New Data Show How Firms Like Infosys and Tata Abuse the H-1B Program • Hacker News Board

Re: New Data Show How Firms Like Infosys and Tata Abuse the H-1B Program

#91

Post by Potando » Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 11:24 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #90

yummyfajitas wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically, only thing wrong with Jim Crow is that it is now unpopular? And if it becomes popular again, we should bring it back? Democracy is a pretty scary moral philosophy.

> So basically, only thing wrong with Jim Crow is that it is now unpopular? And if it becomes popular again, we should bring it back? Why, has there been another measure of good in human history? (If one doesn't believe in any divine being handing down laws that is). And I don't get the "moral high ground in hindsight" thing. If you lived in 1890, statistics say you'd most probably be all for Jim Crow too. > Democrac…

A possible measure of good is "does it harm people" but that ends up excluding everything, so add details like "does it harm people who are powerless to avoid that harm". You can decide right and wrong by yourself instead of just following the mob if you can work out some rules that aren't just a copy of current popular opinion. Popular opinion is actually a fairly poor go at it. It's mired in racism, patriotism, and similar tribal instincts which almost entirely encourage abuse of various classes of people.

Regarding capitalism, of course it needs controls, but on this subject, it's hard to see the harm in giving intelligent people opportunities that will benefit them. Sadly, popular opinion tells us that Indians deserve to be poor because they have the wrong parents (aka, citizens of a poor country).

Re: New Data Show How Firms Like Infosys and Tata Abuse the H-1B Program

#92

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 4:07 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #90

yummyfajitas wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically, only thing wrong with Jim Crow is that it is now unpopular? And if it becomes popular again, we should bring it back? Democracy is a pretty scary moral philosophy.

> So basically, only thing wrong with Jim Crow is that it is now unpopular? And if it becomes popular again, we should bring it back? Why, has there been another measure of good in human history? (If one doesn't believe in any divine being handing down laws that is). And I don't get the "moral high ground in hindsight" thing. If you lived in 1890, statistics say you'd most probably be all for Jim Crow too. > Democrac…

I'm asking whether the popularity of a policy morally justifies it. I guess you think Jim Crow was morally justified.

Or to take a contemporary example, for reasons I don't understand Indians really seem to dislike Africans. I guess if we get Jim Krishna laws with popular support, you'll favor them also?

Better than the capitalism, which has no morals at all outside what society enforces upon it.

Yet capitalists view Indians and Africans as having "equal rights and are people too", unlike the protectionists.

Re: New Data Show How Firms Like Infosys and Tata Abuse the H-1B Program

#93

Post by geebee » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

martinald wrote: post #14

I find it difficult to understand why these companies would go to such lengths to save at absolute most 15-20% on salary. Even if there were no legal or immigration costs (which there definitely is), it seems to me they could easily do the same by getting someone from a less prosperous part of the US and moving them to, say, CA. I'm sure this happens all the time.

"I find it difficult to understand why these companies would go to such lengths to save at absolute most 15-20% on salary."

They're probably saving a lot more than 15-20%.

I understand this argument is often used to claim that it isn't about wages, it's about availability of someone, anyone to hire. But at what rate?

Suppose you say that you can't hire a developer with a particular in demand skill set. You've posted at what you've determined to be "market rate" for the position, or maybe a bit higher You pick up the phone and call various highly regarded developers at google, apple, and Facebook and say "what would it take to get you to quit your job, this moment, and come work for my company?"

My guess is that the difference between the "market rate" the company is offering and the rate they'd pay if they were prepared to do what it takes to get that engineer to leave google is a lot greater than 15-20%. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have to double the offer.

Re: New Data Show How Firms Like Infosys and Tata Abuse the H-1B Program

#94

Post by shas3 » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 2:54 PM UTC

307TempRedirect wrote: post #64

mc32 wrote: post #33

Can someone explain to me why H1Bs are problematic? They are an immigrant workforce just like the people who cross the border illegally. Yes, immigrants, by increasing supply do have a depressing effect on wages, but, in a global economy, don't we also believe in a global workforce? People seem to have a problem with H1Bs, but people are happy to enjoy the benefits of cheap fruit and vegetables possible with labor of…

"don't we also believe in a global workforce?" Evidently not, as foreign doctors aren't allowed to immigrate to the US and practice medicine without first going through a costly and onerous relicensing program. As it stands, all foreign doctors, even from first-world nations with statistically better health outcomes than the US like Germany or Japan are all deemed unqualified to practice medicine in the US: http://ww…

Huh? Medical professionals, lawyers, accountants, actuaries, etc. are all license-based professions. There is a very good reason for this, because a big part of the job is about adhering to important laws, regulations, ethics, etc. A big reason for the non-reciprocity (US-trained doctors cannot practice in many other countries, for example) is that these laws and regulations are not universal. There are some reciprocity arrangements in place, but given how bureaucratic the licensing system is, it is just hard.

You don't have any justification for making programming a license-based profession. You wouldn't want that even if you are an American citizen. It makes things significantly harder and more arbitrary when you have licensing requirements (just look at how hard each of USMLE, CPA, bar, CFA, etc. are, even for US citizens). Engineers, for example, can be licensed, but apart from public contracts in civil, mechanical, or electrical engineering, few employers care if you are a 'P.E.'

Re: New Data Show How Firms Like Infosys and Tata Abuse the H-1B Program

#95

Post by coldtea » Tue, Mar 03, 2015, 2:06 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #92

coldtea wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So basically, only thing wrong with Jim Crow is that it is now unpopular? And if it becomes popular again, we should bring it back? Why, has there been another measure of good in human history? (If one doesn't believe in any divine being handing down laws that is). And I don't get the "moral high ground in hindsight" thing. If you lived in 1890, statistics say you'd most probably be all for Jim Crow too. > Democrac…

I'm asking whether the popularity of a policy morally justifies it. I guess you think Jim Crow was morally justified. Or to take a contemporary example, for reasons I don't understand Indians really seem to dislike Africans. I guess if we get Jim Krishna laws with popular support, you'll favor them also? Better than the capitalism, which has no morals at all outside what society enforces upon it. Yet capitalists view…

>I'm asking whether the popularity of a policy morally justifies it. I guess you think Jim Crow was morally justified.

No, I think "morally justifies it" in the absolute sense (which you use it) is BS, since it assumes some pre-existing morality framework.

"Morally justified" only has sense in the "is it acceptable by the moral standards of a society/era". Of course, most people naively only take it to mean "is it acceptable by the standards of OUR society/era", which they consider as some absolute definition of morals.

Fact: for the people of time it WAS morally justified. Heck, slave owners themselves were respectable and celebrated members of society.

Owning slaves was just what one did if he could, just like for business owners today setting shop in impoverished areas not to offer the same wages as elsewhere but to take advantage of poverty to offer lower wages (as if those people are worth less) is "just what you do".