51–60 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?
>Or is this a guise for xenophobia? TIL not actively undermining your countries economic foundation is xenophobia.
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.
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.
Who wouldn't want to hire a bunch of people that are beholden to you to stay in the country? Remove that from the equation and wages will move back up to market.
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.
The real fix to this is to make sure that people brought over with an H1-B can easily change jobs 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.
3 years, immigrant can work anywhere, any number of employers.
Guess how many illicit h1b employers will be interested in bringing an immigrant, if they are not guaranteed that the immigrant will stay with them?
If that replacement can serve the same purpose, and give approximately the same value to the company, why should the native and/or higher-waged person expect to have priority?
The laws should be good for the people in the country.
If that replacement can serve the same purpose, and give approximately the same value to the company, why should the native and/or higher-waged person expect to have priority?
Because you can always truck in a slew of desperate people willing to work for lower and lower wages until we descend into de facto slavery (not even being hyperbolic, that's essentially what many sweatshops are in some countries, look at hypercapitalist Dubai where companies retain control of 'employee's passports and refuse to return them so employees cannot escape the country/near-fatal working conditions). We've…
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.
The real fix to this is to make sure that people brought over with an H1-B can easily change jobs 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.
Once you apply for a green card, you have to maintain legal immigration status continuously. Furthermore, nationals of India and China have to wait longer, due to country quotas and relative demand. There is something called a priority date, which is somewhat akin to taking a number instead of waiting on queue, except it's really more like a number for the secondary queue to get a number for the real queue.
There is an I-140 form that is part of the process, which is filed by the employer. If this form is withdrawn, perhaps in response to changing jobs, it can reset priority dates or cause extensions to be denied.
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?
To prevent a race to the bottom on 1st world wages and worker welfare and to arrest 3rd world brain drain.
Can you explain why India should be forced by dint of its poverty to invest in free education for its smartest citizens and let the benefits accrue to US elites rather than to the Indian people?
>If so, why not create the same restrictions on, say, a company in California from hiring someone from New York?
Because they are both US citizens and their welfare is the responsibility of the US government.
If the United States and India were to join at the hip and elect a single government collectively (do you want that?) then I see no reason why we shouldn't have free and open immigration between the two countries.
>Or is this a guise for xenophobia?
Or is race baiting just a cynical ploy to funnel yet more money into the pockets of the 0.01% hyper-elite?
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 bet a lot of opposition would disappear overnight if foreign workers could only be hired at a very high high salary level. Of course, go too high and you'll get complaints from US citizens that are not yet at that level. But I guess that would be a minority.
Level the playing field (at least in wages), and there's much less of an excuse to restrict immigration. After all, if an immigrant with no networking, who doesn't have English as his native language and a different culture, and has to jump through a lot of hoops just to be able to legally move and work in the country (a process that can take months), if he can just walk in and steal your job, then there was something wrong about your job security in the first place.
The problem is how to define what a [high|fair] wage would be at a given location and industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is, it is the main reason, and the purpose of the visa. It doesn't mean that all companies use it for that purpose, despite what they say. Note that, according to the article, the laid off people seem to be (relatively speaking) older, with multiple years in the company. It is likely that their salaries are higher than what management would like them to be. My theory makes the prediction that the H1 holders are young…
> Is, it is the main reason, and the purpose of the visa. It doesn't mean that all companies use it for that purpose, despite what they say. Yes, it is the main purpose: http://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm If the companies are not using it for that purpose and telling the government something different then they are committing fraud.
The kind of fraud that's profitable, happens regularly and nobody gets called for.