no/inadequate skills and/or you are broke, I guarantee that you will not get a visa. This is what I meant by "skills and resources". It's most certainly not a "rubber-stamp", but might have seemed like it to you because you met the requirements.
Also, even if they verify you meet some minimum bar of being able to support yourself (which I was not asked about in my interview, other than turning up looking generally presentable), this is still a far cry from a more rigorous points-based immigration system. Per GP, DV immigrants are still basically chosen "at random".
They only ask you about in the interview if it looks like a problem. Otherwise they use the signficant amount of documentation you've already provided to make that determination.
Japan, S Korea, China, Singapore, etc., would be extremely hard for anyone to work off the books without having to resort to the underworld. Otherwise you may last a month or two, but most people will get kicked out without a visa. What's more regular police have the authority and responsibility to make sure anyone without a visa gets expelled.
You need either a family based justification (spouse or parent, mainly) or labor certification to apply for a green card. It's not a government defined point system, but an employer has to deem you worth the trouble to sponsor. Indirectly, at least, that measures the need for the applicants skills.
Means are also examined. E.g. to get a student visa you have to prove you can pay for tuition and living expenses without relying on working in the US.
Perhaps mc32 means the diversity visa program?
It's only a big deal because most of them are coming to work for 1 industry.
1st, the citizen who is sponsoring an immigrant is means tested.
2nd, UCIS must use their judgment to determine the immigrant has the means to support themselves and won't become a public charge.
This applies for all immigrants applying for permanent residency.
Also I'm not just talking about relatives sponsored by lawful immigrants, I'm also talking about relatives sponsored by citizens.
Btw unless a permanent resident is sponsoring their minor child, sponsoring another immigrant is generally a multi decade process.
Even the spouses of green card holders aren't considered immediate family and the average wait time when sponsoring is over a decade.
The reason why it is still brought up is because Teddy Kennedy and others assured the public that the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act (the real name of the immigration act) would not change the ethnic makeup of the country.
Clearly something in the law did change something...
I think the H1B system is dumb. Educated, highly effective workers in in-demand fields are exactly the kind of immigrants you would want to fast-track in for real citizenship, rather than exploiting them in quasi-indentured servitude. The other category I found somewhat mind-blowing was the situation of a lot of my international classmates upon graduation; educate them for four years or more at a prestigious US university, and once they graduate, kick them back home and make it difficult for them to come back.
Some state systems "discount" fees for state residents, but that's based on the premise that those families have been paying into the system.
American students may receive financial aid either from the government, or the university itself (scholarship or other aid). International students on the other hand usually don't. They pay full price. They make universities, particularly private ones, a lot of money.
I went to a good but not top private college on scholarship. Some undergrad majors such as business and the graduate business school were overwhelmingly international students. The law school is approaching 50% international students.
The additional surcharge is based on additional staff for the additional paperwork and programs (e.g. ESL) used by students from abroad. https://iss.wisc.edu/international-student-fee-increase/
I doubt that any of the big Four (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple) will have any problem with this, but the consulting body shops will be scrambling.
And, this is something else problematic for startups who want to import talent. You need to have some sort of legal/immigration department to deal with this paperwork, and most startups don't have/can't afford that.
You don't get rejected out of hand for not being authorized to work in the USA currently.
Microsoft is the exception for now.
I am on H1b, I am not cheap labor. I get paid exorbitant amount of money for my skills. I seriously thought of moving to Canada, but because of our health issues with cold weather we could not move. I love this country, my life, prospects of success once I get my green card and quality of life that my kids would have.
But I am tired! I am so tired!
Source : Work at a big tech where several H1Bs have made it to the higher levels of management.
What are they doing then, sitting on their ass at home? Emigrating outside of the US? If not, and they're working, and companies are still having trouble filling positions, how would paying the existing American engineers more fill those outstanding positions?
Many SV companies recruited mostly useless interns like me and mentored us and paid us well over the median US household income. All in the hopes that we would become useful and join after graduation (at well over six figures salary).
And I'm Canadian so they were also paying flights, relocation, visa fees, etc. It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to do these things if it's so easy to hire an American developer at $50k, but maybe their hiring process is that broken?
I don't believe wages are the problem or that suddenly inflating wages will magically blossom into a supreme talent surplus. It is possible to make 6 figures as a trash collector, without any education, if you work your ass off. Yet, I don't see people without college rushing into trash collection even though they probably earn less than half of that.
China has four times the population of the US. The only way the US can consistently stay ahead in technology is attracting the best scientists and engineers from other parts of the world. The arms race of trying to produce more domestic engineers faster is one that China will win.
I mean, China has had a far larger population than the US for many decades and yet somehow the US had a lead for a large part of the 20th century.
How did US leadership _ever_ happen?
Other factors beyond population and human talent are important: how does each country educate its people, organize its research facilities and personnel, its industry, its economy, etc? Did a country encounter misfortune, war, pestilence, political instability, etc.?
I don't disagree with you though. China has created a method of economic decision making and industrial growth which is amazingly powerful. The US seems to be struggling, paralyzed, stagnant.
I just gave a reasonable explanation. The US has always been a comparatively immigration friendly nation. We used to attract the best and the brightest.
Nikola Telsa, Albert Einstein, Elon Musk, Segei Brin - do those names sound familiar? They were all foreign immigrants to the United States. If they all stayed home or picked another country, the US would be weaker.
i say that because all countries have highly talented people. and some countries (e.g. Nigeria, Indonesia, Japan, Brazil, Philipines, India) have large populations and thus large numbers of highly talented people. but that isn't enough to explain the big differences between nations as technological innovators, military powers, per capita wealth, etc.
for example, when i look at the war that led up to Britain's acquisition of Hong Kong in the 1841, i don't think i can explain much of the outcome by looking at how many highly talented people there were on each side. in 1841 China had a population of roughly 400 million while Britain had less than 30 million. China had a HUGE pool of highly intelligent, highly talented people. i see the same thing in Britain's colonialism in India. India had a VAST number of highly intelligent people.
does anyone doubt that China and India had more highly gifted people than Britain in the 1800s?
i guess i just don't see as much explanatory power in that one variable as you seem to see.
I respect your skepticism, but at least I have an explanation. You point out problems but no solutions.
Immigration policy if not the entire answer is at least very plausibly a big part of the answer. Relatively open borders means that your nation draws upon the entire population of the world to attract the best and the brightest.
The USSR was bigger than the US, and the USSR even invested heavily in education, but the US still won out.
China has a way larger population relative to the US than the Soviets did. It's not even close.
What that means is fewer kids go to STEM schools and become scientists/engineers. This is a pipeline problem caused by culture, it's a very hard problem to fix.
For engineers already here, it's actually a good situation, because scarcity drives up wages; for major tech firms, it just means more hiring will be done in their international offices; for startups, it just means a different tradeoff, and having international connection to hire from other countries will become a competitive advantage.
Are they aggressively expanding their open boarders immigration policy? Hmm? Oh, they don't have such a policy? Golly, looks like they've been "shooting themselves in the foot" for a while now, 1000s of years really, so I guess it doesn't matter if we indulge in the same.
our economy needs all engineers fully employed, and as many more capable STEM immigrants as we can get our hands on. don't be lazy, don't be entitled, or America will be second-world, and our country irrelevant.
This begs the question: Are Americans workers too incompetent at technology development? If so what is the cause of that problem?
1. USA has plenty of talent and they don't need generic engineers from other countries.
2. H1B workers are not underpaid
3. Only reason tech companies praising H1B is because their hiring process is broken. They select arbitrary interview questions and determine competency based on them. This is total bs and they end up passing on super intelligent US citizens then make bs claim that there are not enough tech talent in the USA.
4. USA does need specialists but they would come on O-1 visa anyways so H1B is not in picture here.
If they hire from the best in the world, is it better for America if those hires are in the US paying US taxes, or overseas paying taxes to some other country?
If you don't want your teams to be segregated by nationality then you will want people working in same place.
The US has a big list of priorities: increasing GDP, protecting the environment, protecting laborers, providing medical care, protecting civil rights, enhancing tax revenue, taking care of the elderly, fighting wars, stopping disease outbreaks, curing cancer, exploring the solar system, patrolling the border, educating children, feeding everyone -- the list goes on and on.
All these arguments are about rebalancing and reordering these priorities.
Google has an office in freaking Paris. It's not like international hires choose Silicon Valley over Paris because they're enamored with overpriced suburban living. It's just because they need to be at the HQ for better career advancement.
Did quality of life go up in China because it "attracted better people" or were there other reasons?
One of the things your comment made me think about is the US citizens I know who have relocated to other "less developed" countries in order to make their quality of life go _up_.
Does the quality of life for people in Japan go down because Google is headquartered in the US?
As a US resident, would my quality of life go down if Microsoft were headquartered in India, Facebook in Singapore, Google in Denmark, and Apple in Japan?
It all seems rather complicated and murky.
Willing to work at the salary that employers want to ideally pay? No.
American software engineers with American degrees are expensive.
Employers see engineering as a cost sink and want to do everything possible to reduce budgetary pressures.
While some visa workers are incredibly talented (see: most of google's visa hires) most are just cheaper. Look at Cognizant, Tata, Infosys etc.
Just look at who is getting all of the visas from the program and it's clear what it's actually being used for. Importing cheap overseas labor and/or outsourcing, usually in tandem.
1. Left tech due to low salaries from immgration. I don't think this is true because tech still pays higher than almost any other field.
2. Working in tech for low(er) salary, which contradicts the orignal claim that only reason for importing tech workers is for lowering salaries.
I think there are these different kinds of tech workers. For lack of a better term lets call them IT staff and software engineers.
IT staff builds some new systems but mostly puts pieces together to solve problems. This kind of job is easier to replace with moderately skilled foreign tech workers, maybe even working remotely, there's more supply here for this kind of worker. Then there is the harder to find software engineers who can work on new software from scratch, perhaps with more experience in this kind of worker. There's an incredible demand for this kind of person, that's unquenchable at least today (perhaps it used to be infinite for it staff but no longer). We really do need more of the second category of workers. Certainly a little smaller supply of workers means higher salaries, but when you need double the supply, you can restrain growth of the industry.
Are we being paid low? No.
Are we being paid lower than what we should be paid? I could see that argument being made.
Is it possible that we may get paid higher? Maybe
Do we deserve to get paid much higher than those equally talented people working elsewhere in the world? Or those who are super smart and hard working but not making much money just because they don’t work in tech? I don’t think so
I am not quite so sure my immigrant coworkers make noticeably less than I do, although I cannot really validate this claim either as I don't ask people who much they are paid.
> Employers see engineering as a cost sink and want to do everything possible to reduce budgetary pressures.
Yes and no. Employers see developers as a debt pool, because they are a cost factor unlike people in sales who actually generate revenue, but typically they see hiring, recruiting, and retention as even more expensive and riskier endeavors.
That drives all kinds of counter-intuitive behaviors regarding expenses and developers. Companies are typically willing to hire more developers than they need, because hiring is expensive and isn't always quick. Companies are also willing to prioritize slower more expensive technologies that require more developers so long as it means a reduction in recruitment and hiring risks.
I find that process horribly broken. Why is it so hard and deceptively untrustworthy to hire people generally in software? I don't believe it is the hiring process that is to blame, but rather the candidate pool in consideration for the required skills or experience.
You should start. The only people who don't like you talking about compensation is your employer.
Well, that and a society full of people taught by years of public school that talking about finances is taboo.
It's not. The only person that gains anything from your inability to talk about compensation is your employer.
You lose a tonne of leverage while negotiating a raise / new job offer.
I believe the starting compensation is part of the application and is public info. See http://h1bdata.info for example. You should be able to check your assumption.
The vast majority of foreign applicants to H1-B jobs get rejected, and stay in their home countries.
The education seems focus heavily on making students happy/comfortable with themselves, and congratulate them on ever tiny achievements. Thus hard stuff like STEM is now avoided, because not good at them is definitely not the problem of the students, but the subjects themselves. Also the culture seems to discriminate against people who do have an interests in those topics, and punish them by isolation.
This deceptive system isn't really doing a good job that prepares students with self-confidence. Instead it cultivates an unique entitlement to blame the system for any personal issues. Which is the exact opposite of east asian system.
I think education needs to be repurposed as means to obtain knowledge through learning and a lot of practices. And as a selective system, the competitiveness of education shouldn't be avoided, where some people will achieve higher and access better resources and there is nothing wrong with it.
US's universities still have much of that perspective of education intact, but the high school education and below is just bad, and leave a lot of people unprepared.
Americans, by this theory, aren't putting the effort into this difficult field because other grad degrees offer shorter completion times, lower attrition rates, higher pay, and better career stability.
Part of the purpose of the H1b is to create a pool of workers who don't have that freedom of choice, whose right to live and work in the US is controlled by tech corporations.
This is why I, along with a lot of others who would describe themselves as pro-immigration, don't support the H1B program. We're more than ok with talented people coming into the US, but see no reason why we should specifically use our immigration system to increase the number or STEM graduates above. Let people make their decisions according to their interests and market signals. If that means they don't become software developers in Silicon Valley in the numbers tech CEOs think they should, that's the market's answer.
I do concede that the software industry can improve on attrition rates and career stability.
But on a simple time value of money front, I'm yet to come across a field of study in the American education system that pays more with lower debt than a STEM degree does.
Skimming the linked paper, it seems to be exclusively discussing PhD programs. Not sure how relevant that is.
This isn't the entire issue, I'd agree with that. But it is definitely a relevant piece. And it is notable that tech ceos and politicians are calling this a "shortage" when organizations like RAND are simply seeing a rational, market-based aversion to certain fields.
I'm in the odd position of completely agreeing that the US should have a skills based immigration system like many other countries, but opposing a particular focus on STEM, as I don't like the idea of coercing would-be immigrants into studying this particular field as a condition of coming to the US, and I don't agree that there is any "shortage" that can't be explained as the product of rational decision making about careers.
That being said if you honestly believe there is wage suppression then I recommend programming outside of office hours and getting as much practice as possible so that you can rise to a senior position where such problems are absent.
I didn't say it had anything to do with immigration. But it does have to do with suppressing wages, which is what they comment you were replying to was suggesting as a motive. My point being that tech companies have a history of this.
So the direct costs may not be huge, but the indirect costs just got raised quite a bit.
Why shouldn't we judge a politican as a politician?
These are things his companies are still doing since he's been a politician and the President.
So, I ask again: Why shouldn't we judge a politician as a politician?
This part of your comment on Russians is xenophobic as it implies some negative personality traits that are common for some nation.
> The only difference is they'll work for a fraction of the money and be thankful for the exploitation.
This part is also xenophobic for the same reason - implies that all H1B holders are "thankful for exploitation".
While it might make you feel better to tell yourself it's just a stereotype, in my experience it is real.
Of course it is. Xenophobia goes beyond fear of foreigners and often manifests itself via attribution of negative traits to a culture, usually something nasty and bad like violating laws. I encourage you to check out some definitions  for more details.
> and it might actually represent his experience of Russians.
Saying "In my experience, most Russians/H1B holders are" is just a form of confirmation bias.
If I said, "In my experience of living in Bay Area, most Americans are <insert some bad trait here>", you would be quicker to call out my B.S. and would be right of course. It's just Russians and H1b holders is a smaller group that is easier to attack like that.
> Stereotypes exist for a reason; it should hardly be surprising that people from the same culture tend to act similarly, and not all cultural traits are perceived positively by others.
Come on, implying that Russians are getting speeding tickets and damaging apartments and H1b holders are glad being exploited are not "cultural traits" by any measure, please.
Anyways, it is really disappointing for me to get to such a low point in discourse on HN where we have to debate the basics of being civil in our comments.
I've been overseas more than half of my life in different countries and can tell you every country and culture has is it's nuances, good and bad, which exist and can be very different and very noticeable.
alexk's use of 'xenophobic' was standard. That word no longer means the same as the sum of its roots.
H1B is not a skilled visa if anyone thinks otherwise. There is no merit system in H1B. An example for merit based skilled visa is Canadian Express Entry system.
This is difficult to prove without more data. Anecdotally, my Indian friends who moved outperform those who don’t. The red tape in India is formidable.
I am not commenting on the quality of the input; I don’t know, in that respect. Just outputs. Those who moved earned more, raised (or failed) faster, exited earlier, et cetera. Granted, very few were H1-Bs.
In the last 15 years, China's economy has gone from extraordinarily backwards and impoverished, to massive, increasing in size by eight fold.
What that means is, there is a lot more money to pay the best Chinese engineers to keep them in China. There is a lot more capital to fund local businesses.
Check out the workplace stack overflow.
I am not surprised that engineers want to leave India
Before the major immigration reform that was passed in the 1960’s (by President Lyndon Johnson, who unfortunately gets no credit) all immigration to the US was based on the color of your skin. The immigration act of 1960’s changed that to include other non-white countries.
But this misses the larger point, the current argument always seems like the US is favoring the immigrant, whereas historically US needs those immigrants more than they need the US. For the simple reason that, US needs to have population growth (most western countries as well) without which there would be almost no long term economic growth. Either that or they start schemes to have the current population produce babies like the world has never seen before.
So it’s really for selfish reasons that the US needs immigrants not the other way.
Ahh yes, the lesser known inscription on lady liberty, so long "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
A Visa designed to let smart people come in would not need a quota.
Do you understand how abysmal your people's mathematics skills in comparison to average Asian countries? SAT math is like 7-9th graders' homework, definitely not high school level in Asia.
If they're so great, where are the results of that? The reality is, the elite math outcomes of Asia are superior to that of the US, no question. The bottom 50% of Asia barely has any formal education at all. Their extremely low economic development matches their extremely low educational development. According to UNESCO, 35% of all the world's people that are illiterate are in India. That makes it practically impossible to do comprehensive, fair comparisons with developed nations.
GDP per capita:
Myanmar - $1,272; 2% of the US
Cambodia - $1,389; 2.3% of the US
Bangladesh - $1,523; 2.5% of the US
India - $1,900; 3.1% of the US
Vietnam - $2,306; 3.8% of the US
Laos - $2,567; 4.2% of the US
Philippines - $3,022; 5% of the US
Mongolia - $3,500; 5.8% of the US
Indonesia - $3,858; 6.4% of the US
Sri Lanka, $3,905; 6.5% of the US
Thailand - $6,366; 10.5% of the US
Malaysia - $9,659; 16% of the US
Look at China and India today. By not getting involved in any wars, they focused on their economies and got themselves out of it. India is only 70 years old as opposed to 250 of United States. They are behind because the British empire robbed them of their wealth.
Asia is poor because of global circumstances, not because their education is worse than America.
In the last two decades, we observe rapid rise in Asian countries and rapid decline in America. Part of the reason is American disinterest in competing by raising their kids well. Americans want to spend more on war than on research and education. Meanwhile, away from wars, Asian economies finally reflect the growth that their investment in education should be reflecting.
Asian GDP per capita is also a flawed measure of anything. Life is cheaper there, production is higher quality (not higher quantity). Your use GDP as your ranking score is flawed at best.
Subsequant American wars - you're referring to how the US saved South Korea from being destroyed by the Communist north and equally impoverished? And how the US attempted to prevent a similar outcome for South Vietnam, as the North sought conquest of the South?
Or maybe you're talking about how the US helped save China from the Empire of Japan, and then saved it again from being nuked by the USSR in 1969? And then developed it with trillions of dollars in capital, and helped to open up and liberalize their trade through political discourse.
> Look at China and India today. By not getting involved in any wars
Be sure to let Tibet know that China hasn't gotten involved in any wars, and Vietnam too. And let Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia all know how peaceful China is, as China annexes territory from them the size of Texas through military force. Taiwan of course has lived under decades of constant military threats from China, with China intent on annexing that nation entirely against its will. It'd be like if the US spent the last 60 years threatening to invade and annex Canada.
China's protracted development backwardness in the late 20th century was caused by Mao's Communist policies. As those were abandoned and the Communist party liberalized its economic policies toward market systems and property ownership, China began to rapidly develop perfectly in line with that.
> In the last two decades, we observe rapid rise in Asian countries and rapid decline in America
That of course is not in fact demonstrated by the extraordinarily low economic development of the majority of Asia. Japan for one hasn't seen its economy net expand in 25 years; the US economy has nearly tripled in size in that time.
The US has not declined in the last 20 years. The US is the richest it has ever been in its history. It has one rival globally, in China. It remains the sole military superpower. The USD remains by far the global reserve currency. Its median net wealth is higher than Sweden and Germany. Its median income is among the highest on earth, as is its median disposable income figure. Its average individual net wealth level is #2 or #3 on earth. Its economy has outpaced nearly all other developed economies, including in wage growth. It has separately outgrown Europe, Africa, Latin America, India and Japan over the last 20 years.
In just the last 10 years, the US has added $4.5 trillion to its GDP. Now compare that to growth in Asia outside of China. That growth is equal to two economies the size of India.
>Or maybe you're talking about how the US helped save China from the Empire of Japan, and then saved it again from being nuked by the USSR in 1969? And then developed it with trillions of dollars in capital, and helped to open up and liberalize their trade through political discourse.
Hang on! You really think US was the super hero rescuing the world selflessly? You really really really think US cared about the people there instead of their own self interest? I'd like you to revisit history books not viewed from American lens, please.
> Be sure to let Tibet know that China hasn't gotten involved in any wars, and Vietnam too. And let Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia all know how peaceful China is, as China annexes territory from them the size of Texas through military force. Taiwan of course has lived under decades of constant military threats from China, with China intent on annexing that nation entirely against its will. It'd be like if the US spent the last 60 years threatening to invade and annex Canada.
> China's protracted development backwardness in the late 20th century was caused by Mao's Communist policies. As those were abandoned and the Communist party liberalized its economic policies toward market systems and property ownership, China began to rapidly develop perfectly in line with that.
Sure. And they did it themselves, and they rose up themselves. What has America to do with it? How is this related to American education system vs Asian education system?
> That of course is not in fact demonstrated by the extraordinarily low economic development of the majority of Asia. Japan for one hasn't seen its economy net expand in 25 years; the US economy has nearly tripled in size in that time.
I kid you not. You keep viewing everything with GDP as a measure and that's silly. By most measures, quality of life in Japan is better than 20 years ago. Their GDP could be lower but who cares as long as life is better? GDP is not everything.
> The US has not declined in the last 20 years. The US is the richest it has ever been in its history.
Ask the poor in America if they believe it. Also, make sure you include national debt obligations in America's networth calculations. GDP is not everything.
> It has one rival globally, in China.
And this used to be a backward ass country only 60 years ago, was destroyed by world wars and basically had no allies globally. The fact that it took them on 60 years to become another global superpower should indicate something. Any other country with a headstart could've become a super power. Why did China? Why do you discredit their drive and desire to educate an entire generation out of poverty?
> The USD remains by far the global reserve currency.
And every day, there are articles about some countries exploring Yuan as another. Why is it that Yuan is even in contention? Surely either China is doing real well or America is doing bad or a combination of both?
Fwiw, I don't think global reserve currency is a measure of anything but if you're going to go down this route, I have arguments against it too.
> Its median net wealth is higher than Sweden and Germany.
Do subtract national debt obligations. Also, median networth means nothing unless it is PPP. Life is cheaper in Asia like I mentioned in my previous post.
> Its median income is among the highest on earth, as is its median disposable income figure.
Life is cheaper in Asia. Absolute values of disposable income is a useless measure. PPP is the measure. Look it up.
> Its economy has outpaced nearly all other developed economies, including in wage growth
Awesome. And "wage growth" is much much much higher in Asia year over year. Just fyi.
> In just the last 10 years, the US has added $4.5 trillion to its GDP. Now compare that to growth in Asia outside of China. That growth is equal to two economies the size of India.
I don't know if you understand math. But fyi, percentage growth is a thing.
Country A has 2% growth out of 100 = 102
Country B has 7% growth of 10 = 10.7
In absolute value, Country A grew more. In percentages, Country B grew more.
Neither absolute GDP growth or percentage GDP growth is useful without looking at the other.
I see that your understanding of the world is a simplistic GDP score. I'd suggest the following:
1. Learn math
2. Learn history of nations from non-American perspectives
3. GDP is not everything. There is more to life
4. GDP is not everything. There is more to life
5. GDP is not everything. There is more to life
6. Even if you think GDP is everything (which it is not), learn to subtract future debt obligations and to understand which countries are growing faster by making use of percentages and not absolute values.
You're really kind of proving GP's point that American education leaves kids underprepared.
Scale of war matters.
Neither world war had singular causes, they were diverse and complex, involving dozens of nations over long periods of time. That's particularly true of their origins.
The Vietnam War wasn't started by either the US or European powers. It was a civil war, in which the Communist North was attempting to conquer the South, as North Korea attempted to conquer South Korea, and Communist China conquered the Republic of China. The Vietnam War also was not finished or continued by the US; after the Paris Peace Accords, and after the US left, the North predictably proceeded to continue its prior military conquest of the South.
Middle Eastern wars haven't stopped for the last two thousand years. Who are you planning to blame that on? Who would be the non-guilty parties? China currently gets an immense amount of its oil from Middle East theocracies.
If you really want to stop people from scamming the system, you need to make the system stronger.