Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the overhaul is even worse than what they have now then the rest of the world should stop moaning and treat this like an opportunity It's not only about what non-US people think about it. Whatever happens effects Americans, through the effects on the U.S. economy. It effects potential immigrants. And it effects the rest of the world through its effects on the global economy. I don't live in the US, I don't have…
affects.
Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
121–130 of 371 posts
Re: Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
#122I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that this may not be an altogether bad thing. From the article: "The foreign work visas were originally established to help U.S. companies recruit from abroad when they couldn’t find qualified local workers. But in recent years, there have been allegations the programs have been abused to bring in cheaper workers from overseas to fill jobs that otherwise may go to Americans…
When companies like Tata are fulfilling government contracts, they _should_ be filling those positions with local labour at local rates. Here's an alternate proposal. Suppose it would cost $70k for the wrong type of people to provide labor, and $100k for the right type of person to provide labor. Lets continue having labor sold by the lowest cost provider. But then lets engage in direct wealth transfers; we'll have t…
But it is not equivalent. Hiring local has many beneficial effects over outsourcing - increased labour demand increases wages, the local pool of talent and technology is developed, and the money you spend will in turn mostly be spent in your own economy, growing it and paying taxes to your government.
You could argue that these secondary effects do not outweigh the higher cost, and I'm sure sometimes that would be true, but this is a much weaker and less general argument.
Re: Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
" increasing costs to consumers by protecting high-wage American workers from foreign competition?" Sorry I have to disagree, I am the most vehement loather of Trump and his fan base but fundamentally this just encourages a race to the bottom, does it not?
Allowing competition between whites and negroes (by ending Jim Crow, Davis Bacon and similar laws) also encourages a race to the bottom. Do you have any principled reason for opposing those laws? (Note: I'm not calling you "racist" - that's a slur that has lost all meaning these days. I'm taking a policy I'm pretty sure you oppose and asking you for a principled reason why you oppose it.)
Re: Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
When companies like Tata are fulfilling government contracts, they _should_ be filling those positions with local labour at local rates. Here's an alternate proposal. Suppose it would cost $70k for the wrong type of people to provide labor, and $100k for the right type of person to provide labor. Lets continue having labor sold by the lowest cost provider. But then lets engage in direct wealth transfers; we'll have t…
But it is not equivalent. Hiring local has many beneficial effects over outsourcing - increased labour demand increases wages, the local pool of talent and technology is developed, and the money you spend will in turn mostly be spent in your own economy, growing it and paying taxes to your government. You could argue that these secondary effects do not outweigh the higher cost, and I'm sure sometimes that would be tr…
We are discussing hiring local workers, not outsourcing. The local workers just happen to be brown and born in a different place.
The money will still be spent in your own economy. The choices are threefold:
My preferred scheme (1): Low income taxpayers keep $30k and spend it themselves. Government pays for $70k from lowest bidding software engineer (possibly an Indian).
Fergie's preferred scheme (2): Low income taxpayers don't get to spend $30k on themselves. Government pays $100k to a non-Indian software engineer.
My alternate scheme (3): Low income taxpayers don't get to spend $30k on themselves. Government pays $70k to some Indian software engineer and then gives $30k to some random high income non-Indian person.
Your argument does not distinguish between (2) and (3). In both cases, money is transferred from taxpayers to high income colocated workers who will presumably spend it in the economy.
Re: Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just "Americans are lazy and entitled" written differently. We see similar arguments in the agriculture sector, where a different price dynamic exists. The difference is in the world of tech companies can actually afford to pay more because there isn't a horde of Americans who want the tech equivalent of dirt-cheap food keeping prices down. Americans actually have a very strong affinity for authority. Most wi…
You may not like the argument that "proud" Americans wouldn't put up with the same thing, but it's true. Not liking the statement doesn't make reality less real. I see this day in and day out in tech companies with my own eyes. Long after everyone else has gone home, the contractors are working and dealing with last minute client changes to the point where they are exhausted. Meanwhile, their onshore counterparts mak…
>Or the ever popular "I don't get paid enough for this!"
The danger of criticising this behaviour is that it is putting the onus on the employee to earn their money rather than the employer to pay their employees. Doing so is actually anti-employee, and given that most of us are employees - self-destructive.
While I fully agree people should have some self agency to earn their wage, it is naive to think companies don't hold most the power in the employee-employer dynamic wrt salaries. When they can't force competition amongst applicants to drive down salaries, they simply move their operations to foreign countries to use cheaper migrant work. The migrants are happy to work hard because they're seeing an effective pay-rise so it's a win for them. It's also a win for the employer as they're paying less for work.
So the loser here is the domestic worker. On a personal level, how would you feel if I told you to work harder at a pay cut? In most professions, this has happened - wage inflation has not kept up with the economy in both the US and UK so people have seen their effective quality of life eroded over the past 20-30 years. Governments exist to protect their citizens from precisely this kind of exploitation by business. But protectionism and regulation have become dirty words nowadays...
Re: Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
#126I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that this may not be an altogether bad thing. From the article: "The foreign work visas were originally established to help U.S. companies recruit from abroad when they couldn’t find qualified local workers. But in recent years, there have been allegations the programs have been abused to bring in cheaper workers from overseas to fill jobs that otherwise may go to Americans…
It may be good overall, but not necessarily for the US worker in particular.
The thing is, tech worker market is global and large companies always have the choice to outsource plain and simple.
The H-1B visa trick is a win-win between foreign worker and local companies (loss/draw for local worker and loss for foreign companies). Local companies get locked-in resources in a friendly timezone, foreign worker get US experience and higher than average salary. Without that trick, the large company will outsource which mean probably rising salaries in India or wherever (we are talking abuse here, you don't outsource for 1 guy in a odd position like what H-1B should be about, but for a team of generic tech resources, yes). Except for companies that were using H-1B for what it was actually designed, that's not going to change much in the US.
Now, the US government can add some trick to prevent outsourcing, Trump after all is a big fan of protectionist policies, with the usual caveats of such measures.
Re: Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
A large part of consulting recruits consist of yes-men who will work extra hours, do whatever their manager say with no critical thinking and will put up with clients' bullshit. This is what needed for the type of business and it has little to do with talent. I am not sure how many proud Americans who would sign up for those positions.
This is just "Americans are lazy and entitled" written differently. We see similar arguments in the agriculture sector, where a different price dynamic exists. The difference is in the world of tech companies can actually afford to pay more because there isn't a horde of Americans who want the tech equivalent of dirt-cheap food keeping prices down. Americans actually have a very strong affinity for authority. Most wi…
> Americans actually have a very strong affinity for authority. Most will put up with quite a bit especially for something they perceive as high paying.
Americans will put up with it even when they're not being paid. Probably more so. The security theater of the TSA is a perfect example of that.
Re: Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
#128Disclosure: my wife used to be on a work-permit scheme similar to H1B. The problem with all of these schemes is they're tied to a particular job. You give up that job, your right to remain is toast. This makes it hard to move to competitors and artificially depresses wages. In turn, this artificially affects native workers in the same industry. I think the solution here is more capitalism, not more government. Anyone…
In comparison, the visa (technically, "residency permit") scheme in Japan (widely viewed as a xenophobic, anti-immigrant country) is tied to the person. You get sponsored in by an employer in a field, and then your residency is tied to you being employed in that field. You can instantly turn around and quit that job and find another one in the same field. Policy is you have 30 [or was it 60?90? something like that] d…
Plenty of unskilled workers are from other parts of the European Union. I doubt refugees make up significant numbers of skilled workers in the EU.
Re: Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
In comparison, the visa (technically, "residency permit") scheme in Japan (widely viewed as a xenophobic, anti-immigrant country) is tied to the person. You get sponsored in by an employer in a field, and then your residency is tied to you being employed in that field. You can instantly turn around and quit that job and find another one in the same field. Policy is you have 30 [or was it 60?90? something like that] d…
Plenty of unskilled workers are from other parts of the European Union. I doubt refugees make up significant numbers of skilled workers in the EU.
> Plenty of unskilled workers are from other parts of the European Union
I think this mainly applies to the U.K., but I'm mainly basing that on anecdotes and the last time I looked a the numbers (ages ago) so I'd be happy to be corrected
Re: Trump’s Next Move on Immigration to Hit Closer to Home for Tech
#130> Hira, who has done extensive research on the subject, points out workers at outsourcers are typically not treated as well as others. The median wage at outsourcing firms for H-1B workers was less than $70,000, while Apple, Google and Microsoft paid their employees in the program more than $100,000, according to data he collected. That suggests the American companies are going after true, highly skilled employees, while the outsourcers are recruiting less expensive talent, he said.
Not necessarily. You could also say that the big tech companies are overpaying them or there's premium in their compensation while they're fairly compensated in those Indian outsourcing companies with no premium in their pay package.