51–60 of 89 posts
This seems like the lump of labour fallacy being applied here. It's not like there are many devs really struggling to find work in the US. Rather, the opposite program exists: there are almost no software shops that aren't hiring.
If I don't like a company's technical test, they can decide I won't become an employee. The should not decide that I won't get to live and work in the US. If I don't like a company's mandatory implicit bias training program of, they can decide I will no longer be an employee. I They should not decide that I will no longer be allowed to live in the US and must leave within a few weeks or jeopardize my future right to return. If I don't like my company's donations to the trump administration or position against same sex marriage, I should be able to leave the company without jeopardizing my right to remain in the US. The same goes for raises, telecommuting, open offices. I actually think that some of this gets rammed down our throats because a substantial percentage of software developers are negotiating with an employer who control their application for green cards and can have them deported if they get too uppity.
Ideally, we would have an immigration system that is independent of employer control. All citizens or residents are free and full members of the workforce, free to choose their career and life path according to their own interests and abilities. If someone decides becoming a developer in the Valley isn't a good deal, they can become a plumber in Duluth. You know, like, freedom.
Some people argue that we should award green cards directly. This would solve some of the problems, but it would still allow employers to demand a high sunk cost prior to immigrating. Someone might prefer to be a lawyer, journalist, or scented candle boutique owner, but if we attach immigration rights to studying STEM and perhaps getting a grad degree, the sunk costs do limit life freedom choices. So better would be to simply determine a level of immigration (I'm ok with a high one, I am not shocked by the concept of limits, and I think this issue is orthogonal to whether corporate HR departments or investors control the choice of who is allowed to enter).
Now, on a practical level... I get it. We're all in competition for the world's skilled workers, some types of immigrants do place a burden on government services (elderly people coming from poverty may place costs on the health care system and never pay a dime in). Canada, a country lauded by progressives, clearly favors younger, skilled, educated people fluent in French or English (I'm 48, I'd get zero points for age on their migration skills assessment).
So, as a practical matter, I do think that the US should have a skilled immigration preference, and I do think that this will please corporations and investors and universities. Ok. But watch out. Anyone who has watched the way universities treat grad students in STEM, anyone who has watched how companies abused the H1-B, anyone who has paid attention must know that you absolutely can not trust these organizations to do the right thing.
As a practical matter, there will be limits on people who are at risk of becoming a burden on the state, and preferences for the kind of people Zuckerburg wants to hire and feels he's paying too much for (and a bias against the sort of people who would compete with lawmakers - i.e., foreign lawyers). For example, Obama is a lawyer, and when he came on out to Silicon Valley, he met with CEOs. They're going to work out something nice for everyone at the table. Let's not be naive, an element of this is is what we're going to get.
But whatever the plan is, it is absolutely essential to preserve the personal freedom that underlies all properly functioning labor markets. For now, the H1-B fails that test miserably, absolutely miserably.
I might previously have argued that H-1Bs were causing a domino effect on the rest of US employment - their complete inability to negotiate higher salaries spilled over into the rest of the industry. However, I see now that such an argument is shortsighted. There is no evidence outside of my own conjecture to support such a thing and my frustration with my own experiences in the industry is causing me to scapegoat H-…
- An international student graduates at the top of their class in Stanford in CS, and goes to work for a tech company. What visa do they use?
The correct answer is F1 (OPT) for one year, with OPT STEM extension for 2 extra years, while they apply for H-1B. If they weren't a STEM major, regardless of their actual role, they have a single year to apply for H-1B, with a ~30% chance of success, before being asked to leave the country. Regardless of their qualifications.
We all know the H-1B is susceptible to abuse. But it is also the main feasible channel for any international to work in the United States. (Excluding country-specific visas, transfers.)
But shouldn't qualified H-1B applicants be supportive of immigration reform?
I would, if I had any confidence that it would be done well. As things are, changes almost always end up hurting the applicants. See: the recent flood of RFEs. See: the suspension of H-1B premium processing.
The entire lives and livelihoods of immigrant workers, even exceptionally high-skilled ones, hinge upon delicate archaic bureaucracy and paperwork, not to mention politics (see: the fear of the government unilaterally suspending the OPT STEM extension). Introducing further uncertainty to the process almost always makes things worse, and that's why many of us are nervous about any proposed changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harder to find English speakers there, though. Plus, Mexico's government is a lot more uncertain than India's.
Investing in border towns in the U.S. could help solve the language issue. There's a large population of bilingual talent there
These contractors typically comes from a country that have social programs that will provide them with a pension and medical coverage if they ever get sick or retire. so they can severely undercut their US counterpart who needs to earn more to cover up for the lack of public social programs in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about if we move this discussion to focus on how you fear people from poor countries might have the competency to be your competitor in the job market? I used to make just USD 5-10 an hour as a senior software engineer before joining a company in another country. I have no sympathy for people who were born in a developed country and feels entitled to get a job I could possibly get just because I wasn't born ther…
This type of reaction doesn't reflect on you very well and doesn't generally fit with the HN guidelines to provide substantive discussion while assuming good faith. I'm sorry you were paid poorly. The unfortunate reality is that we are often paid commensurate with our ability to negotiate and not necessarily based on our skill. With that said, you made an awful lot of assumptions based on a single comment. I am hones…
I don't favor a merit-based migration policy. I favor free markets. Free trade or free migration should be the norm. I don't believe in the central government. This isn't something to be 'implemented'. In actually, most the state does is to hinder immigration by those who would provide great value to the society. If you are uneducated and have not much to lose, it doesn't make much difference for you to migrate to somewhere where you will end up with the lower-income jobs, and there is nothing bad with it. You even freed a person born in a wealthier place to go work on something better for themselves. This is how you end up seeing people from some ethnics working as janitors more often than even americans, in the USA. This is good for both the immigrant [who are willing to spend, say, ten years working illegally] and to the local people. However, the people with higher education will likely just go somewhere else (like me) if you don't let them work legally there, then you have something like a brain drain. The only difference is that the brains weren't there in the first place, so you won't notice much what you are losing [1].
Related: [1] That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen Frédéric Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
My former colleagues are all limited by their employment opportunities and could really only go to a handful of very very large firms that would sponsor their visa's. It limits their employment opportunities and it limits their mobility.
I might previously have argued that H-1Bs were causing a domino effect on the rest of US employment - their complete inability to negotiate higher salaries spilled over into the rest of the industry. However, I see now that such an argument is shortsighted. There is no evidence outside of my own conjecture to support such a thing and my frustration with my own experiences in the industry is causing me to scapegoat H-…
> There is no evidence outside of my own conjecture to support such a thing Every economist believes in supply and demand curves. If there are any H1Bs being awarded to replaceable programmers (as opposed to specialized programmers with no American counterparts, as was the intended use of the system), then wages are being depressed. It's practically a law of physics.
However, this assumes that employment is fluid, and that people are allowed to choose a profession or trade that aligns with market signals and their own personal interests and preferences. In short, every citizen who considers becoming a developer int he valley is also free to become a plumber in Duluth or a lawyer in New York City. Or open a scented candle shop, or a surfboard shaping business.
The point of the H1B visa is to create a system where visa restrictions and sunk costs create a pool of workers who aren't allowed to make those choices, and are limited to a few fields where Silicon Valley CEOs have declared a "shortage".
And, astonishingly, many people talk about this shortage without discussing wages, work conditions, career stability, and the other options available to highly skilled people who can choose other professions (you know, those pesky free folk who just won't become developers in the valley at the rates tech CEOs have decided they should).
The US has a really grim history of creating non-free worker classes in order to undermine free labor markets. This is another installment of it, though the H1-B abuses, clearly documented and really bad, are nonetheless minor compared to some of these historical horrors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "H-1B employees tend to be junior" You do realize that this generalization can't possibly be true? H-1B are reserved for "highly skilled immigrants" carrying out skilled work. You won't find kitchen staff, taxi drivers or librarians on H-1Bs. As a company, junior engineers simply aren't worth the time and effort that comes with sponsoring H-1Bs. Software isn't an "ass in seat" industry - sponsoring juniors simply i…
You do realize that the "highly skilled" part has been systematically ignored for a couple decades now?
Is that a fact? "Ignored" by whom, and how exactly?
Applicants must prove they are indeed exceptionally skilled. Sponsoring employers must prove the candidates are skilled. The petitions involve CVs, references from colleagues, diplomas, supporting evidence, interviews, all kinds of proof. Are you saying it's all just bullshit?
Look, we've all met "bad" software engineers. But how much of it is simply subjective judgement? You can't possibly claim those are people coming here on a free pass.
For what it's worth, I've met plenty of mediocre "natives". Maybe it's just the talent pool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other artificial employment barriers do you advocate removing? They may not all be just or implemented particularly well, but I think there are some (e.g., child labour, work-health standards, etc.) that make sure the economy is serving society and not the other way around.
What about if we move this discussion to focus on how you fear people from poor countries might have the competency to be your competitor in the job market? I used to make just USD 5-10 an hour as a senior software engineer before joining a company in another country. I have no sympathy for people who were born in a developed country and feels entitled to get a job I could possibly get just because I wasn't born ther…