11–20 of 188 posts
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
TIL not actively undermining your countries economic foundation is xenophobia.
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
Like citizenship? Do you consider citizenship an artificial barrier?
As someone who has worked at tech companies and various law firms in the Silicon Valley, I've seen this story played out several times. Hire Cognizant, TCS, Infosys, Symphony, or some other outsourcing firm and then bring in H-1Bs for an entire department. All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for the 1% at the top.
How do you feel about companies and law firms gaming job postings to disqualify qualified workers in the US so they can hire someone on a visa for much less? Employers are posting jobs that don’t really exist, seeking candidates they don’t want, and paying for bogus non-ads to show there’s an IT labor shortage in America. Here is the law firm Cohen & Grigsby advising other employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified applicants, and the steps they go through to disqualify even the most qualified Americans in order to secure green cards for H-1b workers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU Do you consider this abuse or fraudulent?
>Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
Implying that the only people against immigration are racists is just a lazy, offensive, and dismissive argument. Try something else.
This is the future of the technology industry. There is no fighting it, you cannot fight with the forces of the free market. The salary differential between US based tech workers and foreign workers is too high. If the products you are working on require no innovation or real skill, as is likely with these disney positions, they will be outsourced.
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
I'm actually in favour of expanding immigration, but describing opposition to it as xenophobia is extremely unfair. The logic is really very simple: those artificial barriers are also the borders between economies, social benefit systems, etc. etc. Every person within those borders that does not have a job puts a drain on the rest of the country. Someone without a job outside of those borders does not. So bringing so…
You're right - that's a vast oversimplification. Here's one of my own: at the same time Linus Torvalds moved to the US, there were a number of unemployed people. I still think it was a net win to let him in, though.
Be very wary of the lump of labor fallacy, it's what's behind the "they took rrrr jawbs" mentality.
The real fix to this is to make sure that people brought over with an H1-B can easily change jobs. That way they're not beholden to some low-wage job, and companies that bring people in merely for low wages will face high rates of churn.
When I was on an H1B visa I changed jobs multiple times, very easily. Part of the problem is that people (including potential employers) aren't aware how easy it is.
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
>artificial barriers Like citizenship? Do you consider citizenship an artificial barrier? As someone who has worked at tech companies and various law firms in the Silicon Valley, I've seen this story played out several times. Hire Cognizant, TCS, Infosys, Symphony, or some other outsourcing firm and then bring in H-1Bs for an entire department. All it does is drive down wages for everyone and hurt everyone except for…
What about the guys on H1B's who are now earning 4x more than they were back in India? Are they not people too?
This is the future of the technology industry. There is no fighting it, you cannot fight with the forces of the free market. The salary differential between US based tech workers and foreign workers is too high. If the products you are working on require no innovation or real skill, as is likely with these disney positions, they will be outsourced.
They've done a ton of innovation. http://www.wired.com/2015/03/disney-magicband/
This is a give away to the outsourcing firms. Helping them having a bit more control over their employee.
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial? If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York? Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
Can anyone elucidate why having artificial barriers to employing certain types of people is beneficial?
If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York?
As far as the Xenophobia bit? Yes and no. It's very easy to argue that discrimination based on place of birth is fundamentally wrong, and that open borders are an ideal worth striving for. Not sure if anyone has figured out the pragmatic policymaking around that -- i.e. designing social structures that are resilient to open borders.