Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 637 posts

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#531

Post by rsync »

joshe wrote: post #94

I've worked with a few H1-B holders in Silicon Valley and they're awesome. A great improvement would be to allow H1B holders to change jobs easily (maybe after a year). It's too easy for them to get stuck in not great situations. It would be great for everyone if they could move to better fitting jobs, especially for startups who have trouble running H1-B programs. If you are, like me, a software engineer, you should…

" ... consider how woman and minorities more than doubled the work force from the 1960s to 1990s with no loss in jobs or lowering of wages ..."

I am not sure that is true ... in fact, while I cannot provide a reference or citation, I believe I have seen well-received research and academic studies that suggest this increase in the workforce was a key component of weakening unions and depressing real, inflation adjusted earnings over just the period you cite.

In fact, I think it is Elizabeth Warren's work in a related area (the fragility of two-income households) that has been more recently discussed and overlaps this discussion.

I am genuinely interested to see how the intersection of liberal immigration policies and support of unions and workers' rights is supposed to be implemented. I note with interest that Ralph Nader believes it cannot be done.[1] I also note with interest that corporate interests, which are assumed to be "reactionary" and "conservative" are very supportive of liberal immigration policies.

I personally believe that the US is, and should continue to be a "nation of immigrants" - especially those coming from countries that we broke. Given that first world workers literally rioted in the streets over a very minor increase in fuel taxes[2], I am skeptical that any real reckoning of the costs and trade-offs involved would be acceptable to the US workforce.

[1] http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ralph_Nader_Immigration.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#532

Post by arcticbull »

godelmachine wrote: post #417
arcticbull wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? They don’t get any special benefits, to the best of my knowledge until their adult child sponsors them. The idea of an anchor baby in the us is a complete myth. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/th...

My friend, my parents are in US and their case got strong when they said my step brother was born in US and they had to be around for his upbringing. I am not going to read any newspaper article when I have a living proof in my family. And it wasn’t easy other. They had to wait 18 years before they got naturalized.

What on earth does “got strong” mean? Is it a section of the immigration and nationality act? 18 vs 27 years is just situational, it’s a range. When someone says “leveraging their ward” they mean days/months or a dedicated process not supporting evidence in the standard two to three decade process. And sure, why read evidence I found for you when you have your gut and a single anecdote.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#533

Post by godelmachine »

arcticbull wrote: post #532
godelmachine wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend, my parents are in US and their case got strong when they said my step brother was born in US and they had to be around for his upbringing. I am not going to read any newspaper article when I have a living proof in my family. And it wasn’t easy other. They had to wait 18 years before they got naturalized.

What on earth does “got strong” mean? Is it a section of the immigration and nationality act? 18 vs 27 years is just situational, it’s a range. When someone says “leveraging their ward” they mean days/months or a dedicated process not supporting evidence in the standard two to three decade process. And sure, why read evidence I found for you when you have your gut and a single anecdote.

Clearly you have lost track of the argument you have put forth. I decided to countenance your WP article and it seems you can't get illegal immigration outta your head. A sentence in your own article reinforces my statement about H1B workers leveraging their US born kids citizenship for their own citizenship.

You even missed out on the basic fact that I am talking about legal immigration and "anchor baby" is a term used pejoratively in reference to immigrants who have dubious intentions. H1B is for highly skilled workers who have proved their mettle even before immigrating.

And for your kind information, what you call "single anecdote" is called "precedence" in legal terms and carries huge weight in future course of action

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#534

Post by grad_ml »

myegorov wrote: post #311
arcticbull wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See your argument is short sighted, as these people provide economic benefit, it’s in your interest to allow as many as you can in while the other countries aren’t interested in taking your best and brightest. It’s why Canada’s tech sector stands to gain hugely while America squanders its lead. Canada’s letting in anyone smart and technical and the US is telling them no. What were arguing for is being unfair in Ameri…

I don't know about what's in America's favor. I know for a fact that I would not willingly compete with all software developers in a global marketplace. I'd lose my big4 job in a split second. Canada's tech sector may stand to gain, but I'd lose half my real income if I were to relocate to a sister office across the border. So much for progressive visa policy.

Given the choice, that half the salary would still seem attractive? Isn't it. Now being in same time zone, closer to US SV, native s/w engineers would have to compete fiercely. I wonder, how would folks react over competition with Canadian tech industry.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#535

Post by staplers »

mberning wrote: post #471
tossaccount123 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To prime your intuition a bit, consider how woman and minorities more than doubled the work force from the 1960s to 1990s with no loss in jobs or lowering of wages. You do realize there hasn't been a raise in real wages since the 70s when you account for inflation right? Coincidentally during that same time period the income gap exploded because the wealthy had plentiful cheap labor and were able to pocket the produ…

It is hard believe so many people still don’t “get it”. You cannot inflate the supply of labor, regardless of the means, and get a good result for the average working stiff.

There must be some people out there earning more wages on the 10x increase in stock prices, investments..

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#536

Post by mc32 »

ohithereyou wrote: post #504
mc32 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some restauranteurs and other cash businesses try and pull fast ones on the IRS. So the IRS conducts audits and has agents case suspect establishments. No reason DHS/ICE, whatever cannot do the same and jail fraudsters. If they, the Feds, can jail Martha Stewart on unrelated technicalities, they can jail these fraudsters. Start at the top, target big ones and work your way down to the small ones (they'll get the news…

Martha Stewart, before she was a star, worked as a stockbroker and knew or should have known what she did was wrong.

Could be, but they didn’t get her on anything related stock trading and instead got her for “lying”. My point is, even if they are unable to catch them red handed (you’d have to be inept), ghetto can always find alternative methods to find someone guilty.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#537

Post by say-vagnes »

ataturk wrote: post #450
joshe wrote: post #94

I've worked with a few H1-B holders in Silicon Valley and they're awesome. A great improvement would be to allow H1B holders to change jobs easily (maybe after a year). It's too easy for them to get stuck in not great situations. It would be great for everyone if they could move to better fitting jobs, especially for startups who have trouble running H1-B programs. If you are, like me, a software engineer, you should…

Sure, except the bill rate for my services hasn't changed since like 1998. It sucks, dude. Reading through the comments, people already said it all, but I came back to vent. After 20 years in this shitty business I can vent if I want to. I currently work in the US Midwest with a lot of foreign colleagues. They're pretty good people, OVERALL, but the ones that aren't are super-shitty, but that's true of the pastey-whi…

Your copy & paste comment really resonated with my experiences. Our services are a cobbled together mess of pasted solutions from other services, and members of the team often say something is impossible because they can't find an example of the exact same problem being solved somewhere else in the code base.

Amazingly, they are just as aggressive as the competent people when it comes to pursuing promotions and responsibility, despite not being able to write a function in the main language of the company after working in it for multiple years.

I don't know how things got this absurd, but here we are.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#538

Post by joshe »

mbrumlow wrote: post #475
joshe wrote: post #94

I've worked with a few H1-B holders in Silicon Valley and they're awesome. A great improvement would be to allow H1B holders to change jobs easily (maybe after a year). It's too easy for them to get stuck in not great situations. It would be great for everyone if they could move to better fitting jobs, especially for startups who have trouble running H1-B programs. If you are, like me, a software engineer, you should…

> I've worked with a few H1-B holders in Silicon Valley and they're awesome. I see your point, but you can't group all H1-B holders in the same boat. The ones you worked were awesome, but I am sure many have worked with ones that were not awesome. I will note, I have worked with a few awesome H1-B holders too, but I won't fall for ALL being the same. > If you are, like me, a software engineer, you should cheer every…

At every level, high skilled, medium skilled, and low skilled, immigrants tend to increase jobs and wages for natives. This is the rough consensus of economists.

There is lots of work to make this even more true, of the flavor "ok if we are only bringing in 1 million immigrants, who does this best". H1-B and student visas a consequence of that thinking.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#539

Post by bdcs »

snikeris wrote: post #506
mberning wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard believe so many people still don’t “get it”. You cannot inflate the supply of labor, regardless of the means, and get a good result for the average working stiff.

Hmm...how about: inflate the supply of labor, price of goods goes down and better goods are invented, then average working stiff benefits when buying these goods? I understand your point that the average working stiff might experience wage loss or lose their job altogether, but I'm not sure you're considering the benefits to consumers, which is another role of the average working stiff.

Wages and salaries (and, perhaps, prices) would not go down. Your argument and the parent of it, is falling for the lump of labor fallacy. By adding supply of labor, the demand for labor goes up as well. It is actually well-agreed on by economists, but I see many smart people, on the left and right, get it wrong.

I implore you both to read and listen about it (google/"lump of labor").

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#540

Post by logfromblammo »

adventured wrote: post #322
Ar-Curunir wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, wealth inequality increased because we stopped taxing rich people.

Wealth inequality has increased mostly due to the massive expansion of the global economy, which was a large benefit to capital owners and was a detriment to US labor (whose wages were artifically very high in the post WW2 decades). Global labor competed, capital benefited. Federal Reserve policies since ~1970 have also overwhelmingly favored capital, asset holders, and not workers. The US tax code has gotten more pr…

Removing the higher-taxed brackets, and the slow creep of inflation, which has pushed lower-earners into higher brackets, and made more people subject to AMT, has made income tax less progressive over time. The introduction and removal of tax-advantaged loopholes, that are only exploitable above a certain level of income, has made the progressiveness of the tax more volatile and harder to assess.

Focusing on how much the wealthy pay, as a proportion of all taxes paid, is rolling up the progressiveness of the tax code with the income inequalities that already exist. Why do you rob banks? That's where the money is. Why do you tax the rich? They're the ones who can afford to pay.

I really don't see why income tax can't be defined as a polynomial equation in a single variable (for gross income) and an additional constant, equal to median income for the previous year. With a floor function to obviate negative taxes.

The tax can be zero up to the median income, ramp up quickly to an inflection point at about 30% for the dollar at 3x median income, then increase at a decreasing rate to asymptotically approach 100% for infinite income. For the purposes of argument, I'll say that the dollar at 100000x median income would be taxed at 90%.

As long as it's a continuous and increasing function--after the first "median income" amount of one's income--every additional dollar of gross income is still a positive amount of additional net income. Only the winners pay. It's always worth something to increase your gross income. It could also be a viable strategy to reduce your own taxes by spending a lesser amount on increasing median income--i.e. pay your below-median workers more money.

Post reply on HN