11–20 of 143 posts
It's easy to fill seats.
The question is whether we have "good enough" software engineers. And, as long as we're trying to improve as a company, we'll always want better engineers.
Which would presumably be a useful result for Bright's business, if it is true, as it would mean that companies simply are not looking hard enough, which is Bright's business.
"In fact, Bright's analysis reveals that for the top 10 jobs where H-1B visas are requested, only three do not currently have enough qualified American jobseekers to satisfy demand."
Ahh, so it isn't a fiction then. Hang on, just a minute ago they said it may be a fiction according to a report and now they say that nearly a third of those roles do not have enough people in the USA to fill them, according to the same report.
Hmmm. Could this possibly be an advert posing as an article? Is water wet? These and other exciting questions will be answered in a forthcoming study; "Look here's some numbers so give me all your money, you pitiful fools." Available soon for only $666.66. Reserve your copy now while stocks last.
The trouble with this is that no centralized analysis can determine what "qualified" actually means; only an individual employer can determine that. So if they say there are no qualified engineers then that's the end of discussion. Having more intelligent people in the US is a good thing.
Actually my company (which hires tons of foreign developers) does have applicants rejected. They then hire some lawyers to help reword the application. I'm not sure these are all H1-B, there are other hiring visa designations, but it definitely is the case that the government can reject applications. Frankly the government should reject even more of them, and then also reject some of the resubmitted ones, however the government is easily fooled by clever wording.
I posted this in response to a comment the last time this came up. That article was killed, so I'm reposting: Whereas the reason there are open positions for programmers at high tech companies is that these companies want star programmers Maybe they should try paying like stars. What percentage of engineers that aren't founders or within the first five employees make over $300,000 a year? The money is in Silicon Vall…
Who can't negotiate? It's your fault if you can't/won't negotiate.
I'd posit that the reason finance pays more for engineers than STEM is because most of us think that the atmosphere at a finance company will suck and as a result they have a smaller labor pool (I've literally never responded to a single financial recruiting email).
For example, we've been looking for an entry-level web developer for almost a year. They actually put "computer science degree" and "2 years experience" on the job ad. We found a pretty smart kid with an associates that blew the interview by mentioning he kept up with industry trends on Reddit - so our boss is afraid he's going to screw around online all day.
The sad part is, 3 of the other 4 developers in the department came from other areas in the same company, one in shipping and one in billing, and have almost no formal computer training and don't even know how to upgrade Firefox.
The trouble with this is that no centralized analysis can determine what "qualified" actually means; only an individual employer can determine that. So if they say there are no qualified engineers then that's the end of discussion. Having more intelligent people in the US is a good thing.
You really believe that? You can't imagine that, hey maybe these companies gasp lie so they won't have to pay market wages? That some C?O somewhere cares more about the bottom line than hiring qualified local engineers that they can't threaten with deportation?
As someone occasionally involved in hiring, the important question isn't whether we have "enough" software engineers. It's easy to fill seats. The question is whether we have "good enough" software engineers. And, as long as we're trying to improve as a company, we'll always want better engineers.
In any case, there's reason to believe many of educated immigrants will become entrepreneurs and create jobs themselves.
From the article: >To be sure, using data to argue about contentious policy issues should always prompt skepticism. Death of journalism right there. Data be damned! On a more serious note: >"There is, indeed, a shortage of tech workers in the Bay Area." That's because it's so darn expensive to live in the Bay Area, and almost impossible at the wages that tech companies generally want to pay for talent. They're knotti…
You took that sentence out of context. This is the full paragraph: > To be sure, using data to argue about contentious policy issues should always prompt skepticism. It's too easy to focus on particular aspects of any data analysis to prove one's point and overlook those items that may raise more questions. ... which is a very valid point.
It does literally say that using data "should always prompt skepticism" - not conditionally on whether it was done right or not.