181–190 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a way overseas students subsidize the education of local american students in exchange of access of job market. It seems like a fair deal to me.
Just because they pay full tuition doesn't mean domestic students pay less. If anything they are subsidizing the salaries of the people working at the universities.
I am on H1B, but my job in US is being threatened by fake H1Bs from India who are willing to work on salaries lesser than mine, particularly from the state called Andhra Pradesh in India. There are many one room consultancies all over the US which runs fake payrolls and even apply something called "Future Greencards" for people who are willing to pay money. These Andhra consultancies can be found in abundance in New…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
American companies are not a welfare state. A corporation can only expend so much time and money in the search for good workers. So you can't expect the companies to actively go out to every little town in Iowa and see if there are workers willing to relocate at a reasonable pay (more on the reasonableness of pay later). The workers themselves need to apply, to be proactive in their search for jobs. I think this last…
> American companies are not a welfare state. A corporation can only expend so much time and money in the search for good workers. So you can't expect the companies to actively go out to every little town in Iowa and see if there are workers willing to relocate at a reasonable pay (more on the reasonableness of pay later). I agree. That's why I support the abolition of the H1-B visa program, at least in the form it c…
Its rather ironic that you advocate for free markets when it suits you but later in your same post you want protectionism. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want it.
> Your statement in general is representative of the race-to-the-bottom thinking I referenced in my earlier post - the idea that we have to do this, or the jobs will go elsewhere, where labor is cheaper. Well, that's how you get savage cuts to labor protections, stagnant wages, and massive corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. What's the endgame, here? Essentially, a global, common market with freedom of movement, a world where democratic governments are entirely subordinate to large corporate interests, a world where wages start plummeting because someone, somewhere, is perfectly willing to program for 5k/year and live in a one-bedroom apartment with five other people, all the while the company involved is getting massive tax breaks lest they start move somewhere else even cheaper.
> No thanks.
Eh? The world is heading towards a global common market, whether you are willing to accept it or not. Do you expect the current imbalance in wealth and development between countries to continue in perpetuity? This imbalance has been the product of some very unique circumstances in world history and will not last for very much longer.
Anyways, the example you give is a strawman. Please find me a qualified developer who will work for that amount anywhere. Critical thinking and creative programming skills are hard to develop for most people and its definitely not that easy to find good developers.
> The reality is that American workers are highly educated and there's a huge amount of social capital and financial capital that will keep businesses operating in the US. If they really wanted to, it's already cheaper open foreign offices and hire locals elsewhere - there's more than just immediate financial considerations already in effect. In a future with more expensive American labor, brilliant US programmers will still be starting their companies in the US, because they already live here. They will hire their friends and alumni from their college in the US. They will hire people those people give references for. They will hire people who live near them.
I completely agree with the huge amount of social and financial capital in the US. But I don't believe its the operating factor in keeping businesses local. One of the main advantages of SF is that it acts as a magnet for talent from all over the world. Cut that off, and you won't have that anymore.
The wiser strategy would be to exploit that capital to continue to build on existing structures and strengthen the position of the US economy to attract the best talent. I must admit I simply don't understand why you want to kill the Golden Goose just because you think maybe possibly protectionism will help you when historically it hasn't.
> Most businesses will not leave the US in the near-term, H1-Bs or no H1-Bs. If they choose to go elsewhere to evade American labor prices and American labor protections, there is a simple solution. They can be forbidden from selling their products and services here. Access to the American market can be predicated on worker wages and benefits. I don't see any other solution that prevents a global corporate oligarchy.
That is protectionism. And it never helps. Sure, you can try it, but when the rest of the world retaliates, suddenly you're cut off from the rest of the world and operating in isolation.
Now when the big corporations have IT openings, these managers wont publish the openings in job portals. They recruits these H1Bs from their own consultancies with a high billing rate, indirectly making profits. They also take a cut from the H1Bs salary on a monthly basis as a "fees" for brining H1Bs to US.
1. There are many poor universities promising MS degrees in CS (here in California, there's Silicon Valley University, ITU etc). Not casting aspersions, but I doubt the quality of education from them.
2. Students can't get funding/scholarship. They tend to do odd jobs to make ends meet (many are illegal as students can't work outside of campus). They get in to severe debt.
3. Once they get a degree, clock is ticking to get a H1B. Note that recent OPT extensions give them breathing time. But nonetheless, they must get H1B to stay in country.
4. This is where one room consultancies come in to picture. They sponsor H1B and legally allow staying in US.
5. Students start working at lower end of pay spectrum. A friend of mine is willing to work for $20 - $25/hour (after commissions to consultancies) even after 10+ years of experience. The friend is in web application testing.
6. Sticking with consulting firms, it takes long time to break the "low income" cycle as projects are short lived, pay is low and job insecurity is high.
So, #3 and #4 are serving each other. Private universities gets income from students. US consulates in Asia give visas with, probably, tax dollars in mind. I even suspect private universities have some sort of lobbying that allow students from Asian (or other) countries to come for education.
So, my point is, this H1-B visa thing is quite deep and goes way back to universities and students coming for education.
I've personally witnessed the hiring of a contractor from India at a small development company simply to save on funds. There were plenty of skilled workers in our pool to fill the position, the owner simply didn't want to pay the price. Weeks into his employment the developer came to me and asked if there was anyone he could report work complaints to. I gave him contact information for the state's employment agency.…
It took another week before I realized that he needed to be informed that the state agency protects him whether he's a citizen or not Hmmm... that gives me an idea. Maybe the gov't should clearly lay out protections for foreign workers up to and including preserving their work visa even if their original employer is found to be breaking the law? That would provide some serious incentive for sponsor companies to keep…
Those protections are already in place. Once the H1 transfer is complete, there's very little relation the worker retains to the original employer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
American companies are not a welfare state. A corporation can only expend so much time and money in the search for good workers. So you can't expect the companies to actively go out to every little town in Iowa and see if there are workers willing to relocate at a reasonable pay (more on the reasonableness of pay later). The workers themselves need to apply, to be proactive in their search for jobs. I think this last…
> American companies are not a welfare state. A corporation can only expend so much time and money in the search for good workers. So you can't expect the companies to actively go out to every little town in Iowa and see if there are workers willing to relocate at a reasonable pay (more on the reasonableness of pay later). I agree. That's why I support the abolition of the H1-B visa program, at least in the form it c…
True for a small local business, but with larger outfits an entire department gets outsourced to a cheaper country. This brings the headache of extra overhead, project management, travel and difficulty in scheduling meetings due to time zones, but at certain scale the companies can handle that.
Do we as a society
* want an economic policy that disadvantages small businesses in favor of large businesses?
* want to initiate a long-term migration of entire departments and then companies and then industries offshore?
If we as a society are completely okay with this, then this seems like a reasonable economic policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about competition limiting, it's about unfair pricing and abuse. It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper . And, there are tons and tons of staffing firms who systematically abuse the H1B program - they funnel workers from different countries (especially India), often mistreat them / threaten them / underpay them.
> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. It's as fair as buying something for cheaper when you can. In fact, it's probably more fair as globalization lifts foreign workers out of poverty. A richer local worker loses while a poorer foreign worker wins and the U.S. overall wins.
That rich people benefit from the laws and protections of the U.S., without having to deal with the corruption and laws of India. But they can then import cheap workers to displace the very people who paid for those protections to even exist in the first place?
It seems a breakdown of the social contract to me.
I think there's definitely two ways to look at this one.